Sitting of 26 March 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  VALERIE MARY HILL AND ALAN MONK (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  EXETER-LAUNCESTON-BODMIN TRUNK ROAD (OKEHAMPTON BYPASS)
  Ordered,
  That the Committee appointed to join with the Lords as the Joint Committee to consider the Petition of General Objection against the Exeter-Launceston-Bodmin Trunk Road (Okehampton Bypass) Compulsory Purchase Orders (Nos. CSW1 and CSW2) 1984 have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed bypass, and any sites which have been proposed as alternatives, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an Appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by their Counsel or Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Nuclear Warheads (Transportation)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the precautions taken to ensure the safety of nuclear warheads when they are in transit.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): Before answering the question, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence regrets that he is unable to be present today because of his attendance at the meeting of the nuclear planning group.
    The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is yes, Sir.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the nuclear planning group the higher standards of safety required in the transport of nuclear weapons in the United States than in this country? Is that higher standard the reason why the details of the American safety precautions are lodged with the Library of Congress, while our own Government are unwilling to reveal any details to the House?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we have extensive safety precautions that have
    196
    satisfied the present and all previous Governments. In considering the standards set, we can take some satisfaction in the fact that we have managed to transport United Kingdom nuclear weapons in this country in conditions of safety over a very long period. Nevertheless, we are not complacent, and that is why we keep the safety procedures under review.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the warheads themselves are safe, considerable danger is posed by those who seek to disrupt the convoys? Could anything be done to persuade those people to desist?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is not responsible to seek to disrupt the movement of nuclear weapons.
    Sir John Farr: While the warheads are disarmed and are therefore entirely safe to travel by road, rail and air, are not those who seek to suggest otherwise doing serious damage to public safety?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The safety record, which has endured over a long period, certainly vindicates his point.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: What are the implications for the transit of nuclear warheads to and from Greenham Common of any delay in the construction of the Newbury bypass?
    Mr. Stanley: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to training exercises. As we have made clear, live warheads are not carried during cruise missile training runs.
    Mr. Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Psychological Society has today confirmed the safety of the methods to which he has referred, and that the people of Leicester are much more reassured by what my right hon. Friend has said today than they are by the antics of the city council in putting up "nuclear-free" signs?
    Mr. Stanley: I am not intimately familiar with the activities of the British Psychological Society, but I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments and for praying that society in aid.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: We quite understand why the Secretary of State is not here. We understand that there is a very important meeting in Brussels and we do not object to the right hon. Gentleman's absence. However, will the Minister of State assure us that when the right hon. Gentleman returns he will make a statement to the House about what happened at that meeting? The House is often given no information about such matters despite the fact that hon. Members on both sides wish to debate the issues.
    Mr. Stanley: Those matters relate to a later question, but the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is normal practice to issue a communiqué. I am sure that one will be issued on this occasion.
    Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have tried to look into these matters are satisfied that safety precautions are adequate? Will he consider issuing something like a child's guide for those of us who find some of the technical matters involved difficult, so that we may convince even Opposition Members that the safety precautions are adequate?
    Mr. Stanley: The simplest guide that I can give my hon. and learned Friend is that we have made it clear that the most rigorous precautions are taken, as a result of which we have an accident-free record that has lasted for a long time.

    RAF Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the future fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Adam Butler): Industry completed the feasibility study into the viability of a collaborative European fighter aircraft programme last month. The reports of the study are now being evaluated nationally and internationally. EFA Defence Ministers will review those reports and consider the way ahead at a meeting in Rome, probably in mid-May.
    Mr. Thorne: Will my hon. Friend go a little further and give some definite information that I can pass to the 16,000 aerospace workers in Greater Preston, who are worried about the future of their jobs? Should they be looking elsewhere already, or shall we get a positive decision on the EFA?
    Mr. Butler: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a great deal more information now. I see no reason why he should start scaring his constituents and others who work at the factories concerned. The project is progressing as we would have expected. It is extremely complicated and I just hope that when we meet in Rome it will be possible to agree on the next steps forward.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that international collaboration, which we are always seeking, could be between the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain? If France does not want to participate on the terms that those four countries are setting, it will have to think again, as we must have an urgent decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Butler: It is correct that, as part of the studies into the successor aircraft for the Phantom and Jaguar, we are examining several options, which includes a national one. My hon. Friend has mentioned one route which could be taken. The Government's present objective is to make the project work on a five-nation basis if we can.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the future policy of the Ministry will be to encourage real competition and enterprise in the United Kingdom aircraft industry? Will he confirm that the £60 million saved for the taxpayer and the Ministry of Defence by the successful competitive tender of Short Brothers for the Royal Air Force basic trainer shows clearly that there should never again be a monopoly of supply to the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Butler: I agree that we have just had a successful competition for the RAF trainer. When talking about aircraft as complicated, expensive and advanced as the European fighter aircraft, however, the competition is much less easy to achieve.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the objective of translating the five-nation operational requirement into an operational aeroplane is wholly laudable, it is necessary to keep
    198
    productive facilities in Britain fully employed? In that regard, if the decision is delayed further, will he consider at the very least ordering a further batch of Tornado aircraft?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend always speaks wisely on these matters. We have considerable and close regard to the workload at the relevant British Aerospace factories. I believe that delay beyond a certain point would not be acceptable.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be regrettable if delays continued and we ended up in 1995 with an American fighter aircraft bought off the shelf?
    Mr. Butler: I hope that that would not be possible, but one has to be completely realistic. It might occasionally be better to buy abroad, but the Government's record on placing business at home is extremely good.
    Mr. Favell: Do the options to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier include the possibility of the development of the P120?
    Mr. Butler: The P120 aircraft is being considered under the national option.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: When the Secretary of State referred to the Short's contract he said that it had been awarded on the basis of the lowest tender. May we take it that that will be the criterion for the award of future defence contracts?
    Mr. Butler: It is likely that in all or most cases the two prime criteria of operational performance and cost will be at the forefront of our minds when we reach these decisions. However, we made it clear in that particular competition that the issue of jobs and other matters must also be considered.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when he orders the new Royal Air Force fighter that sometimes it is unwise to change the engine and engine mountings of an aeroplane, because it can have disastrous flying results, as every pilot knows.
    Mr. Butler: All parties to the present EFA agreement agree that a new engine will need to be developed for the aircraft.
    Mr. Concannon: Is not the successful tender of Shorts for the RAF trainer aircraft just a good example of why it was Ulsterised or nationalised at one time?
    Mr. Butler: I do not think that the two points hang together.
    Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, if only to reassure my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), that he and his fellow Ministers will not allow the French to pursue their standard tactics of delaying a decision until their own product is available?
    Mr. Butler: A lot of reference has been made to delay. I do not find that delay exists at the moment. I have made it clear that if there are signs of continuing delay and it is clear that there would be disadvantages from that, we would have to take action in other directions.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that we would regard the national option as the least desirable, that there

    199
    is a great deal more to be said for long production runs with international collaboration and that, if necessary, and perhaps even preferably, we should work with our Tornado partners, with whom we have had a great deal of experience in these matters?
    Mr. Butler: Leaving aside the hon. Gentleman's last point, I am delighted to find that he agrees with both me and the Government on this occasion. It is an unusual occurrence.

    European Anti-ballistic Missile System
    Mr. Sedgemoreasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals for a European anti-ballistic missile system.
    Ms. Clare Shortasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals for a European anti-ballistic missile system.
    Mr. Butler: No such proposals have been made or received by the British Government.
    Mr. Sedgemore: If it is true that Britain and Germany have been saved during the past 40 years by the concept of mutually-assured destruction, why is there a need for Europe to back research into costly and speculative star wars mania?
    Mr. Butler: The main objective of the strategic defence initiative is to enhance deterrence. Deterrence has kept the peace in Europe for the past 40 years.
    Ms. Short: Will the Minister confirm that the United States of America is attempting to persuade Europe to participate in star wars, that in Germany in particular they regard the American proposal for star wars as wholly undermining the strategy of mutually-assured destruction, and that the proposal is destabilising and likely to escalate the arms race?
    Mr. Butler: I read reports of what Chancellor Kohl said last week and I do not think that the hon. Lady understands the German position. Participation in research is the only activity which is contemplated. We have made it clear that we wish to participate in that research. The details of that have yet to be worked out.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister agree that any successful development of anti-ballistic missile defences in Europe would not be proof against cruise-type missiles or nuclear weapons delivered by shorter range and battlefield systems? In those circumstances, would not the development of star wars technology leave Europe more, rather than less, vulnerable to nuclear attack?
    Mr. Butler: If the interpretation of ballistic missiles is missiles which leave the atmosphere, the hon. Gentleman is right. But, of course, if we can produce a completely effective defence system against such missiles, we shall reduce the risk to Western countries.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister should try to answer the excellent questions put by my hon. Friends. President Reagan's speech has turned the entire Western nuclear strategy on its head, and the Government realise that very well. Does the Minister accept that the Opposition approve of much of the Foreign Secretary's speech a few weeks ago, and that we deplore the expatriate neurosis shown by Richard Perle when he came to London to address some
    200
    loony Right meeting? Will the Minister say clearly that he deplores the Perle speech and the American initiative in these matters?
    Mr. Butler: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said. All of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech rested on the now, I hope, well known four points of Camp David. I noticed a moment ago that the right hon. Gentleman disagreed when I said that the strategic defence initiative had as its main objective the enhancement of deterrence. I am happy to repeat the third point agreed at Camp David, which was that the overall aim is to enhance, not to undercut, deterrence.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the SDI intended, if it proves successful, to provide a global defence against ballistic missile attack? Is it not true that a space-based, orbital defence system would be able to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost, and in the ballistic and trajectory phase, and that that would enhance deterrence by reducing the risk of pre-emptive attack, including attack against Europe, especially by strategic systems and by intermediate range ballistic missiles?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend's interpretation of the concept of the SDI is right. We all recognise that these are still early days, and that research must be carried out. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was investigating the various strategic implications of the new proposal.

    Trident Missile
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made an estimate of the effect on employment in the United Kingdom that will result from the introduction of the Trident missile system.
    Mr. Butler: The British Trident programme is expected to create an extra 17,000 direct jobs and 13,000 indirect ones during the peak years of the project, with a total of 170,000 man years of direct employment in the United Kingdom and 130,000 indirect man years over the programme as a whole.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that in the five peak years of Trident expenditure commencing in 1988, £1 in £4 of the major procurement defence budget will go to Trident in America, and that that will prejudice essential expenditure in our conventional defence industry? If he is not prepared to cancel Trident on defence grounds, will he consider cancelling it on the ground of the impact that it will have on jobs in Britain?
    Mr. Butler: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would at least have welcomed the good news about job creation. I have no idea where he gets his figures from. The proportion of the equipment budget that will be taken at peak is estimated at 11 per cent. Therefore, in no way can £1 in £4 go to America.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only decision that we must take on Trident is whether Europe needs an independent nuclear deterrent, since there can be no ultimate guarantee that a future American Administraton would come to the defence of Europe? Will he confirm that the Trident system is cheaper in real terms than Polaris?
    Mr. Butler: The main reason for having Trident is to make our contribution to the policy of deterrence which has been so effective during the 40 years since the second world war. In the remote, hypothetical event of Western Europe being isolated, clearly Trident and the French nuclear deterrent would have a special part to play.
    Mr. James Lamond: If going ahead with the Trident missile would destroy jobs rather than creating them, would the Minister still go ahead with the programme?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will have to find another opportunity to explain what is behind his question. I have given a clear answer as to the number of jobs that the programme will create.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that of the jobs that will be created in Scotland many of them will be at Coulport, the base where Trident submarines will be, even though that has been declared a nuclear-free zone?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, and I hope that the declaration by the local authority will be ignored.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister take into account the reports in last night's "News at Ten" of allegations that are emerging from America concerning the gross profiteering of General Dynamics in respect of the Trident programme in the United States? Will the Minister take the necessary steps to assure the House that the cost of the gross inflation tactic being used will not be borne by the British taxpayer in the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Butler: The largest part of the expenditure on the submarine element of the Trident programme will fall in this country.

    RAF Molesworth
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution to the cost of security at RAF Molesworth has been made so far by the United States Government.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): None. The costs of the current development works and security operation at RAF Molesworth are being borne by the United Kingdom as part of its host nation responsibilities to NATO.
    Mr. Alton: Cannot the Minister tell the House what will be the total cost of security at Molesworth to the British taxpayers and ratepayers? Will he anticipate what will be the cost of maintaining security during the Easter vigil next week? Does he not believe that the American Government, as it is their base and their weapon, should make some contribution towards security costs?
    Mr. Lee: No figures are available, but, in terms of the apportionment of future costs, infrastructure costs will be shared as between NATO and the United States national programme and the United Kingdom will be responsible for the cost of road access into the site and utilities. As to costs that we might incur in protecting the base because of possible Easter demonstrations, we are determined to defend the integrity of the base.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Whoever contributes to the cost of security at Molesworth, is my hon. Friend aware that
    202
    it is essential to safeguard the amenities of the citizens and residents in the area? Is he aware that they are also entitled to their own rights, and that they wonder how Monseigneur Bruce Kent would like it if they disrupted, and kicked up hell during, his church services?
    Mr. Lee: I endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. Many hon. Members are concerned that the Easter marches will not be disturbed. We are concerned that the rights of local residents during Easter are maintained and that the Ministry of Defence police are not disturbed and have a happy and pleasant Easter.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on construction work being carried out under the auspices of his Departmnt in the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Stanley: There are two major related projects in the course of construction, the first is the building of a new international airport and associated facilities at Mount Pleasant, together with a road linking it to Port Stanley, and the second is additional facilities for the garrison adjacent to the new airport. Construction is on schedule for the runway to be available for limited use as from May of this year and for the airport to be fully operational early in 1986. Work started on the additional facilities for the garrison in December 1984; progress to date has been good, and completion is expected in early 1987.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful for that answer. The Select Committee described civilian use of the airport as a matter of urgency, and the Shackleton report said that it was a priority, so why have no proposals been put forward for such use of the airport? The Government have refused any subsidy for civilian use of the airport. Who does the Minister expect to operate from Mount Pleasant airport, and when does he expect the civilian flights to start operating?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are trying to achieve the earliest possible initial operating capability so that, in particular, we can rotate our forces, using wide-bodied aircraft rather than the Hercules air bridge. There are good cost advantages in doing so. The requirement is to ensure that during the period of the initial operating capability there is the most limited possible utilisation of the airfields so that the works can be completed. Once they are finished, it is our intention to make the fullest possible civilian use of the airfield facilities.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of the appointment of the first Royal Air Force officer as commander of the Falkland Islands garrison to comment on the remarkable inter-service co-operation that has been achieved on the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. I confirm that it is a first-class example of the tri-service co-operation which was evident during the period of conflict and which has continued very much in peace time.

    Crown Proceedings Act
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking about section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act.
    Mr. Stanley: The review of section 10 is continuing, but I am as yet unable to say when it will be completed.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that his answer is word for word almost the answer that he gave to me a year ago, and that his answer then referred to an answer that he gave the previous year? Is he further aware that section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act places a veto on any legal action for negligence by any service man who happens to be severely disabled, or by his relatives if he is killed, and that it is wrong that the Act should prevent service men or their relatives from taking such action? The matter is so simple that it requires consideration, not for two years, but for just one hour.
    Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a simple matter, but the fact is that section 10 has been found to be satisfactory by successive Governments ever since the Government of Mr. Attlee put it on the statute book. Therefore, there must be very good reasons why this piece of legislation is thought to be in the interests of service men as a whole. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the fact that the review has taken some time does not reflect any lack of interest in the matter on the part of the Government, but reflects the real complexity of the issues that we are considering.
    Mr. Adley: Nevertheless, is the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) not right to use Parliament as the place to try to bring these matters to a satisfactory conclusion from his point of view? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to express his surprise, if he was aware of this, that while the right hon. Gentleman rightly tries to change the law in Britain, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is a member of the shadow Cabinet and the official Opposition spokesman on defence, has apparently seen fit to sign an early-day motion which clearly calls for the breaking of the law? Is that not shocking?
    Mr. Stanley: I note what my hon. Friend says, but, happily, I do not believe that there is any question of negligence or damages under section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act.

    Government Purchasing
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures will be taken by his Department following the conclusions of the recently-published report by the Management and Personnel Office on Government purchasing.
    Mr. Lee: Action documents have been prepared and will be submitted to Ministers shortly. It is still too early to say what changes may be made in the organisation or management of our procurement branches as a result of this process.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to simplify Government purchasing procedures, and so encourage small firms to play their part in achieving savings?
    Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We are doing everything possible in this
    204
    regard. Our competition policies allow greater opportunities than ever before for small firms, and 40,000 copies of the booklet "Selling to the Ministry of Defence" have been distributed. We are relaxing our specifications wherever appropriate.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: In avoiding conflicts of interest in Government purchasing, what role will the new Chief of Defence Procurement play in vetting and awarding contracts to his friends in the Defence Manufacturers Association, in which he was until recently a senior office bearer? Why was it that while still an arms salesman the new Chief of Defence Procurement spent a large part of last year hawking the possible Government franchise for the royal dockyards around his friends in the Defence Manufacturers Association?
    Mr. Lee: Having been chairman of the Defence Manufacturers Association, Mr. Levene is extremely well qualified for the job of Chief of Defence Procurement and he has an outstanding record in the private sector. I emphasise that he has severed all connections with his former companies and has divested himself of all shareholdings. Arrangements have been made within the Department to ensure that Mr. Levene will have no access to the Department's business with his former companies.
    There is a precedent for this appointment. The Labour Administration in 1969 appointed Mr. Leslie Norfolk, a former director of the heavy organic chemicals division of ICI, as chief executive of the royal dockyards at a salary of £11,000 a year. That salary was considerably higher than the then going rate for a permanent secretary at £8,600 a year. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was then the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, and he took a close and supportive interest in that appointment.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that often the best gamekeepers are ex-poachers? Is it not, therefore, interesting that the Opposition have never said that Mr. Levene will not make a good Chief of Defence Procurement?
    Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. The shooting metaphor is well known and apposite in this case. We spend about £1 million an hour on defence procurement. Only a small improvement in our purchasing through Mr. Levene's involvement is needed to more than recoup his salary.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In relation to Government purchasing, are not the Government concerned about the activities of Messrs Aish and Co. of Poole and Messrs Dowty Rotol and Co. of Cheltenham, because both those companies fired employees who refused to keep quiet about cheating by the MOD over defence contracts? Does the Minister intend to intervene and personally secure the position of those two employees who were serving the national interest?
    Mr. Lee: I have looked into both those cases personally. I visited Dowty about a week ago and raised the matter. Negotiations with both companies are proceeding. In the latter case, the Ministry of Defence police are examining papers.
    Mr. Latham: Will it be this report on Government purchasing, or a separate one, which will identify responsibility for the disastrous position over the Nimrod aircraft and sort everything out as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Lee: I have already acknowledged in the House that the question of the Nimrod AEW is not a matter about which our Department or Defence Ministry contractors should be particularly proud.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his attempts to try to justify the Levene appointment—in which he does not believe—are frankly pathetic? The real problem is that there is a basic difference between business and Government ethics. That is why we totally object to the attempt to bring into Government an arms salesman — no doubt a very good one — when the relationship between Government and defence manufacturers, at the best of times, is so close and symbiotic.
    Mr. Lee: It is pathetic that the Opposition are not prepared to support the payment of a relevant and attractive salary to ensure that we bring into Government the people whom we believe will do a first-class procurement job.

    AST 404 Helicopter
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a decision on the purchase of the light support helicopters specified in AST 404.
    Mr. Butler: Following recent exercises, including Exercise Lionheart last autumn, the Army's requirements for helicopter support are being reviewed. Until that review is complete, I regret that decisions on AST 404 will remain in abeyance. Meanwhile, my Department is in discussion with Westland about other possible Ministry of Defence orders.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not wrong that the Army can change its specification at such a late stage? Is it not intolerable that companies—such as Westland Helicopters—which have tendered in good faith can be let down because the Army is again changing its requirements?
    Mr. Butler: I understand the reaction that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of the company, but I think he should realise that the staff target is at a very early stage and that it would be strange if one were to force on any of the armed forces something which did not meet its requirements. The Army feels that it may need a larger helicopter, with a greater payload, in the interests of battlefield mobility, and it is now examining that.
    Mr. McNamara: Can the Minister say when the review will be completed? In view of the criteria that he used for the PC9, will he accept that at present the WG30 is 40 per cent. cheaper than the super Puma and 30 per cent. cheaper than the Black Hawk, and that, terms of jobs at Westland and the future of that company, an early decision is needed?
    Mr. Butler: As the Army has not confirmed its requirements, and as it is not certain that finance is available, the matter of choice between the various aircraft has not yet arisen.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he understands that most of us are speaking, not on behalf of the company, but on behalf of constituents who work in the company? Will he give a further assurance that he will keep in the closest possible contact
    206
    not only with the Department of Trade and Industry, but with the Department of Employment so that he can understand the implications of this order not being awarded to Westland at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Butler: I am fully aware of these matters. I am working closely with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, and we will come to a decision as soon as we can, but, in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I must say that the decision is likely to be some months away.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that a worrying feature here is the change in the staff requirement at a late stage? Will he look at procedures whereby staff requirements are drawn up in order to ensure that industry is not too often put into this difficult position?
    Mr. Butler: As I said a few moments ago, we cannot expect the armed services to take something which they do not want. They have seen fit to review their requirements. I should also say that the WG30 in its present condition will not meet the staff target, and would do so only with the advanced engineering gearbox and the new Rolls-Royce motor, and that by itself will cause some delay.

    British Army of the Rhine
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost of maintaining the British Army of the Rhine; if he has any plans to reduce it; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stanley: As I told my hon. Friend on 13 November 1984, the cost of the British Army of the Rhine is estimated to be some £1,796 million in 1984–85 at 1984–85 Estimates prices. The Government have no plans to reduce BAOR.
    Mr. Proctor: In the light of constraints on the defence budget, will my hon. Friend reconsider the prospects for returning to the traditional British policy of not maintaining a standing army on the mainland of Europe?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are part of a collective alliance, and that our NATO Allies and friends expect us to contribute in the way that we do—and we do so, I think, extremely successfully and cost-effectively—to safeguard and preserve deterrence in a key element of the central front.
    Mr. Johnston: Will the Minister assure us that the Trident programme will have no effect on the availability of resources to BAOR?
    Mr. Stanley: As we have said many times, the Trident programme is part of the total defence programme. What is spent on Trident cannot be spent elsewhere, but we believe that the expenditure on Trident is a way in which we can achieve an important continuation of our deterrent capability.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is it not a fact that BAOR is already the worst equipped of all the major armed forces in the NATO central front, having less artillery than the Dutch Army, and fewer tanks than the French or Germans? Is it not inevitable that the Trident programme will make the situation massively worse in this vital area of Britain's defence capability?
    Mr. Stanley: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are carrying through one of the most important re-equipment programmes of BAOR, and that re-equipment programme directly reflects the fact that the Government have increased defence expenditure by approximately one fifth in real terms, while the Opposition said at the last election that they intended substantially to reduce conventional defence expenditure.

    Royal Dockyards
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce his proposed changes in the management structures of Her Majesty's dockyards; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lee: We intend to complete our deliberations as soon as possible. Assuming that this results in radical proposals for change, there will then be a period of consultation before a decision is taken on future arrangements for the royal dockyards.
    Mr. Hicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the need for an early decision, in view of the fact that delay creates not only rumour and speculation, but, increasingly, unease among employees at the dockyards?
    Mr. Lee: We are aware of the need for an early and speedy decision. The deliberations have taken longer than we had imagined. The original uncertainty was caused by the leak of the Levene report at Rosyth.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Fatchettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Fatchett: In her weekend speech the Prime Minister referred to various critics of the Government's policy as cuckoos. Will she explain whether that term is now extended to the growing number of critics in her own party? Will she also explain whether she feels that characterising the Government's critics as cuckoos is consistent with the language of reconciliation to which she has made recent references?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is no. We have the occasional grouse, but nothing else.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most welcome aspects of the Budget is the Government's intention to simplify the tax and social security systems, so enabling people at last to understand how they can interact, and enabling us at last to eliminate the unemployment trap? Will she ensure that this necessary and fundamental reform is pushed ahead without delay?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. We shall try to push ahead as fast as we can. It is particularly important in that it will help many employers to take on more young people than they are doing at present.
    Mr. Kinnock: There are now more than 1 million unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds in Britain. Apparently the Prime Minister will be seeing 25 of them at 10 Downing Street this afternoon. When she meets them, will she look them in the eye and honestly say to them, as she said on Saturday in Newcastle:
    "A bright and confident future beckons"?
    If she says that to them, will she expect them to believe her?
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to seeing a number of young people on a private visit to No. 10. I shall indeed point out that the economy is expanding, that investment is at an all-time record, that standards of living are at an all-time high and that we are making great extensions to the youth training scheme, from which I hope they will benefit. I shall also have there a number of people who will, I hope, be able to answer their questions and be of practical assistance.
    Mr. Kinnock: That cuts no ice, and it cuts no dole queues, either. Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that until she makes radical changes in economic policy—as many, including sensible people in her own party, are advising—there will be no hope of offering real jobs to young people? Will she have the courage to say that direct to them this afternoon?
    The Prime Minister: No, because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He does not deny that output is at an all-time record and that investment is at an all-time high. I assume that he supports the youth training scheme. We shall get more jobs when we have more people producing goods and services which everyone will buy. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman knows how to do it, perhaps he will start a business.
    Mr. McCrindle: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the interrelation between taxation and the social security system. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that while the reviews which have been undertaken aim at gaining better value for money within a £40 billion budget, at least as important will he an attempt on behalf of the Government to pay more to the most deserving people within society, while reviewing benefits which arguably are being paid to those who are in less need?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has a major review of social services under way. That review will be published, and it will be for the House to debate it. In the meantime, I take account of what my hon. Friend has said. I think he was saying that quite a number of people seem to get perhaps more than they need, while others, who are most deserving, perhaps do not get sufficient.
    Mr. Steel: Following the massacre in South Africa at the weekend, does the Prime Minister agree that 25 years on from Sharpeville all the cosmetic improvements in that country do not hide the fundamental evil and injustice of apartheid? Apart from lecturing the South African ambassador, what proposals has she to help end the systematic oppression of the majority of the population?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a statement and called in the ambassador of South Africa to make it clear that we were gravely concerned at the events on the anniversary of

    209
    Sharpeville and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to reaffirm once again that one cannot distinguish between people on the basis of colour. We support and uphold the resolution of the United Nations. I think it particularly sad and deplorable that this event came just at a time when other things seemed to be moving. For example, it was only a few days earlier that we had heard that the policy which we totally deplored of forced removals had been suspended. That was good news. Therefore, we were particularly concerned about the shootings.
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Prime Minister aware that fires are still raging in the Galapagos Islands and that on Isabela 500 giant tortoises are now seriously at risk? [Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches may find this amusing, but I assure them that it is a serious matter. May I repeat the question for the benefit of the Prime Minister? Is she aware of the fires in the Galapagos Islands, and is she aware also that on Isabela 500 giant tortoises are at risk? The Government of Ecuador have asked for international assistance. In view of the close links between this country and the Galapagos Islands, what British Government resources will the Prime Minister make available to rescue the giant tortoises and other endangered species?
    The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of the feeling in the House and elsewhere about this matter. We shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request.
    Mr. Forthasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unanimity is rare in politics? Will she, therefore, undertake that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) completes his review of the financing of local government, and the equivalent review north of the border is completed, we will move to a rapid solution of the local government finance problem, regardless of whether there is total agreement on any one solution?
    The Prime Minister: Those studies, both on the rating system and on the reform of local government finance, are under way. I hope that we shall be able to come to an agreed solution. My hon. Friend is right. If everyone sticks to his own pet scheme, we shall not get anywhere. I hope that we shall be able to bring forward proposals which will command sufficient support to put them through.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Lady aware that when, later this afternoon, she meets the young unemployed from Merseyside, they are not likely, because of their bitter experience of many years of unemployment, to believe that there is an expanding economy? Does she agree with the view expressed by Lord Alport yesterday in the Daily Telegraph, that the Conservative party is now a faction and not a real Conservative party, or is she prepared to accept the advice of her right hon. Friend the Member for Old
    210
    Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who suggested that the time had come for a change in policy to begin to deal with unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: We shall continue the policies announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and enlarged upon during the several Budget debates, which were well received and won excellent majorities in the House upon their conclusion.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the teaching profession wishes to enjoy a higher level of public esteem the best thing that its members can do is to end this damaging action, which is hitting the interests of the worst-off children, and get back to work full-time?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I thought that Lady Warnock made interesting remarks during the Dimbleby lecture, pointing out that if teachers act in this way they will forfeit their prestige and the esteem in which they have always been held.
    Mr. Chris Smithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read the report of today of the Rating and Valuation Association, which reveals that the average rate rise in England and Wales for the coming financial year will be 9 per cent.? Has the right hon. Lady noticed that this has happened even with all the paraphernalia of rate-capping targets, penalties, grant-related expenditure assessments and similar controls which her Government have introduced? Will the right hon. Lady now have the honesty to admit that the real reason for such a large increase is the reduction in rate support grant to London boroughs, from 61 to 48 per cent., under her Government? Will the right hon. Lady tell the ratepayers that she is responsible for their rate increases?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read that report. I heard a comment from an hon. Member from a sedentary position that our great problems with rating are centred on Scotland. If councils' spending had continued at its previous rate of increase, it would now be £4 billion higher. The growth in councils' spending has dramatically slowed over the past five years, increasing by no more than it did in an average single year in the 1970s. In fact, ratepayers have a great deal for which to thank the Government for reducing Government expenditure. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take notice of the fact that the average precept is 30p higher under Labour county councils than it is under Conservative county councils.
    Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. friend aware that there was warm applause in the country as well as in the hall for her weekend speech, when she emphasised the importance of the wealth creators in our society and the fact that responsibility for law and order is not restricted to the police and the Government? As the best hope for this country's future lies in my right hon. Friend's policies and philosophies, will she and her Ministers continue to repeat this message loudly and clearly throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: It is a message which most people understand, because it is common sense that one must have policies which pursue the creation of wealth,

    211
    before that wealth can be distributed or more jobs can be created. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question.
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wardell: As dental charges will increase from 1 April to £17—which means that 100 per cent. of the costs will have to be borne by the patient—and as 40 per cent. of all the extra costs above £17, to a maximum of £115, will have to be paid by the patient, will the Prime Minister give advice to those people whose income is only slightly above the supplementary benefit level, the occupational pensions allowance and the family income supplement on how they must pay these extra charges?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, 46 per cent. of chargeable treatment is given free and those who pay contribute on average 60 per cent. of the cost, which is less than the maximum charge. The hon. Gentleman's question implies that the increase in charges will result in a reduction in the number of people taking dental treatment. That is not so. The number of courses of
    212
    dental treatment is up from 27 million in 1979 to 31 million now. I think that most people would put dental treatment fairly high on their list of priority spending.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Stanbrook: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the apparent willingness of the British Government, in company with the minority of countries, such as Greece and Denmark, to stand aside from developments in the European Community designed to make it more effective? Is this not a dangerous tendency? Will my right hon. Friend instruct her Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to promise full support to the Community in its proposals for progress for the benefit of us all, and not to drag their feet?
    The Prime Minister: We have taken a leading part in all deliberations on the Community, which are resulting in a much better financial structure and a much more realistic policy for agriculture. As my hon. Friend knows, we are now attempting to persuade the Community to complete the internal market and take a number of steps towards freeing trade, which will be of great help to this country.

Schools
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the White Paper published today setting out the Government's policies for school education in England and Wales. Copies of the White Paper and a summary are available in the Vote Office.
The Government have two principal aims—to raise the standards achieved by pupils of all abilities and to secure the best possible return for the resources invested in school education.
We have set these aims because education at school needs to develop to the full the capacities of every pupil, and to promote the nation's ability to seize the challenging opportunities of a technological and competitive world. The schools need to build on Britain's values and traditions and on its ethnic diversity; they need to educate pupils to their own full potential and for the responsibilities of citizenship and for working life.
Both what is taught and how it is taught need to serve these purposes better than is now the case in many schools. National standards would rise dramatically if all schools matched the present achievements of the best comparable schools. The Government have a duty in law to take a lead in securing that all our schools have an effective curriculum effectively delivered by those responsible.
Together with their partners in the education service and with the customers of the service, the Government will take action in four broad areas of policy to raise achievement at all levels of ability.
First, we shall continue to take the lead in promoting agreement about the objectives and content of the curriculum in primary, secondary and special schools. The curriculum should be broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated for variations in pupils' abilities and aptitudes. Agreed and explicit objectives will help to focus the efforts of local education authorities and schools and motivate pupils towards aims shared also by parents and employers.
Secondly, we are taking action on examinations. As the House will recall, we are establishing the general certificate of secondary education. It will serve the curriculum better than the examinations it replaces. It will put a new emphasis on understanding, on the application of knowledge, and on oral and practical skills. Through the development of grade criteria it will award grades only to those who attain the required standard in defined aspects of each subject. We shall introduce a new examination, the AS-level, to broaden the programme of students on A-level courses. The new certificate of pre-vocational education will offer a wide range of courses for other students over 16. We are working towards the establishment by the end of the decade of a national system of records of achievement for all school leavers which will record not only examination successes but other achievements at school.
Thirdly, we shall promote teaching quality by improving the professional effectiveness of teachers and the management of the teaching force. Better initial training will result from the reform of courses which the Government have already set in hand. We intend to make in-service training more effective by funding it through a
214
specific grant to local education authorities. We shall seek an early opportunity to legislate for that change, as I informed the House last week.
We intend that it should be a condition of the grant that satisfactory arrangements are made for identifying and meeting the training needs of individuals and the service. Adequate arrangements for appraising the performance of each teacher are essential for the career development of individual teachers and for the good management of the teacher force. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will seek powers to allow us to require local education authorities to make such arrangements if we consider such action necessary.
Fourthly, we shall develop the contribution that governing bodies can make to good school education. In the light of the response to the Green Paper "Parental Influence at School", the Government have decided, as soon as the legislative programme permits, to propose two measures to the House: first, to entrench the powers of governing bodies of county, controlled and maintained special schools in relation to the functions of the local education authority and the head teacher; secondly, to reform the composition of those governing bodies so that there can be an equal number of parent and LEA-appointed governors, and teachers and the local community will also be represented, with no single interest predominating.
The programme of action will take time to accomplish in its entirety. It may be difficult to achieve it in full within existing real levels of expenditure per pupil, but much progress can be made if the education service gets the most out of what is available. The more it succeeds, the stronger its future claim on resources.
Much of what needs to be done is neither a question of money nor of action by the Government alone. The education service is a partnership. Each partner has important responsibilities that the Government intend to preserve. Each can do his job effectively only with the help of the others. Co-operation and professional commitment have secured notable achievements and built up many strengths in our schools. The Government believe that co-operation and professional commitment will continue to be the norm within the education service. We believe that local education authorities, the Churches and other voluntary bodies, governors, teachers, parents, employers, and all others will join in the common endeavour to make standards of achievement and behaviour at every school as good as they can be and need to be in the interest of the pupils and our national future.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Secretary of State accept that raising the levels of achievement of all our children is an objective that we in the Opposition strongly support? However, apart from the sensible decision to abandon his harebrained scheme to give parents a majority on governing bodies, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is new either in his statement or in the White Paper? In that document, we search in vain for the answer to the $64,000 question of whether the Secretary of State can deliver. Quite apart from the HMI reports, the Secretary of State himself admits that it may be difficult to achieve his programme.
"within existing real levels of expenditure per pupil."
So why are the Government proposing to cut local authority education spending by 9 per cent. in real terms between 1984–85 and 1987–88, at a time when the number

215
of pupils is estimated to fall by 5 per cent.? In short, the right hon. Gentleman is attempting the hopeless task of squeezing a quart out of a pint pot.
Is the Secretary of State further aware that his remarks about partnership ring very hollow in a week when half a million children's education is being disrupted by the teachers' dispute? [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"] Wait for it. The parents of those children will not understand why, instead of his empty words this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman has not announced a new peace initiative. The truth is that the Secretary of State is fiddling while Rome burns.
Sir Keith Joseph: I am genuinely glad that there is an objective that both sides of the House share—to raise the achievements in behaviour, and in examinations at all levels of ability, of children at school.
It is extremely sad that teachers have chosen to disrupt the schooling of millions of children. The teacher unions seem to be in the business of rejecting. They rejected a pay offer. They rejected arbitration. They rejected—refused even to consider — a discussion on structure and appraisal.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about resources. In his comparison, he ignored two factors. First, he had not taken into account the share that education could expect of the unallocated margin. Secondly, for the later years to which he referred, he ignored the crucial point that the spending proposals for distribution between local authority services are provisional.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what the White Paper contains that is new. There are the notable initiatives—already decided and put into preparation by the Government — of improving teacher selection and teacher training, seeking agreement on the objectives of the curriculum, transforming the examination system and introducing records of achievement. All those initiatives, already announced, are drawn together in the White Paper so that people may understand the interaction between all the Government's proposals.
In addition, however, the White Paper announces the Government's decisions on AS-levels, on a massive extension of in-service training and on the readiness of the Government to ask Parliament for specific grant powers in connection with in-service training. The White Paper includes new announcements on the readiness of the Government, if necessary, to seek parliamentary authority—
Mr. Radice: The right hon. Gentleman has said that many times.
Sir Keith Joseph: This is the first time that the Government have formally announced that they will seek parliamentary authority for specific grant powers in connection with in-service training, with extra resources being provided, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We confirm in the White Paper that we shall, if necessary, be ready to ask Parliament's authority to require LEAs to appraise teachers. Finally, there are a number of announcements in the White Paper on the governance of schools and on truancy. There is plenty of new material.
Mr. David Madel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will he a special welcome for the additional funds for appropriate in-service
216
training courses? Is that not further evidence of the Government's commitment to work with the teaching profession to ensure that the education service is backed by appropriate skills and training? If teachers want to retrain, the necessary funds will be available.
Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is much in the White Paper that teachers should welcome, including rendering in-service training more effective and increasing the resources for it.
Mr. Clement Freud: I too welcome the in-service training provisions, but will the Secretary of State assure the House that the introduction of AS-levels will not further disadvantage children from small and under-funded sixth forms, and make it more difficult for them to enter tertiary education at the expense of those in the private sector?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that school governors — we welcome the fact that there will no longer be contention among them — will be properly trained? Will the right hon. Gentleman find money for that training, and will he assure us that it will not be taken from teachers' salaries?
Finally, the Secretary of State said that education is a partnership. That is something that few schoolmasters would currently agree with. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that it takes two to tango?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am only too eager to co-operate with teachers and local education authorities in pursuance of the objectives which the whole House shares. Higher education has responded to the consultation that it will not disadvantage those who have not had the opportunity to take AS-levels. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the Government's decision on the governance of schools and I hope that it still ranks as what the hon. Gentleman has referred to as high-octane Liberal policy.
Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper presents a programme for education possibly as great and important as the Education Act 1944, when taken as a whole? Does he further agree that the teaching profession would be well advised not to listen to the weasel words from the Opposition Front Bench of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who, I believe, does not mean what he said? Nor should they be advised to listen to the leadership of the National Union of Teachers and others who are sowing dissent and low morale in the teaching profession. Will my right hon. Friend encourage teachers to read the document and consider it carefully, as I think that they will find in it much that is rewarding?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Previous schools White Papers have rightly had to concentrate on scale and structure. This one addresses itself to the even harder questions of quality and effectiveness.
Mr. Martin Flannery: When will the Secretary of State admit to himself and his party that, according to Her Majesty's Inspectorate, cuts in education are so horrific that schools all over the country have quite insufficient money to carry on with? Is he aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently visited schools in fairly plush areas where the capitation allowance has been doubled by parents? Does he believe that, in working-class areas with massive

217
unemployment, parents can give any money when their children do not receive a proper education? Is he aware that the struggle is going on partly because morale is so low?
Sir Keith Joseph: HMI also emphasised that the quality and effectiveness of management varies sharply between local education authorities and that there is much capacity for redeploying resources from less effective to more effective educational purposes. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that spending in real terms per child at school is at record high levels? Will he also bear it in mind that the pupil-teacher ratio is at record low levels? Will he also bear it in mind that it is open to a local education authority to raise the capitation allowance—
Mr. Flannery: With rate capping?
Sir Keith Joseph: —where parents cannot be expected to provide as much help as those in more prosperous areas.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Did I hear my right hon. Friend say that he would be asking Parliament to require a regular appraisal of teachers, thus linking pay and performance? If so, could that not go a long way towards overcoming the wicked strikes which damage children in special schools and those sitting examinations? Will he remind the Opposition that the Houghton award lost its value under a Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 and point out that it is high time their wicked hypocrisy ended?
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend has failed to notice that the Government's intention to legislate is expressed as "only if necessary" or some such words. We still hope that, sooner or later, teachers and their employers will reach a bargain on appraisal which will be good for education, negotiable and affordable. If they do not reach such a bargain before long, the Government have confirmed their intention to ask Parliament for authority to require local education authorities to appraise teachers. However, in that confirmation, there is no mention of the word "money."
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a great deal to criticise in the statement and White Paper ? However, I warmly welcome his decision to reintroduce the mandatory requirement for specialist qualifications for teachers of deaf and blind children, and assure him that the all-party disablement group will warmly welcome that announcement and decision.
Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and take his criticism as purely ritual.
Mrs. Angela Rumbold: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, will he tell the House, first, how he believes that it will improve teachers' morale; secondly, how it will enable local education authorities to operate more efficiently; and, thirdly, to what extent it will increase the professionalism of the education service for its customers—the children?
Sir Keith Joseph: To ease my hon. Friend's problems—I know that she will read the White Paper in full—a summary explaining all such matters has been produced and is extremely readable. In brief, there is much in the White Paper to raise teachers' morale, such as the
218
confirmation of recognition of their central importance, an expansion of the network of in-service training, and the sort of unification of the exam systems which they have long wanted. There is plenty in the White Paper to improve the effectiveness of education, which we all want.
Mr. Derek Foster: If the Secretary of State is really interested in the achievement of all our children, does he not realise that the motivation of teachers is absolutely crucial to teaching quality? Surely he must be aware that teaching morale is at an all-time low because of cuts in the education service and the continual denigration of their professionalism by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends.
Sir Keith Joseph: I readily recognise that the changing trend of pupil numbers from expansion to contraction has entailed a great loss of promotion opportunities for teachers. I readily recognise that that has implications for morale, which is why it is so much in the teachers' interests to welcome the opportunities that could come to all effective teachers from an appraisal system, and why I think they are so misguided in wanting to retain the present informal appraisal system which is in existence, as they know, and in refusing to co-operate in designing a formal procedure for appraisal, which is enormously to their benefit.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that not a single comment from the Opposition has been truly critical of the White Paper, so much is it in tune with the views within the education world of reasonable and thinking people? Will he also note that his White Paper is quite dramatic in that in many areas, such as the three examination changes and the specific grant for teacher training, he has at last done something which Labour Government after Labour Government under Lord Mulley and Shirley Williams could not bring themselves to do, just as they could not bring themselves to set up a youth training scheme? Regarding school governing bodies, will he say that the motivation of pupils depends on the involvement of parents, that parents should be the largest single element and that the local authority element must no longer dominate and be open to the political abuse that we have so often witnessed?
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. It should be a comfort to schools and teachers that the broad objectives of the White Paper are shared by both sides of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: No.
Sir Keith Joseph: I have heard them approved by Front Bench representatives of the official Opposition. I recognise that the Opposition imagined that they would be able to spend more money on schools, although I think that that is just another sign of the never-never land in which they live. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Jack Thompson: I have not had the opportunity to read the White Paper in depth, but one section which is of concern to me relates to the education of under-fives. That section states that, although the Government support the education of under-fives, they do not propose to spend more money on it. Is this not an area where more money should be spent? If that is a symptom of the entire White Paper, I cannot see how the education service will be vastly improved by it.
Sir Keith Joseph: I invite the hon. Gentleman to join the real world. There are not, and will not be under any Government, enormous new resources to spend on education. We are concentrating on the compulsory age range. That is why in the chapter about under-five education we undertake to maintain at least the present proportion of the population attending under-five schools and do not give false promises to extend it substantially.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that our schools represent an enormous national investment in terms of educational resources? Is he aware that many of those who have left school and who wish to achieve some of the educational qualifications which they lamentably failed to achieve when they were at school, now wish to have access to those resources? Will he confirm that continuing education will be included in discussions on the White Paper, so that the nation might get a better return from the investment of those educational resources?
Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, although it is outside the age bracket addressed by the White Paper. The Government are concerned with, and will be formulating proposals in connection with the wider access to, continuing education.
Mr. Mark Fisher: The Secretary of State said that this is not only a question of money, but he must agree that it is crucially a question of teachers being able to implement his proposals. Does he understand that teachers all over the country feel under-valued and let down by the Government? The Government are, rightly, asking them to do a challenging and difficult job, but with fewer resources, less capitation—whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say—in buildings that are less well maintained, and for wholly inadequate pay. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State recognised that money is an essential ingredient in implementing any proposals for education? Is it not about time that he fought for the education service? His colleagues in other Departments are prepared to fight for their budgets. Why does he not show the education profession that he is prepared to fight for the investment mentioned by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin)?
Sir Keith Joseph: I recognise that teachers have a hard job, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise, too, that many schools around the country are islands of excellence in which, in conditions completely comparable to those schools where there is less excellence, teachers manage to produce remarkably effective results in behaviour and in academic performance. What that minority of schools can do can be done throughout the system, and that is what the White Paper addresses itself to.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his White Paper will be widely welcomed, especially by parents, who will have a much bigger say on governing bodies? Will he say something about how teacher assessment will work, and the role that headmasters and the governing bodies will play in that assessment?
Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have set aside £1 million of taxpayers' money to run a series of experiments in appraisal, so that the most suitable system can be judged. I imagine that when appraisal is, as it is bound to be, introduced, it will be subject to discussion among the local education authorities, teachers and the holder of my
220
office. Differing combinations of assessors will be involved, including headmasters, heads of department, peers of the teacher, each judging reciprocally, and no doubt representatives of the employers. The pilot schemes are intended to judge the best combination.
Mr. Ken Eastham: The Secretary of State referred to assessing teachers, but will he consider giving teachers the opportunity to make an assessment of the Department of Education on the resources that it is providing for teachers to do their job? Will he comment on the special problems of inner cities where there is high poverty, many one-parent families, children who are underfed and a lack of the other normal things that are essential to education? What special additional assistance will the Secretary of State he giving to such areas?
Sir Keith Joseph: There is a system available by which teachers as citizens make judgment on the Department of Education—it is called a general election. As for inner-city children, it is because the opportunities of children depend so much on the quality of schools that I once again say that it was wicked of the Labour Government to abolish direct grant schools.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people both in and outside the House will be pleased with the White Paper and his statement? Does he agree that highly qualified teachers in specialities in which there is a shortage, such as maths, science and design, can only be properly awarded when there is a proper structure for their appraisal, and the same applies to those in scale 1 whose promotion prospects have been dimmed by the falling rolls?
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree, although the problem of recruiting potentially skilled teachers in shortage subjects for which there is a great deal of demand in the world of commerce—such as maths, physics, craft design and technology — will be difficult, although slightly less difficult once the appraisal system is in being.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the Secretary of State understand that, in each of the sectors that he has announced, additional academic, scholastic and organisational burdens will be placed on teachers, particularly in respect of his legislation for compulsory formal assessment? Does he agree that any real partnership requires confidence, and that the spread of excellence of which he speaks can be achieved only by co-ordination and not coercion? Does not his attitude to teachers and the fact that he has produced this booklet this afternoon show that he does not understand this, does not understand the teaching service and therefore should not have introduced the White Paper at this of all times, when schools are in chaos?
Sir Keith Joseph: I marvel that the hon. Gentleman, whose sincerity I do not impugn, could have spoken at such length without mentioning children.
Mr. Spearing: That is what it is all about.
Sir Keith Joseph: Exactly — the White Paper is addressed to the needs of children.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great support for the £100 million available for in-service training but that there will be some

221
surprise that as much as half of it should be absorbed by covering for teachers having this break during normal teaching hours, especially as, in my area, the majority of teachers carry out their in-service training during the holidays or after school hours? If this practice were followed throughout the country, there would be twice as much available for in-service training for the sum that the Department can provide.
Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend may have a point, and in-service training is conducted in holidays as well as in term time and at weekends. Some compensation for the employment of relief teachers is a necessary part of the programme.
Mr. Skinner: Is it not a measure of this Government's attitude to the teaching profession and to education generally that, at a time when the education system is in turmoil due to the Government's actions in refusing to pay the teachers a proper wage, the right hon. Gentleman introduces this White Paper as a cover? Is it not also worth noting that the teachers are striving to make up for lost ground during the six years of this Tory Government, and that compares with the fact that he, as the Secretary of State, and the rest of the Cabinet in one of their first acts when they came to power, made up the lost ground in their own salary while depriving teachers? Why does he not pay the teachers their money and get the education system back on the rails?
Sir Keith Joseph: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman. Teachers lost the full benefit of the 1974 award before the Labour Government left office in 1979. The real value of their pay has gone up 9 per cent. since 1979. Those are the facts.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents must welcome this new approach because the standard of education has given them considerable concern in the past? I draw his attention to the system of appraisal, which, although it will be difficult to establish, is necessary because at the moment there is little difference in pay between the highly qualified teachers and unqualified teachers. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent incident in which a child who condemned the action of teachers who went on strike was disciplined by the school?
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend's last reference, which is a sad one. I marvel that Opposition Members, while in general welcoming the purpose of the White Paper, made far less fuss than I would have expected about the wide range of under-achievement. Masses of children under-achieve their potential and I should have thought that there would have been far more emphasis from the Opposition about that. Our desire, like theirs, is to put that right; that is a common bond that I welcome.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important Back Bench day. I shall call as many hon. Members who are rising as possible, but I should like to bring the questions on this statement to an end by quarter past four because there is another statement. Those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call may be able to catch my eye in the subsequent debate on the Easter adjournment motion.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread appreciation of, and respect for, the strategy of better schools that he has set out, as expressing his and the Government's particular concern for the relatively disadvantaged in our society? In this respect, is he aware that there will be particular appreciation of the emphasis placed on grade criteria, records of achievement and more practical orientation for some pupils of curricula and examinations?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that discriminating praise.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be easier to make a good assessment of what we believe to be a sound White Paper if we could have a debate on it? Will he support a call for such a debate?
Sir Keith Joseph: I should welcome such a debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has heard what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: From my right hon. Friend's description of the White Paper, it sounds positive and extremely exciting. He spoke about education for the under-fives earlier. Can he reassure the House that the present study of education for the under-fives, which is due to report in the autumn, will not be overlooked and that action on it will not be denied by the contents of the White Paper?
Sir Keith Joseph: I welcome praise, even when it is followed by a "but". We take the effective education of the under-fives seriously, but we cannot undertake to find more resources for them. We shall certainly study any evidence produced about how it can be made more effective.
Dr. Ian Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the posture taken by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the White Paper will be welcomed in the country and in the world of education? In considering the content of the curricula in schools, will he give the House an assurance that more emphasis will be given to the role of wealth creation in society, so that there is in schools a climate in which the culture of wealth education can survive and flourish?
Sir Keith Joseph: Indeed, the Government regard it as an important ingredient to try to inject into the school system and into higher and further education.
Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome this confirmation of our educational objectives. How does my right hon. Friend hope to resolve the fundamental dilemma, which has existed for a long time, of finding sufficient resources at a time of financial restraints, when we require to attract and sustain the quality teaching force that we all hope to have within the state sector?
Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, it can partly be achieved by more effective deployment of the massive resources that the education system already has. There will come a time when no doubt that will be fully exploited, when more resources may prove to be necessary. Plenty can be done within existing resources if they are sensibly used.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated upon his sensitive consultation on

223
the enhanced responsibilities of school governors. However, is he satisfied that he has hit the median line between on the one hand governors simply rubber-stamping the views of the local authority and on the other hand parents holding the rest of the ratepayers to ransom?
Sir Keith Joseph: I searched the country for supporters of my proposal for parental governor majorities but found so few friends that I had to strike a compromise—which I believe will be effective.
Mr. Harry Cohen: At one stage the Secretary of State described his proposals as broad, balanced and relevant, but is not the opposite the truth? Will they not be more restrictive? The Secretary of State is taking greater central Government control over curriculum, in-service training, what is taught by teachers and the appraisal of teachers. When that is coupled with control over teachers' jobs, pay and conditions of service and with the cuts because of the rate capping of local education authorities, it can only mean in reality a deterioration in the standards of education generally. The current education policy is not relevant. Youngsters are not being educated for work because the jobs are not there; nor are they being educated in life skills.
Sir Keith Joseph: How can the hon. Gentleman speak of an assault upon teachers' jobs, when teachers have one of the most secure jobs in the country?
Mr. Radice: What about redundancies?
Sir Keith Joseph: Voluntary redundancies. If the holder of my office does not venture a view on the curriculum, who else can lead the partnership towards more agreed objectives? As for jobs, the function of the schools in preparing children for the world of work and for being independent, or perhaps employers, as well as developing their cultural potential is part of the several parallel strands that are necessary to get this country once again more fully employed.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement and the White Paper are much welcomed by Conservative Members? His reference to governors and to the fact that local authorities will not have majority control is also to be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while trying to make schools better than they are now, the best course to take would be either to make all teachers subject to the Employment Protection Acts or to give them not the right to strike?
Sir Keith Joseph: I should be interested to know how my hon. Friend thinks one could achieve his last point.
Mr. Eric Cockeram: Is it not the case that the greatest obstacle to raising teaching standards has been the attitude of the leadership of the National Union of Teachers, which has repeatedly shown itself to be more interested in disrupting education through strikes than in rewarding excellence? Will the Secretary of State therefore welcome the initiative of the more moderate teachers' unions which seek to co-operate in raising standards?
Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, heartily, but I must in fairness say that the National Union of Teachers has expressed interest—indeed, a desire for some system of appraisal, so there may be some common ground, despite the present discontent.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: May I give a special welcome to the requirement that schools should make a statement of their aims and educational objectives? This would, I believe, harness the efforts of the teachers, the aspirations of parents and the interests of the children to a common end. May I ask the Secretary of State to give an assurance that such a statement of aims will be put in plain English which can be understood by everybody and not wrapped up in arcane educational jargon?
Sir Keith Joseph: Yes. As an example, I should like schools to accept such new objectives as something like Wordsworth and word processing
Mr. Michael Stern: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that section of the White Paper which lays down new guidelines for minimum sizes of schools? In particular, will he in due course pay attention to the problems caused in certain areas by authorities laying down unrealistic sizes of school entry forms which mean that those schools remain under-subscribed while adjoining schools are over-subscribed?
Sir Keith Joseph: I suspect that my hon. Friend is hoeing a local furrow, but I agree with him.
Mr. Tony Baldry: With the introduction of AS-levels, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to publish a simple guide for employers which will set out the role of and the differences between O-levels, A-levels, AS-levels, S-levels, CSE, GCE, 16-plus, 17-plus, CPVE, GCSE, BTEC, TVEI and YTS?
Sir Keith Joseph: I appreciate the enjoyment my hon. Friend has had in asking that question, but I have to tell him that the days of CSE and O-levels are numbered.
Mr. Tony Favell: Even though next to the bottom of the class, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the great concern that he has shown for the deaf, the blind and those suffering from partial hearing by refusing to accept the ACSET report, even though it would have saved money, and instead for having listened to those who really know about these matters — the parents of children who suffer from this kind of affliction and those who devote their lives to teaching them?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the world of the deaf and the blind is very articulate.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I welcome my right hon. Friend's brave initiative, but does the White Paper address practical, technical and vocational training for children so as to fit them for the world of work?
Sir Keith Joseph: The technical and vocational education initiative is now at the pilot stage in a majority of local education authorities. The intention is that the extra money for in-service training should be used primarily for TVEI-related disciplines precisely in order to provide a larger pool of teachers with skills to teach the subjects which my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mr. Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has confirmed this afternoon that there is little new in the White Paper? Is he also aware that he has confirmed that educational expenditure by local authorities will fall by 9 per cent. in real terms over the next three years? Incidentally, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, the last two years do not include the unallocated margin, a point which he always tries to raise. It is also

225
a bit thick for the Secretary of State to claim credit for the Clegg award, as I heard him do this afternoon —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did. Cannot the Secretary of State understand that there is no way in which he can achieve his plans without the support of the teaching profession? I repeat that the time is right for the Secretary of State to take an initiative in the teachers' dispute.
Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is still wrong. The last two years of his comparisons ignore the fact that the figures for distribution of expenditure are, explicitly, on a provisional basis. Why should not the Conservative Government take credit for the Clegg award, which was paid during our time in office? Of course the teachers are partners. Effective education cannot conceivably be delivered without effective teachers. It is in order to improve the effectiveness of teachers that much of this White Paper is addressed. The hon. Gentleman often shows evidence of generosity, but in this case he is being very grudging.

Doctors and Dentists
4.19 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about medical and dental manpower.
Following the report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education in 1968 and the earlier McNair report on dental manpower, a decision was taken to embark on a major programme of medical and dental school expansion. The purpose of that expansion programme was to achieve a position in which we were training, in this country, enough doctors and dentists to meet our needs. The Health Service had already become heavily dependent on doctors and dentists from other countries to whom we owe a considerable debt. They have enabled us to make good the shortfall in supply which arose from the inadequate number of graduates from our own medical and dental schools.
The expansion programme begun in the late 1960s is now largely complete. The Government therefore have a responsibility to re-examine the supply of and demand for doctors and dentists. A review of dental manpower was completed in 1983 and led us to conclude that the output from dental schools was in danger of leading to an oversupply. We accordingly agreed, following discussions with the profession, to reduce the intake to dental schools by 10 per cent.
I am today publishing a report by the advisory committee for medical manpower planning, which comprised officials from the health departments and representatives of the main professional bodies. The report contains different projections of the likely future pattern of supply and demand for doctors. There are many factors which will affect the future balance, including the level of output from medical schools, the extent to which women doctors remain in active practice and the number of overseas doctors coming here. I shall want to discuss with the medical profession the implications of the report on the intake to medical schools, on the medical staffing of hospitals and on postgraduate training.
The Government have, however, concluded that it is now necessary to prepare for the position which the expansion programme was intended to achieve—that is, where the United Kingdom is essentially self-sufficient in its supply of doctors and dentists. At present, overseas doctors and dentists have almost unrestricted access to this country. We have therefore decided to bring them more into line with the immigration rules applying to other groups. But we shall wish to retain the important role which this country has traditionally fulfilled of providing postgraduate training to doctors and dentists from other countries who can come here for periods of specialist training before returning to put those specialist skills into practice.
To give effect to this policy, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of the necessary changes to the immigration rules. Briefly, these changes will have the following effects from 1 April. Doctors and dentists from overseas who wish to become general medical and dental practitioners will need to comply with the relevant entry provisions for the self-employed. All other doctors and dentists, with the exception of those intending to undertake

227
a period of postgraduate training, will be subject to normal work permit arrangements. Doctors and dentists seeking entry for the purpose of postgraduate training in hospitals will be admitted for a period of up to four years. After four years in this country they will be able to stay only if extensions of stay are granted under the normal immigration and employment provisions. A similar permit-free period for postgraduate training will be available to overseas nationals graduating here. The changes will not apply to the doctors and dentists from the European Community who have free entry to this country for employment.
The changes are, I believe, a sensible step for us to take at this stage. They do not in any way affect the position of overseas doctors and dentists currently working here. They will, however, make clear to those who come in the future the basis on which they are being admitted and they will ensure that we do not encourage doctors and dentists to come here with expectations which the Health Service cannot fulfil. They will also enable the Health Service to plan its use of medical and dental manpower more effectively.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that in principle we welcome a statement on medical and dental manpower? It is long overdue, since the Government have been sitting on the report by the advisory committee on medical manpower planning for well over a year without publishing it, even though it contains information essential for resolving current manpower problems. Nearly two years ago the Minister of State promised a review of dental manpower planning for last year, but that never transpired.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Royal Commission report in 1979 recommended regular and more frequent reviews of medical manpower—to take place about every two years? Since this is the first such review in the last six years, will the Secretary of State undertake such reviews about every two years?
On what basis does the Secretary of State plan medical manpower requirements since the Government stopped the collection of medical unemployment statistics three years ago? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at least 2,000 doctors and 10,000 nurses and midwives are on the dole? If that is correct, how does he intend to remove them from the dole queues whilst steadily increasing medical schools' intake?
On the question of consultant expansion, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition strongly support the view of the Social Services Select Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), in its 1981 report that a much higher proportion of patient care should be provided by qualified staff?
Is the Secretary of State further aware that in 1982 the Government suggested doubling the number of consultants over the next 15 years, so creating a growth rate of 4·75 per cent. a year? How does he explain that in the year to September 1984, the last year for which we have statistics, the growth rate was only 2·3 per cent.—less than half that needed to meet the Government's own objective? Do the Government still adhere to that objective? If they do, will the Secretary of State issue an annual target for consultant expansion in each region?
In the interim, what machinery is the right hon. Gentleman setting up to deal with the severe bottleneck
228
between the registrar and senior registrar grades due to lack of adequate consultant posts, especially in general medicine and general surgery?
The Secretary of State seeks to justify his proposals for overseas doctors on the ground that the United Kingdom is
"essentially self-sufficient in its supply of doctors and dentists."
What is the basis for such a bland, complacent statement when, according to a parliamentary answer on 25 February this year, the number of doctors per 1,000 population is 25 per cent. higher in France than it is in the United Kingdom, 50 per cent. higher in Germany and 100 per cent. higher in Italy?
Irrespective of numbers, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the glaring omission from his statement about the quality of training which overseas doctors receive? Is he aware that overseas doctors are severely disadvantaged by the haphazard arrangements for their postgraduate training? They are often shunted off to study unfashionable specialties in the regions and often end up not receiving the training for which they came here and which they have a right to expect.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the system needs a radical overhaul to provide a clear guarantee of the quality of training offered, and of its completion? Does he accept that without further guarantees about standards and quality—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—This is my last point and it is important — simply cutting the numbers of overseas doctors who can stay here, which is all that his statement is about, will seem discriminatory and unfair?
Mr. Fowler: The last point rather spoiled the hon. Gentleman's response. I welcomed many of his comments. I am glad to give him the assurance that the matter will be kept under continual review.
The hon. Gentleman asked about self-sufficiency. Successive Governments have aimed for self-sufficiency. We have reviewed manpower needs from time to time and the advisory committee for medical manpower planning report published today follows the dental manpower review of 1983 upon which we have already acted by reducing the intake of dental schools by 10 per cent. We are preparing for the United Kingdom being essentially self-sufficient. Without such action there is a risk of over-supply.
The hon. Gentleman asked about unemployment. At any time people are changing jobs or between jobs. That is the only problem in that respect. We have already cut the number of British dental students. It would be indefensible to allow unrestricted immigration in such circumstances.
Since 1979 the ratio of doctors to population has improved substantially. Today 6,000 more doctors are employed in the Health Service than when the Labour Government left office.
Mrs. Jill Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening so carefully to the representations made to him on this point since there has been widespread concern in the dental and medical professions about the way in which dentists and doctors from anywhere overseas have been allowed to come into the country. Bearing in mind the severe difficulties that this has created in planning the future levels of staffing in

229
hospitals and in the dental profession, I have no doubt that there will be a widespread wish for me to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his action today.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the aim for the country to become self-sufficient in the training of doctors and dentists will be one that is shared on both sides of the House. Equally, I think that it will be realised that there is no point in training doctors if at the end of training there are no jobs for them.
Mrs. Renée Short: I, too, welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has made the statement today although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, the Select Committee presented its report to him in 1981, and he has had plenty of time in which to discuss these important matters with the medical profession. Why has he not done so in the intervening period? Is he aware that there are still grave problems about the appointment of more consultants in many regions of the country and that as a result junior doctors continue to have to work long hours and have more UMTs placed upon them, and progress has not been made in this regard?
Why has the Secretary of State not yet published the Green Paper on general practice? Surely this will have some bearing on the numbers of doctors employed, and possibly on the numbers of medical students that we may need in future. If he is not taking on board the proposal of the Select Committee that overseas students who wish to come here to train as doctors should undertake some kind of sponsorship scheme, has he considered it, and what are his views?
Mr. Fowler: We have always made it clear that the Green Paper on the family practitioner services will be published in the summer. That remains our intent.
On the general point about training and the position of consultants, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, there has been an expansion in the number of consultants in the last few years, and an expansion of about 2·3 per cent. in the last year. I share the concern of the hon. Lady and, indeed, of the hon. Member for Oldham, West about training. There is concern at present that too many overseas doctors do not receive the most relevant medical training and experience. They find themselves in areas such as geriatrics and psychiatry, which are important but are not necessarily those which are most relevant to their training needs. I want to see that position improved. I have made it clear to the British Medical Association and the medical profession generally that we shall be having urgent discussions about the matter in order to ensure that better and proper training is provided.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I commend my right hon. Friend for his honest and straightforward approach to what is a difficult problem, particularly with regard to overseas doctors. Will he agree that for years we in this country have been draining the poorest nations of their ablest manpower, which has done nothing whatever to assist those countries? Will he reassure those doctors and dentists who are already settled here, and their patients, many of whom have had excellent
230
service in cities such as Derby and throughout the country, that we have no plans to send such practitioners back from what is now their home?
Mr. Fowler: I certainly give a categorical assurance on my hon. Friend's second point. The position of those who are practising here and, indeed, of those who are in training posts here is entirely safeguarded, and there is no question of their position being worsened by what I have said today. I hope that that is recognised by doctors.
Secondly, I should like to underline the debt that we in this country owe overseas doctors. They have made a tremendous contribution. I wish to put on record my tribute to them.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is not the Secretary of State's statement a capitulation to an existing perception of resources rather than to a better definition of need? As such, would it not be difficult for those with a greater vision of the resources that we need to raise for medical services to reverse it? Is there not a desperate need in many parts of the world for doctors and dentists to whom we should make our training facilities, both primary and postgraduate, more widely available in order to help those worse off than ourselves?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman take on board what has already been suggested, that the implication of his statement on immigration, particularly with regard to the Indian sub-continent, would be more acceptable if it were not for the Government's mean attitude towards immigration? That inevitably encourages a certain suspicion of the Government's intentions which we ought to allay at the first possible opportunity.
Mr. Fowler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore join me in allaying any suspicions that might arise about this measure.
I do not agree with him on the first point. The work permit system gives flexible means of controlling supply. That is the essence of the work permit system. It means that a health authority can apply for a work permit for a person who has been training in this country.
As to the general case, we have increased the number of doctors, and we are planning further to increase it. The aim is for the country to become self-sufficient. I hope that that is an aim in which the hon. Gentleman will join.
Mr. Timothy Wood: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which I believe reflects a very encouraging position. Is it not the case not only that the number of medical practitioners is improving, but that the A-level standards achieved by those wishing to enter university to read medicine are at an all-time high?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, I think that is right. The standards have improved and are improving.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to give effect to the changes in the immigration rules from 1 April? If that is the case, it gives people six days' notice. Is it the intention that he or his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will rush the immigration rule changes through the House before that date, or will effect be given to the measures without the changes having gone through Parliament?
Secondly, what is the position of doctors and dentists who have made plans to come here and already have posts in hospitals but will be unable to arrive before 1 April? Will there be a period of grace?
Mr. Fowler: The broad position is that any entry that has taken place before 1 April will not be affected. That difficulty always arises with the laying of an order of this kind. If the Opposition so wish, it can be prayed against within 40 days. Any alternative method of action that the hon. Gentleman might propose would be open to severe criticism and might entail disadvantage.
Mr. Den Dover: I recognise that the statement is about doctors and dentists. What is my right hon. Friend able to announce about the nursing numbers, particularly if the comments by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) are correct and there are 10,000 unemployed? In particular, what action might be taken to regulate the numbers per health authority, because there are vast fluctuations between authorities?
Mr. Fowler: I am proposing no change in the entry conditions with regard to the number of nurses coming to this country. It is important to underline the fact that we are making exceptions in regard to members of the medical and dental professions coming to the country for a four-year period of training. I think that the general position of nursing takes us rather wider than the statement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, instead of introducing this Monday Club statement and talking about restricting the numbers of doctors and dentists, he would have done well to recognise that, with waiting lists of approaching 750,000 in the country and the lack of kidney machines, artificial limbs, heart pacemakers and so on, it would make sense not to have any restriction, but to acknowledge the collapse of the National Health Service and to make sure that we increase the number of doctors in order to shorten the current long waiting lists?
Mr. Fowler: Not for the first time the hon. Gentleman is completely out of tune with everything that has been said so far by hon. Members on both sides of the House in response to my statement. There is absolutely no point in training doctors in this country if there are no jobs for them at the end of that training. We have already reduced the number of British dental students. Frankly, it would be indefensible to allow unrestricted immigration in those circumstances. If what the hon. Gentleman said represents the policy that he would wish to advocate, that is up to him, but I doubt whether many people would agree with him.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcome for at least two reasons, first, because it should ensure more jobs for British doctors and dentists and, secondly, because it should ensure greater standards of health care in those countries from which many doctors have come in the past?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why it is important that we should tackle the question of the training of overseas doctors who then return to their countries and put their specialist knowledge into effect.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of the crucial role that overseas doctors have played. For those who will continue to come here for post-graduate training, will he be taking steps, so far as is possible and practicable, to make sure that the training they receive is geared to the skills that they will need when they return to their own countries, bearing in mind the provision that is made in, and outlay devoted to, medicine in those countries? Does he see that type of provision being directed more to hospital service or general practitioner service?
Mr. Fowler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in general outline, as does the medical profession, with representatives of which I have discussed the matter. I shall be having further talks with them about the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, and any improvements that can be made will, I am sure, be welcomed by all concerned.
Mr. Frank Dobson: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that the United Kingdom will be self-sufficient in the supply of doctors, and what doctor-patient ratio is he aiming for? Is he satisfied that we shall be self-sufficient in every specialism, bearing in mind what he said earlier about many overseas doctors tending to concentrate on one or two specialisms? Does his guarantee that the proposals will not affect overseas doctors and dentists now working here apply to overseas doctors and dentists currently training here? Is he seriously asking us to believe that all the 2,000 doctors who are out of work are in the process of changing jobs? He seemed to suggest that. Can he guarantee—perhaps I should address this question to his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office — that once the immigration rules have been changed there will not be any police and immigration officer raids on hospitals to check whether doctors have the necessary passports to allow them to stay in the country?
Mr. Fowler: That last question was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Come to think of it, perhaps it was entirely worthy of him. I can give him the assurance he seeks about training. I repeat that we do not intend by anything being announced today to affect the position of those already here.
In answering his question about self-sufficiency, I ask the hon. Gentleman to study the report of the advisory committee that we have published today. Many people in the medical profession would say that we have not only reached self-sufficiency but are above it. The Government are preparing for the time when the United Kingdom is essentially self-sufficient. Without action at this stage, there is a risk of over-supply. The work permit system will give us flexibility to control supply, while at the same time allowing health authorities, if there are difficulties or shortages, to apply for work permits for doctors in those areas.

Teachers (Pay Dispute)
4.43 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the teachers' pay dispute and the Secretary of State's handling of the matter."
The matter is specific because the House has a responsibility to consider the matter in the light of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. The House has not fully debated the strike or its consequences, even though it has been going on for nearly a term. We have received from the Secretary of State only a statement in which he made much of the partnership in education. The House needs to know what he meant by partnership.
The matter is important because this is the week when children are making vital choices about their CSEs and 0 and A-level courses for 1987. The disruption this week threatens that process, and its continuation threatens children who are preparing for their examinations. This is the week leading up to the Easter holidays. It is not only union conference time, but it could be a watershed in the dispute, providing an opportunity to find a settlement away from the bitter context of the strike.
The matter is urgent because the House and the country need a considered statement from the Secretary of State, instead of informal and confusing comments. If he continues to do nothing, the strike will drag on, morale will sink still further and the service will face total collapse. Even if the strike peters out — and one suspects, by his inactivity, that that is what the Secretary of State hopes for — is it right that the right hon. Gentleman's ritual girations should become an annual event, a sort of non-fertility right?
It is no longer acceptable to teachers, parents or employers to have to guess what the Secretary of State is thinking, to go on with no leadership from him, with the children caught in the cross-fire. The Secretary of State is the only person who can provide a way out of the present dispute. The House should, therefore, have an opportunity to debate this specific, important and urgent matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effects of the teachers' dispute."
I have listened with care to the hon. Member, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Teachers (Pay Dispute)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That this House do meet on Thursday 4th April at half-past Nine-o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question — [Mr. Neubert.]

Highlands and Islands Development Board Boundaries Amendment
4.48 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board area to include the mountain areas of the Grampian, Central and Tayside Regions.
Every school child in Scotland knows that there are three clearly defined geographical areas within mainland Scotland. They are the southern uplands, the central lowlands and the highlands. School children also know that within the highland area there are counties called the crofting counties.
Twenty years ago, Parliament, concerned that the crofting counties and the western and northern islands were suffering from rural deprivation and depopulation, acted to reverse the economic decline which had begun some 200 years earlier, with the highland clearances, which began in my constituency. The situation was made worse by the population movement of the industrial revolution and the events resulting from two world wars.
A board was established to deal with those problems. It was decided to locate it in Inverness and it was given special responsibilities for the social and economic development of the crofting counties and the islands. The board was named the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
For the first 10 years of its life, the fact that the board did not have any responsibility for almost 40 per cent. of the mountain area of the Scottish highlands did not seem to present many problems. That relatively happy situation changed, however, when Britain joined the European Economic Community, an important subject to which I shall return.
During the past 10 years there has been a substantial growth in the number of tourists visiting all of the highland area, while at the same time there has been a dramatic decline in the number of jobs on farms and on highland estates. These changes have brought into sharp focus the differences in all forms of assistance which are available to the Highlands and Islands Development Board area and which are not available to the other parts of the highlands. Yet historically, geologically, culturally and socio-economically, the parts of the highlands which are outside the board area are indivisibly highland—by land use pattern, population changes, settlement destabilisation and the uninterrupted contraction of transport, medical and education services.
Because many of the decisions affecting the type and level of assistance or aid available to the less favoured areas within the European Economic Community are now being made in Brussels, it is imperative that the area designated as the highlands of Scotland, and known in Europe as the highlands of Scotland, should be all of the highlands and not just the former crofting counties, otherwise farmers and tourist enterprises which are attempting to create a viable living in the adjoining mountain areas of Grampian, Central and Tayside regions will find themselves excluded from EEC aid which has been especially designed to meet the needs of highland Scotland.
I remind the House that Drumochter, Glen Lyon, Rannoch, Strathardle, Glen Shee, Glen Prosen, Glen

235
Clova, Glen Esk and the Cairn-o'-Mount are among the most difficult to farm in highland Scotland, yet, in the view of the EEC, they are not part of highland Scotland.
I also remind the House that the Trossachs, Loch Earn, Loch Tummel, Loch Tay, Loch Rannoch, Killin, Aberfeldy, Pitlochry, Balmoral and Braemar are considered to be among the finest of Scottish highland beauty spots, yet the EEC believes that they are outside the Scottish highlands.
We cannot blame the bureaucrats of Europe for not understanding the true situation. That is why I believe that these anomalies must be removed. Some 20 years ago, when we were not a member of the EEC, and when all the decisions affecting highland Scotland were made in this Parliament, it did not matter greatly that the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board did not embrace all of the Scottish highlands. Today I claim that it does matter. That is why I invite the House to support my Bill to alter the boundaries of the board to cover the areas in Grampian, Central and Tayside regions which by reason of their highland character, rural deprivation and remoteness can be regarded as having the same problems as the areas already covered by the board.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Michael Forsyth and Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

Highlands and Islands Development Board Boundaries Amendment
  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOUNDARIES AMENDMENT
  Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to amend the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board area to include the mountain areas of the Grampian, Central and Tayside Regions: And the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Adjournment (Easter and May Day)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 4th April do adjourn until Monday 15th April and at its rising on Friday 3rd May do adjourn until Tuesday 7th May, and that the House shall not adjourn on Thursday 4th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Neubert.]
4.54 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I suggest that the House should not adjourn until we have discussed the abolition of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Section 10 gives total immunity against legal action for negligence which results in the death or serious disability of any service man during his day-to-day activities in peacetime. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have heard the response of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces at Question Time. It was a leisurely, if not complacent, response. His answer that he was simply reviewing section 10 was the same as the answer last year and the year before.
The right hon. Gentleman's reply was very interesting. He seemed to imply that Opposition Members should be satisfied with section 10 simply because the Crown Proceedings Act was enacted by Mr. Attlee's Government, but Mr. Attlee was operating after a devastating world war. It was understandable at that time that human rights should not take a high priority because everything was all at sea.
The Minister said that section 10 had served successive Governments satisfactorily. That is his opinion, but the House should be concerned not only with what the Government think, but with what soldiers, sailors and airmen think about section 10. I should like to quote to the House an extract from a letter that I have received from a couple whom I do not propose to identify. Their son was one of the victims of section 10. They talk not only about their son but about other service men who were injured in peacetime.
The letter says:
"Jonathan is dead. He sustained 60 per cent. burns when a Seacat missile was fired by mistake. He was our son. He was just eighteen years old and he died before we could reach him. Steven was seventeen years old. He was thrown from an R. A.F. truck, or was he? No-one seems to know for certain. He was irreparably brain damaged anyway, and died within a few hours. Kevin took rather longer about it. When he was found floating face downwards in a vat of lethal cleaning fluid he was seventeen years old. When he finally died he was twenty one years old and he weighed less than four stone.
There is nothing you can do for Jonathan or Steven or Kevin, but you can help those who have been injured. You can also help to ensure that greater care is taken in the training of all young servicemen.
Those cases that I have quoted are the answer to the Minister, who at Question Time said that successive Governments had been satisfied with the operation of section 10. Service men have not been satisfied, because they have been denied the legal right to take action for negligence when they have been injured. The parents of service men who have been killed have certainly not been satisfied.
I shall not go into the details of my own constituent, Martin Ketterick, except to say that he was horribly injured when abseiling down rocks. He suffered a broken spinal cord and a fractured skull, and he will be a lifelong paraplegic. If he had been able to sue, and if negligence had been proved in court, he might have received

237
£300,000. Now he is receiving the equivalent of an industrial injuries payment. He was a marine. He was discharged from the service with a gratuity of £3,553 and an invalidity payment of £47 per week.
Preventing service men from sueing is an acceptable doctrine in wartime, because when they sign on they accept the risk of injury or death, but it is unacceptable in peacetime, because it is a deprivation of basic human rights.
The Ministry of Defence has a list of objections to the case for abolishing section 10. First, the Ministry says, "If we abolish section 10 and allow our service men to sue for negligence, we shall endanger discipline." That reason is bogus, because discipline is irrelevant to legal redress. There is no justification for that claim.
Secondly, the Ministry says, "If we allow service men to sue, it will create anomalies." That is absurd, because the basic anomaly is that comparable public servants, such as policemen and firemen, can sue for negligence, and they receive the same invalid pension as soldiers, sailors and airmen.
Thirdly, the Ministry says, "It is not easy to define the dividing line between military action and other activities." That is absolute rubbish. Any service man or ex-service man would soon put the Ministry right. Everyone who has served in the services knows about the dividing line between military activity and non-military activity.
Fourthly, the Ministry says, "Service men may not be able to prove negligence." They may not, but, on the other hand, they may be able to prove it. That decision should be made by the courts and not by the Minister.
Section 10 should be abolished, first, because that would restore an important human right, and, secondly, because much greater care would be taken in training service men and running their other military activities. I have no doubt that the case will be won sooner or later, because it is just. Sooner or later, section 10 will be abolished and service men wll be given this basic right. I make no plea: when the Ministry of Defence accepts the case, it should be retrospective so that the Martin Kettericks of this world do not suffer because they were injured before the Government saw fit to give them that right. When the Ministry of Defence gives service men the legal right to sue for negligence and makes that right retrospective, it will ensure justice not only for the future but for all those service men who have been deprived of that right.
5.3 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: It is a privilege to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) because I, too, have an interest in the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Only 10 days ago I went to see my constituent, Mr. Des Clingham, who, as a chief petty officer, served in the Falklands with distinction. He came back and was working in Portsmouth harbour when, unfortunately, he fell many feet into the sea from a platform, an accident which left him a paraplegic. As with the cases quoted by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, Mr. Clingham has suffered injuries for which he can claim only a nominal amount through the normal procedures of the armed forces compensation
238
board. He is deprived of the opportunity of getting what would undoubtedly be hundreds of thousands of pounds were he able to sue through the courts.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the Government should review section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. I do not know whether it is possible to sweep away section 10 although there are real objections to it, but I believe that the current level of provision for those who are damaged and able to receive compensation only under that provision is less than generous. There is no doubt about that. It is not right that service men should be treated in that way. I look forward to the result of the Government's review.
My purpose in participating in this debate is to suggest that the House should not adjourn until it has had the opportunity to discuss another subject which could scarcely be less related to the subject raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. I refer to the issue of tri-organo-tin anti-fouling which is used on boats. I am sure that that issue is of great concern to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Anti-fouling is used by yachtsmen and operators of large boats to prevent growth on the bottom of boats of marine organisms and plant life. By far the most popular of the anti-foulings is organo-tin anti-fouling, which is used by 90 per cent. of all yachtsmen. The industry that manufactures these paints is healthy. Indeed, International Paints, which is the leading manufacturer, has received two Queen's awards—one for export achievement and the other for technical achievement for the development of tri-organo-tin copolymer anti-fouling paints. Blakes Paints Ltd. of Gosport in my constituency also deserves an honourable mention for its production since the last century of high-performance marine paints.
What is the problem? The Government are thinking of banning organo-tin anti-fouling paints. They have issued a draft regulation entitled Control of Pollution (Anti-fouling Paints) Regulations 1985 and called for any representations to be made by 14 May 1985. The Government are apparently contemplating action because it is stated that damage is caused to a particular type of oyster — crassostrea gigas, otherwise known as the Pacific oyster.
The so-called evidence derives mainly from laboratory tests on Pacific oysters. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has found that Pacific oysters kept for long periods in cages coated with organo-tin anti-fouling failed to thrive, and who can blame them? The evidence against organo-tin is circumstantial, and the research has not been profound. Some oyster growers have apparently complained of poor crops, but I am not aware of any tests to discover whether disease, poor weather conditions or even poor husbandry is the cause. The anti-fouling paint is blamed, but I maintain that the case has not been proved.
The scientific evidence is by no means unanimous. The Western Morning News of 3 February 1984 states:
"Ministry of Agriculture tests have shown that anti-fouling paint containing toxic TBT (Tributyl Tin) compound can kill or cause deformity in thousands of oysters, mussels and fish larvae, but the Plymouth officials said the problem was not affecting this area.
'We have been looking into mortality of sprats and shellfish in the Tamar to see if TBT could have contributed to the cause of death, but the levels found are not significant,' said Dr. Tony Stebbing, of the city's institute of Marine Biological Research."
I have several worries about the imposition of a ban. First, any alternative to organo-tin anti-fouling paint could

239
be worse, because yachtsmen would be forced to go back to the old-fashioned copper-based anti-fouling. It is known that some fishermen find that copper-based anti-fouling is not effective for their purposes, and they lace the copper-based anti-fouling with mercury or arsenic. I believe that that could be far worse than organo-tin.
Secondly, the only precedent for a ban on organo-tin is in France. Since the use of organo-tin was banned in France, exports to France from the United Kingdom have increased by 24 per cent., suggesting that something may be wrong with the ban. The ban in the United Kingdom is proposed to be on the sale of organo-tin paints, which means that it is perfectly satisfactory and legal for a yachtsman to sail to the Channel Islands, have his boat painted with organo-tin anti-fouling and sail back to the United Kingdom without having broken the law.
Thirdly, I maintain that oysters in the Solent and Spithead area, of which I claim to have special knowledge, have been breeding like rabbits. There is no evidence that their numbers are falling.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment explains away the Solent area and my point that oysters are breeding well there in a letter of 15 March 1985, in which he says:
"While the Solent is a popular boating area, it generally enjoys good tidal flows and good exchange of water with the open sea."
In that way he seeks to dismiss the fact that, although there are more yachts and therefore, presumably, more organo-tin anti-fouling in the Solent area than in most parts of the United Kingdom, nevertheless oysters are thriving as never before.
My fourth point of concern is perhaps the most telling of all. The proposed Government ban is intended to apply only to vessels under 12 metres. When I raised this point with my hon. Friend the Minister and pointed out that larger commercial vessels used more anti-fouling than smaller boats and yachts, he replied:
"Large commercial vessels are not moored in large numbers for long periods in shallow waters where interchange with the open sea is poor."
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and indeed the House and the Minister, how it is, then, that the Burmah Endeavour, a very large tanker of 457,000 tonnes, has been moored in the port of Southampton for the past two years. Friends in the industry have estimated that it would need 36,000 litres of anti-fouling to keep that tanker anti-fouled—the equivalent of what would be needed by 14,400 yachts. I submit that the ban on yachts is not very logical if the Burmah Endeavour is entitled to remain in Southampton docks, presumably contaminating Southampton Water.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this point with the House. I am completely confident, of course, that my right hon. Friend the Minister will come to the right conclusion when the period of consultation eventually ends on 14 May 1985, but I think it would be helpful for the House to have an opportunity to consider this matter further before then.
5.12 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I should like to join the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) in thanking the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for raising the matter of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. It seems to me quite remarkable that each of the first three speakers in the debate has had a
240
personal connection with service men who have suffered under that particular section. I am therefore very grateful to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South for raising it.
I should like to speak on a matter that I believe should be debated before we go into recess for Easter. It concerns the practices of the newly privatised British Telecom plc and the way in which they are not only deeply inconveniencing some of its subscribers but threatening the viability of some small, newly established firms which have been formed to take advantage of that privatisation.
When the legislation to privatise BT was passing through the House many of us said that the public would benefit neither from competition nor from better business practices through the conversion of BT from a public to a private monopoly. We said that as the privatised BT would not be accountable to the House, through the Minister, there would be less constraint upon sharp practices and exploitation. I have clear evidence that this is exactly what is happening. I will give the House an example drawn from my own constituency, but I have good reason to believe that this is occurring throughout the country. Indeed, I have a number of letters and evidence to that effect.
I have in my constituency a small firm, C and C Telecoms, run by two former BT engineers, John Clothier and George Crawley. These two—so typical of many others—left BT on privatisation in order to set up their own small business to take advantage of what they believed could be, as the Government had promised, a new, more competitive and liberated market in telecoms. Their aim was quite simple. They formed a small firm with a meagre amount of capital which they invested in a certain amount of equipment, and they wished to install small value items such as telephone sockets and small exchanges. They were encouraged to do this by BT and even went on BT-sponsored courses to learn how to install this particular equipment. They then went out into the market place and started to trade. They offered to install telephone sockets for £58·75 — about £20 below the prevailing BT price of £78·20. As might be imagined, they soon had a good deal of business coming their way.
What they did not know, however, and what BT apparently omitted to tell them during their courses, was that under the Telecommunciations Act 1984 private contractors are not allowed at present — although this may be changed fairly soon—to fit sockets in these circumstances. C and C were not only never advised of this by BT but were, I understand, encouraged by BT to undertake this kind of business.
Whatever the case, however, BT is now refusing to take up this issue directly with the installers. Instead, they are charging the end customer, the member of the public, £25 to inspect the socket installed by the private contractor, so conveniently putting the total cost of the installation by the private contractor just above the price which BT would charge to do the job itself. BT is, presumably, reluctant to challenge the matter legally. Instead, it is taking the easy route of charging an inspection fee to the end customer—on the threat, incidentally, of cutting off his telephone—so ensuring that the problem is solved by the simple route of destroying the private operator's competitiveness.
There are rumours to the effect that BT will shortly, in June this year, be offering DIY sets for the installation of private telephone sockets. I very much hope that the

241
question of the inspection charge at a massive £25 each will have been resolved by then, and indeed the general legality of the matter as well.
There is a second, more disturbing aspect to this problem, and I will take the case of C and C again. In common with many other similar small firms, C and C, established in the wake of the privatisation of BT, was heavily encouraged by BT to sell three small exchange systems called Rhapsody, Minimaster and Ambassador. They attended BT courses at which they were advised to go out and install as many of these telephone exchange systems—they are called switching systems—as they could.
Messrs. Clothier and Crawley duly made their own personal investments and set up their business on this basis. In the early days they did very well indeed. Then, suddenly and without warning, having been encouraged to base their business on the installation of these small exchanges, they received a letter of 6 March 1985 from their supplier, who is the accredited BT supplier, Eagle Telecoms, saying, quite bluntly and surprisingly:
"British Telecom Consumer Products will no longer supply Rhapsody, Minimster and Ambassador from 31st April 1985."
That is not because those exchange systems have gone out of supply or been withdrawn in any way. That is made perfectly clear by the next statement in this surprising letter:
"BT areas will continue to sell and maintain systems through their own outlets, but they will not commission … 3rd party installations."
In one swipe, BT, acting in just the kind of dictatorial way that we predicted, has pulled the rug out from under the feet of small installers like C and C and many other similar firms throughout the country. The result for Messrs. Clothier and Crawley, with their small resources, is likely to be the end of their business, unless BT can be persuaded to change its mind, and soon.
Practices of this kind, in which BT is blatantly using its monopoly position in the market place to squeeze out third parties and kill off small firms because they are able to do the job more cheaply, must be stopped. The prophecies made by many of us during the passing of the privatisation Bill are coming all too tragically true. Small firms like C and C, which were established with the meagre personal investment of individuals who believed the Government's rhetoric about liberated markets, are now threatened with extinction. I very much hope, for the sake of those small firms, that this matter can be discussed in detail before the House rises.
5.19 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I should like to raise two issues, one national and the other local. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear that the first issue is the reform of the rating system. I should like to quote from the Official Report of 25 July 1983, when I said:
"I have raised this issue often before. I make no apology for raising it again today and I shall go on raising it until something is done to find a fairer system, and if that does not put the fear of God into my right hon. Friend I do not know what will."—[Official Report, 25 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 813.]
Obviously I put no fear at all into my right hon. Friend, because here we are almost two years later and still nothing has been done. So I must say to my right hon. Friend that the battle will continue.
242
I admit that the Government have tried to do certain things to help hard-pressed ratepayers. We have had the system of rate capping and the proposed abolition of the metropolitan counties. I cannot understand why the Government have pussyfooted around so much and allowed the Opposition parties to have such a field day on the abolition of the metropolitan counties. The Labour party would have kept the Greater London council but abolished the metropolitan counties, and the Liberal party has clearly stated that eventually it would have abolished the metropolitan counties and the GLC. I shudder to think of the amount of ratepayers' money that is now being spent by the GLC and the metropolitan counties in an attempt to prevent abolition.
However, that is all by the by, and we still have to find a fairer system of raising local government finance. No one can dispute that the present system is manifestly unfair, because it takes no account of a person's ability to pay. Every hon. Member will have examples such as this one, of two identical adjacent houses, in one an elderly widow living on her own, and in the house next door three or four people all earning wages. The people in both houses would pay the same rates bill. There is no justice in that system.
I do not pretend for one minute that a solution is easy. We know that there are terrible problems. The Government set up a committee to look carefully at the matter, but nothing came forward that met with approval. The problem is compounded by the fact that water rates are assessed on rateable value rather than on actual consumption. No one has ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to why we can have rate rebates but not water rate rebates. Water rates are another burden that bears heavily on the poor and the elderly.
I am always being reminded that the Conservative party promised to get rid of the rating system. That needs to be put into perspective. It is true that in October 1974 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she was shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, put that pledge into the election manifesto. But we did not win that election. By the time the 1979 election came along, we believed that rate reform should be given a much lower priority because the burden of taxation under the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 had risen so substantially that something had to be done about trying to reduce the rate of direct taxation.
Basically three options are open to us for changing the rating system. First, there is a sales tax, which seems to work well in the United States. However, the United States is a large country, and in a smaller country such as ours, if there were a substantial variation in shopping patterns, it could be difficult for traders. Secondly, there is a local income tax. We are always being told that the present rating system does not take account of ability to pay, but under a local income tax at least that would be changed. The argument has always been that the present system is easy to administer and collect and that a local income tax would be expensive to administer and collect. I should have thought that that argument had died because of the massive advances in technology and computers. Perhaps that matter can be looked at again.
The third option is a poll tax. That would spread the burden evenly on everyone on the electoral register. It would be easy and inexpensive to collect. The Green Paper forecast that a 30 per cent. poll tax would yield £1,200

243
million annual revenue. I wonder whether we could have a mixture of a poll tax and a much reduced domestic rate. Perhaps that is the answer to the ratepayers' problem.
If anyone bothers to look at the back of his rate demand, he will find that education is far and away the biggest spender and that teachers' salaries take the highest percentage of the education budget. I am convinced that teachers do not want to become civil servants and that they wish to continue to be employed by a local education authority. Therefore, local authorities must have some financial responsibility. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider the idea of a scheme whereby teachers' basic salaries are paid by central Government and any additional payments are shared between the Government and the local education authorities. That would lift an enormous burden from ratepayers' shoulders, but it must not be a signal to spendthrift councils that they can go ahead with all sorts of extravagant schemes, because in that case the ratepayers would be back to square one.
The second issue affects my constituency. It is the vexed question of the South Trafford district hospital. In 1976–77 it was placed in the regional capital programme, and the scheme was due to start in 1980–81. The first phase was for elderly, severely mentally infirm people. In 1977–78 there was a further review and the decision was announced that we would also have acute facilities, but the start was put back to 1982–83. There was a belief in my constituency that the Department of Health and Social Security was holding things up, so on 30 June 1980 I raised an Adjournment debate on the issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), then the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, replied and said:
"Let me say at once that I fully accept in principle the need to site these services locally and to provide, so far as is possible, acute geriatric and mental illness services in the same location as other acute specialties. I recognise that the RHA's plans to include 100 geriatric and ESMI beds, together with 80 day places in all, in phase 1 of the development would represent a substantial step towards remedying the gaps in provision. I am also aware that its proposal for 150 mental illness beds and 170 day places in phase 2 would enable the needs of the whole Trafford area for mental illness facilities to be met … I should like to confirm that the ultimate size of the new hospital as envisaged by the RHA does not conflict at all with our recent thinking on hospital size. At 489 beds, it is well within the range that we regard as viable."—[Official Report, 30 June 1980; Vol. 987, c. 1271.]
I took a fair measure of hope from that debate, but we then had a Greater Manchester hospital review between the regional health authority and the DHSS. As a result of that review it was confirmed in October 1981 that the scheme would go ahead, so we had a firm pledge. From then on apparently there was a great deal of correspondence between the regional health authority and the DHSS. In 1983 the regional health authority reviewed its strategy for what it called its regional strategic plan. At the beginning of 1984 work started on an option appraisal, and that took up most of 1984.
In November 1984 we had the recommendation for what was called the Wythenshawe option. Trafford health authority objected, and as a result the regional health authority ordered another appraisal. In February 1985 we were told that the Wythenshawe option was marginally favoured. That has caused a great deal of anger in my constituency, because people feel that the solemn promise that was given has been broken.
244
Last Wednesday, 20 March, the community health council in my area held a public meeting. It was well attended, and the audience were very angry. People were furious that nobody from the regional health authority was there to explain the position. I often find that if people are presented with the facts, at least they have some understanding of the situation. If the regional health authority had sent someone to put its point of view, that would have been helpful. At the meeting there was a unanimous vote for going ahead with the South Trafford district general hospital. I hope that my constituents' views will be heeded by the DHSS.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note the points that I have made, and that before the House rises I shall be given some assurances on both issues.
5.31 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: We in Northern Ireland had hoped that this Easter would be brighter and happier for our Province than any Easter since 1969. In the intervening years, a cloud of uncertainty had cast its shadow over all our activities, but that cloud had at long last been dispelled in the immediate aftermath of last November's anglo-Irish summit, when the Prime Minister with characteristic clarity removed all doubt about the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. She made it crystal clear that the principle of self-determination made it necessary to reject the three options set out in the New Ireland Forum report. The Opposition shared the stated view of the Government that there could be no change in Ulster's constitutional position without the free and willing consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That ruled out partial change too.
The Prime Minister's forthright statement after the Chequers summit in November made a significant impact on the entire Northern Ireland community. All over the Province there was evidence of a dramatic change in attitudes. Protestants, Roman Catholics, Unionists and Nationalists were all conscious that three years of drifting were over. They said to themselves, and, what is more, to each other, "Now we know where we stand." They recognised the futility of squabbling about what was not going to happen, and began to wonder how they could co-operate in making Ulster a better place for everyone.
Tragically, that has all now been put at risk by a concerted offensive by Republican politicians and certain churchmen. The culmination was the speech last Friday in London by Dr. FitzGerald. Coming from a lunch in Dublin with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he was able to imply that he spoke for them all when he claimed that they were all working on novel and far-reaching proposals for joint authority over Northern Ireland. That speech inspired various press articles designed to add to the confusion and dismay in Northern Ireland.
I recognise that the House is not responsible for any of those activities, but the House is entitled to know the view of those who are accountable to it—in this case, the Northern Ireland Ministers. Everything that they have said over the past week has been so ambiguous that it might have been better left unsaid. For example, on his arrival in Washington yesterday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:

245
"weekend speculation is overblown … predictions are well ahead of the game".
That is good Foreign Office stuff, but what does it do to remove the natural anxiety in the minds of those who have been let down and betrayed over 15 long years?
The instability thus created may not strike some right hon. and hon. Members as being very important, but the crying shame is that all that has been achieved in the past five months will be set at naught. The modest success in persuading citizens of Northern Ireland of all aspirations that their future is secure and their path known will be extinguished.
Disaster will be averted only if the Government reiterate the Prime Minister's clear message of 19 November in terms that cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood. I understand that such a course will not commend itself to those who cherish diplomatic double-talk. However, even they have no choice in the matter, because their opposite numbers in Dublin have put them on the spot—not for the first time. They have created a situation in which words such as "overblown", "exaggeration", "speculation" and "premature" no longer convince or reassure. Considerations of diplomatic niceties have simply enabled Dublin to mount a flanking attack where the frontal attack failed last year. The Government must make it clear that a flanking attack will be no more successful, and the tactic of drift and double-speak must be abandoned now if all that the Prime Minister has achieved is not to be ruthlessly torn away.
5.36 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like to raise two issues and to suggest that they should both be looked at before we agree to the Adjournment. Although it is not always so, one of the issues falls directly within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
First, however, I should like to comment on the unfair attack on British Telecom by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). My constituents are satisfied with British Telecom. There has been a great improvement in attitude since privatisation.
The first matter to which I wish to refer is the House of Commons car park. There has been a substantial deterioration over the past few years. It is becoming increasingly difficult to park cars there. Fewer and fewer cars appear to display the discs issued. Will my right hon. Friend authorise an investigation to find out whether in some cases more than one car is being parked by an hon. Member, whether staff are parking more than one car there and whether all the vehicles are in fact authorised? Could he also instruct the car park staff to notify Mr. Speaker if vehicles are parked in spaces not marked out for cars? When people selfishly park their cars outside the marked spaces, driving in the car park becomes difficult and dangerous.
I have written to the Chairman of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, without so far receiving a very helpful answer. However, the Chairman said that the matter was under consideration. That was some time ago, but, knowing the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he is considering the matter. It may well be that he does not often use the car park. It is only when one
246
tries to park a car there that one realises what the problems are. For instance, on a Thursday, it is becoming increasingly difficult to park a car even at noon.
The second issue concerns the Department of the Environment, where a most disturbing case has come to my attention. I declare an interest as a life member of the Bluebell railway—the steam railway between Horsted Keynes and Sheffield Park. The railway is run entirely by volunteers who raise all the funds. Three or four years ago they decided that they would like to purchase and reopen an additional section of line so that the Bluebell railway could again be linked to the main line. Through trains could then be run, or people could alight from a British Rail train and board a Bluebell railway train on another platform at the same station.
That requires planning permission and a light railway order. I am not asking for a favourable decision—that would not be right—just for a decision. If I tell the House that the public inquiry was held between 21 June and 6 July 1983, hon. Members will realise why I am beginning to get somewhat anxious. The inspector considered the planning appeal in conjunction with an application for a light railway order and his report was received on 2 November 1983. Some civil servants must have been shuffling those documents around, and they should be disciplined. I put it no lower than that.
When I had the great privilege to be a Minister in the Department of the Environment from 1979 to 1981, I had to deal, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, with opposed compulsory purchase orders. He laid down a firm rule for me — Ministers dealing with planning applications, appeals or compulsory purchase orders were therefore dealing with the right of citizens, so they should be given priority. Any document containing an appeal which came across my desk and into my red box was dealt with within 48 hours. I raised immediate queries if I found that documents had sat on a civil servant's desk for a long time before reaching me.
This intolerable delay has cost the Bluebell railway money which volunteers have raised, and on which they must pay interest to banks, to extend the line. It is not costing the civil servants anything while they shuffle bits of paper around.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agrees that it is intolerable that we should have to wait so long. This is not a matter such as Stansted, which is of major international importance. It is an application to reopen a small length of line, so no new principle is involved. He should tell our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the delay must not continue and that the decision—I am not asking what it is to be—should be given before the House rises for the recess.
5.43 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: Before we rise for the Easter recess, there is an urgent need to debate the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission report on family law called "Custody of Children — Jurisdiction and Enforcement within the United Kingdom", Cmnd. 9419.
The background to the report is the headline cases that we occasionally read in newspapers of heart-rending stories of children being taken abroad in defiance of a custody order. Usually, one parent of a broken marriage cannot accept that the other has been given custody. They

247
are usually described as tug-of-love cases, but all too often the children are innocent victims of parental disagreement, in which love often seems to be the least obvious emotion. That is not to deny that there is often genuine love for the children or that the children are torn between parents. Nevertheless, the trauma undergone by the children can leave its mark for a lifetime.
The most serious cases are those in which the children are abducted. Sometimes the parent with the custody order abducts the child back to where legal custody applies. Great attention is rightly paid to cases with an international dimension. Not so well publicised or so widely understood are the comparable circumstances within the United Kingdom. A custody order made in a Scottish court is neither recognised nor enforceable in English courts. Similarly, a custody order made in an English court is neither recognised nor enforceable in Scottish courts.
In international terms, there is an anomaly peculiar to Scotland. If a child is removed to a foreign country in contravention of an English court's custody order, no matter how willing the child might be to accompany the parent, the custody order will be acted on by the Home Office to prevent the child's removal. Immigration officers are advised and a stop order ensures that the child remains in the United Kingdom. However, the Home Office will not act on a court order made in Scotland. That is greeted with incredulity by constituents who seek the intervention of their Member of Parliament. They cannot understand why there should be a difference, and I do not blame them for being bemused.
The anomalies arise because the Scottish and English legal systems have different roots and have evolved separately. The Scots, of whom I am one, are justly proud of their legal system and stoutly resist what we call Anglicising encroachment. The English, in their turn, believe that their system is superior. It is a case of never the twain shall meet. In other aspects of family law, however, they co-exist, notwithstanding different traditions and even separate legislation. If a couple are divorced in Scotland, England or Northern Ireland, that is recognised throughout the United Kingdom. A main-tenance award made in any part of the United Kingdom is recognised and may be enforced in any part of the United Kingdom, wherever the awarding court might be.
Two of the three principal affects of family law are mutually recognisable and enforceable; only custody orders are still subject to non-recognition. The application of logic compels one to the conclusion that rectification is urgently required. Help would appear to be at hand. The joint Law Commission that I have mentioned, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Scarman, finally reported to Parliament on 15 January 1985. The committee was established in 1972, so it has taken 13 years to produce a report. The report comes to the sensible and obvious conclusion that there should be mutual recognition of custody orders and that the anomalies should be eliminated. In the interests of time I shall not quote the report, but paragraph 1.14 recommends a simple procedure for recognition and enforcement and paragraph 6.20 recommends that the stop order system should be extended to include Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Command 9419 has the great advantage of a draft Bill giving effect to its recommendations being attached as annex A. However, we must ask whether help really is at hand and whether, at long last, there will be some action. Alas, I am not convinced that the Government are seized
248
of the urgency of the situation or that the respective Law Officers display enthusiasm for legislation. After all, the report is not the first on this matter. In 1958, a working party under the chairmanship of the then Lord Justice Hodson was asked to consider what alterations to the law were required to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction. That report, Cmnd. 842 entitled "Report of the Committee on Conflicts of Jurisdiction Affecting Children", recommended, at paragraph 56, reciprocal enforcement and the extension of the stop order system to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Nothing was done to translate that 1959 report into legislation because, it appears, the Law Officers did not agree. I am worried that Lord Seaman's report may suffer the same fate.
Experience does not lead me to believe that we shall soon have a change in the law. In another place, the Child Abduction and Custody Bill has had a Second Reading and may have started its Committee stage. If it has not, it soon will. It is a welcome measure because it will solve the issues relating to the international scene. The Bill will enact into our domestic law the Hague convention of 1980, which was signed by the Government. Five years later, we are only bringing that convention into legislation. We cannot wait any longer to remedy the serious defect in our domestic law.
I have asked the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate what plans there are to implement the recommendations in Cmnd. 9419. The Lord Advocate, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, with the concurrence of Lord Hailsham, advised me that, although the issues were non-controversial, the Government would need time to study the report, and that no legislation would be commenced this Session, but it is hoped that something might be done next Session. That sounds ominous to me, especially as every query that I have raised during the past 15 years when I have been a Member of the House and, in particular, since 1972 has been answered with, "Wait until we get the report of the Scarman inquiry."
I concede that Cmnd. 9419 does not resolve every anomally to everyone's complete satisfaction. There are differences of opinion about wardship cases, which affect only England, and the draft Bill does not cover the Isle of Man. Nevertheless, the mechanism of recognition and thereby of enforcement is simply that of registration. A custody order made in Scotland may be registered with the High Court in England, and a custody order made in England may be registered with the Court of Session in Scotland.
While the report says "may be registered", we should have automatic registration instead of registration by application. The machinery for automatic registration must exist, as divorces are automatically registered. Therefore, there is a channel of communication that can be used. There is sufficient agreement over a wide-ranging area of the law to warrant swift legislation. The grounds for further delay are thin. The Committee stage could resolve the few outstanding issues, which would certainly concentrate the minds of Ministers and those in the legal profession.
Why is the matter so urgent? After all, it is 27 years since the first report was established, and the problem was recognised even earlier. There is an opportunity to introduce legislation this Session. Earlier, I mentioned the Child Abduction and Custody Bill. The long title could be amended to include the domestic position, and the draft Bill, annex A to Cmnd. 9419, could be grafted on.

249
The principles are non-controversial. They are certainly non-party political and would be widely welcomed. The three major aspects of family law — divorce, main-tenance and custody—would then be properly catered for and, with the good will of the Government, achieved this Session. That is why we urgently need a debate. We may then have the verdict of the House on the matter both as a guide to the Government and to urge and spur them into action. Many parents and children would benefit, and the matter is long overdue.
5.53 pm
Mr. Christopher Murphy: At the outset I wish to echo the anxiety expressed by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) about the present speculation relating to Northern Ireland. It would be of considerable help, not only to the House but to the people of Ulster, if the Leader of the House could make it clear that there has been no change in the position since the Prime Minister's statement at the press conference following the November summit.
Before the House rises for the Easter recess, and at a time when rate demands come popping through the letter box, it would be appropriate to examine the value for money or otherwise provided by local authorities. At the same time, as on previous occasions, I fully concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) in his call for the abolition of domestic rates. Instead I advocate introducing a poll tax at the earliest opportunity to overcome the unfairness of the present system.
I have long supported the Government's concept of the privatisation of council operations where appropriate, and have advocated a right to compete to ensure that a process of competitive tendering is fairly and openly entered into. It is essential always to bear in mind that a local council is only the custodian of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money, and therefore has a duty to spend it efficiently, effectively and economically. I therefore welcome the recent announcement of the consultation document, "Competition in the Provision of Local Authority Services", but I respectfully suggest that positive action should follow hard on its heels. Hon. Members who, like me, have in their constituencies councils which dogmatically refuse even to consider such privatisation know how essential that is.
I must, however, add a note of concern, in that the document excludes parish councils and parish meetings from its scope. Bearing in mind that the functions and political motivation of some large parish councils can be considerable, I feel that they should not be treated differently. I might add a plea that parish councils should be better understood — they are often the least appreciated aspect of local government—which is to be regretted. Parish councils, because of their nature, are often far more closely in touch with local opinion than larger authorities. That element of the administrative process should never be overlooked.
One particular advantage that the lowest tier of local government usually provides is the annual meeting, at which parishioners have a right to plead their case and to air their views on topics of local importance. Through such an opportunity, and the inevitable lack of remoteness
250
between a parish councillor and the electors, the feeling of the village or community can often be reasonably well gauged.
When privatisation is talked about, I detect a tendency to dwell perhaps too much on refuse collection and street cleaning, and not enough on the other services that private enterprise can do as well and, in most cases, probably considerably better than direct employment. Undoubtedly, it is of key importance to extend the number of councils using contractors for such tasks, but the principle of good housekeeping goes wider than that.
I am aware of the savings in cost and manpower, and the improvement in service, already exhibited by privatisation as a consequence of competitive tendering. In Southend, which is an obvious example, £600,000 was saved on refuse collection and street cleaning in the first year alone. Such advantages should not be restricted to the few, but should be available to the many.
Before the House rises for the Easter recess, we should remind ourselves that value for money has rightly been a central theme of the Government. It must equally be one for all levels of local government.
5.58 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: Before the House rises for the Easter recess, I wish to raise certain matters relating to the Severn bridge which need to be clarified.
On 21 September 1983 the Secretary of State for Transport announced proposals to increase the toll on the bridge by 150 per cent. The decision was apparently based on the principle of trying to recoup £20 million which had been earmarked for repair and maintenance work. It is worth pointing out that £20 million is more than the construction costs of the bridge in the first place. The fact that a relatively new bridge should need such extensive repair work so early in its life shows that someone got it wrong. There must have been design faults in the original construction work, and certainly in the estimating of traffic flows on the bridge. The question that must be posed now is, why should the motorist today have to pay for those errors? Surely Parliament did not contemplate such a penalty on law-abiding motorists.
The debt under the Consolidated Fund is purely notional, although it should be said that the interest on the original sum is increasing rapidly. Under the provisions of the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965, a proposal such as the one made by the Secretary of State to increase tolls must be advertised in the London Gazette and in the local press. When that was done, Gwent county council and several other important local bodies objected to the proposal. Therefore, to some extent, the Secretary of State was pressurised into announcing a public inquiry. Meanwhile, on 28 October 1983, I secured an Adjournment debate in the House, during which I revealed the contents of a hitherto secret report on the bridge prepared by Mott, Hay and Anderson, an internationally renowed firm of consultant engineers. The report pinpointed some rather disturbing aspects of the state of the bridge and subsequently there was a public outcry, certainly in Wales. That was understandable, because the bridge had become the principal artery for people travelling in and out of the Principality. Two major national conferences were held, at which unananimous decisions were taken to call for the repair work to be carried out as expeditiously as possible. In addition, there was a call for a second crossing of the Severn.

251
Following those events, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that £33 million would be spent on the urgently needed repairs to the bridge. The House will recall that the original figure was £20 million. It was on that figure that the original proposal to increase tolls by 150 per cent. was based. There is obviously a discrepancy, and one can imagine only that the Secretary of State probably had in mind a further increase in tolls at a subsequent date. But at the same time the Secretary of State agreed to consider the possibility of a second crossing of the Severn.
The public inquiry into the proposed increase in tolls commenced in Bristol on 17 July 1984. It heard much evidence from many bodies and individuals, all of which was hostile to the Secretary of State's proposal. The commissioner who conducted the inquiry presented his report to the Secretary of State early in November 1984. Since then, I have put down several questions calling for the publication of the report. Each time I have been told that the matter is still to be considered and that the report will be published some time in the future. We still await the report. Meanwhile, there have been unofficial reports that the commissioner did not entirely accept the Secretary of State's proposals.
My first major question is, may we be told positively when the report will be published? The public have a right to know what it contains, because the Severn bridge is of vital importance to the economy and the interests of Wales. Also, has there been a change in Government policy on toll charges. For instance, the new Conway tunnel in north Wales will be toll-free. I understand that last week there was an announcement that a new estuarial crossing in Scotland, north of Inverness at Dornoch, will also be toll-free. We need some clarity from the Government, not to mention some consistency in their decisions on toll charges.
On 6 February 1984, the Secretary of State for Transport announced a feasibility study into a proposal for a second crossing of the Severn. On 13 December last year, I put down a question to him asking
"What progress has been made in the study of the proposed second crossing of the Severn; and if he will publish an interim report to inform interested parties of developments so far."
I received a reply from the Minister of State, Department of Transport, who said:
"The study into how a second crossing of the River Severn might be provided commenced in August this year. During the first three months of the study the consultants have had preliminary discussions with local authorities and many statutory and representative bodies. They have also made an initial examination of traffic, engineering, environmental, planning and economic aspects of a second crossing. Many possibilities have been investigated for the location and type of a river crossing, and the link roads to the M4/M5 motorways.
A report on the work done in the first three months will be made available in the near future." — [Official Report, 13 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 578.]
That was in December and we are still waiting. Today I must ask why we are waiting. There seems to be no reason why the public should not be given that information.
From the outset, it has seemed that the Secretary of State for Transport has insufficient understanding of the importance of the Severn bridge to the economy and interests of Wales. There is certainly considerable interest in the matter in Wales and, indeed, outside in the various companies that move in and out of Wales.
252
In conclusion, I trust that the Leader of the House will impress upon the Secretary for Transport the importance of publishing both reports without further delay.
6.9 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: When our hours have been long and our recesses short, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may need some convincing, but I hope that what I say convinces him that there is a case for shortening our recess so that consideration can be given to the rather urgent issue of Parliament's control of expenditure, particularly in view of some recent developments initiated by the Government.
My right hon. Friend may be aware that some hon. Members raised on a point of order their serious concern about what appeared to be a new constitutional development whereby the Government, for the first time in my memory, created new policies by putting figures in Supplementary Estimates. My right hon. Friend may recall that on 14 March we had a debate on Supplementary Estimates, which included an additional payment of £364 milllion which the Government had decided to pay to the Common Market by providing an overdraft facility. I have endeavoured by every possible means to discover the justification for that payment. Where was the Bill, the order, the decision of the House? There has been none.
It has always been a principle in the House of Commons that Estimates should reflect agreed policies, not that Estimates should create policies. For example, we might decide that it would be fair, because of the burden that he carries, that the salary of the Leader of the House should be doubled. Presumably we should put down a motion, and if that motion were approved an appropriate figure would be put in the Estimates. If we agreed that, because of the enormous burdens borne by the Deputy Speakers, their pensions should be doubled, we would pass a motion and if that were accepted, a figure would appear in the Estimates.
In this case, it appeared to me and some of my colleagues that the Government were creating a new policy of offering overdraft facilities to the Common Market simply by placing figures in the Supplementary Estimates. What is even more disturbing is that, although a number of us put down an amendment to take this figure out of the Estimates, Mr. Speaker had to explain, on 14 March, that under Standing Order No. 19 it was not possible to have a separate vote, far less a debate, on the issue.
This is a desperately important constitutional point. In the light of Mr. Speaker's ruling, the Public Accounts Committee is to consider the principle of the issue on 3 April. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will at least accept that there is a major issue which requires debate and consideration, whether in the Chamber or in the Public Accounts Committee.
On the same subject, I was surprised to hear during the Budget debate that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had decided to alter the VAT legislation to ensure that credit card companies were unable to claim back some of the money that was paid by them. This was a major and significant measure, which amounts to about £15 million a year in taxation. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware, some £4 million of that has to be carried by Southend, by the Access credit card company, which has its office there.
Understandably, Access has been in touch with me, and no doubt with other Members, asking what the score on

253
this is, when it had been decided by Parliament, and when it had been debated. I had to explain that it was not in the motions that we approved under the Budget. How is this major decision to be approved? It has to be decided in terms of a statutory instrument, No. 432, called the Value Added Tax (Finance) Order 1985.
My right hon. Friend will be aware, because I have written to him about this, that this is what is called a negative resolution procedure order, which means that it can be debated only if the Government decide to give it time for consideration. If they do not, at no stage of our deliberations will Members of Parliament, collectively or even in a Committee, have decided whether it is right to charge an extra £15 million on the credit card companies. Is this not depriving Members of Parliament even of their statutory right to be rubber stamps? We are not even being asked to approve or disapprove of this new tax.
What worries me more about this is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury kindly sent me a note to explain that he had to do this because the Common Market had threatened my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that if we did not do something about this we would be taken to the European Court. We know the way that these things work out these days, but what upsets me as the Member of Parliament representing the headquarters of Access is that, despite this threat by the Common Market, the German credit card companies do not operate the law in this way. If the order is approved, inevitably British credit card companies will be at a competitive disadvantage compared with German companies.
I said "if' this is approved, but this major decision to take £15 million out of the credit card companies, which will put them at a competitive disadvantage with Germany, can be debated or discussed only if the Government and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree that there should be such a debate and such consideration. If they do not, it will simply mean that a Minister or, to be plain, two Lords Commissioners of the Treasury will have signed this document to get an extra £15 million out of the credit card companies.
The House and my right hon. Friend must agree that this announcement makes nonsense of parliamentary control of expenditure. It means that taxes are being charged without anyone considering, debating or reviewing them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not say that we have had a debate on the Budget. Of course we have, but he must be aware that this issue was not one of the motions being discussed, and there was no opportunity last night to vote on it. I hope that before the House moves into its recess my right hon. Friend will be able to give me an assurance that if, as will happen, an order is tabled to annul this regulation, he will ensure that there will be a debate in the House, or at least in a Standing Committee, to consider this taxation.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that some years ago there was a major dispute with King Charles I, about Parliament's control of supply, which ended with the King's head being chopped off. This is a major constitutional issue, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear this in mind.
The third point about Parliament's control of expenditure arises from something that was revealed in Hansard this morning by my hon. Friend the Minister of
254
State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a written answer. This showed Parliament's complete lack of control on the vast amount being spent on the dumping of food abroad, particularly in Russia and Eastern Europe. The latest figures were provided, and sadly they show that the Common Market is spending £20 million every day on the storage and dumping of food abroad, with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe being the main beneficiaries. That is a huge amount of money when we consider how our local authorities and hospital boards are having to cut back on their expenditure. For example, local authorities are being forced to stop the provision of improvement grants because the money has run out. At the same time, an open cheque is being given for the provision of subsidies for the export of cheap food to the Soviet Union.
The latest figures sadly show that since the Government came into power the export of cheap food to Russia has increased by about 1,000 per cent. It also shows that the prices at which we are exporting food to the Soviet Union are lower than they have ever been in the history of Britain or the EEC. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has just arrived. He takes an interest in the public purse and will be horrified to learn the figures published in Hansard this morning.
The figures reveal that, whereas in Britain we have to pay over £3 a pound for our beef, we are selling top quality beef to the Soviet Union at 35p a pound. It reveals that, whereas we are paying about 28p a pound for sugar, we are selling vast quantities to Russia at 7p a pound. Whereas we are paying about £1·40 a pound for butter, the Russians get it at 47p. Whereas flour is sold in this country at about 30p a pound, the Russians get it at about 5p a pound. Even more unbelievable is the figure for wine. I do not drink wine, but if I were to buy a litre bottle it would cost me almost £3. We sell it to the Russians at 7p a litre.
I am sure that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends do not mind paying a great deal of money in taxes to ensure that we can protect ourselves against the Russians by having all these missiles, bombs, planes and goodness knows what. What is the point of paying extra taxes in order to subsidise the Soviet war machine? That is what we are doing by means of this subsidy. Sadly, Russian housewives do not get their beef at 35p per pound, butter at 47p per pound, or wine at 7p per litre. The Soviet Union imposes a substantial extra cost on all these prices and keeps the difference to cover its public expenditure.
As the Leader of the House is well aware, we have no control whatsoever over such spending. If the European Community fixes the amount that it wants to spend upon providing the Russians with cheap food and goes over that limit, there is nothing that we can do about it, apart from writing out a cheque for the additional amount. We have had to write out several such cheques this year because the European Community has spent over the limit.
The Leader of the House is, I know, concerned about the rights of Back Benchers. How can it be right that we should be spending £7 billion a year on dumping food, with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as major beneficiaries? Before we go into recess I hope that we shall examine this remarkable development in the power of the Government over the Supplementary Estimates and the taxation of my constituents without discussion or vote, and the scandalous increase under a Conservative Government in the subsidies to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the provision of cheap food which my hard-pressed constituents would be very glad to buy.

255
If the residents of Southend were able to go to the shops tomorrow and buy beef at 35p per pound, sugar at 7p per pound, butter at 47p per pound, flour at 5p per pound, wine at 7p per litre, pork at 38p per pound and chicken at 29p per pound, it would provide a bigger fillip to the economy of this country than will be achieved by the meagre reductions in taxation that this Budget has introduced. The Chancellor referred to the problems of the poor and their need for more help. If we were to provide cheap food not for the Russians but for the British people our economy would be given a massive boost. Real protection would also be given to the poor who need help at this time.
6.22 pm
Mr. David Winnick: Before we agree to the motion, there are two matters which ought to be mentioned. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will forgive me if I do not pursue the points that he raised. First, I wish to refer to the disturbances and killings during the past week in South Africa. Secondly, I shall refer to a domestic matter.
The events in South Africa during the past week clearly demonstrate that a few piecemeal reforms of the apartheid regime cannot resolve any of the deep problems that exist in that country. There are undoubtedly a number of tyrannies—far too many, in fact. Labour Members are hardly in the habit of finding excuses for Governments who clamp down on civil liberties and whose authority is usually based upon military power rather than upon consent.
South Africa, however, remains different in one respect from other dictatorships and tyrannies. Its political system is based upon a very brutal way of running the country. It discriminates against the majority population for one reason only—that of colour. Even those who are keen to find excuses for what goes on in South Africa usually preface their remarks by saying that they are against apartheid. Apartheid is so discredited and so disgraced that even those who want to find excuses for the South African regime usually have to preface their remarks with something along those lines.
Britain has very large investments in South Africa. There remain close ties between the authorities of both countries. My hon. Friends and I maintain that we cannot remain neutral between the Government of South Africa and those in South Africa who wish apartheid to be defeated. Whatever cosmetic changes have occurred since the Sharpeville events of 1960, South Africa remains governed without the participation, and certainly without the consent, of a large majority of the people of South Africa.
We have also raised, in particular at Question Time, with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary the continued imprisonment of the leaders of African opinion. They have been in prison for over 20 years. Their real crime is that they want South Africa to be free and independent, a country in which people can live without being discriminated against. I refer to Nelson Mandela who has been in prison for over 20 years, Walter Sisulu, Govan M'Beki and many other members of the African National Congress. These are the people who really speak for South Africa.
That is why the Opposition were opposed last year to the visit to this country by the Prime Minister of South Africa. We objected to the way in which he was wined and
256
dined in this country. We objected to the Prime Minister playing host to him at Chequers. Of course the Prime Minister went through the ritual of saying that she was against apartheid. However, the Opposition say that, if the true representatives of South Africa are to visit this country, we must wait until Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and his colleagues are released. They will be most welcome visitors to this country.
Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is going down the predictable path of his usual speech. However, things have changed during the last three weeks for Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that a full pardon was offered to Nelson Mandela—
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a contribution, he may catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in a few moments, but perhaps at this stage he will listen to the argument on the other side, even though he does not like it.
The State President made Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners the offer of a full pardon, provided that after their release they did not engage in revolutionary tactics. Will not the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) agree that the 16 or 17 prisoners who accepted that offer are now in a far better position to influence the Government of South Africa and, indeed, to influence the West than is Nelson Mandela, who has refused this offer of a pardon because he is bent upon the path of revolutionary change?
Mr. Winnick: I thought the hon. Gentleman knew that Nelson Mandela has made his position perfectly clear. The message that he gave his daughter to read made it perfectly clear once again that he would accept no conditions. Why should he accept conditions? It is his country. He is the leader of African opinion and he has been put in prison for that reason and that reason alone. He will never give up the struggle for a free and independent South Africa, a country that is free from the tyranny of apartheid. I say to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), and to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who I see has just come into the Chamber, that the Opposition find the attitude of certain Conservative Members very disturbing. I do not wish to pursue the matter; I mentioned it yesterday.
However, certain Conservative Members always find it possible to make excuses for what has happened in South Africa. The Opposition do not make a habit of finding excuses for dictatorships, wherever they may be. However, the hon. Members for Luton, North, and for Macclesfield are well-known in the House as fellow travellers of the apartheid regime. In view of what I have said, I must give way, I suppose, to the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I shall not pursue the matter of Nelson Mandela, although my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is quite right. For the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to dismiss the offer of release that has been made by the State President of the Republic of South Africa is to fly in the face of the reforms that are taking place in that country. The hon. Gentleman said that Nelson Mandela and one or

257
two other people that he mentioned are the true leaders of South Africa, but would he not concede that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, the leader of the Zulu nation and of the Inkatha movement, which has a known membership of over 1 million people, has not found it necessary to indulge in the revolutionary activities of Nelson Mandela and that he is travelling around the world in support of the black people of South Africa? Survey after survey has shown that over 70 per cent. of the black people in South Africa do not support the disinvestment that the hon. Gentleman clearly supports, as is evident from his remarks this afternoon.
Mr. Winnick: All the hon. Gentleman's remarks bear out what I said a moment ago—that he and some of his hon. Friends are indeed fellow travellers of the apartheid regime.
The test is clear. When elections take place in South Africa in a democratic manner and without discrimination, and when South Africa is liberated from the tyranny of apartheid, we shall see who are the true leaders of South Africa. The majority of people in South Africa cannot vote in national elections at present for one reason only—the colour of their skin. We shall raise the issue time and time again. We send our message of solidarity to those in South Africa who are battling against a notorious regime.
The second issue that I wish to discuss might be less controversial.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Soviet Union?
Mr. Winnick: I do not find excuses for dictatorships, including that in Russia—unlike the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who can always we know be relied on to put the arguments for the apartheid regime. I think that that is disgraceful.
My second issue is domestic—the growing housing crisis. Many local authorities are increasingly unable to fulfil their statutory housing responsibilities. In London alone, bed and breakfast hotels receive over £1 million a month for housing homeless people. It is no wonder that a crisis exists when one considers the drastic fall in council housing starts. Because of Government financial restrictions, since 1979 Walsall has not entered into any contracts for new council dwellings. That means, of course, an ever-increasing number of people on the waiting list who cannot be rehoused.
Last year, fewer than 40,000 public housing starts were recorded in Britain. Due to further cuts in the housing investment programme allocation for 1985–86, even fewer starts will take place this year. The number will probably be down to 30,000. The Government restriction on the capital receipts that can be used will make it even more difficult for local authorities to build and modernise dwellings.
Housing Ministers claim that there was a sharp drop in housing starts when the Labour Government were in office. In 1978, the last full year of the Labour Government, there were over 107,000 starts in the public sector. In 1979, there were at least 81,000 starts.
People who require local authority accommodation but who do not have the means to obtain a mortgage should be rehoused by their local authority. Housing authorities should be able to carry out their statutory housing responsibilities, but how can they when they do not have
258
the money? How can they when the housing waiting list grows longer and longer and boroughs such as Walsall are no longer building houses at all?
A large amount of pre-war stock needs to be modernised. The longer that is left, the more expensive and extensive it will be. Tenants are living in unfit accommodation because local authorities do not have the means to do the necessary work. How many people among the mass of unemployed are trained construction workers who could be released from unemployment and allowed to earn their living by doing essential community work in building and modernising dwellings? What a policy of madness it is to cause such tremendous difficulties for our constituents, so many of whom desperately need local authority housing.
I ask the Leader of the House to pass on to the Secretary of State our concern about the housing plight caused by local authorities not being able to carry out their statutory functions.
6.35 pm
Mr. David Amess: I should like the House to consider animal welfare. Although I am most definitely an animal lover, like the majority of the British public, I condemn some of the disgraceful methods used by some animal welfare groups to further their aims.
In my time I have kept most animals, from peacocks and goats to baby alligators. As a child, my long-suffering family did not know what I would bring home next in the way of livestock.
Next Tuesday I shall be bringing a horse to the House of Commons. Hon. Members need not concern themselves unduly, because I shall not attempt to bring it into the Chamber. Instead, a peaceful lobby will take place in Abingdon gardens between 2.30 pm and 3 pm. It is being organised by the Animal Welfare Group of Essex, inspired by the Basildon branch and led by a Mr. Clements. The purpose of the lobby is to draw to the attention of the House a shameful practice which negates the effects of an incomplete set of laws. I refer to the growing practice of leaving horses on other people's lands while arrangements are made to move the horses on to slaughter houses, to a port for export or to other markets.
The practice came to my attention because of problems in my constituency, but I understand that it is widespread throughout the United Kingdom, particularly on county and borough boundaries. Once ownership of the land in question is established—which is not always easy—horse owners have a habit of moving their horses to adjacent land so that the whole process must begin again.
In Basildon, a large tract of land is divided between the district council, the development corporation and a large private waste disposal firm. There are few clear boundaries. The horses are moved about the land to avoid legal proceedings. County and borough boundaries also provide perfect places for such manoeuvres, because the animals can be moved over the boundary to land owned by a different authority.
The Animals Act 1971 established that owners are liable for damage caused by the livestock straying on to people's land. The nub of the problem is that no damage is caused. The poor, half-starved animals do little more than forage where they can for the small amount of grass available. Were it not for the kindness of my constituents, many more horses would have died. Last winter two horses had to be put down by the RSPCA.

259
The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 makes it an offence to abandon any animal in circumstance liable to cause it unnecessary suffering, but these animals are not legally abandoned. Their owners return to move them to another field or to ship them out, usually before the cumbersome legal machinery has started to operate.
I admit that if the council, the corporation and the private company employed a full-time worker with legal knowledge to keep an eye on the land around Basildon and to take the necessary legal steps at the right time the problem could be confined or kept to reasonable proportions. Expenditure on such an officer is impracticable, especially because of the possible need for a pound, and because of the legal costs involved in an area where the law is unclear, to say the least.
The law allows the owner of the land to sell the horse if it has been kept there for more than 14 days. The scale of the problem is so large that if this section of the Act were put into operation the three organisations involved could well find themselves becoming major horse dealers, in addition to their many other responsibilities. I do not think that we would wish to go down that road.
The long-stop to the existing legislation, such as it is, is the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal. In theory it is a good piece of legislation, but in practice it does nothing for the animal and relies on knowledge of who the owner might be at the time in question.
As the animals are worth one price as meat, they can easily be sold without being seen, so that they can change hands three or four times while remaining in the field to which I have referred. Any action taken by the police involves long and complicated searches throughout Essex to find those responsible. The fact that horses cannot easily be linked to owners means that much time, money and manpower are spent on each search. This problem occurs not only with travellers. We have discovered that some smallholders with one or two horses over the limit allowed on their land are taking the same action.
The. National Farmers Union has come up with an effective arrangement for freeze branding, which is less painful than hot branding, but with the same long-lasting properties. Such a system, given the force of law, would enable private organisations and the police to identify much more simply the owner of a horse.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has designed a good code of practice on the tethering of horses which should go some way to ensure that suffering is eliminated. Included in the code is the provision that clean water should be available at all times. The water available on Pitsea marshes in my constituency can only be described as of dubious quality. The code states that food must be given in all cases where grazing is not adequate. The grazing on Pitsea marshes is reasonable, but cannot be expected to keep a horse in satisfactory health for any length of time. During the winter the animals do not have nearly enough to eat. The two horses that had to be put down had nearly starved to death. The code also contains a provision on the frequency of inspection. It states that horse and tether must be inspected at least twice in 24 hours. The horses are not tethered and, if they are seen by the owners once a month, they are very lucky. All the excellent advice is ignored, and the results are appalling.
260
What is needed is a consolidation of the law as it stands in relation to animal welfare, with extensions and additions to block not loopholes but veritable motorways through which those who would flout the spirit of the law drive. Freeze branding must be seriously considered, and administrative objections should be examined closely. The RSPCA code of practice on tethering should have the force of law behind it.
I do not believe that the House is disinterested in this matter. It is simply that it has been somewhat too pressed for time to act on the issue. I have every confidence that after my short speech today it will act.
In conclusion, I apologise in advance for being unable to stay to hear the response of the Leader of the House, which I look forward to reading in Hansard.
6.44 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The matter that I ask to be debated before the Easter Adjournment is the immigration law and its operation in this country.
Many people in north Islington are very concerned about the way in which the immigration law operates. Indeed, in inner cities throughout the country many people are worried and frightened about the way in which the immigration law operates. Many go to bed at night fearing a knock on the door early the following morning, being told they will no longer be allowed to remain in the country, followed by forcible removal. Like many hon. Members who face similar situations, I take up a large number of individual cases every year. Last year I took up several hundred such cases with the Home Secretary, and I know that my hon. Friends regularly take up an even larger number of cases. This matter can no longer be disregarded and ignored. Later, I shall mention the report of the Commission for Racial Equality, and the need for an urgent debate on it.
Alongside the despair of many people in the country at the way in which the immigration law operates — the Kafka-like procedures, the Kafka-like trials, the so-called appeals against removal from the country and requests for entry into the country—there are other cases of people who seek refugee status in this country.
A couple from Cyprus, Katerina and Vassilis Nicola, have sought sanctuary in St. Mary's church, Eversholt street, in Euston. Their case is being taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and by a number of other hon. Members who are supporting him and the couple in what they are trying to do.
One has to ask what kind of democracy and civilisation exists when a couple from a country that has been a colony of this country for many years and is now a member of the Commonwealth, albeit a divided island, seek sanctuary in a church in order to avoid removal from this country. If that happened in many other parts of the world, I believe that Ministers would be leaping to the Dispatch Box to condemn a Government and regime that drove people to such despair. But, because it is Britain and because it is 1985, the Government are apparently indifferent. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the Home Secretary considers the plight of this couple so that they may be allowed to remain permanently in the country.
I wish to explain how this couple came to be in the country at all. They have lived here for nine years. They used to live in the northern part of Cyprus. In 1974, the island of Cyprus was invaded by the Turkish army, which

261
took control of the northern part of the island. It must be said that Turkey is a member of NATO, and little has been done to remove its troops from Cyprus. Mrs. Nicola took refuge in a school when the army invaded, and subsequently in a refugee camp. Her husband was conscripted into the Greek Cypriot army. At the end of 1975, he was released from the army, she was able to get herself out of the refugee camp, and they fled to this country. Since that time they have been in Britain.
They have been told that they must return to their home. They cannot return to the northern part of Cyprus because it is under occupation by the Turkish army, which has illegally declared that part of the island independent, and their home no longer exists. If they go to the southern part of Cyprus where the Government of Greece is in charge, they have no home to go to, and they did not come from the south of Cyprus in the first place. The British Government maintain that they must leave this country, but they have no home to return to in Cyprus.
It is appalling that this couple, through no fault of their own, should be forced to seek sanctuary in a church in this country for fear of removal. They are a symbol of the fear experienced by many migrant families, the fear of being forcibly removed from the country. It is an insult to them and a disgrace to the country that this couple should be forced to take such action. It is much to the credit of the church and of the bishop that this couple have been allowed to remain in St. Mary's church, that the local congregation has supported them, that money has been collected to maintain them and that food has been provided for them. They are now in their 26th day in the church, and they intend to stay there until the Home Secretary is prepared to see sense.
I am sure that they would be more than happy to discuss their case with the Home Secretary if he went to that church to see them. They cannot leave for fear that, if they did, they would be picked up on the street outside by the police acting on behalf of the Home Office. I regard that as a disgraceful state of affairs in Britain in 1985.
Let us consider how this situation arose. The subject of refugees from Cyprus is not new. The war in Cyprus took place in 1974, when 10,000 refugees entered the United Kingdom. They came from the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus; they were simply refugees from the war. All had been uprooted from their homes in villages and towns and many had lost their possessions. They came to various parts of London, many to where I used to be a councillor, the borough of Haringey, where they were given help and support by the existing Cypriot community and by the community generally.
They came to Britain because they had relatives and close friends here and because of Britain's historical links with Cyprus, but also, frankly, because they had nowhere else to go. Having obtained sanctuary here, many of them stayed, are living happily here and are making an enormous contribution to our economy.
There have been endless arguments with the Home Office about the situation facing Cypriot refugees. Those who fell within the Home Office definition of "displaced persons" were granted special concessions and at first had their permits to stay extended from three to six months and then to a year. Those who were not accepted as displaced
262
persons were refused extensions and were treated as overstayers, or illegal immigrants, and were forced to leave the country.
Of the 10,000 Cypriot refugees who came here, only 2,000 remain. By 1981, the Home Office had become even more severe, and demanded that many of the remaining refugees had to return to Cyprus, the Home Office claiming that the situation on the island was stable. The Department started to deport Greek Cypriots to the south of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots to the north.
Thus, the Government were de facto accepting the partition of the island of Cyprus, even though Britain was a signatory to the treaty of guarantee and was involved in the independence negotiations that brought the state of Cyprus into being. It seems, therefore, that the British Government accepted the fact that the Turkish army had invaded and were giving de facto recognition to the Government there by deporting people to different parts of the island, in many cases firmly against the wishes of the people concerned.
Because of that, a large campaign grew up among members of the Cypriot community here, and they were supported by many other groups. They brought their anxieties to the attention of the Home Office, to hon. Members and to migrant workers' groups in Britain. They persuaded the then Minister of State to grant a concession, and in 1982 a concessionary policy was announced. Indefinite leave to remain in Britain was granted to Cypriot refugees who fell within the Home Office definition of "displaced persons." About 600 people benefited under that policy. Those who fell outside the policy were either deported or are still awaiting deportation. Those, for example, who did not enter the UK immediately after the 1974 war but who lived in refugee camps awaiting the outcome of the war crisis before coming here were not considered by the Home Office to be displaced persons and were not granted indefinite leave to stay.
That was an unfair way of operating the policy. I urge the Government to reconsider their whole attitude towards the refugees from Cyprus and to grant an amnesty to those who are here. That would remove their fear of being told that they must leave. It is appalling that this couple should be forced to seek sanctuary in a church in their effort to remain here in a place of safety.
I raise the case of Mr. and Mrs. Nicola because it is serious and demands an urgent answer from the Home Office. They should be allowed to stay here. I raise it because it is symptomatic of the way in which immigration policy operates in this country. It is also symptomatic of the attitude of the Home Office to many migrant groups.
Opposition Members have consistently pressed the Government to provide time to debate the report of the Commission for Racial Equality on immigration control procedures. That lengthy document, which was painstakingly put together after many interviews with Home Office staff and others, is damning in the extreme about the way in which the immigration service operates. I will quote only two of the report's general conclusions.
The promotion of good race relations should be a specific consideration in the administration of immigration control, and in that respect the report says in its conclusions that that
"depends not on allaying fears and prejudices of a section of the majority community, though they must be recognised and faced, but on a determination by the government to uphold the rights of all people to fair and decent treatment."

263
Under existing immigration law and procedures in this country, migrants are not treated in the same way as the rest of our citizens. The onus that rests on them to prove their innocence is much greater than is normal under British law.
Too great an emphasis has been placed in the operation of the procedures on the detection of bogus applicants, at an unacceptable cost to genuine families and to race relations generally. Another of the report's conclusions states:
"In our view, of the basic mistakes which it is possible for an administrative system of this sort to make, it is far worse wrongly to refuse a genuine applicant than to admit a bogus one; and it is far worse to delay the exercise of their rights by genuine applicants than to allow a bogus applicant through the net in efforts to avoid delays."
This country stands condemned by many people in the world because of the operation of our immigration policy and the way migrants are treated. They condemn the way in which people are bundled out of the country — the way Afia Begum was thrown out of Britain whereas Zola Budd was welcomed here. The Government stand condemned for what I believe are the racist practices endemic in Britain's immigration laws. There are divided families, people who are fearful of being removed, people from Bangladesh who are trying and are entitled to come here, and many others.
The House should debate this serious matter in a way that will put at rest the fears and concerns of many migrant families. Couples such as Mr. and Mrs. Nicola should no longer have to go through the indignity of seeking sanctuary in a church so as to remain in Britain. They should have peace and be allowed to continue to make the valuable contribution to the community that they have been making in the nine years that they have been in Britain.
6.57 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that we should be discussing South Africa — against the sad backcloth of the events in the eastern Cape in recent days — and I shall take the advice of Mr. Speaker, who yesterday half suggested that this subject should be mentioned. It is an important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to speak about it. We should not be afraid to discuss such matters, and I hope that it will be useful to the South African authorities to listen to both sides of the argument.
It is a pleasure for me to speak in the calmer atmosphere of the Chamber of the House of Commons, whereas in recent months I have delivered similar orations in British universities and colleges of further education, where I have received much abuse and, in some cases, much violence, perpetrated on the whole, of course, by those most opposed to what I had to say.
There is a genuineness of purpose among those who are represented by the anti-apartheid movement—which, I believe, includes the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the leader of the Liberal party, the leader of the SDP and other Opposition Members—in urging that the problems of South Africa must be solved. Indeed, I believe that that same genuine belief exists among Church leaders on both sides, here and in South Africa. Those of us who understand a little of the problems of South Africa
264
appreciate the anger and, in some cases, the utter frustration that is suffered by the black community at their lot. I say that in as genuine a way as I can.
Opposition Members, particularly those such as the hon. Member for Walsall, North, must appreciate that it is easy, in the comfortable precincts of Westminster— indeed, in the comfort of the free democracy which we in this country enjoy — to parade their consciences and those of their fellow travellers, to borrow some words from the hon. Member for Walsall, North, and to forget the violation of human rights that is taking place in countries throughout the world.
Despite the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North, it is not often we hear from him or from his hon. Friends protests about what is going on in eastern Europe or in South America, although I was pleased to see the early-day motion on Chile which was put down by the Opposition the other day. We do not hear protests from them about what is going on in the far east, in Cambodia, for example, nor about what is going on in black Africa itself, particularly Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for Walsall, North and his hon. Friends have been silent in their condemnation of the recent slaughterings in that sad country and of the regime which the hon. Gentleman holds up as the epitome of all that black Africa stands for.
This debate must always be seen in the context of the history of African politics. It must be seen, sadly, in the context of a continent which is now dominated by Marxism, where many states are now one-party states. Of course, one man, one vote exists—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Once.
Mr. Carlisle: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, once. Perhaps more important, the tribal background of the political strife in South Africa is such that the Westminster system is not necessarily the best. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether the system of one man, one vote for South Africa tomorrow is the answer.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Walsall, North say at the beginning of his speech that I had always condemned apartheid. It is a system which is a violation of human rights, but I understand it and I understand why it exists. That does not mean that I support it. It is against the background of the large problems that South Africa is facing that we must debate the issue. Rural blacks are moving into urban areas, which is not unusual in Africa, as hon. Members will know. There are the problems of the shanty towns, which are not particular to South Africa, but which exist in most major cities throughout the world. It is in that context that we must consider the argument on a basis of calm appraisal, rather than in the sort of violent discussion which Opposition Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Walsall, North, seem to promote in this place.
The leader of the Social Democrats and many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are now joining the American chorus by calling for some form of disinvestment in South Africa. Coupled with that, many of them are making serious allegations against British companies and the conditions of the employees of those companies in South Africa. Those arguments are scurrilous and discredit totally those who make them. On the whole, they are made in complete ignorance of the situation.
It is a fact that of those who work for the 350 or so British companies in South Africa about 98 per cent. are

265
paid above the minimum level set by the European code. Some of our greatest companies, like BP and Barclays, which we debated some time ago in the House, have spent enormous sums on social benefits and are giving equal opportunity in education, training, agriculture, welfare and housing to all their workers. Indeed, the record of Barclays, castigated so much by the anti-apartheid movement out of sheer ignorance, would stand in any country throughout the world. I certainly salute what it has done for the advancement of black wages.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the apology he is giving for the regime in South Africa ought to be followed by an explanation of the profits made by those companies out of virtual slave labour in South Africa? Does he not agree that it is time totally to condemn apartheid and British commercial participation in it?
Mr. Carlisle: I was afraid that the hon. Gentleman, in his ignorance and naivety, would go down that path. If he had been listening, he would have heard me explain what British companies are doing. I shall repeat it, because obviously he did not hear it, or did not want to hear it, the first time. About 98 per cent. of the employees of British companies are paid above the minimum level set by the European code, not by the South African code. If that is slave labour, the hon. Gentleman is somewhat misguided in his information.
Mr. Corbyn: They still get low wages.
Mr. Carlisle: I shall come on to low wages, because I knew that the hon. Gentleman would bring that up.
Another argument that is put is that there is a disparity between black and white wages. That is well paraded by Opposition Members. It is a fact that the disparity is reducing dramatically. Many people in America, sitting in the nice precincts of American suburbs, castigate South Africa for the fact that the disparity between black and white wages is not as small as it is in the United States of America. I remind the House that between 1972 and 1982 in South Africa the real wages of the whites dropped by 7 per cent. and in the same period, the only period for which figures are available, the wages of the blacks went up by 68 per cent. I suggest that the hon. Member goes back to his books and checks his facts. The fact is that many skilled blacks in South Africa are now enjoying a middle class standard of living and are advancing dramatically within the professions and in clerical jobs.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has produced figures, but, as he well knows, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Can he give us the median level for black wages against the median level for white wages in South Africa?
Mr. Carlisle: As a Member on the Front Bench would say, given notice of that question I shall send the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) the figures. I resent his accusation of lies and damned lies. The information that I have comes from the Middlesex polytechnic of London, which may interest London Members. It is written by An Spandau, who is a German, not a South African, and who has made his own investigations into various countries throughout the world. The figures are his; they are not South African figures. They are fact, not lies as the hon. Member for Yeovil suggested.
266
South Africa has to create 400,000 jobs just to keep those who are employed at the moment in employment. The calls for disinvestment, which are now siren cries from both sides of the Atlantic, will do more than anything else to ruin the prospects of those blacks who are beginning to find that they can advance to the middle classes and to better jobs. To those Opposition Members and to those outside the House who say that to trade with South Africa, which was part of the hint by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), is to support the apartheid regime—
Mr. Corbyn: That is right.
Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman says that that is right. If that is the case, why are 49 out of 51 black African countries trading with South Africa? Are they supporting the black regime by their trade? Why does South Africa sell £500 million worth of goods to black Africa each year? Is that supporting the apartheid regime? Why are up to 1·5 million foreign labourers in South Africa? Are they supporting the apartheid regime? What the hon. Gentleman does not know, and will not recognise, is that conditions of work within South Africa are such that 1·5 million illegal immigrants are in South Africa looking for conditions which they cannot enjoy in their own countries.
The argument is often put by Opposition Members that if we ceased this trade it would not affect the blacks. Perhaps I can remind hon. Members that if trade between the Western world and South Africa dropped by only 20 per cent., about 90,000 whites and about 350,000 blacks as well would lose their jobs. Is that what Opposition Members really want to see with their programme of disinvestment? They say that other markets could be found. Again, that has been put forward by some people in America. At present, 10 per cent. of our overseas trade is with South Africa, and up to 250,000 jobs in this country are dependent upon that trade. I would not trade 250,000 jobs in the pious hope that what I was doing was helping the blacks, on two bases—those jobs should never be lost, and blacks would be the first to suffer.
Mr. Ashdown: May I tempt the hon. Gentleman a little further on trade? Will the hon. Gentleman join his colleague the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) — he has just been appointed chairman of the Conservative party's international office—in calling for a relaxation of the embargo on arms trade with South Africa? The hon. Member for Dorset, West called for the sale of helicopters with military potential to the South African Government. Would the hon. Gentleman go that far?
Mr. Carlisle: Yes, I would, because the basis of the United Nation's resolution which is supported by this country is bogus. It includes forms of defence which are desperately needed on the African coast in and around the Cape and further north. The hon. Member for Yeovil, who has made a face at what I have just said, might like to know that for several hundreds of miles of the African coast there is no form of air-sea rescue other than that provided by the South African Government. I believe that this country should break that embargo and sell arms to South Africa.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Carlisle: I am looking at the clock. I shall give way for the last time to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Winnick: I have looked up the Register of Members' Interests, and I notice that in September 1984 the hon. Gentleman paid a visit to South Africa sponsored by the South African Government. Would it not be more forthright for the hon. Gentleman to explain to the House that he has been on a free trip to South Africa—and to do so while he is speaking so that I do not have to look up the Register of Members' Interests — which was sponsored by the South African Government? The hon. Gentleman is telling us what is in the South African Government's brief to him.
Mr. Carlisle: Let me assist the hon. Gentleman by telling him that I have been on several trips to South Africa. In no case have I paid the air fare for the first class travel on all my journeys to South Africa or for the first class hotels where I have stayed. If the hon. Gentleman's knowledge is so great, why does he not go to South Africa and look for himself? I make an offer to him that I will do all that I can to persuade someone to fund him—not necessarily the Government — to see for himself. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to go to South Africa because he, like thousands of others, would return having changed his mind after seeing the true picture.
I am sorry to shatter the calmer atmosphere which the debate was enjoying before the hon. Member for Walsall, North, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and myself made our points. I make no apology for bringing to the attention of the House the bogus case of the Opposition and of some Members of the American Congress, especially Senator Kennedy.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is advancing an excellent case which I hope will improve the Opposition's education. Will he comment briefly on the fact that the Wiehan commission led to the recognition and establishment of black trade unions in South Africa? Free trade unionism is certainly not practised behind the iron curtain. I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be able to intervene yet again on this point. Will my hon. Friend confirm that great strides have been made in granting freehold rights to urban blacks—a unique measure which is not the custom behind the iron curtain? These are reforms of considerable magnitude, for which the South African Government should receive credit in the free world.
Mr. Carlisle: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks with a deep knowledge and understanding of the position, unlike the Opposition. Only this afternoon on the Floor of the House my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged that the freehold system had been advanced to blacks. That is a great advance for South Africans.
I should have liked to cover the major constitutional changes that have taken place and the need and will for reform in South Africa. Suffice it to say that if we are genuine in our belief that we want to help South Africa, as I think some Opposition Members are, surely it would be better for us to co-operate with the South Africans and recognise their need for peaceful change.
The events of the past few days have cast a shadow over South Africa and its relationship with the rest of the world, and we deeply regret them. We must understand, however, that in any form of change there will be, as the South African ambassador put it, some form of violent revolution. Those of us who are desperately trying to help
268
all the peoples of South Africa are upset by the fact that the violent revolution perpetrated by some Opposition Members, Bishop Tutu and other well-meaning clerics and politicians can lead only to disaster and bloodshed in South Africa. The policy of disinvestment, so eloquently put forward by hon. Members and those on the other side of the Atlantic, will irrevocably harm the blacks first. I believe that this important subject should be brought up many times on the Floor of the House and that both sides of the argument should be heard.
7.15 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I listened to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) with a growing sense of frustration and sadness. I did not seek to intervene during his speech because we can all intervene with platitudes, from a standard point of view and, of course, from interest. My one interest in life is in human beings. I tend to judge a regime by what happens to its citizens. I would listen to anyone who can explain to me why it is necessary to shoot coloured people in a township on the anniversary of the terrible massacre 25 years ago and to bulldoze houses and move people from their homelands. We are talking not about economics, but about the quality of life and the right to life.
I concede that many regimes in Africa, Asia and South America are a disgrace to those humanitarian principles that are meant to be the foundation of the United Nations charter. I judge the South African regime against that background. I do not wish to say too much on that subject, because that is not why I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the tests of the right to express political views, to object and to live where one wants, the South African regime fails. So long as that regime continues to fail on those simple humanitarian grounds, I shall be against it just as I am against the regimes in Chile, eastern Europe and many other parts of the world where those simple tests are not met.
Mr. John Carlisle: I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's tone. If he reads my speech in the Official Report tomorrow and other speeches that I have made in this place and outside, he will recognise the genuine need for reform. The hon. Gentleman and I might differ about the means of achieving that reform.
Mr. Bermingham: In the long term, to apologise for and excuse the actions of the regime while being critical of those actions does the South African people no good. It might be better for the people of Africa as a whole if we in the West, including America, who do not like what we see, whether in Mozambique or Zimbabwe—my name has been recorded as one who has protested about the recent arrests of trade unionists in Zimbabwe—had the courage to say, "Your regime fails the test." We should seek not to apologise but to explain that we do not tolerate such conduct.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on a point of accuracy?
Mr. Bermingham: I shall give way for 15 seconds.
Mr. Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that enforced removals have now been suspended in South Africa? This was announced by one of the top Ministers in the Republic's Government, Dr. Gerrit van Viljoen.

269
Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his remarks about people being forced to leave their homes, because enforced removals have now been suspended?
Mr. Bermingham: I accept unreservedly that there has been a suspension. The results of the enforced removals still stand for those who were forced to move.
I am very pleased to see the Leader of the House in his place because, as I understand it, he is the Minister who is in touch with each of the Departments for the purpose of arranging the business of the House. He therefore no doubt has close and frequent contact with, for instance, the Departments of Employment, of Health and Social Security and of Energy. I hope that he can assure the House before the Easter recess that he has informed those Departments that the miners' strike is now over.
I am not being facetious; I am seeking to raise an extremely important point, because somebody somewhere in the system—I do not suggest that it was the Minister, because I have no evidence by which to identify who is responsible — is acting in a way that can only be described as extraordinarily vicious. What is going on at present is an absolute disgrace. I do not seek to raise the matter which was raised in the House last night with regard to miners who have been dismissed during the strike, although I notice that it is stated in The Guardian today that a number of sacked miners are barred from claiming benefits. Some are now, I am very pleased to see, beginning to win their claims for unfair dismissal, but of course they are all suffering, anyway.
A number of my constituents are miners, as the Leader of the House is aware. I want to raise the case of one of them, Brian Knowles, who in August last year, during the strike, decided to leave the coal industry. I want to deal generally with the cases of those who resigned during the strike and of those who, because of redundancy and so on, find themselves in the following farcical position.
Having resigned in August, Brian Knowles put in a claim for unemployment benefit. He was told that he could not resign in the middle of a strike. I cannot find where this is stated in the rules; nor, indeed, can anybody else. Instead of getting the normal unemployment benefit, he was given supplementary benefit at the reduced level. That continued from August of last year until 4 March. I raised the matter with Ministers, wrote letters, but got nowhere. Then, on 4 March, Mr. Knowles decided that, as the men were back at work, he would go to the employment office and sign on. He has a wife and children, he has debts and he is in poverty, so he asked for unemployment benefit.
He was told that, as far as the Department of Employment was concerned, the strike was not over and that he would have to apply to the arbitrator, a gentleman in Southampton, who would determine when the strike was over. So the unemployment resources centre in St. Helens wrote to Southampton. The centre got a lovely letter back saying that they did not answer letters from people in unemployment centres. I wonder if they would answer a letter from me. I suspect not. Who do they answer? Who do they think they are? Ministers come to the House and say that the strike is terminated, but they do not work on that. They say that they cannot judge the strike to be over until production levels are up. They also
270
now raise the point about the overtime ban which still exists in the coalfields. Apparently, not until that is over will they admit that the industrial dispute is over.
Someone, somewhere, is determined to crucify people such as Brian Knowles — thousands of people in this country. This extends not just to those who resigned during the strike but also to those who had agreed to take redundancy before the strike commenced but who asked to stay on for particular reasons and were then involved in the dispute, to those who through ill health or for other reasons suddenly found that, after they had agreed to redundancy terms, the strike intervened. Now that the strike is over, everything is held up. I wonder if the Leader of the House would be so kind as to inform the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Employment before the Easter recess that the mining dispute is now over. It would help.
The Leader of the House may ask why these men do not apply to the various tribunals. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) applied in November for a tribunal hearing on this matter. That tribunal has not yet sat. These hearings can be delayed.
Why must people who are elderly, or sick, or have left the mining industry for other reasons be treated in this mean, petty, spiteful way? I thought that we were seeking reconciliation with the miners. I can assure the House that in the constituency of St. Helens and in the mining areas generally people are well aware of what is happening, of the spitefulness and meanness, and that adds to the bitterness. It is so unnecessary, and I hope that the Leader of the House can find time to resolve this nasty problem.
7.26 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: It is not for me to reply to the speeches made in this debate, although I have noted them, and the fact that no fewer than 15 have been delivered over the last two and a half hours. I believe that the House owes a debt of gratitude to those hon. Members for the range of important subjects which they have briefly addressed. If I single out one or two it is because they certainly deserve it.
The two speeches made on the subject of the Crown Proceedings Act and the possibility of service men being treated more generously in connection with injuries sustained certainly require attention. The Act has stood for too long unchanged. I think too that the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for the early publication of the two reports on the Severn bridge really ought to be responded to. I certainly think that our immigration procedures need the most urgent review and a far more sympathetic administration than they are getting at the present time.
Last, but not least, I believe that my hon. Friends were indeed right to raise the whole ghastly tragedy of recent events in South Africa, themselves a repeat of the appalling massacre at Sharpeville 25 years ago. Although I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), because he has clearly studied the subject in some depth, I found the general sentiments which he expressed, particularly on this occasion, when there is so much suffering and loss of life in South Africa, pretty repugnant.
I wish to say something about two other matters—one which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has just broached, about the

271
aftermath of the coal industry strike, and, secondly, the question of Mr. Levene as the chief official concerned with arms procurement in the Ministry of Defence.
With regard to the bitter legacy of the coal strike, I assume that everyone has a strong wish that the wounds that have been sustained during the past 12 months should be healed as rapidly as possible. Against that background, I was shocked when I read today that sacked miners cannot even now claim unemployment or supplementary benefit and that the £16 deduction from their families' social security income is still being exacted by the DHSS. Therefore, their families are still ineligible for the £16 benefit that strike pay is assumed to provide.
I should like to know who has made that ruling. It cannot be one for regional officials of the Department of Health and Social Security; it must have come from Ministers. It is a scandalous decision. It is punitive, vindictive and designed to ensure not only that the wounds of the strike do not heal but that they deepen and fester. So too is the policy decison emanating from the National Coal Board HQ, as all will acknowledge who listened to Mr. MacGregor on television on the subject of teaching the lessons of indiscipline—that many hundreds of men dismissed during the strike should not be re-employed.
The correct attitude to the problem was stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Friday 8 March, when he rightly said that the way to deal with the matter was for management sensibly to consider
"each case on its merits."
My right hon. Friend said that unions should have "the opportunity to represent individual workers."
Those who have been found guilty in the courts of minor offences, including the daubing of walls, taking coal to keep their families warm, obstruction and other petty offences, should not be dismissed. There are other cases too in which, as the recent industrial tribunal decision in favour of Mr. Norman Lynch makes plain, such dismissals are unjustifiable under industrial law.
Surely the time has come for a general instruction to area coal managers, including Scotland's, to consider all dismissal cases on their merits. It is up to the Minister to see that that is done.
Therefore, what we want from the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Energy is an early statement on both those subjects. It is no good the NCB taking out four-page advertisements in the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers proclaiming, as they did today:
"you're better off with coal and Britain can provide it"
if in reality official policy makes it certain that the bitterness of the past year is allowed to continue and to fester.
The second subject that I wish to raise is the disgraceful and quite extraordinary story of Mr. Peter Levene, recently appointed head of the Ministry of Defence arms procurement programme. The importance of that case is plain to everyone except the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence.
The constitutional doctrine on the acceptance of outside appointments by former civil servants was recently stated in the Government's White Paper containing their response to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, "Acceptance of Outside Appointments by Crown Servants". In their general observations, they said:
272
"The Government agrees with the Committee that the rules governing the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants have to strike a balance between two principles; the principle of maximum possible freedom of movement, which is a matter not only of personal liberty but also of the economic and other benefits of interchange between the public service and other occupations and spheres of activity; and the requirement to avoid corruption or impropriety, or the suspicion of them, in relation to the public service."
That is fair enough, but the doctrine must apply equally to industrialists and business men seconded or appointed to the Civil Service, particularly the requirement to avoid
"corruption or impropriety, or the suspicion of them, in relation to the public service."
No one can dispute that serious improprieties have already been committed. In the case of Mr. Levene, the Civil Service Commission was not asked to consider what is called the "issue of qualification" nor was there any pretence that the appointment had been made open to general applications. It is reported that the Civil Service commissioners considered resignation en bloc, and it is a pity that they did not carry out their threat. For without such checks as are written into practice and procedure, appointments can be made at the grace and favour of Ministers and the door is wide open to favouritism, nepotism and worse.
So why was Mr. Levene appointed in breach of those rules? Who authorised the payment of £107,000 per annum to Mr. Levene, who now becomes the highest paid civil servant in the land? What are the ethics and where is the common sense in appointing as chief of defence procurement the chairman of a major arms equipment supplier, United Scientific Holdings?
Now, after pressure, we learn that Mr. Levene is to be refused access to papers relating to his former company and other associated companies for a 12-month period, and, further, that he will be subject to Civil Service rules when he leaves the Civil Service. That is to say that he will have the obligation simply to inform the Diamond commission before taking up a new job within two years of leaving his present post, a requirement which, as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee stated, has no sanction behind it.
Serious issues are involved in this case, and it is not the only one. In its editorial of 22 March, under the title, "A Lingering Whiff', The Times recalled:
"over a period of five recent years some 1,400 movements from Whitehall into private business were made by the senior personnel of a single department yet of these a paltry few were delayed or subjected to extensive inquiry. Then the permanent secretary of the same department, within months of his retirement, joins the board of an aircraft supply company and a few months later becomes chairman of a major armament contractor."
Of course, the Department to which The Times is referring is the Ministry of Defence.
The Government have done much to damage the whole British economy and, indeed, the British people. The damage being done to the Civil Service is less obvious, but no less serious. Standards of conduct are slipping, and slipping fast. There should therefore be an early debate not only on the case of Mr. Levene but on the whole clutch of issues raised by the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Government's inadequate response to it. I very much hope that the Leader of the House will have something to say about that matter, too.
7.37 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): This afternoon's debate is what is now a traditional one on the recess motion, which gives Back Benchers the opportunity to raise a whole host of topics, and it is my privilege to seek to answer them with such skill as I have. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will permit me, of course to acknowledge what he has just mentioned in respect of Mr. Levene, but to proceed to the more traditional role that I have to perform on such occasions.
The right hon. Gentleman talked of serious improprieties, favouritism and nepotism. Those are all devastating charges and are wholly unmerited relative to an appointment which, I agree at once, was bound to be controversial. However, I have noted the anxiety that the right hon. Gentleman expressed. It is only right that I should do so. I shall refer the matter to those of my right hon. Friends to whom it is most appropriately directed. I also noted the interest that the right hon. Gentleman expressed in the matter being returned to on the Floor of the House.
In its variety, the debate has not disappointed any of the connoisseurs who now follow these occasions. I shall try to comment on the speeches of each of my hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate.
I shall start with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), who mentioned the serious difficulties in his constituency over the South Trafford hospital. I quite understand his anxiety and his concern that the regional health authority has not yet made as public as he would wish its position on the matter. I shall see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services knows of his anxiety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) brought the whole of our consideration close to home when he complained about the Car Park. He has been beaten to it. It must be a growing issue of contention, as I have already been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) on the matter. I have taken note of the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, and I hope to be in touch with him in due course.
My hon. Friend also referred to the extraordinary delay in dealing with the planning appeal by the Bluebell line. I have been told that the decision should be available within the next two or three weeks. I do know whether that is news to my hon. Friend. If it is, he may like to reflect that it was probably his intervention that brought about that happy conclusion.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Pull the other one.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's comment is quite unnecessary. This debate before our much-needed rest is no occasion for cynical comments such as I would not normally associate with so distinguished a scholar as my hon. Friend.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) mentioned the problems and difficulties created for service men by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. He specifically mentioned a case on which it is not appropriate for me to comment as it is still under
274
consideration. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney observed that that law had stood since the time of the Labour Government of the immediate post-war years. To some, that may be a sign that it is encrusted with barnacles. Others may feel that, whatever its administrative defects, the law has survived many scrutinies which have concluded that any departure from it would make the situation worse rather than better.
I shall, however, refer the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties to my right hon. Friend and point out that they were endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I should also say that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has explained that he is unable to be present to hear my reply to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport has won the palm, in that he raised a topic which was incomprehensible to me at the outset and which remained so. I am sure that it will feature in The Times diary tomorrow—
Mr. Gerald Malone: Too late.
Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for that comment, which reveals the innocence of my relationship with The Times diary.
In this case, the absurdity does not even derive from a proposal by the European Community. There are plans for the outlawing of an anti-fouling chemical which could be only partial in its application and whose only sure result would be to cause commercial damage to certain of my hon. Friend's constituents. That situation is so inequitable that I shall at once remind my right hon. Friend of it—he is currently considering it—and I hope that there will be a happy and commonsense outcome.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is anxious about the experiences of some of the new industries which have been set up as satellites of the new-style British Telecom. I note what the hon. Gentleman said. He did not mention whether a reference had been made to Oftel in that context. That might be one remedy, but I shall see that the matter is further considered.
With that heroic optimism which often lends distinction to these debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale raised the matter of the reform of the rating system. As he reminds us, he has done so on previous occasions. I can only say that he is 12 months nearer to an answer—if answer there is to be—than he was when the matter was last considered.
I remind my hon. Friend that this debate is only the hors d'oeuvres to the main course of today's proceedings, the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, in which I see that the Scottish rating system is to be debated for a full three hours. Many hon. Members might say that three hours is inadequate time for such a debate.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Very much so.
Mr. Biffen: The matter raised by my hon. Friend is of lasting topicality and has erupted, north of the border, from a smouldering state into the most rampant flames. We might do well to take guidance from his suggestion that the matter needs to be seriously considered again.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke about the situation in the Province in the light of developments over the past few days. We can all understand his concern about the destructive

275
consequences of uncertainty. To the voice of the right hon. Gentleman was joined that of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy).
The right hon. Gentleman stated that the position of the Government was that there could be no change in Ulster's constitutional position without the free and willing consent of its people. That commitment has existed for decades, and nowhere has it been repeated more powerfully than from the lips of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am happy to repeat this evening that that is the situation.
We all appreciate that of all our citizens in the United Kingdom those in the Province live under the most relentless pressures. It is all too easy on this side of the Irish sea, and in this place, to lose touch with the real anxiety that is bound to exist in the Province under those pressures.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke, in the context of recent reports, about the whole question of the custody of children and family law reform. His argument was most persuasive and, as so often in such cases, one understands the frustration that is felt when persuasiveness has no obvious consequence in the form of legislation.
I am told that the Government are considering legislation. I have been Leader of the House for long enough to know that, if a measure is not well over the horizon by this stage in the year, it will not appear in the current Session. It is the hon. Gentleman's view that the current legislation might accommodate the point at issue if the long title could be adjusted. I shall refer those points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and consider whether we can meet the hon. Gentleman on that point.
The hon. Gentleman's namesake, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), referred to the Severn bridge. Year by year, as I have sat here, my admiration for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has pursued the issue of the Severn bridge has grown. One might say that he is the Dalyell of Gwent. The hon. Gentleman requested that I should pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport a request that both reports should be published. I shall of course do so. I realise that the matter is of the utmost concern in South Wales, and I appreciate the concern of the people of South Wales that their industrial future rests on the provision of appropriate road access to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) devoted the major part of his speech to South Africa. However, he also asked me to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment his anxieties about the present level of council house starts. I shall not anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply, but any fair judge of the Government's housing programme must take account of our great emphasis upon private house building and, above all, on house improvement as the means of securing the national housing stock. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has explained why he must be absent for this stage of the debate. He made an effective speech about animal welfare as it relates to horses. Anyone who comes from a constituency such as my hon. Friend's, which is suburban, and where, on the whole, there are a great many horses without the full advantage of a truly rural environment, knows only too well that the issue on which my hon. Friend touched is a real and growing problem in animal
276
welfare. I hope that my hon. Friend will be successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills in the next Session, as an amendment to the Animals Act 1971 could very well achieve the purpose that he had in mind. Meanwhile, he has today opened his campaign most professionally.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) brought to our debate the consideration of immigration law and asked whether I would refer to the Home Secretary, once again, the Nicola case so that it might be considered further. I undertake to do that. The hon. Gentleman was determined in his attack on how we administer immigration. He described Britain as standing condemned and our immigration procedures as a disgrace. There is a good case to be made for saying that our immigration law and its application are a testimony to the tremendous tolerance of the host community, above all the working-class host community, which has had to deal with the consequences of immigration. I hope that when we debate these matters we shall not do so in a sense of self-denigration, but rather with measured praise of how we have tried to tackle considerable and difficult problems.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) mentioned constituents who are suffering from the consequences of how the mining dispute concluded — without a settlement between union and employers. I realise that it has given rise to difficulties, and if he would like to give me more details about the case that he has in mind I might wish to approach the Government Departments direct. However, I am sure that we can help the hon. Gentleman in some way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the problems of the European Community and the serious problems of taxation implicit in what is now being decided, which often runs outwith our normal forms of public expenditure control. He said that the matter was now being considered by the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that the whole House is interested to know what its findings will be. I suspect that this matter will increasingly occupy the House's attention. My hon. Friend was kind enough to write to me about VAT on credit cards, and I shall do all that I can to accommodate a discussion in the appropriate Standing Committee.
I have deliberately left until the end the debate on South Africa. I have an uneasy feeling that this evening's debate will be a pointer to recurring debates on the subject. The debate was made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North and by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). A situation redolent of all the poignancy of a Greek tragedy is now unfolding in South Africa. It is one in which our frustrations will be that much more as we realise that the effective way in which we can influence matters is tremendously limited, especially relative to the free and easy and bombastic moralising which so often has characterised our contribution to this debate hitherto. As we must try to relate our sense of feeling with our ability to do something, that becomes a true test. It is a test for that Government but, above all, for the House, which cradles government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 4th April do adjourn until Monday 15th April and at its rising on Friday 3rd May do adjourn until Tuesday 7th May, and that the House shall not adjourn on Thursday 4th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Scottish Teachers (Strike Action)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 113(2) (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Gerald Malone: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise an exceptionally important matter for Scotland — the effect that teachers' strike action is having on Scottish pupils.
  I shall divide my comments into two areas: first, the general effects of the dispute in Scotland and how I hope they might be solved and, secondly, the effects of strike action on my constituency. The effects have been rather singular and different. I attempted to secure this debate to echo the views of my colleagues from Scotland, although I do not do so in any animosity towards the merits of the teachers' case. There are differences between opposite sides of the House and between my views and those of many people in teaching. However, I should like to emphasise that there is a fund of good will and sympathy for many of the important points made by teachers to me and my colleagues. It would be helpful if we had an opportunity constructively to express that sympathetic view. I hope that that spirit will be clear to teachers in my constituency, to teachers throughout Scotland and to parents.
  We should consider the nub of the issue that is causing difficulty and preventing negotiation and see how it can be overcome. The difficulty faced by teachers and the Government is the demand for an independent pay review. That difficulty is not quite as substantial as it was, because a significant number of teachers concede that the best way forward is to negotiate through the statutory joint negotiating machinery and to pursue the offers that the Government have made through that mechanism. The Educational Institute of Scotland is almost alone in standing out for an independent pay review. That intransigence is causing the difficulties which school-children in Scotland are now experiencing. It is a log-jam of which parents are becoming increasingly impatient because they have seen flexibility from only one side in the dispute—from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He alone has moved. It is becoming increasingly unclear why the offer that he has put down cannot be explored properly—
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Which offer?
  Mr. Malone: —as we would be happy to support some parts of the teachers' case.
  278
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asks which offer. I am happy to tell him. It is an important offer during such negotiations. It is an offer to find new funding over and above the record funds that are being spent in Scotland per pupil in the primary and secondary sectors of education, and to finance with those funds a suitable package, which can be negotiated through the joint statutory negotiating machinery.
  Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that he is misleading the House when he says that? The Secretary of State said that he would consider carefully whether he could find extra money to finance the package. He has made no promises to finance a package.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that to set out firm positions and to define sums or claims at the outset of negotiations is patently absurd. He also knows full well that there has been no detailed articulated demand from the EIS in the dispute. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my right hon. Friend's offer to find new funds is not a sign of flexibility, especially as Mr. Pollock of the EIS conceded it to be a sign of flexibility, is nonsense.
  The offer should be explored. It would not prejudice the teachers' rights, and in no sense would it imply that they must accept it. It would be helpful for me as a Back-Bench Member to explore the terms of the offer, and if my colleagues and I thought it appropriate, to apply whatever pressure we felt necessary to meet the rightful demands of teachers in Scotland.
  It is important for teachers and the people of Scotland to understand the sincerity with which the teachers' demand for an independent pay review is supported by Opposition Members. There is no substance in it. It is implied that if Opposition Members were in government and had the levers of power within their control, they would concede an independent pay review for teachers. That means that they would be bound to give an independent pay review to other public sector bodies which required it. That is the implication of conceding an independent pay review to teachers.
  Why should a procedure be made available only to the public sector? Perhaps we should debate whether we are to embark on a system of independent pay reviews throughout every sector of the economy. Opposition Members are misleading the public when they say that they would run down this road with the teachers, but would be prevented from running down exactly the same road of wage bargaining with other interests. That is nonsense.
  The claims to back an independent pay review run uncomfortably with many of the statements from Opposition Members following the Budget. On the one hand they ask for an independent review, presumably with the implication that it would be accepted no matter what level it set, and on the other they demand some sort of incomes policy or incomes strategy. To pursue both courses at once is misleading, and deceives the Scottish people and the teachers whom they claim to support. It is blatantly dishonest.
  Alliance politicians consistently pledge themselves to a firm incomes policy. I do not know how they can justify granting an independent pay review hand in hand with a policy of controlling incomes and, presumably,

  279
  relativities. I was interested to read an article in The Sunday Times of 17 March by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). He said that he would
  "introduce an incomes strategy, to distribute more rewards more fairly and keep inflation down."
  If the right hon. Gentleman were to embark on a policy of independent pay reviews throughout the public sector, it would not ride easily with that claim.
  Mr. Malcom Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how a Government who have been in power for six years and have cut public sector pay to the bone can say anything about fairness or justice, or speak of a mechanism for relating pay in the public sector fairly to pay in the private sector? That is an incomes strategy, and that is what we support. Conservative Members have no fair means of assessing pay in the public sector. All public sector pay has been screwed down, except that earned by Tories.
  Mr. Malone: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about a fair way of assessing the income of people in the public sector, the way not to go about it is to concede one independent pay review to one public sector body. It is illogical to suggest that the teachers should be supported in this issue, when Opposition Members are not prepared to say what the rest of their policy is.
  It must be made extremely clear to the teaching profession in Scotland that, while Opposition Members may happily consort with teachers in this demand for an independent pay review, if Opposition Members were in office, in the light of the policy that they have already stated following the Budget, they would be the last people to concede that review.
  Mr. George Robertson: Can we take it that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the independent review procedures that already apply and have been carried out by the Government for the police service, the armed forces and the fire service?
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that many concessions were granted by people involved in those reviews, which are not even now on the table for the teachers. If the teachers sought arbitration, his point may be valid, but they do not seek arbitration. The absurdity of their position is that they want an independent pay review and want its results referred to the statutory joint negotiating machinery, to which they refuse to resort. That is the absurd illogicality of their case, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  If we are discussing a way to achieve a quick end to the dispute and to its detrimental effects on Scottish schoolchildren, the first way forward is to explore my right hon. Friend's offer. I cannot understand why those who say that the results of an independent review must in any event be referred to the statutory negotiating machinery are not prepared fully to explore my right hon. Friend's offer. At the end of the day it may be exposed to be no offer at all. I do not know that; indeed, no one knows it. The teachers who refuse to use the negotiating machinery do not know that either. If we are talking about a rapid resolution of the dispute, the joint negotiating machinery should be used.
  By encouraging teachers in what Opposition Members well know to be an utterly impossible objective, which they could not fulfil even within their own policy
  280
  guidelines, Opposition Members are more responsible than striking teachers for the damage being done to the education of children in Scottish schools.
  Mr. James Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Houghton report? That was before he came to the House. A Labour Government set that report in motion and a Labour Government implemented its recommendations in full. They also set up the Clegg commission, which was disbanded when the Conservatives came to power.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that sort of approach to public sector bargaining is not something to which his party is committed now. Are Opposition Members prepared to indulge in independent pay reviews across the board in the public sector? If they do not give that commitment now, the commitment that they seek to give to the teachers is nothing more than a sham.
  The effects of the dispute are to be found in the short and long terms. In the short term, although not for those affected by exams, there will be great difficulty. I am grateful to the teaching unions in Scotland for at least conceding that examinations will be allowed to proceed. If we are to find some ground on which to build during the debate, I hope that we can consider that as a sign that they will take into account the interests of their pupils. But the point is that, even for those who will be allowed to take examinations, there will always be the thought that the results that they achieve will be, in some way, inferior or second class.
  The long-term fear is that this industrial disruption will prejudice the implementation of the Munn and Dunning proposals. They were broadly welcomed not only on both sides of the House, but throughout the teaching profession, and it is desperately sad that the innovative approach of Munn and Dunning could be prejudiced not only this year but in the long term.
  Mrs. Anna McCurley: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only was the teaching profession anxious to implement the Munn and Dunning proposals, but the Government gave adequate assistance — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They were extremely expeditious about introducing finances adequate to implement the Munn and Dunning proposals.
  Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. If the long-term future of education in Scotland, as it is affected by Munn and Dunning, is to be prejudiced by such industrial action, it is regrettable.
  As to the other aspects of the dispute, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for making clear his position during the dispute and for giving every undertaking that he can that the effects of industrial action will be consistently reviewed. He has said that he will take every action within his power to ensure that pupils at least are not affected. We are beginning to see some of the results of that undertaking. I am glad to know that the Scottish Examinations Board has allowed an extension of the arrangements for appeals along the same lines as it did during industrial disputes in 1975, 1979 and 1980. Although that is not an adequate solution to the problem, it is helpful as far as it goes. I was also pleased to know that the Scottish Universities Council on Entrance has said

  281
  that it will take into account the position of any candidates who might suffer as a result of the industrial action in Scottish schools.
  I make no secret of the fact that they are simply temporary expedients to get over an appalling difficulty that has been recognised ever more widely by the parents of Scottish schoolchildren who are suffering the effects of the current action. If the dispute continues, as it seems set to do for some time at least, I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to ensure that children will not be made to suffer in their examination results because of the action taken by teachers.
  I now turn to matters connected with my constituency. One school in my constituency — Aberdeen grammar school — has been especially hit by selective strike action. The children there are suffering much more hardship than many other children in Scotland. Indeed, they have regularly been denied education for three days a week, and it looks as though that will continue to be the case. It was no puzzle to me why Aberdeen grammar school was selected for strike action, although it was not made clear by the EIS. That school was chosen because it was in my constituency and because I did not support the teachers' claim for an independent pay review. The EIS fudged the issue. It would not admit that. The suggestion was—it would seem absurd to anyone with common sense — that the EIS had happened upon Aberdeen grammar school as part of a general programme of escalation — [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) laughs at that suggestion, which is patently absurd.
  The EIS adhered to that view until Monday 11 March, when, at a parent-teacher association meeting at Aberdeen grammar school, the local field officer for the EIS, Mr. Stuart Topp, made it clear what the position was. He said clearly that the school had been selected with a view to pressurising me to change my views on the issue. Following the meeting of 11 March, I attended a meeting of a cross-section of parents from that parent-teacher association, at which much concern was expressed that such action was being taken. The correspondence that I have had from constituents since then has shown that they share that concern. The EIS has now clearly said that it is taking selective action in the constituencies of Conservative Back-Bench Members to pressurise them to change their minds on this issue.
  I do not mind the fact that pressure has been brought upon me. I am prepared to listen to representations from any quarter, but when children in my constituency are made to suffer for my views that is nothing short of disgraceful.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not a Conservative Back-Bench Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Teachers have been on strike in my constituency, and my son was not in school today because the only teacher in the primary school that he attends in the Borders region, which is represented by a Liberal Member of Parliament, was on strike today. Will the hon. Gentleman stop giving us this humbug?
  Mr. Malone: There seems to be some dispute about the hon. Gentleman's credentials. Some members of his party do not seem to want him. Sometimes I wonder whether we should not invite him to join the Conservative party. He
  282
  completely fails to recognise that Aberdeen grammar school was the first school in Scotland to be selected for strike action three days a week. That is a matter of simple record, which was admitted by the EIS. The position has become completely clear. The school was selected with only one purpose in mind. I view it as an attempt to intimidate me by holding hostage the future of children in my constituency in connection with the dispute. It is utterly reprehensible. It is political blackmail of the most despicable sort.
  I say to the teachers who are taking action that they are losing support. They have not lost my support for the merits of their case—I would not be so mean-minded and petty as to do that—but they are losing support among parents, who resent them. The action has been deplored by many teachers, not only in Aberdeen but in Scotland as a whole. I should make it clear that such selective action, which is designed to intimidate me, is utterly ineffectual and will be of no use to them.
  Teachers in Scotland should be trying to get as much support as they can from parents and from Conservative Members. To indulge in selective action does nothing for the merits of their case and nothing for the children whose interests they claim to have at heart. It turns logic on its head to say that they are prepared to indulge in the most damaging sort of selective action—that of three days a week—but that it is all in the interests of children and of Scottish education.
  Mr. Maxton: That is right.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman says that that is right, but the future in which I am interested is that of children who will be adversely affected in the short term. They are the worst affected by the strike.
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Malone: I have given way enough in my speech. I am making a constituency point now, and I do not wish to give way again. The teachers do their cause no good.
  The other part of the message that I wish to get across tonight is that Conservative Members are not blind to many of the intrinsic merits of the teachers' case. I cite as one example, in which I have every sympathy for teachers who write to me, the salary structure. That is inadequate in the long term, when we are trying to cope with the difficulties of falling school rolls and the impossibility of being able to secure promoted posts. This is why my right hon. Friend has suggested that we should negotiate a package of pay and conditions together, so that all these matters can be thoroughly investigated and sorted out, to the satisfaction of the teaching profession as a whole. [Interruption.] Labour Members may scoff, but why do we not give this opportunity a chance? What do the teachers have to lose by entering into the negotiating machinery? What problems do they see in presenting their case that they do not have now? That is nonsense, and they should go through the negotiations as quickly as possible.
  The main interest of the House, of the teaching profession as a whole, of parents and of children is to bring this dispute to an end as rapidly as possible. The simple way to do that must be to go to the statutory joint negotiating committee. If, at the end of the day, a satisfactory deal is not negotiated, and paid for by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there is nothing to prevent the teachers from arguing their case point by point

  283
  in the country and the House and to hon. Members such as myself and my colleagues. We would have much more sympathy with what the teachers are doing if they behaved like that.
  Members of the EIS who are particularly indulging in selective action such as this are losing support within their profession. Two teaching unions are suggesting that the statutory joint negotiating machinery should be used and explored. Why do EIS members not see that that is the way forward? If they are waiting because they think that there might be an element of political defeat in such an approach, and that Conservative Members would delight in rubbing their noses in the dirt if they were to resort to the machinery, nothing could be further from the truth. If they resorted to the statutory negotiating machinery, that would be a matter for rejoicing among Conservative Members and teachers would get much more support than they have so far been able to acquire.
  There is no suggestion that I would be keen in any circumstances to gain any political victory from the teachers' resort to the statutory negotiating machinery. I hope that all hon. Members have the interests of school children in our constituencies much too close at heart for that. I encourage teachers throughout Scotland, particularly in my constituency, to abandon the damaging action that they are taking, and the attempts that they are making to try to intimidate me and other Conservative Members by such strike action. It will do them no good. We have one interest in common—the welfare of our schoolchildren. This method of selective strike action does nothing to help that.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: This is a valuable opportunity, thanks to the luck of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), to debate this important issue, which, as he rightly says, concerns large numbers of people throughout Scotland. It concerns not just parents of children who are now in the education system but those who have a genuine interest in the education system.
  I have a feeling that the Government are yet again running scared of this issue as they are of rates revaluation, which subject we will debate later. There are reports that the Secretary of State for Scotland is on television in Scotland this evening making noises that seem to show that some announcement will be made about rates. Perhaps he is trailing his coat in advance of the Scottish Conservative party conference on this issue, on which the Government are in serious trouble. If any announcement is to come, it will come against the background of assurances and categoric statements suggesting that the Government were resolute and would not back down in the face of pressure. However, the Government are clearly scared, are running, and will change their minds.
  There is genuine concern in Scotland about what is happening in the education system. The teachers' dispute is only one feature in the landscape of the problems facing Scottish education. I do not dissent from a number of comments that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has made, but I do dissent from the conclusions at which he arrives and the partisan view of the dispute in schools that he takes.
  Last night, I went to a well-attended meeting of the parent-teacher association of a number of schools in my constituency. Many parents expressed genuine concern
  284
  about a number of things going on in the education system, and in particular about the impact of the teachers' dispute on their children.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South made a particular point about the impact on children being educated in the constituencies of Conservative Members, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has pointed out, the dispute has had an impact across the board and as feeling strengthens the impact will increase. There is considerable and growing sympathy for the teachers' case and for the reasonable nature of the request that they are putting forward. There is support for the teachers among parents and pupils.
  There is a crisis in Scottish education that is manifested not only by the teachers' pay. The frustration of teachers is occasioned not just by the level of their salary, although that is the particular problem that has been identified, but by a number of other factors. First, there are falling school rolls, which should have been the opportunity for expanding and improving the education services. Instead, because it coincides with savagely cut education resources in Scotland, the opportunities are being squandered, and the traumatic effects of the possibility of school closures are having an impact on the morale of parents and teachers.
  Mr. Malone: Why, if there was that widespread concern about conditions and pay, did the EIS seek simply an independent review of pay without reference to conditions?
  Mr. Robertson: I am talking about the dilemma that faces the whole of the Scottish education system, which has led to the frustration that has centralised itself on the particular issue of pay. If the hon. Gentleman will let me come to the end of my speech, he will find that the conclusion at which I arrive is that there was probably no alternative but to concentrate the eyes of the negotiators on a particular aspect.
  On top of the problems associated with the Government's cut in resources has been the introduction of the 16 to 18 action plan and of Munn and Dunning, which has received widespread and general welcome among teachers, parents and other members of the community. However, the combination of all these factors, occurring at one and the same time — the development of a unique and original solution to try to deal with these things, as the consortia arrangements in the Strathclyde has been—has been to create almost unique pressures on members of the teaching profession.
  Conservative Members should understand the nature of the feeling that exists among teachers today. This is not an ordinary industrial dispute. It is impossible for Conservative Members, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South did not even try to do this, to characterise this as a dispute in which revolutionary and agitating people of some militancy have generated support way beyond the boundaries of ordinary people in the profession.
  What is significant to anybody who has talked to teachers and sought to understand what they are on about is the depth of feeling among the whole strata of the teaching profession. There is deep and genuine concern among the middle aged, middle class, middle minded teachers in schools who have come to the end of their tether and patience. They genuinely believe that there is

  285
  no alternative but to take the sort of industrial action that they are taking. That is the nature of the crisis that has been precipitated by the Government. Lack of understanding of the circumstances is creating the log-jam to which the hon. Member so slightingly referred.
  Of course it was inevitable that one aspect of the dilemma would be picked on, despite the fact that within our schools there is a widespread drop in morale. It was natural and inevitable that there would be concentration upon pay. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends continually pour cold water upon the setting up of an independent review procedure as though what the teachers are asking for is the thin end of a wedge that will drive a coach and horses through the free collective bargaining procedures. To believe that free collective bargaining procedures can be followed under a Conservative Government is totally absurd. A most rigid form of incomes policy has been practised by this Government under the guise of allowing people to negotiate freely.
  However, the Government have established, with the assistance of review procedures that were in force before they came to power, the principle that certain parts of the public sector should be removed from the pay bargaining arena. I do not believe that it is right to draw strict comparisons between the police service and other parts of the public sector. The police service is in a unique position. It was established by statute, and strike action is prohibited by law. Before the implementation of the Edmund-Davies report by the last Labour Government, no independent pay procedure was in force. There is now an independent pay procedure. Quite properly, in my view, the Government decided to take the pay of the police out of the normal bargaining procedures that apply in the public sector in order to remove from a key area of the public sector the ability to take widespread industrial action. The police were provided with a degree of protection that they had never previously enjoyed. However, the police are not the only ones in that position. This applies also to the armed forces and to the fire service, although the fire service is not prohibited by law from going on strike. The fire service has not denied itself the right to strike, but its members' pay is protected under the provisions introduced by the last Labour Government.
  The important principle is that there are key public services that all of us wish to be removed from the normal warfare of industrial bargaining. If the fire service, the police and the armed forces fall into that category, we ought, according to the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, to remove our children from that battleground.
  Mr. Malone: I did not understand that the teachers were asking for a permanent system for the independent review of their salaries. They are asking for nothing of the sort. If they were arguing for that, the hon. Gentleman's argument might have some relevance. However, his argument is worthless. That is not what the teachers want. They already have a statutory joint negotiating committee upon which they are well represented.
  Mr. Robertson: That is a point which I am sure those who read Hansard tomorrow will read with considerable interest. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that if the teachers were arguing for a permanent review system he might be in favour of it. The principle has already been
  286
  conceded by the Government. If the Government believe in their own case, they ought to put it before an independent review body, before which the teachers could also put their case. Then somebody outside the narrow arena of those involved in the dispute would be able to come to a conclusion. Many children are being affected by the dispute. The vast majority of the members of the teaching profession in Scotland do not wish any harm to be done to children's education. They have a far deeper conviction about the need to protect children's education than many Conservative Members have or have ever had. Children are being caught in a vice between the understandable frustrations that teachers have experienced over the years and a Government who lack the courage to test their convictions and arguments in front of an independent review body. A reasonable demand is being made and it is reasonable for the people of Scotland to demand that it should be listened to by the Government.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I agree with the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that there is a wide area of common concern about this dispute. It encompasses worry about those children who are attending school. Whatever the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South may have said about a particular school, we all know that throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom schools have been affected by the teachers' dispute. It is common ground that we should seek to devise a method by which that dispute can be ended as quickly as possible. However, there is genuine disagreement about how the dispute can be ended.
  The Government have been perversely blind about the development of this dispute. Anybody with any eyesight at all would have seen the attempts made by the teachers last year to negotiate a cash settlement with the Government. A settlement then would have helped to allay a considerable amount of the disquiet that was developing at grass roots level within the teaching profession. If a union ascertains by means of a ballot that over 80 per cent. of its members want industrial action to be taken, that is very significant. When such a union by a ballot obtains huge support for industrial action, and also has a tradition of trying to avoid taking industrial action whenever possible, the Government ought to take on board the fact that the reasons for this dispute are so deeply rooted that they must attempt to reach a settlement. To do so, the Government will need to throw overboard some of the obduracy of their approach.
  There is quite obvious lack of trust between the Government and the teachers. On 25 March the Secretary of State for Education and Science gave me an answer which contained information relating to primary and secondary school teachers. It showed that, in constant terms, from the time of the Clegg review salaries had decreased in real terms. Teachers have seen an erosion of their standard of living and, something that worries them just as much, they feel that society lacks respect for their profession. If the Minister looks at the information, he will find that in 1980, for secondary school teachers, in constant terms, the value was £11,458, whereas the comparable level is now £10,365. That demonstrates the fall that has taken place.
  It is equally interesting to note that the average pay in 1984 for a teacher in the secondary sector, including teachers who had been promoted, was £10,155. I am sure

  287
  that many hon. Members would be reluctant to accept a salary within that range. Therefore, the Government must answer the real worries of teachers, not just about their pay, but about their position in the league table for pay in three, four or five years' time. Their experience is that unless there is a substantial hitch-up from time to time their standards of pay will be compressed and hammered down. The Government have failed to realise that teachers have reached the end of their tether and can go no further.
  The Government have changed their stance on a number of occasions and they have obscured the issue—probably for propaganda reasons —but they have not changed their cash stance. If the Government were to guarantee that the cash would be available to meet a negotiated settlement the teachers would consider their proposals, but they do not have much faith in a Government who have refused an independent pay review. The Government are saying that if terms are agreed with the teaching profession and the employers, they might not be willing to agree with them.
  The Government suggest a two-stage settlement. The first is that the teachers should sign a blank cheque, abandon some conditions of service and enter into negotiations with the employers through the negotiating machinery. If a package were agreed between the teachers and the employers, that must meet with Government approval. The Government have carefully made it clear that they will not sanction any such agreement in advance. Having achieved the notional package, the teachers might find that it is shelved, as so many agreements have been in recent years.
  If the Government want the teachers to negotiate and to avoid an independent pay review, they should come out from under their cloak of independence. They should accept that they are the paymasters and be prepared to negotiate direct with the teachers. The teachers would then know exactly where they stood. However, the Government are standing back and are not prepared to guarantee that they will meet in full any package which is agreed. In those circumstamces, the teachers would be rash to become involved.
  Mr. Malone: Is the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) saying that he would be happy to accept direct negotiations between the teachers and the Government? If he is, it is an important modification of the position which he stated previously.
  Mr. Wilson: I am saying that the teachers do not trust the Government to come up with the cash to sustain any package agreed as a result of negotiations. If the Government want the teachers to change their stance on the independent pay review, the Minister must say that he is prepared to meet the cash proposals resulting from that review.
  The teachers would be ill advised to enter into negotiations with the Government on both pay and conditions at the same time. Pay and conditions must be considered separately. The urgent need is to settle the pay issue. Once that is settled, it would be appropriate for the Government or the employers to negotiate conditions. It is not desirable for the two issues to be conjoined.
  One of the reasons for the teachers' lack of trust in the Government is that the Secretary of State has, within the Scottish budget, insufficient money to meet the pay claim that would be accepted under an independent review. By
  288
  refusing an independent pay review the Government have underlined that fear. The Secretary of State has already had to readjust his priorities on two occasions in the last financial year, and he would have to approach the Cabinet, well aware of the bounce-on effect on the Department of Education and Science, which also has a pay dispute on its hands. He would have to extract the money from the Treasury, and that is unlikely to be successful. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has sufficient clout within the Cabinet to obtain the money necessary to settle the dispute.
  In the last few years, pay has declined in real terms. The adjusted curriculum following reports by Munn and Dunning has resulted in additional work for teachers, disciplinary problems because of the phasing out of corporal punishment and composite classes. Teachers can see the education system crumbling because of lack of care and attention.
  Mrs. McCurley: Part of the problem is that teachers wish to negotiate pay and conditions. They are complaining about terms and conditions, so how can the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) divorce pay from conditions?
  Mr. Wilson: I can easily divorce the two issues, because they are different. Pay has declined in real terms in the last few years. Teachers want that put right, and the Government must put it right if they want to sustain a good education system in Scotland and to provide proper education for our children. That is the primary issue.
  Conditions can be more easily taken care of once the pay issue has been resolved. Teachers suspect that they will be asked to trade in many conditions of service, without any real advantage, simply because the Government refuse to make up their pay.
  The blame for the dispute rests with the Government. If the Government had any political intelligence or sensitivity they would have seen the dispute approaching on the horizon. The Government have made many political blunders and errors in the last three or four months which have decimated their support and upset their supporters. They have made a mess of the teachers' dispute and caused problems for our children. The blame lies with them and they cannot escape it.
  8.47 pm
  Mrs. Anna McCurley: I am a former member of the teaching profession, a former member of a local education committee and a representative in the House of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association. I am deeply saddened by the strike. I am extremely worried about the effect that it will have on educational prospects for thousands of youngsters. I am also worried about the effect that it will have on employment prospects for those youngsters.
  When I heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) talk about the care and concern of the teaching profession tonight I was sickened, because only a couple of days ago I read an article which said that the EIS was planning to take the strike into 1986. That means not just one year but three years in which children's education is disrupted in terms of the national examination syllabus. Three separate sets of children will be disrupted.
  The dispute is serious and tragic. I do not use the words "teaching profession" lightly. We must consider what

  289
  professionalism means. Scotland is the only country in the United Kingdom where the teaching profession can be called a profession. It has a professional body which governs the conduct of its members—rather like the General Medical Council. I think it is right that as a consequence the people of Scotland expect professional standards from their teachers.
  Historically, if not traditionally, teachers are poorly paid. All servants of the state in vocational employment usually are. In the 1930s, teachers were asked, if not required, by the national Government in an economic crisis to take a cut in salaries. One of the reasons no doubt was that women dominated the profession in Scotland. That is probably why they were low paid. In the 1930s and before, women were historically forced to choose between their vocation and marriage, and primary education was dominated by women. It is only in recent years that the colleges of education have granted access to males in the primary section on certification courses.
  In the 1970s, the influence of male teachers expanded, and I expect, with the profession then bread-winner dominated, that is why there has been a demand for an increase in salaries. I am certainly not opposed to that. As a former member of the profession, I remember with horror receiving my first pay cheque and realising how lowly paid I was and that the status of teacher must also be very lowly.
  However, the Governent, and particularly the Secretary of State, have shown a considerable respect for the profession. Under the aegis of the Secretary of State, the profession has moved to an all-graduate intake. The professional now has to take a degree before he or she becomes a teacher or is part of a degree course.
  The demand before the House is to bring the salaries of teachers back into line with the standards that prevailed in the mid-1970s. In the mid-1970s, possibly after the Clegg recommendations, teachers gained a little in standards of pay. Since then, it is not surprising that the little that they gained in the 1970s has been eroded because, upon receiving a reasonable pay increase, they were immediately hit by inflation under a Labour Government, indeed, under a Lib-Lab pact, which affected us all, and if a teacher could not survive with 27 per cent. inflation it is not surprising.
  The present strike is the culmination of the frustration of the teaching profession. I have spoken to enough teachers to know that. Teachers want to be given finances commensurate with their status, and with that I agree wholeheartedly. However, today, on a picket line in Gourock outside a hotel, when I was with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, an unattractive and unacceptable section of the teaching profession reared its head: a thoroughly unkempt, untidy mob appeared spewing out invective, with a liberal helping of four-letter words. If I were the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, I would try to get their heads put in a bucket, because I would not like these people to represent my profession. I would attempt to hide them if I was trying to elicit sympathy from the public. It was a disgrace to the many hundreds of educated, cultivated, respectable and responsible people in the teaching profession who have
  290
  daily care and charge of our children. Many, in fact nearly all, of these teachers are highly dedicated and have a great love of children.
  In the beginning of the strike, I believed that it did not have—
  Mr. George Foulkes rose—
  Mrs. McCurley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
  In the beginning, I believed that the strike was not politically motivated. I believed, like others, that it was a natural response to a sorry situation.
  Mr. Foulkes: May God bless!
  Mrs. McCurley: I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak in the House. I did not realise that I was also to hear him at prayer. I think that it would be more appropriate if he took himself and his prayers elsewhere and, believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he needs all the prayers that he can get.
  Not one Opposition Member who has spoken in the debate has condemned selective action but, by jove, if it happened to Opposition Members in another situation they would soon be bleating about it. They would probably have more influence—or perhaps not, I do not know—over the teaching profession. One of the reasons why Opposition Members are particularly thin on the ground tonight and are particularly silent on some aspects of the debate is that they have no sympathy with the teachers.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mrs. McCurley: One reason why they have no sympathy for the teachers is that some of the teachers on the general management committees are the biggest nuisances to some Opposition Members that one could possibly find.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.
  Mrs. McCurley: Another matter that Opposition Members have failed to discuss in the debate is the irresponsible way in which the cadet branches of their party were responsible for a disgraceful scene in George square, Glasgow the other day, where they incited children of under 14 to go out on to the streets and riot, and they are proposing to do the same again. Using children is quite immoral, and the way in which the strike has been organised in certain constituencies against certain Conservative Members of Parliament is also immoral.
  Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Lady seems to be drawing a distinction between certain members of the teaching profession, in particular those who were lobbying her and her hon. Friend today, and the vast majority of the profession who she says, as I underlined, are concerned and dedicated teachers. Will she bear in mind the fact that there was a ballot in the dispute, and that over 80 per cent. of the teachers, which must include the vast majority of the concerned, respectable, responsible members of the profession, felt it necessary to vote for strike action? How will she take that on board?
  Mrs. McCurley: One reason was that the profession was in a white heat and ignored the prospect of a negotiated settlement. The offer was overridden by the

  291
  union. Perhaps the teachers thought that there was some advantage in going along with their union to press the point home to the Government. The Government have taken aboard the message about the poor pay of teachers and offered a way out, but the EIS has singularly failed to take it up.
  My union — I have pleasure in representing the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association in the House—and other unions are as concerned as the EIS to obtain a solution. The problem is that the members of the EIS appear to be led by the nose by an unrepresentative bunch of deadheads, one of whom in 1961 was voted the most boring man at Glasgow university, and he went on to be voted the most boring man there in 1962 and 1963. For him the strike represents the zenith of his political career to date. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] There are many ways to skin a cat. That member of the Educational Institute of Scotland has chosen a way that will serve to furnish him with the ultimate patronage of a safe Labour parliamentary seat, or perhaps even a higher and greater honour in another House. But he does not seem to be concerned about the future of his members.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has convinced me on many occasions that he is prepared to negotiate with the teachers. There is a flaw in the independent pay review body argument. It is that if somebody outwith the profession—not understanding the nuances involved—struck a rate that the Government could not accept because it was miles above average pay settlements, how would a settlement then be possible? There would be an impasse. The independent pay review body idea has been presented, not only to the profession but to the general public, as a seductively simple-sounding answer.
  I want teachers to be paid a salary commensurate with their status. They have said that they now have a more complex job. Negotiations could prove that. People in other professions have obtained negotiated settlements by proving what they had been claiming. The teachers could do the same. I would prefer the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee to be in a position to negotiate terms and conditions. I say that in the belief that the cause for which the teachers are fighting is just and that they could prove it to the Government and public alike.
  This is the opportunity for the teachers to prove their claim that they have a more complex and exacting job. Nor should we forget that they have constant in-service training, which occupies more of their time than used to be the case. If the position was presented properly to the teachers by their union's leadership, the teachers would accept it.
  As for the bone fide status of the Secretary of State in this too emotive situation, it must be spelled out unequivocally to the majority of teachers in the EIS that the intransigence of their leaders is leading to an NUM-like disaster. The Secretary of State's door is open for negotiations.
  For the sake of the future of the children of Scotland and the profession in general, this strike must end soon. If we took the so-called party politics out of the strike, it would end soon. I urge Opposition Members to accept that if the teachers are led up the same path as Arthur Scargill led his miners, the same will happen to them as is happening now to Scargill.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I regarded the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) as a sad effort. She seemed to be endeavouring to be like the Prime Minister. Such an attitude does not help the situation that we are discussing. The strike has not been caused, nor is it being prolonged, by party politics. If the hon. Lady believes that it is, she is mistaken. It is the result of a large number of teachers believing that they have a genuine grievance and being committed to their cause. It is not a conspiracy involving the Labour party, the Socialist Workers party or anyone else. It is based upon the commitment of a very large number of teachers. That is the truth of the matter.
  I am anxious that some progress should be made in the dispute. I accept that no one would argue that disruption in schools is welcome. No one wants it. The only question that we can consider productively is why it has occurred. We can then see whether there are ways of making progress. Disruption will harm teachers and pupils in the long run, and it will also harm parents. No one would argue on that point.
  I do not think that anyone would argue about the basic cause. There has been a severe slippage in teachers' pay over the last few years. Anyone who looks around his own contemporaries and considers the position of those who are teachers and those who have gone into comparable professions will realise that the teachers have done badly. Despite the big rise that was given at the time of Houghton and the boost as a result of Clegg, if I were a teacher who had been teaching in a secondary school in Scotland for eight years and was earning £8,000, I would have considerable problems with my mortgage and family expenses.
  That problem has been compounded by the fact that teachers have had to respond, as they were willing and anxious to do, to the Munn and Dunning reforms to the 16 to 18 action plan. They had to cope with that professional challenge at a time when the personal resources which they had to deploy were inadequate and when funding for the education sector was declining.
  I do not want to rehearse the arguments in the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday, when we considered what had happened to education finance, but if we compare 1984–85 with 1985–86, we see that there will be a drop in cash terms from £1,763 million to £1,696 million. In real terms, that is substantial. There are counter arguments about declining pupil rolls. No doubt we could argue for many an hour and many a day, and probably will, but if we consider the projections for the next three years to 1987–88, we see that an increase of only £7 million on a budget which stood at £1·7 billion means that in real terms there will be considerable difficulties. The repeated message from Conservative politicians is that there can be more pay for teachers, but that will mean fewer teachers and an increasingly swift deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio. That is one of the reasons why there has been so much discontent.
  What are we to do about it, and how can we make progress? The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde made one useful suggestion. To her credit, it puts her out on a limb almost in comparison with her colleagues. As I understood what she said, she believes that the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee should get on with the job and should be able to arrange a settlement.

  293
  I took that from her remarks, but I may have been wrong. She went on to imply that when it had reached agreement and negotiated a settlement, that should be it, and it should be implemented. If the Government were prepared to say that—of course, the Government have places on the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee—that would be an enormous incentive to start the kind of negotiations which the Government say they want but which they have done very little positively to encourage.
  The Government have more or less said to the teachers, "Go to the joint negotiating committee, negotiate with the employers' side and reach an agreement, but we give no guarantee that we will consider the result favourably. If you come up with something that we regard as a good buy for us, we may consider trying to find additional resources." There is nothing more than a rather dismissive suggestion which in the context of the way in which the dispute has been conducted by the Secretary of State has fairly been interpreted as an invitation to negotiate a settlement which will bring about a substantial deterioration in the conditions of work and which will attract little additional cash from the Secretary of State.
  If the negotiating committee, with the Secretary of State's representatives, could reach an agreement, the Secretary of State should indicate his intention of considering it. I do not suggest that he should give a cast-iron guarantee that he would honour it all. That would be asking a lot, because he would not know what would be in it. If he would make genuine, favourable noises about trying to reach a settlement, rather than the luke warn, discouraging noises that we have heard, that would be helpful.
  I shall give an example to the Under-Secretary of State, who is looking puzzled. During the last Scottish Question Time I asked the Secretary of State whether the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee could come up with not just a formula which would buy extra money by handing over terms and conditions of employment, but a package which included an improvement in conditions. The right hon. Gentleman said that I had raised an important point, but the best that he could manage was to say that he was neutral at that stage. That is typical of what has happened.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there is much to be said for going for the Scottish joint negotiating procedure. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) took a similar line. If the only objection to going through that procedure is the fear that the Secretary of State might not fulfil what came out of it, the time to kick, scream and shout and perhaps even take disruptive action would be after that procedure was followed. Surely disruptive action at this stage cannot be right.
  Mr. Dewar: The teachers want an independent pay review, and I have a great deal of sympathy for that aim. The Secretary of State has said that it is impossible. I am trying to take a reasonably conciliatory approach —judging by the speeches of Conservative Members, that has not been a mark of this debate so far—to ascertain whether we can make progress and find common ground.
  If the Secretary of State is genuine in saying that we should use the established negotiating position—I take it that the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) agrees—the right hon. Gentleman should do
  294
  something positive to encourage that. The EIS executive split 13:13 on such a proposal. The Scottish national council of the EIS was summoned to meet on the following Monday. Clearly, there was a possibility at that stage that the EIS would follow that road and watch what happened.
  What happened was that there was extraordinary disarray among ministerial ranks, with displays of different lines, approaches and degrees of softness and hardness. Ultimately, a ridiculous series of demands were put out at that crucial time by the Secretary of State, demanding that schools should open at unusual times, that subsidy should be given to private tuition, and so on. I could only interpret that as an attempt to set up a series of standards whereby it could be alleged that local authorities were failing to do their duty, thus enabling the powers under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to be used. Those powers allow the Secretary of State to take action against local authorities for failing to carry out their duty as education authorities.
  I am trying to find some rationale in the actions of a Government who are trying to tempt teachers to move from an independent pay review towards genuine negotiation. The Government's effort was amazingly maladroit, and that is the most charitable thing that I can say about it. Our message is that we believe that the teachers have a valid pay claim. That is self-evident on examining the facts. The teachers should have an independent pay review. If there is to be an entrenched struggle—none of us wants this—and if the Government are genuinely to put an offer on the table, the offer must be put forward in a spirit that is attractive to the teachers so that they can consider it in the context of the harsh reality of the industrial dispute.
  The Secretary of State has shown a hardening of attitude at all the vital moments, and the offer of which he boasted has turned out to be extraordinarily unattractive to the teachers whose interest he is trying to engage. The offer is not as attractive as Conservative Members try to make it sound.
  I would be more impressed if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) were to say that he believes that a substantial pay increase should emerge from the negotiations. If the hon. Gentleman says, for example, that we cannot have an independent pay review, is he saying that the 12 per cent. increase for which teachers in England are asking is reasonable? Is the hon. Gentleman saying, as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde said, that the joint negotiating committee agreement should be honoured? Those are ways in which the deadlock could be broken if the Government are to be obstinate and take a stand against an independent pay review.
  Mrs. McCurley: The hon. Gentleman is going soft.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady has been shouting that I am going soft on this issue. I am not soft. I am genuinely interested in ensuring that progress is made. Until now, progress has been obstructed because of the obstinacy of Ministers. If we are to have an opening and turn from an entrenched civil war, which will disrupt our schools over a long period, there must be a much more positive and welcoming approach and recognition of the essential difficulties faced by teachers. If we had such an approach from Ministers, we would perhaps have the kind of progress that the Opposition want.
  9.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) on his good fortune in obtaining first place in the ballot and on choosing as his subject an issue which all hon. Members recognise as being of major concern to pupils and parents and, indeed, to the population of Scotland in general. That concern has been expressed by hon. Members of all parties. I recognise that the concern of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is genuine and that he was endeavouring to make a constructive speech.
  Time is rather limited and I hope that hon. Members will recognise that it is simply not possible for me in this debate to respond to all the points that have been raised. This debate focuses on the effects of the action. The dispute itself has been discussed previously and the Secretary of State set out the Government's position very clearly in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday.
  May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, who expressed his sympathy for the teachers, and to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who talked of the strong feelings of teachers, that it is precisely because we are sympathetic and appreciate those feelings that we suggested that the SJNC conduct a substantive review of pay and conditions of service. I must emphasise that the SJNC has a statutory responsibility for both areas, has conducted no such review in the past and has the expertise. That review could have taken place at any time, certainly since the Secretary of State pointed to the possibility. The SJNC could have completed its work by now. There could have been a settlement by now.
  To those who say that the Government have been obstinate or unreasonable. I must point out that we emphasised again and again that the methods adopted by the SJNC for such a review were a matter for the SJNC, and that if it wanted separate working parties, that was acceptable to the Government.
  In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about a particular method of approach, we indicated that that would have been acceptable to the Government.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I apologise to the hon. Member, but I have only five or six minutes left.
  I must emphasise that the Secretary of State's offer remains open. This is an offer which has been made to no other group of public sector employees—the offer of considering a review and re-ordering expenditure priorities within existing plans if an attractive package is brought forward from the SJNC. But, of course, that offer becomes more difficult as time passes because decisions are made about expenditure.
  It is important that we realise and appreciate the precise position adopted at this crucial stage in the dispute by the various parties. I spelt out the Government's position. The employers, the local authorities—and I must say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that I did not think from his speech that he thought that the employers really existed in this situation—accept that a rational dialogue within the SJNC on both pay and conditions is the best way forward. They put forward a particular formulation for that. That was acceptable to the Government as a way forward.
  296
  Opposition Members have talked in general terms about the teachers' unions, but it is a fact that two of the unions — the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), and the Professional Association of Teachers — have accepted and said publicly that it now makes sense to negotiate in this way. I understand that the position of the fourth union, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers is that negotiations should now start in the normal way on the 1985 pay round.
  It is against that background that the Educational Institute of Scotland is continuing to maintain—as my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde emphasised to the House—that the strikes will go on next year and beyond. That is a no hope position, which the Head Teachers Association of Scotland was reported in the weekend press as describing as
  "the EIS's bleak inflexibility in refusing to discuss conditions of service".
  I emphasise that the employers have always wanted a link between pay and conditions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South particularly mentioned the targeting of his constituency. The EIS has been open about its targeting of Conservative-held constituencies. That is a disgraceful tactic. It makes the dispute unique. Selected schools in the constituencies of Ministers and Back Benchers have been subjected to a sustained pattern of strike action. Some schools in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been hit for three days a week for up to eight weeks each. That is a totally unfair and vindictive method of making a point, which harms people just because they happen to live in particular constituencies. This tactic of victimisation is unprecedented. To my knowledge, no trade union either in Britain or elsewhere has ever used the strike weapon to attack those who live in particular constituencies. The implications are most serious. I agree that such a tactic is an affront to democracy.
  The campaign is cheap to operate, but I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde when she said that the strike was losing the EIS public sympathy. As a nation, we do not like unfairness on such a scale, and the unfairness of the EIS action has been widely acknowledged. The Head Teachers Association of Scotland yesterday described targeting as indefensible. Even the EIS itself has accepted that targeting is unfair. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South when he said that this form of action can and will achieve nothing. It is entirely counterproductive. We do not yield to blackmail. The right way is reasoned negotiation.
  Strike action and disruption has spread on an intermittent basis throughout Scotland. It does not have the same effect as sustained strike action. The EIS has also struck directly at this year's SCE examinations and, as has been said, it has attempted to cripple curricular reform.
  The Government are doing everything possible to counter the effects of the teachers' dispute, particularly to minimise the difficulties for pupils in examination years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South emphasised. We are also doing everything possible in relation to considering the appropriate future for the standard grade, and in pointing out local authorities'

  297
  obligations. As the House knows, we have been asked to explore action under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
  In conclusion, I must say to the House that the management and two of the unions involved are prepared to—
  In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.
  Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you agree that in a debate on such an important subject as this, which arouses considerable interest and concern throughout Scotland, such an issue cannot be fully discussed when a party representing one quarter of the electorate in Scotland has not had an opportunity to contribute. In view of that, I ask whether you will use your discretion in future to allow the issue to be debated in full, for example if an application is made for an Adjournment debate on this subject by myself or one of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) had better try his luck.
  The debate has lasted for an hour and a half, and, although I have only just taken my place, I note that only four Back Benchers were called during that hour and a half. As the longest Front Bench speech lasted for only 11 minutes, I conclude that some of the Back Benchers must have been rather greedy.

  Arts (Funding)
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: I am sorry that my time will trample upon the tender sensitivity of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
  On the last occasion when I spoke in a debate on a Consolidated Fund Bill, I rose to my feet at about 3.30 am. I am delighted by the fact that today I am starting to speak only three or four hours after most people have finished work and gone home.
  This debate is to be about public funding of the arts. It may be helpful if I set out at the outset the basis of my arguments. I am in favour of the arts, but opposed to direct Government subsidy of the arts. I am not moved especially by the idea of saving Government expenditure, although I am not indifferent to that consideration in a number of other respects. I believe that direct Government subsidy has a malign effect upon the arts and that only when we move away from it will we witness a real regeneration in the arts in this country.
  I know that we shall hear some drearily predictable remarks from the Opposition about Tory Philistinism. I do not wish to parade any credentials that I may have in terms of being an art lover, a theatre-goer or an opera-goer. Since 9 June 1983 my opportunities to attend the theatre, the opera and so on have been somewhat reduced, but I do when I can.
  This debate takes place at a time when a much wider debate is in progress in the country about how the Government should treat the arts. There have been loud cries about crisis and disaster in the arts. No superlatives have been too far over the top for some of the protagonists. At times, one might have thought that a battle was taking place.
  What are the dimensions of the so-called crisis or disaster in the arts? My noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has set out in another place the amount of public money devoted to the arts. In 1985–86 it will be £272 million. That is a real increase of 18 per cent. since the Government came to office, and this year's increase is above the rate of inflation. A further £250 million is spent on broadcasting — as a subsidy to the arts in broadcasting. That is not direct public spending, but nearly every other country would include that figure as public spending on the arts. In total, therefore, about £500 million is spent on subsidising the arts in this country.
  Furthermore, the arts now receive more in Government subsidy than in voluntary contributions from individuals. Among voluntary contributions, I of course include box office receipts. That peculiar situation should give rise to deep unease about the state of the business. It means that people paying income tax at about one third of average earnings are subsidising the pleasures of those who, by and large, are in much higher income brackets. That should be a source of deep worry, especially to the class warriors in the Opposition. I shall be interested to hear what they have to say about that.
  During the past 10 years there has been a rebirth of sponsorship of the arts. It used to be called patronage, and came from individuals. In the rebirth, the patronage comes principally from companies, so we are now required to call it sponsorship. The attitude of the arts establishment towards it is ambivalent to say the least. In some sections it is downright hostile. Private money is sometimes

  299
  regarded as tainted money—the proceeds of capitalism—which must somehow detract from the sanctity of the artistic endeavour. Nobody should underestimate the extent to which that attitutude prevails in the arts establishment. It is thoroughly dangerous and has had an enormously bad effect on how the arts establishment is run.
  My feelings about the malign effects of public subsidy of the arts was summed up by one of our most distinguished contemporary novelists, Mr. Kingsley Amis, when he wrote to The Times on 21 February as follows:
  "Subsidy damages art by tending to foster irresponsibility, showiness, cliquism and self-indulgence in the artist. At the same time the public's power to choose what art it wants, by financial pressure on the artist, is dangerously weakened. And whatever might be said about public taste it is better than the taste of the people the subsidised artist is likely to set out to please or impress: critics, colleagues, friends, experts, bureaucrats."
  That sums up in a masterly way the malign effects of direct subsidy of the arts. The consequence of 40 years of increasing art subsidy has been that the arts have become introverted. They have yielded to the temptation to insulate themselves from their audience and communities. That is understandable. When the principal source of money is the Government, the arts lobby and establishment increasingly turns in on itself as it becomes the corridors of power within which that money is dispersed. That is unsatisfactory.
  Another of the malign effects is that subsidy leads to the imposition of taste on the public—by committees and drama panels. It is unsatisfactory that the decision about which theatre should receive money is made by a drama panel. The matter should be decided by those who have the money to give. Have we had a significantly better arts scene since 1945, when the Arts Council was created?
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Yes.
  Mr. Maude: Will the years 1945 to 1985 be seen by posterity as a golden age of the arts in Britain? We have an artistic heritage which started somewhat before 1945, and it will continue beyond 1985, no matter what the extent of the subsidy that we give.
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the arts have always been subsidised in one form or another, whether by royal patronage or individuals? Because business and the landed gentry have become so few and far between, the state has been prepared to help. Surely that is the same as has always happened.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my argument. We should encourage sponsorship by individuals and by companies to replace direct involuntary subsidy by taxpayers. I do not see there being a net gain to the Treasury at the end of the exercise. I see the direct subsidy being reduced at the same rate as that at which tax incentives take effect and increase direct sponsorship of the arts.
  I know the argument against sponsorship. It is said there would be sponsorship only of enterprises which are safe, cautious and establishment. Many people were exercised about the pile of bricks at the Tate. It did not exercise me. I did not see the bricks, but I have seen other piles of bricks and I did not understand the point. However, I do not dispute that that may have been a genuine artistic activity. From such experiments,
  300
  genuinely worthwhile artistic enterprises can and do emerge. However, I wonder whether it is right for such experiments to be subsidised by the involuntary contributions of taxpayers. The sort of outcry that that type of exhibit generates is likely to make it much more difficult to sustain public subsidy in the long run, to lead to a clamping down, and to a much more cautious attitude by the arts lobby.
  The other aspect of subsidy which interests me is the relationship that develops between the arts establishment and the Government. It was rather uncomfortable at the beginning when the arts lobby wheedled the Government for money. In the 1960s it became a comfortable relationship — some people would say much too comfortable—because the Government provided plenty of money for the arts, and the public did not fit into the equation. Now, wheedling has given way to an arrogant assumption by the arts establishment that if they call themselves artists they have an automatic call on the public's involuntary contributions. That is unacceptable.
  One of the most strident exponents of that arrogance has been Sir Peter Hall. During the past few weeks we have witnessed that increasingly. He has resorted to ruthless blackmail, threatened to close the whole of the National theatre if he does not get his way, and put in great anxiety the 100 people whose jobs depend on the Cottesloe theatre continuing in existence.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Nonsense.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not seen the article in The Sunday Times of 17 February, which flowed directly from Sir Peter's remarks. He said that if the Greater London council carried out its threat to withdraw its annual grant, he would close the theatre, and that the reason why it was so difficult for him to manage was that the building cost a lot to run. He said:
  "the National's budget has been distorted by the building's £2·8 million running costs."
  Whose fault is that? He was a member of the building committee when the theatre was being planned, was responsible for much of the outfitting of it, and must bear his share of the responsibility. Everyone else must work with the buildings that they have. Why should the National theatre be exempt from that?
  A consequence of the arrogance in the arts establishment has been its tendency to build gigantic grandiose palaces, some would say, to indulge its vanity. If, in the fullness of time, it comes to regret that because the costs are more than it thought, my sympathy is lacking. I await the day when the Royal Shakespeare Company regrets its grandiose expansion into the Barbican. It will not be long before we hear complaints about the expensive costs of running it.
  The National theatre has a total income of about £14·4 million, of which more than half comes in direct public subsidy. That is not a bad deal. In every base year except one it has increased ahead of inflation. I do not wish to make too much complaint about Sir Peter. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts said in a recent debate in another place that we should have a plurality of revenue for the arts. Sir Peter is a good example of that. On top of his salary as a part-time director of the National theatre, he is director of productions at Glyndebourne and has been a producer and director at Bayreuth. I make no complaint about that. He might be thought to be an embodiment of the virtues of entrepreneurial Britain,

  301
  seizing opportunities and advancing himself. Many would say that it is splendid stuff, but it tends to make one a little less than sympathetic when he continues his pontificating humbug about the so-called dismantling of the subsidised theatre. He would do well for his sake, as much as for the sake of the cause that he espouses, if he left the public platform, for which he is frankly unsuitable, and returned to the theatre, of which he is an adornment.
  One is forced to ask: is there a need for direct subsidy for the theatre to continue? We must ask whether there is a need for subsidies of more than 50 per cent. The Everyman theatre in Liverpool manages to do business in a deprived area on a much smaller subsidy. The Royal Exchange theatre in Manchester, which also has a much smaller subsidy, produces experimental, avant garde and extremely fine works.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: When has the hon. Gentleman been there?
  Mr. Maude: I have been there several times and have seen many good productions.
  The west end theatres have survived without subsidy successfully for many years. When we debate this subject, many people say that the subsidised theatre is essential because it brings tourists to the country and is a great money-earner. Of course, that is right. It generates revenue, but the unsubsidised west end theatres generate just as much revenue. Indeed, they generate more revenue because they do not have the original public subsidy to begin with. Some argue that the west end theatre is fertilised by productions from the subsidised theatre. Of course, that is right. The argument is that if we cut off subsidised theatre, we cut off that fertilisation. I do not accept that, because the west end theatre has a product to sell. If it cannot get new and good quality productions from the subsidised sector, it will develop those productions from elsewhere. It has something to sell, and it must have products. I have no doubt that the reduction of the subsidy to theatres would have no bad effect on the ability of west end theatres to continue in business.
  What of other theatres which can survive without subsidy? For example, Glyndebourne survives completely without subsidy, except for a small subsidy for its touring operation. It has one or two new productions every festival, which compares favourably with the heavily subsidised Covent Garden and the Coliseum. The Chichester festival is also completely unsubsidised. It is successful, and is never shy of putting on new productions which test the frontiers of the arts. In recent years there has been an enormous growth in privately run, specialised museums, which is a development of sponsorship and of commerciality in the arts.
  As a replacement for direct subsidy, I should like to see tax incentives to encourage individuals and companies to increase their sponsorship of the arts. This has increased from virtually nothing 10 years ago to quite a substantial proportion. However, the proportion of private sponsorship to public subsidy in Great Britain is almost exactly the reverse of the situation in the United States. In the United States it is roughly 10 to one, but in this country it is about one to 10. This happens in the United States because tax incentives are offered.
  The Select Committee on Education and the Arts suggested concessions on private sponsorship three years
  302
  ago. Eventually, in January last year, the Government produced their response to that suggestion. Effectively, they said that this could not be done and should not be done. The reasons are fairly sketchily set out, but they are worth looking at. They raised a number of interesting points. The Government said:
  "To exempt business companies from tax on a percentage of their profits on donations to the arts would be a concession that it would be difficult and inequitable to confine to the arts."
  That is nonsense. In the United States it is done perfectly successfully. As for how difficult it would be to justify confining it to the arts, that is a matter of pragmatism. It is acceptable to raise money to use as tax concessions to act as a catalyst to encourage certain desirable activities. This may not be necessary in the long-term, but it is necessary in the short term to develop this activity.
  The Government's answer went on to say:
  "Moreover, the gain to the arts would not necessarily be in respect of a wide range of deserving cases, while the loss of revenue would mean substantial falls in the substantial sums within the Government's direct control."
  That is not the robust voice of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts. That is the authentic voice of the arts establishment, which sums up in a sentence all that is worst about the system of direct subsidy to the arts.
  The gain to the arts
  "would not necessarily be in respect of a wide range of deserving cases"—
  Who is to decide that? Is it to be the drama panel of the Arts Council? What a poor fist it has made of that in the past. Why should companies not decide which should be deserving cases, or the audiences? Are we to assume that the drama panel of the Arts Council, the committee sitting isolated from the public, is a better judge of what is a deserving case than the public? That is an intolerably arrogant attitude.
  The Government's reply said:
  "the loss of revenue would mean substantial falls in the sums within the Government's direct control."
  If that is the result, good, so much the better. We want to see much more control over the way in which money goes to the arts in the hands of companies which can make decisions and of the public who take decisions to go and fill seats to see performances.
  The argument set out sketchingly in the paper put out by the Office of Arts and Libraries does not meet the case. It has dismissed sponsorship lightly, but this matter would repay much closer consideration. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary winds up the debate he will hold out some hope that the Government will reconsider this matter as the only long-term solution to this problem.
  The argument is that sponsorship will always go to the safe and cautious projects, but that has not been shown to be the case. Initially it was so, and was bound to be, but it is an activity that is developing. As it becomes more and more ingrained in society, and into the business community that it is a good thing to do to sponsor the arts, sponsorship will become more and more adventurous. There are a number of encouraging examples of business sponsoring adventurous projects. For example, BP gives substantial subsidy to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, which is not a particularly cautious or unadventurous project. It is good to see a big establishment, a multinational company, going in for that. IBM sponsors the Scottish Museum of Modern Art. Again, that is a good development. The award scheme run by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts and the Sunday

  303
  Telegraph singles out imaginative and adventurous schemes. There is a growing tendency for sponsorship to move away from safe and cautious art, which will always predominate. If there are signs that private sponsorship is moving into more adventurous areas, that must be welcomed.
  Direct subsidy of the arts is not the only aspect that worries me. The Treasury accepts works of art and property in lieu of tax. Parliament imposes capital transfer tax, thus forcing people to sell their properties to pay the tax, in lieu of which the Government accept works of art for the nation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) will make representations to the Treasury about the malign effect of this tax on the arts generally. The redistributive effect of capital transfer tax is negligible, its yield is slight, its collection cost is heavy, but its indirect effect upon the arts is considerable. Abolition of capital transfer tax would not only discourage the export of works of art and reduce Government intervention, but would open the way for wider patronage of the arts by individuals. There would then be a return to the occasionally eccentric, occasionally dotty patronage of the wilder types of artistic endeavour that took place in the past. It would be better if such patronage came from private individuals rather than from the public purse.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will consider favourably the introduction of tax concessions for sponsorship of the arts and that eventually the abolition of capital transfer tax will revolutionise the funding of the arts. Eventually I should like taxes to be so low that the public could exercise their own choice about how they spend their money. That would be much more desirable than the extraction of involuntary contributions from taxpayers, which amount to one third of average earnings, thus forcing them to subsidise against their will those who are usually much better off. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this point.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I had intended to be brief and I still intend to be brief. I want to deal specifically with funding, but it would be quite wrong if I did not say a word or two about the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, South (Mr. Maude). It is unbelievable that anybody in Britain can say that the period from the mid-1940s onwards has been the worst ever period for British art, given the background of Olivier, Richardson, Ashcroft, Gielgud, Redgrave, and, secondly, that there should be a substitution for public funding which is accountable to a very large number of people. The alternative is private sponsorship.
  The hon. Member put forward two arguments for private sponsorship. The first was that it would be chosen by individuals. The mind boggles at the the thought of Rupert Murdoch in charge of the choice of works of art in this country. That is what it would amount to. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that private sponsorship has proved to be adventurous because it has put up money for the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.
  As the man who started the Edinburgh Fringe, I am pleased about that, but in the initial years no such money was forthcoming for our productions. No money is being given for the present production of the play about the miners, "The Garden of England". When that comes, we might talk.
  Such nonsense can be equalled only by the Minister for the Arts in his infamous speech in the House of Lords
  304
  when he said that there had been an 18 per cent. increase in real terms in arts funding since the Government came to office. The funding and the figures are important. The Minister for the Arts claimed that the arts had received an 18 per cent. increase since 1978–79. He claimed that on television, in an argument with Peter Hall and others, and in the House of Lords. I assume that he intended to cover the Tory period in office.
  The year 1978–79 was a curious year to choose. It was the last year of the Labour Government and therefore refers to a Labour programme. I am curious about why the Minister for the Arts should have sought some spurious credit. The answer is even more curious. In that year there was a computer strike and £6 million from the Labour programme was transferred to the following year's programme. About 5 per cent. of the total was therefore paid in the following year, thus producing an artificially low figure for 1978–79 and an equally high jump in the following year. That means that the 18 per cent. claim can be reduced by more than one third in real terms. The claim is nonsense, but it reveals creative accounting by an Arts Minister who was once a Treasury Minister. The claim is strange because, according to the Minister for the Arts, public expenditure is, by definition, evil. The Government say that all public spending is bad and that it must be cut. It is strange that they should take credit for a Labour Government spending programme.
  Within one month of the general election in 1979, the Government started to cut money for the arts. Within a month they cut the programme which they inherited from us by 2 per cent. Well over 10 per cent. of that 18 per cent. was spent in a single year—in 1982–83, the year before the election. The 18 per cent. figure is the combined result of our actions, of the computer strike and of the 1983 election.
  The Government's first action after that general election was again to cut the arts budget. To be fair, that did not take place within a month. It took two or three months. In October the Government cut the arts programme on which they fought the election Two elections were successfully over, and two cuts faced the arts world. So much for Government claims about total spending. The claim is nonsense.
  Two matters are important. We are dealing with a tiny—some would say mean—overall budget for the arts, libraries and museums. Therefore, any single major item can immediately and adversely affect others. For example, this coming year alone necessary expenditure on the British Library of over £7 million will take half the apparent planned increase in cash terms.
  Many museums and galleries such as the National gallery and the Victoria and Albert museum are in difficulties. The increased cost of necessary repairs to such museums and galleries will be three times the rate of inflation in the coming year. That single aspect accounts for over 10 per cent. of the total Department budget.
  I deal next with the immediate issue, to which the Minister for the Arts referred in scathing terms as the crisis in the arts. Any claimed increase in real terms for Arts Council spending in the Tory period of office suffers from the same spurious and creative accountancy as the overall budget for the Office of Arts and Libraries.
  In 1983–84, after the pre-election mini-boom in arts funding, the old cycle was repeated—a cut in the arts. Then came the attempt to demonstrate that the national institutions were all profligate and inefficient spenders.

  305
  The Government tried to do this through the Priestley report, and it boomeranged, because they were wrong. Those institutions turned out to be more efficient than most of the capitalist organisations that the Minister has been praising. This error cost £3·5 million. The Government were determined that somebody else should pay for it. Instead of the Government paying for it, it was paid for by cutting what was made available to the rest of the arts. It turned out that the arts would have to pay for this.
  Priestley became a camouflage. Whether from pique or from another burst of creative accountancy, the Government used Priestley to make a savage cut of 4 per cent. in real terms in the provision for the rest of theatre and music in Britain by claiming credit for fulfilling Priestley. With the inclusion of the extra amount in Priestley, there was still an overall cut. That in itself is a measure of what the arts have had to face. The effect only two years ago was a cut of 4 per cent. in real terms in the rest of the performing arts in Britain. It is a devastating figure for the arts world to sustain. The factor of over £4 million a year is applicable to last year, this year and next year.
  As to the talk of an increase of £5 million, four fifths is coming out because of the pledge in Priestley which has been borne not by the Government directly but by the rest of the arts. Thus there is the continuing factor of the drop of 4 per cent. because Priestley has continued into 1984–85, when total art funding is virtually frozen in real terms. That is the reason for the crisis and why it is correct for Sir Peter Hall, Melvin Bragg, others and myself to say that there is a genuine crisis in the arts.
  In the coming year, there is to be a new factor. On top of Priestley, there is "The Glory of the Garden". This developed a strategy for devolution of the arts, but without the funds to carry through the strategy. Three million pounds was allocated for the strategy and its development this year, when the total grant in real terms has been cut, even taking account of the Priestley money. The real problem is that the development will cost £3 million, which has not been provided, and it must therefore come from the existing art world.
  It is not the Government who are paying for "The Glory of the Garden", but the rest of the arts. It is a repeat of the Priestley sleight of hand. To that £3 million must be added another £1 million of costs that have come out of the Arts Council budget because of the £600,000 properly allocated to Scotland to compensate for the loss of local authority funding following the implementation by the Government of the Stoddart report. Another £400,000 is to come out of arts expenditure to prepare for the running of the South Bank by the Arts Council following yet another piece of political pique and stupidity by the Government in seeking to abolish the Greater London council.
  Taking these factors into consideration for last year, this year and next year, we are witnessing a cut in real terms of about 5 per cent. for the majority of the existing performing arts. That is serious, but the story does not end there—the worst is yet to come.
  Great play has been made—correctly—of the value of the plurality of funding in the arts. The main source of funding in the arts other than central Government—indeed, greater than central Government — is local authorities. They gave 50 times as much money to the arts in 1981–82 as private sources. In 1984–85 they gave
  306
  between 15 and 20 times as much. They are the main bulwark of support for the arts today and without them the arts would collapse.
  We now know the depth of the crisis and the reason for the fear. In the same period about which the Conservatives boast—from 1978–79 to the present time—there has been a collapse of over 8·5 per cent. in local authority finance. The 5 per cent., in effective terms, from central Government, plus the 8 per cent. from local authority funding, proves the point.
  We are only now beginning to appreciate the effects of cutting, capping and abolition. The Scottish experience shows how changes of this kind can drastically affect support funding for the arts. In total public spending there has been a real decrease in financial terms and a major decrease in effective terms.
  Each day my post contains letters from companies throughout Britain which are in increasingly desperate straits. Today I received a letter from the director of a major music festival outlining anxieties about the festival. The British Council is worried about the general effects on the arts. Another letter tells me of a major British city that is anxious about the consequences of the Government's policy on library provision. From a group of young unemployed actors seeking to mount a new company comes a letter telling me about their fears. I suspect that many hon. Members with an interest in the arts receive similar letters.
  We shall reverse the trend. We find it shameful that Britain should be at the bottom of the league in Europe in provision for the arts. The very existence of our national theatre is threatened. More important, we see being threatened the flourishing work that was done in the last decade or more by local communities, ethnic groups and local authorities. What has occurred has been a national scandal, and the trend must be halted and reversed before deeper damage is done.
  With that in mind, I give a pledge. Bearing in mind the present level of central Government funding through the Arts Council, my intention is to double that amount within the first 12 months of taking office. That will be done either through direct central Government funding or through additional earmarked support to local authorities. I stress the latter point, because we recognise—I regret to have to say this—that the present leadership of the Arts Council has failed. Where they should have fought, they have surrendered. Where they should have spoken as advocates for the arts, they have acted as apologists for the Government.
  We recognise, further, that if the principle of devolution of the arts—ill-thought out in "The Glory of the Garden"—is to be rescued and made effective, it must be through the strengthening of the regional and local control of funding. We shall therefore begin immediately on taking office the necessary structural changes in the funding of the arts to bring that about.
  Next, I pledge that if the philosophy of the Conservatives in the arts is extended to charging for museums, galleries and so on, we shall reverse that process too, as we had to do on a previous occasion.
  This is a philistine as well as a monetarist Government. Indeed, they are a philistine Government because they are monetarist. They cannot understand art in any terms but cash. They fail to understand the deeper value of art because they see it only in cash terms. We value the arts because we are committed to the arts. We recognise the

  307
  importance of public expenditure in relation to the regeneration of the economy as a whole, but we, who are concerned to change the world, recognise that the engine of change can be through the arts.
  Shelley described poets as the unacknowledged legislators of mankind. We accept that. Marx once said:
  "The Bourgeoisie erect statues to the great writers of the past. If they had ever read their books, they would have burnt them."
  That is the difference between the two sides of the House. I am glad that we have had this opportunity—although it is no substitute for a major debate — to discuss the matter. We promise as quickly as possible to reverse the disastrous effects of this philistine Government on the arts in Britain.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I listened to the first two speakers in the debate with total amazement. Government support for the arts should take three forms — subsidy by the Arts Council, tax relief and the encouragement of business sponsorship. These are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) suggested, to be seen as alternatives; they can and should be complementary. We need all three.
  The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) pretended that Government support for the arts has been cut. That is not so. The budget for the arts and libraries increased from £124 million in 1978–79, when his party went out of office, to £272 million for 1985–86, the year that is about to begin. That is a rise in real terms of 18 per cent. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. The increase for next year will be 5·8 per cent. I wish it could be more still. Anyway, it is slightly more than inflation. In London £16 million is to be made available to the Arts Council to make up for the abolition of the Greater London Council.
  The arts are enormously important because of the way in which they enrich and enlarge people's lives and the enjoyment they give. Even if the arts are seen merely from an economic aspect, they are of tremendous value to Britain. The arts, the heritage and the monarchy, to which the heritage is linked, comprise the main attraction which draws people to Britain. Foreigners come here not for our weather but to see our old towns and cities, our historic houses, churches and cathedrals, our art galleries and museums, the royal family and everything to do with it, our theatres, concerts, opera and ballet.
  The chairman of the Arts Council, Sir William Rees-Mogg, in a remarkable address earlier this month, said:
  "The arts are to British tourism what the sun is to Spain … As British manufacturing declines, there must be investment in the expansion of invisible earnings; and the arts are an essential part of any rational policy for such investment."
  He also said:
  "The state also has important benefits in tourist revenue".
  In a pamphlet published recently entitled "New Jobs from Pleasure" my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) wrote:
  "Tourism is Britain's biggest growth industry. According to the English Tourist Board it employs about 1,300,000 people, has a turnover of £10,000 million and generated £4,150 million in foreign exchange earnings last year. It is creating more new jobs than any other industry—about 50,000 a year. Tourism is an unsung hero of the British economy."
  Later he wrote:
  "Fine art and drama continue to help make London one of the world's major tourist centres."
  308
  Indeed, London is the arts capital of the world; and there is a great deal else in the arts in other parts of the country.
  We will be crazy if we do not continue to build on our strength. Last year 12 million visitors came to this country. The number is increasing. It could increase faster still. The arts need a little more pump priming by the Government. The budget of the Arts Council, which is the main instrument for support of the arts, was £100 million last year. That is only one thirteen hundredth part of public expenditure.
  Mr. Maude: Does my hon. Friend accept that the subsidy, which exceeds other forms of revenue, is pump priming? It is a massive amount. It is more than private individuals give to the arts, including what is spent on actually going to see things.
  Mr. Jessel: I do not accept that it is more than people pay for going to see things. My hon. Friend himself said that, apart from the National theatre, the London theatre, which is very buoyant, does not receive any subsidy.
  Indeed, I could not agree with what he said in the main theme of his speech. He spoke in favour of business sponsorship. Everyone on this side of the House is in favour of business sponsorship of the arts. It has increased dramatically. It has multiplied tenfold over the last 12 years due to the excellent work of the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts. Business sponsorship is now £15 million a year, and there is scope for further increases. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) has made a special study of this matter. It is not realistic to say that business sponsorship could replace the subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North has paid no attention to the amounts involved — £15 million from business sponsorship compared with £100 million from the Arts Council. The amount given by business cannot begin to reach the level of subsidy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who I hope will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, has made a special study of the tax aspect. I believe that people should be allowed tax relief for support of the arts just as they can, through deeds of covenant, obtain tax relief for their support of charities. This is done in the United States. I agree on this point with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North. I hope that that theme will be developed during this debate.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: It is inevitable that, because of electoral exigencies, Alliance Members tend to make speeches only about matters on which they are party spokesmen. It is a great pleasure to be granted this minor indulgence and to speak personally.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) on introducing this subject. I had thought that I would make a different speech, but, having heard the hon. Gentleman, I thought that it would be worth while to put the opposite case. The hon. Gentleman and I come from different backgrounds—that is the fault of neither of us. I suspect that my experience of the arts differs from his. I fumbled my way, trying to find an outlet for art through my background and faced difficulties. No encouragement was given. I was not able to look at the kaleidoscope of different opportunities and naturally find a way to take advantage of them.

  309
  Certain aspects of the arts are seen as legitimate, proper and valuable, though there is a strange dichotomy in the arts in class terms. For example, in the north, Gilbert and Sullivan is acceptable across the spectrum, but, by and large, grand opera is not; the brass band tradition is acceptable, but the ordinary concert hall is not necessarily acceptable. Apart from one occasion when I was given tickets to what were called the industrial concerts of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, I had never been to an orchestral concert in my life before coming to London some years later.
  The same is true of other aspects of the arts. Jazz is acceptable in certain cultures, but playing in string quartets is not necessarily acceptable. There is a strange artificial division based on one's experience. Artificial boundaries are put around the arts, and they are detrimental and disturbing.
  Some of our cities have taken on board the prospect of widening people's experience of the arts. Leeds has done a great deal to develop music education in schools. But unless children have something to go on to on leaving school, outlets and participation in music making will not be broadened. In a city such as mine most families cannot afford to purchase the instruments that their children will play. The instruments are provided at school, and the children do not have further access to them.
  There is a type of pyramid in the arts. Hundreds of young people are helped — brilliantly at times — to express themselves. The pyramid begins to narrow as those with no great talent fall by the wayside. Suddenly, when the children leave school, the pyramid virtually disappears. Economic constraints and the problems faced by people—even those with talent—in continuing to use a musical instrument mean that few people are involved in the arts.
  What worries me is that those young people often do not feel frustrated by it. They accept it as normal that once they have left school that aspect of their life disappears, and they do not bother to continue with it. It is a tremendous shame that we do not understand what happens in whole areas of our urban society, and for all I know in our suburban and rural societies.
  One of the things that was crucial to my own experience of the arts was being a member of the Leeds city council when the Leeds Grand theatre and opera house was threatened with closure. The city, under a Conservative administration—I give Sir Frank Marshall, now Lord Marshall, full credit—stepped in and bought that theatre from the private owners to make sure that it continued. I was appointed, as a token Liberal representative from my own group, a director of that theatre. From that day, the whole panoply of what was possible in the arts was open to me because I was a part of that board.
  Soon after that came the proposal to establish an opera company in Leeds—the Opera North company. Again, that was a tremendous seminal point in the experience of many people in Leeds. It was not that we needed Opera North suddenly to come and provide 10, 11 or 12 weeks of opera in the city. We could buy that in; we alwys had had Welsh national opera, Scottish national opera, English national opera and many other. We had even had the Dortmund opera company from our twin city.
  The crucial difference was that, instead of just having week after week of opera which was well patronised, we
  310
  had 60 or 70 musicians and 40 singers resident in the city. Suddenly they became part of the musical life of that city, straight out into the schools, the clubs, the pubs, the highways and byways. They taught and took on pupils. The staff producers gave assistance to the youth opera in the city. Suddenly the whole thing began to pick up and become much more vibrant because we had the opera company in the city.
  Standing back from that and observing what happened was a tremendous experience. We suddenly realised that, by establishing an opera company in a city out of nowhere it was possible to create a tremendous new interest in the arts. It was always there; it was not something that had been absent; but it had never been catalysed, drawn out as it was thanks to the skill of the professional.
  I have come to believe very deeply that some aspect of the arts can enliven every individual in our society. It may not be the same thing. For some it is the visual arts, for some it is music, for others it may be opera.
  In my own city, one thing that has burgeoned amazingly in the last 10 years or so is dance. There was a time when only one ballet company could hope to fill the Grand theatre in Leeds. Then a second came and began to do very good business. The third company, the Ballet Rambert, could barely fill the Leeds playhouse at one time. Now it is packing the Grand theatre. Now we have the London Contemporary Dance packing the theatre.
  Why is that? Is it because there has suddenly been a great interest in dance? No. It is because some brilliant people within the schools in the city have developed the skills that were always there. We have the Phoenix dance company, a group of black youngsters from the depths of Harehills in Leeds, who have now become one of the great star supported groups from the Arts Council. They also travel around the country. That is because the excellence of some small groups has developed interest in dance across the whole city, and the theatre is full for that as well.
  The effect of drama and the theatre is not confined to the few. It is very interesting to look at the correlation between anti-social behaviour, violence and vandalism in Leeds and the expression that comes with the arts and see the change that makes. The school in the city that has the greatest involvement in theatre and drama is situated on a council estate in my constituency, simply because there was a headmaster there with the skill to draw from those students the expression so crucial to drama. That school now houses the drama course for the skilled students in the whole city. It is not by accident that things happen like that. It is because somebody has a vision and understands how to draw that expression from those people.
  However, sad to say, if one looks at the audience profile for the major centres of excellence of the arts in Leeds, one does not find it broadly based across the whole city. The leafy suburbs of Leeds are where the audience is massively concentrated. That is not because it is only people in those areas who have the ability to appreciate different aspects of the arts; far from it. If only we could get people to those centres—to the playhouse, to the Grand theatre, to see the opera company and dance—I am sure that they would appreciate the arts as well.
  The problem that I have with the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North is that he does not really understand the problem of the psychological and transport barriers — the physical barriers — that prevent people from

  311
  believing that the arts are for them. If one could overcome that problem, people could appreciate, understand and participate in the arts.
  In many parts of the country we have community arts that take the arts out of the council estate and the downtown areas, but they will flourish only in so far as there are also centres of excellence. Unless there is also that professional focal point in the city as well as the dedicated people who are taking the arts out to the community, it is not possible to have the whole range of opinion, expression and participation in the arts that is so crucial.
  Mr. Maude: What the hon. Gentleman is saying does not go against what I was arguing. What I do not understand is why direct public subsidy is necessary to meet the desirable end that he is talking about. It is not necessary.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: I shall start with a point of agreement. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in his wish to assist private sponsorship by tax concessions. I do not dissent from that. The ambivalence of the tax laws at the moment is a great problem and inhibition of sponsorship; for example, whether an advertisement in a programme is tax deductible depends on the precise wording. That is ludicrous.
  However, I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I do not believe that business sponsorship will ever do this on a sufficient scale. Unless there is a local authority, an arts council or even a Government who understand that the arts have to belong to everybody or they will belong to nobody, one will not get the support that is necessary. I do not believe for a moment that business, marginal as much of it is in profit terms, will ever be able to pick up the bill that the Arts Council picks up. It will never be able to pick up the bill that the local authorities pick up. The breadth of the vision for the arts is crucial. If business sponsorship can add to that, and business can sponsor a production or performance, or a visit by a company from abroad, that is tremendous. I do not want to prevent that, but it is the workaday support for the broadening of arts provision that is crucial.
  In the public service, whether local or national, we do not regard it as odd when we assist those who have particular handicaps to overcome them and express themselves. We do not regard it as odd in the educational system to assist those who have a sight impediment to overcome it. We do not believe it odd to assist those who have a speech defect to overcome it. We do not believe it strange for the public services to be able to assist those who have a hearing defect.
  With the arts, we are saying that people who do not realise it have such defects—they cannot see what is there before them, because it is not part and parcel of their ordinary life. They cannot hear what is there and available to them because no one grabs them and takes them to a concert. They cannot express themselves because no one takes them to the place where they can take part in drama. If we help people with physical handicaps in ordinary life, why are we saying that that should not happen in the arts? In no sense can the arts be an afterthought in society. At times like the present, when we have an economic crisis and a social crisis, one needs the arts more than ever.
  Without the arts, no other human value can express what people need and feel, and how they relate to their community and neighbours. The arts enliven them and are
  312
  part and parcel of our humanity. Unless we can support them publicly, as well as through other methods, I do not believe that they will survive. In that event, such communities will not be healthy and able to express themselves and see their humanity as crucial to our survival rather than as part of a housing estate or an economic machine that grinds them.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful to the House if I announce that I understand that the Minister would like to rise at 10.45 pm and that the debate ends at 10.55 pm. If hon. Members bear that in mind, perhaps all of those who wish to be called will be.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: In debating Government funding of the arts, discussion is inevitably about two inter-related but distinct topics—economics and our artistic heritage. Professor John Galbraith brought the two together with special relevance when he said in his "Economics and the Arts":
  "Hard economic truth even against art, must prevail".
  Overlying both topics, perhaps unfortunately but inevitably, is politics. The slogan of the Government's opponents is that there is a crisis in arts funding, but it tends as much to obscure as to falsify reality. Such current sloganising leads to the current controversy — private funding versus public funding.
  I shall not detain the House with the respective arguments, because of lack of time, but the conclusion is usually plural funding. Such a conclusion often fails fully to appreciate the inescapable importance of government in ensuring the best opportunities for the private sector to play its invaluable role, be it through tax advantages, matching grants, advice or other forms of stimulation. To guarantee a bigger part for the private sector, which it must be right to seek, means an even more starring performance from the Government in creating the conditions that I have mentioned. Nevertheless, they deserve great credit for the successes that they have already achieved.
  Having started with a quotation from the world of economics, I should like to end with one from the realm of the arts. Sir Ian Hunter, as president of the Royal Society of Arts, said in "Arts in a Changing Society":
  "All has to be related to the economic facts of life."
  Such realism, when applied to the Government's funding of the arts, is surely the key for the politician seeking the philosopher's stone.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: One of the good things that have come out of the recent row about Arts Council funding has been the explosion of the myth that the Arts Council is non-political or that there is in reality something called an arms-length principle.
  During arts questions on Monday, the Minister with responsibility for the arts said that the Arts Council was non-political. That was a typically cynical comment. Tory politicians are good at completely politicising an institution and then declaring it to be non-political. In respect of the Arts Council, that cover has been well and truly blown. I do not see how the Government can say that they defend the impartiality of the Arts Council when they appoint a Tory monetarist as its chairman and an ex-Tory councillor as its secretary-general. It is well known that the

  313
  Prime Minister's dictum for public appointments is, "Is he one of ours?" That dictum was clearly employed in making those two senior appointments.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said, arts funding in Britain is a disgrace. It is the lowest in Europe, with the exception of Ireland. When making comparisons, we should compare spending on arms. About £18 billion is spent on arms each year—roughly £321 per head. The figure for the overall total of national and local funding for the arts is about £12 per head of the population. Clearly, the Government prefer guns to culture.
  Lord Gowrie as Minister for the Arts, when trying to make a lame excuse for the cut in arts funding—there has been a cut in the past three years—compared arts expenditure with that on education and social services, and asked us to make a choice. If we compare arts expenditure with arms expenditure, the choice for a civilised person is easy.
  The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) spoke at length about why he preferred private expenditure to public expenditure on the arts. Labour Members take the opposite view. The state and local authorities have replaced private patronage, which is perfectly fit and proper. Finance from the public purse is disinterested finance and less partial than private finance. It is far more likely to be innovative. Business sponsorship is small—between £14 million and £15 million. There are no accurate statistics, but that is an intelligent guess. It is minute compared with the general level of both local and national public funding.
  I do not want our artistic tastes to be determined by the sums that Barclays Bank, Trusthouse Forte, Unilever or the wealthy put into the arts. I do not wish to see the corporate state emerging with big private companies becoming the arbiters of artistic taste. Conservative Members may want us to move nearer to the United States example, but in America military bands receive more funding than the arts from national central funding.
  Sir William Rees-Mogg said that the arts provide a large number of jobs. With the £100 million that the Arts Council receives, it finances £250 million of arts turnover. That in turn provides 25,000 jobs, which produce £60 million in national insurance and taxes, and £15 million in value added tax receipts for the Treasury. The Treasury does well out of the moderate sums that it puts into the arts through central funding. Therefore, the Government compound philistinism with economic illiteracy by not providing more generous support for the arts.
  I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, and look forward to the next Labour Government at least doubling national support for the arts. A Labour Government must suitably reward local authorities on a pound for pound basis for the sums spent on the arts. It is about time that the Arts Council was scrapped. I would like to see the next Labour Government examine ways of democratising the arts grants machinery. I certainly wish to see them set up a Department of State responsible for the arts, leisure and all cultural activities, including broadcasting, the press and sport. We should look to the cultural industries for economic growth.
  314
  One day we shall look back upon these times of national penny-pinching of the arts as unbelievable and inexcusable, but until then we cannot call ourselves truly civilised.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The lamentations and jeremiads that we are hearing from the subsidised arts world illustrate well the frustrations and public antagonisms to which our present system of funding the arts is bound to give rise. We should in my view embark on a strategy of moving progressively from a system of grants to one of tax relief akin to the American system.
  The system of an aggregate grant disbursed at the discretion of the Arts Council made sense so long as we proceeded on two assumptions: first, that economic growth would finance ever-rising levels of public expenditure; and, secondly, that the way to improve the quality of life was by enlightened mediation by public bodies. Neither proposition any longer commands widespread assent.
  I do not argue for an instant for rapid demolition of the subsidy system. The effect of that would be catastrophic. But we should proceed with determination in the direction that I have indicated. We could proceed by phasing one system in as the other is phased out, but there would be difficulties in that, including the uncertainties of time scale and of which institutions would be likely to attract support. It might be better to say that at some time, perhpas two years ahead, we would move to a different basis of funding, which would give time and opportunity for those seeking patronage to find it on new principles.
  If we moved towards replacing state grants by a system of tax relief, a number of advantages would accrue.
  First, the discussion of the totality of arts funding would be depoliticised, and arts funding would be removed from the vagaries of central and, especially, local government.
  Secondly, the dominant characteristic of the system would become the direct link between private patrons and the arts. In this way, we would encourage a more authentic and creative interaction between artists and the public than we do by treating the arts as a small province of the welfare state.
  Thirdly, I do not for one moment suppose that we would see an end to lobbying, but the clients of patronage would buzz round a much greater variety of pots, and they would probably buzz less angrily.
  Fourthly, more funds would be available for the arts. The American experience, even taking account of the greater wealth of the United States of America, shows the willingness of individuals and corporations to respond to tax incentives to support the arts. We can draw much encouragement also from the great success of the growth of business sponsorship in Britain.
  The fifth reason why we should prefer the system that I have suggested is that it would mean lower taxation and an alleviation of the pressure on the Government for higher public expenditure. Of course, the Treasury is suspicious of tax reliefs which it regards as tax expenditures, but I draw some tentative encouragement from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, when he announced the Green Paper on the reform of personal income tax:
  "We need to make sure that the reliefs we can afford are concentrated where they will do most good." — [Official Report, 19 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 794.]

  315
  By concentrating relief on support for the arts, as one among several candidates, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would do much good.
  It is not my purpose to criticise the present leadership of the Arts Council. There are strong arguments for the strategy to achieve a fairer balance in public patronage, which Sir William Rees-Mogg is seeking to implement. The problem is that whatever policy the Arts Council embarks upon, it will be invidious and will give rise to cacophonous complaints so long as money is tight.
  As a governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company, which receives support from the Arts Council, I should emphasise that I am speaking in a personal capacity. I would not wish to embarrass the company by associating it with my views on the changes that are necessary. It must live in its relationship with the Arts Council and the Government; on its behalf, I would say only that I regret very much that, while we have the present system, the Government have not honoured in full the Priestley recommendations which we understood they were committed to accept.
  At the general election, the Conservative party manifesto included a commitment to
  "examine ways of using the tax system to encourage further growth in private support for the arts and heritage."
  Against a background of genuine difficulties, both for a Government who wish to give good support to the arts, and for artists who look to state support, it is important that we should explore this line of thought virorously.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Jim Callaghan: In her first term of office, the Prime Minister announced that there would be no candle-end economies in the arts. There was great relief throughout the arts world that grocer-shop economies would not be applied to the arts. Unfortunately, that relief was short-lived because of the application of the Government's monetarist policies.
  The warning signals could be seen when Lord Gowrie was appointed as Minister for the Arts, because he is not only the Government's spokesman on the arts, but holds a Treasury brief. Accordingly, he must face two ways at the same time. He is on record as saying:
  "I can in no way dissociate the arts from the Government's economic and fiscal policy. To do so would be damaging to other parts of the economy."
  We know exactly where the Minister for the Arts stands. We in this House, cannot even question him directly on the Government's economic and fiscal policies, because he sits in the other place.
  Last year, the Minister for the Arts defended the Government's cuts by saying:
  "I was at least able to protect them by restricting the cut to 1 per cent. — nasty, but nicer than 2 per cent. — [Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1983; Vol. 445, c. 766.]
  And when she first came to power, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) spoke of no candle-end economies in the arts.
  Recently the Minister also said:
  "The party is not over, but the limits of hospitality have been reached. From now on central Government funding will remain broadly level in real terms."
  That statement shows that, while the noble Lord may be devoted to the arts, he appears to be more devoted to monetarism.
  The Minister mentioned a party. What party does he mean. The paltry £105 million that the Government give the Arts Council could not be called a party. This can be
  316
  shown by the figures. Four years ago, Britain was spending £6 a head of public money on the arts. In the same year, West Germany spent £16 per head, and France spent £23 a head. Since then, the gap has widened. Frankfurt, with a population of 670,000 — the size of Leeds — gives a subsidy to the opera of £12 a head, twice what the Government gave the English National Opera. Berlin gives £17 million, Cologne £16 million, Munich £15 million, and Hamburg £15 million to the arts. France doubled the fund to its ministry of culture, in 1982 to £545 million, and in 1985, it will spend £778 million. That shows the generosity of France and Germany to the arts.
  The arts are seething with discontent. There is open revolt among some of the beneficiaries of the Arts Council because they are being deprived of the funds that they need to fulfil their obligations to the communities that they serve. They feel that they are being betrayed by the Arts Council. As Sir Peter Hall said:
  "The Council has become an instrument of Government."
  That first casualty has been the belief that the famous arms length principle is not working any more. It is felt that the Arts Council, like every other spender or distributor of public money, should conform to the Cabinet's monetarist diktat. I call on the Government to reconsider the cut in grant, and to give a supplementary grant large enough to prevent the closures that threaten to stop the quality that we have grown to accept, and to set up an inquiry into the system of Government relationships to the arts, which will result in a system with generosity, imagination and coherence.
  10.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I hope that I shall be forgiven if in my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) I say that there was a certain amount in his speech with which I did not agree. On the other hand, it set an interesting note for the debate, because for once we got to the heart of the argument about what the relationship between the state and the arts is supposed to be.
  We have had the usual knockabout stuff about the increase. However, if it is unfair to take 1978–79 as the base, although it would seem reasonable to do so, we can take the next year, in which case we get an 11 per cent. increase in real terms, which is a major increase in the present climate, and compares pretty well with the 12 per cent. increase of the Labour Government.
  The similarity is not between parties, but between who is in opposition and who is in government. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) made a typical Opposition pledge, namely that he would double Government funding for the arts in the first year, which was pretty good stuff. He may need to do so simply to keep up with inflation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that he disagreed with the speeches of both my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North and the hon. Member for Paisley, South, which was a good start, because so did I, I do not believe that the theory of The Economist, that one could wholly replace the role of the subsidised arts by tax allowance, takes into account one of the fundamental points.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is in a curious sort of alliance with my hon. Friend

  317
  the Member for Warwickshire, North, because he says that he wants people to vote for what is to be done for the arts. In real life we know that that means a committee run by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. However, if it were possible to invent a voting mechanism which was so sensitive that it enabled people to vote for what they wanted to be provided, I am not sure that it would be all that different from the kind of model envisaged by my hon. Friends the Members for Warwickshire, North and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—that people should be able to vote with their money.
  If they can be made to work, both systems are highly pluralist and both seem to me to suffer from the defect that was pointed out by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), with which I have great sympathy, namely, that we should face the fact that all decisions on the arts should not be devolved because of the teaching function. Teaching cannot be wholly devolved. Teaching involves bringing things to people which they may not know about. For that reason they will be unable to vote for them or buy them.
  If one reads Neville Cardus's moving autobiography, one finds that he came from a background so poor as to be almost unimaginable today. He struggled into the titanic position that he held as the best writer on music and cricket in his day because he had the luck early in his life to meet people who taught him about the arts. That is what the hon. Member for Leeds, West and many Conservative and Opposition Members believe to be one of the essential functions of the state in its patronage of the arts. Its leadership function cannot be wholly devolved.
  One cannot get out of it by saying that the democratic will, working in some mysterious way, will solve the problem, or that the market will solve the problem. Even if one could produce the Utopian democracy of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, which would end up with somebody telling us what we ought to believe in, or even if one could find the Utopian market, which never quite seems to come about because there is always some monopoly which interferes with the proper working of the market, there would still be a role for teaching. In old Tory language, there is a paternalist role to be played by the arts. In the language of the Opposition, that is a teaching role. I do not believe that that role should be shirked.
  318
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West unnecessarily ran down the north of England. Neville Cardus's book makes me think of the north of England. He referred to the brass bands of the north. Certainly there are brass bands in the north, but there was a time when the Hallé under Richter was the finest orchestra in the United Kingdom. That is a good example of municipal subsidy. There was no lack of support for that orchestra in the north of England.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) brought us back to the economic realities, and we all thank him for doing so. All Governments have to struggle with the economic realities. I hope that I am not being too offensive when I say that I disagree also with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. I have heard some strange definitions of "art" — Clive Bell's definition of art as "significant form", Aristotle's definitions, and Housman saying that he could tell what was a good poem because the hair on the back of his neck stood up—but it does not do as a definition of art to say that it has something to do with the profit levels of the Grand Metropolitan Hotels group.
  A society which says that it values its art because of tourism seems to me to be a society in decline. I hope that we never fall into making that mistake. Of course there are useful spin-offs, and of course people should make money out of them, and good luck to Sir Peter Hall if he makes money out of them, too, but to define the arts as objects of tourism would mean that we were in a sorry state. I believe that my hon. Friend was referring to the useful spin-offs, not to the heart of the problem. A healthy society has art as part of its soul, as part of the definition of its culture, not because it wants to attract tourists.
  I can encourage the hon. Member for Leeds, West further, because teaching is important, not only to those with no money. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) looks threatening. We went to the same school—a school full of rich people. There was a need there to teach pupils about culture. It was by no means a Philistine school when we were there. I think that it had some effect upon him—perhaps neither entirely successful nor entirely unsuccessful.
  The state has a role in leadership, in transmitting great things from one age to another and in bringing them to as many people as possible. All the voluntary sources available are also needed. There is no harm in that. We are talking not about tainted money but about money which is useful and which can be applied to great ends.

  Rating Revaluation (Scotland)
  10.55 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the question of revaluation in Scotland. I am particularly grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing three hours for this debate.
  The issue shows up the Government's greatest ineptitude in Scotland. You, Mr. Speaker, are not involved in the revaluation, since you represent and live in an English constituency.
  According to newspaper reports, it appears that only when the Secretary of State received his own revaluation notice for Gargunnock—his estate in Stirling not in Ayr—did he understand what was happening. The chairman of the Scottish Tories, Sir James Gould, was so astonished by his 33 per cent. increase that he was photographed brandishing his rate demand in George square in Glasgow. He described the increase as "appalling."
  Sir James was not the only one who was appalled. Councillors were appalled. The Scotsman carried the headline
  "A Glasgow Tory attacks Younger".
  The way events are moving, the headline could soon be "The Glasgow Tory attacks Younger."
  According to The Scotsman
  "Councillor William Aitken … suddenly stunned the Labour ranks by embarking on a surprising attack on Mr. George Younger … He said the revaluation was at least badly handled and at worst a disgraceful decision."
  That is from an increasingly lonely Scottish fellow in Glasgow. I hope that by quoting from The Scotsman I do not offend my good friends from the other Scottish newspapers.
  The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is not here, but he is normally one of the Government's most ardent supporters. He has often come gallantly to the Prime Minister's defence. Another article in The Scotsman states:
  "A Conservative MP last night accused the Government of 'betrayal' over rates rises and called on the Prime Minister to redeem the situation when she attends the Scottish Tory conference at Perth in May."
  We also read that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), chairman of the Scottish Tory group in the House of Commons, is to lead a deputation to the Prime Minister on the issue, understandably bypassing the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is in the Chamber, had to appear before a "Star Chamber" in his constituency. A miraculous decision was made. He was cleared, but the Government were found guilty. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was party to all this as a member of the Government, but no, the honourable Burgher for Eastwood apparently thinks differently. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who will have the pleasure of replying to the debate, no doubt knew a little more of what was happening in this revaluation. After all, he has one of the widest home ownerships in Scotland today.
  On more sober reflection, after all the outrage from Conservative Members as well as councillors and ratepayers, given the reduction in rate poundage to offset the increased revaluation, is all this concern justified, is
  320
  this uproar justified? The answer is an unequivocal yes. The overall increase in Scotland's rate bill is estimated to be some 21 per cent. Individual domestic increases will be much more, some well over 40 per cent. I will give a prize—a very small one, of course—for the largest verified percentage increase. This 21 per cent. increase in Scotland compares with an overall estimated increase of 9 per cent. in domestic rates in England where no revaluation is taking place—indeed, it has not had a revaluation since 1973, while we are experiencing our second revaluation.
  The Secretary of State and his cronies keep trying to pile the blame on allegedly profligate authorities. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and to divert attention from the real source of the problem. It is mischievous and malevolent. To eliminate the variable of authorities which may be spending over the Secretary of State's arbitrary guidelines, such as the variable is, let us take areas where region and district are within the Secretary of State's guidelines. There are 36 out of 65, as we have heard from the Secretary of State, Perth and Kinross notable among them. We note that Mrs. Rosemary Ferrand of Perth and Kinross, whom the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) knows well, said that her own council of Perth and Kinross
  "… had always been careful of its housekeeping and had always tried to keep within Government guidelines but though it had pruned spending to the bone it faced a penalty of £260,000 in claw-back".
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North knows that this is one authority — and there are others in Dumfries, in Galloway and in Grampian—where region and district have kept within the Secretary of State's arbitrary guidelines. Thus we rule out the variable of the so-called profligate authorities.
  In all these areas, there will be huge increases for the domestic ratepayer. There are two causes, both of which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Government, including the hon. Member for Eastwood. The first is the reduction in rate support grant. Less Government money to local authorities inevitably means that more must come from the rates to maintain spending and services at the same level. The second is revaluation where the switch in burden from the non-domestic to the domestic ratepayer without adequate cushioning for the domestic ratepayer causes additional hardship and cost. With respect, the £38·6 million added under protest—the Secretary of State admitted in a written reply that he had received 3,800 letters earlier this month—is a mere fleabite. To add insult to injury, the £38·5 million came from harmful cuts in other areas of Scottish Office budget expenditure, robbing already poor Peter to pay a poorer Paul. The uproar is understandable. The Secretary of State is not with us today. No doubt he is elsewhere in the House drowning his sorrows following the salutary lesson last Thursday from the electors of north Kyle, who used to be well represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie).
  Mr. Bill Walker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss by-election results, perhaps he will comment on the result in the Tayside region last week, when the Conservatives retained the seat with a substantial majority.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friends have admitted that, on the basis of the present system in Scotland, the hon. Member for Tayside, North would be the only Tory in the

  321
  House representing Scotland. We give him credit for that. Nevertheless, in the north Hule by-election, regional councillor Tom Parish overturned a 1,500 Tory majority with an 11 per cent. swing from Conservative to Labour, and that in the Secretary of State's own constituency. If that swing were reflected throughout the constituency, it would be large enough to unseat the Secretary of State.
  We appreciate that other factors were at work. For example, the Tory candidate was not the cleverest choice. Also, there was the teachers' dispute, and tonight we heard about the martyrs of Man college. We saw them on television, although schools other than Man were affected in the Secretary of State's constituency. Revaluation was the key issue, and the Secretary of State's standing in Ayr has never been lower than it is today.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue with that argument, for if he looks at the average rate increase in Kyle and Carrick—and I suspect that this applies to some of his own constituents — he will find that the domestic rate increase is 5 per cent., level with inflation. How, on that basis, does he explain revaluation having such an effect?
  Mr. Foulkes: That is not my information. Nor was that the information published in the Glasgow Herald. Nor will it be the information that the electors and ratepayers of north Kyle will get when they take their new valuation, multiply it by the rate poundage, work out what they are due to pay and compare it with what they paid last year. That is the test, that is what they did and that is why they voted Labour.
  Mr. Ancram rose—
  Mr. Foulkes: I will not give way again. The Minister has the right of reply, and many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  Hon. Members may rightly say that we should be looking for an alternative to the rating system. Regrettably, the panic and hysteria among Conservative Members has allowed some of the more sinister Right wing elements to preen and spread their feathers. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), opportunistic as ever, is no doubt away making an honest penny or two—
  Mr. John Maxton: Doing his midnight laundry.
  Mr. Foulkes: Quite possibly.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is upstairs in Committee dealing with the Transport Bill. He is trying to privatise the buses.
  Mr. Foulkes: I cannot think of anywhere where I would rather have the hon. Member for Stirling than upstairs on the Transport Bill. He put forward the proposal of a poll tax which, he said, could be levied in different ways—on every adult, on every elector or on every person with an income. We understand that that proposal is being taken seriously, not just by the Secretary of State but by the Prime Minister. To rush into such a tax would be to go out of the frying pan into the fire. If rates are regressive and unfair, a poll tax would be doubly so. It would be much more regressive, with no account taken of
  322
  ability to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has pointed us in the direction of a local income tax. That deserves careful study. The onus is on the Government. Reform of the rating system was a clear Tory election pledge in 1974 and 1979. Tory councillors and MPs—the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) was notable amongst them—have been pressing the case for further consideration of rates reform. Of course, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is in a marginal constituency, so he would, would he not? They are rightly asking what has become of that Tory election pledge. Scottish Tory councillors consider that they are becoming an endangered species. As I said earlier, Scottish Tory MPs will be equally rare.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that at the last general election one in six of the Labour candidates lost their deposits. Would he like to take any odds that that is not likely to happen to at least as many next time?
  Mr. Foulkes: I understand the hon. Member is talking about the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Henderson: No, Scotland.
  Mr. Foulkes: I will see the hon. Gentleman afterwards and take a bet on that. The other one was a prize. I will double it for the hon. Member for predicting the result in Fife, North-East, and it will not be a Tory retention.
  What of the immediate rather than the long term disaster or debacle that faces the Tory Government? The Secretary of State should have stopped the revaluation. Is it too late to do so even now? I hope the Under-Secretary of State will give us an indication that it could still be stopped. If it is too late, however, the Government must make new money available, though not by robbing other spending areas in the Scottish Office, to provide a full cushion for domestic ratepayers. Nothing less will do.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). He talked about opportunism, but he never misses an opportunity. He enlivens our proceedings as he enlivens the proceedings in Scotland. The House would be less fun if it were not for people like him. For him to suggest that a Conservative Member was an opportunist was rather like the kettle calling the pot black.
  Revaluation is like blaming the wrong thing for the problems that we face. In Scotland for a long time those who have voted for expenditure have not been footing the bill. Many people who vote at local elections are not ratepayers. The information I have is that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) favours a form of local income tax. If that is so, he and I are in agreement.
  Mr. Craigen: Am I not correct in thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took great pride last week in the fact that he was able to take many people out of the payment of income tax? I trust they will not lose their votes as a result.
  Mr. Walker: That intervention is fascinating. It is typical of Socialism. Socialists want to spend, but they never want to pay. There could be a local income tax that would be fair. It would have to be used as an income tax

  323
  and not as a flat levy. I have no objection to those who can afford to do so having to pay. All I am saying is that those who spend and promote expenditure should make their contribution. Under the present rating system, that does not happen. The revaluation has not changed that iniquity.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will not suggest that I have a marginal seat. For many years I have believed that the only fair way in which to make people pay for locally provided services is a form of income tax. Scotland is unique in having Centre 1. Other facilities could and should be used. Private sector large computers are under-utilised in down time. Once again I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) shaking his head. He has no idea what I am talking about.
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Walker: He has risen to the bait.
  Mr. Maxton: The problem with local income tax—I agree that the Inland Revenue is beginning an experiment to solve the problem — is that large numbers of employees in Scotland do not pay their tax to centres in Scotland. An argument is consistently put forward in the assembly against using income tax. By the time there is a Labour Government after the next election, the Inland Revenue will have solved that problem.
  Mr. Walker: We do not have to leave it to the hon. Gentleman to solve these problems. Of course I am aware that many people living and working in Scotland have employers from outside Scotland. Many of them are large companies operating cost and profit centres from computer bases south of the border. Every employer has to register every employee with the Department of Employment. Cross-fertilisation is not as difficult and horrendous today as it was five or 10 years ago. Some of the facilities are not in the public purse at the moment, but they are available and under-utilised. There are machines with the necessary capability and capacity; we only require the will.
  I hope that people will not be put off because Centre 1 has a limited ability and because of the difficulties. I have already written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State putting concrete decisions. I have not simply grabbed these proposals out of the sky. The facilities are there. We need only management and co-ordination.
  Of course, Government Members comment on the problems created because of the activities over long periods of profligate authorities. Governments, whatever their colour, always introduce cruel and arbitrary measures when faced with having to contain public expenditure. One cannot deal equally with the problems. Governments bring in across-the-board measures.
  I have never argued with some of the actions of the Labour Government when faced with certain difficulties, because that was the correct approach at that time. I have never criticised the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) for those actions, because they were right. The Labour Government introduced across-the-board measures with massive reductions in expenditure, so that authorities that began from low-spending bases—such as Perth and Kinross — and willingly acquiesced were disadvantaged compared with authorities that did not acquiesce in the way desired by the right hon. Member for
  324
  Govan. That meant that those authorities started from a higher spending base and retained that position as the years passed.
  In 1979, when the Conservative party came to office, it introduced measures to curtail local government spending. Inevitably, the authorities that behaved were already in a weak position compared with the profligate authorities. No matter how much one tries, one cannot square that circle. The differential is too great. With the best of intentions, it will never be possible to make the present system fair to all authorities. Inevitably, the good authorities will be penalised more than the profligate ones.
  I accept that the profligate authorities had grown accustomed to spending at a certain level, just as any spendthrift grows accustomed to living at a certain level. The adjustment for them had to be over a much longer period. The problem is that we do not have that length of time.
  Revaluation is an attempt to spread the burden in a different and more acceptable way so that industry is not disadvantaged. We do not argue with that, because it is right that we look carefully at the way we tax jobs. This has done more than anything else in my judgment, to force employers to lay people off earlier than they should ever have done. Employers do not willingly lay off staff; they do so reluctantly, in my experience, and they do so because it is the one area in which they can act quickly. They can do little about their other expenditure but they can do quite a bit about the cost of staff, which is one of the largest cost elements, certainly for labour-intensive industries.
  Consequently, it was inevitable that the rate support reductions and the transfer because of the present revaluation would produce ghastly problems and inequities. In my own constituency I have plenty of examples, but I am not going to bore the House with details because all of us can talk about ghastly examples in our own constituencies. All I will say is that the largest employer in north Tayside—one industry that has been showing more growth than others in recent years — is tourism, and that has been hard hit by the revaluation because it has hit the shopkeepers and hotels. In some instances, the increase in the rates to be paid is greater than the net profit realised in any one of the last five years. That can only mean more jobs lost, and no one can welcome that.
  Therefore, I hope that Ministers are well aware of the mood in Scotland in favour of a real, positive change in the system. It is not promises we are looking for, but real plans, to be brought forward and implemented as soon as possible.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Bruce Millan: I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who normally gives us a great deal of detail about his constituency, did not mention the increases which domestic ratepayers in the Tayside region will face in the forthcoming year. His own district has an increase of 24·6 per cent., Angus 23·8 per cent. and even the comparatively responsible authority of Dundee has an increase of 19·9 per cent. — rather lower, but a very considerable burden on the ratepayers none the less.
  There has been a real sense of outrage in Scotland as these revaluation notices have come in. If ever a Minister was in a mess and thoroughly deserved to be, it is the

  325
  Secretary of State over revaluation. He was well warned about what was happening. It is not something that just came up and took him by surprise. If it did, he is even less informed about the realities of local government finance than some of us have considered him to be. He was well warned that there would be this kind of trouble in Scotland, but he took no effective action to deal with it.
  Whatever the merits of revaluation, it cannot be sensible that there is a revaluation in Scotland this year when England has not had a revaluation since 1973. It simply does not make sense. It is impossible to explain this to the electors in Scotland. There is a considerable difference between 1978 and 1985. There had been only a five-year gap in 1978 between the revaluation in England and that in Scotland. There is now a 12-year gap. What is more, the revaluation in 1978, I am glad to say, reduced the burden on domestic ratepayers in Scotland. No one in Scotland can understand why the same Government can say that we can go 12 years without a revaluation in England, but that we must have a revaluation in Scotland now.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Millan: No, I do not think so. If my hon. Friend does not mind, I should like to finish this point.
  At one time, the Government promised to abolish domestic rates. We knew several months ago that there would be considerable trouble. The argument was set out in the debate on the rate support grant on 24 January this year by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and some Back Benchers, but the Government refused to acknowledge the reality. The Secretary of State said that everything would be all right and the increase would be only 13 per cent. for domestic ratepayers, as if it were some great triumph, when he is trying to screw down public servants to wage increases of 3 and 4 per cent. We warned him that the rates increase for domestic ratepayers would be considerably higher than 13 per cent., and so it has turned out to be.
  That need not have happened. The revaluation need not have happened. Even if the Government, for good reasons or bad, decided to go ahead with revaluation, when they saw the results that were coming out, there was no reason why domestic ratepayers should not have been effectively shielded from those considerable increases. In the original rate support grant settlement, the domestic element could have been considerably higher than it was. It has been slightly increased since, and I shall return to that matter. The Government could even have decided on a redistribution of the rating burden between the different categories and classes of ratepayers, with the balance between them remaining essentially the same as it had been before the revaluation. Incidentally, the Secretary of State toyed with that idea at one time and announced that that was the way in which he would proceed. However, none of those things happened.
  We did not have an effective shielding of the domestic ratepayers, and the inevitable happened. The figures came out and showed that the average increase for domestic ratepayers in Scotland was to be not 13 per cent., but 27 per cent.—rather more than double what the Secretary of State had estimated. Horror of horrors, some of those substantial increases were happening in Tory areas —
  326
  again as we had forecast in the debate on 24 January—where district councils had done their best to keep within the guidelines sent out by the Secretary of State.
  At first the Secretary of State was going to brazen it out. Sir James Gould traipsed down to London and was rebuffed. He was told that he was causing an unnecessary disturbance and that he should go away and think again. He went home to Scotland with his tail between his legs and apologised to the party in Scotland for causing that little upset. The Secretary of State was not able to brazen it out, because of the real sense of outrage in his own ranks and among ratepayers in Scotland.
  We then had the Secretary of State coming to the House on a Friday—
  Mr. Foulkes: A Thursday.
  Mr. Millan: Indeed. It was before the Scottish Labour party conference, when the right hon. Gentleman hoped that nobody would be here. He said that he was going to produce an extra £38·5 million by way of domestic element. We are meant to be grateful for the fact that he has produced that, but it has only come off another part of the Scottish Office budget, which is already in straitened circumstances. Even with the £38·5 million, the increases are still on average 21 per cent. in Scotland, according to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' figures that have been published.
  There is now talk of a review. We have had many such reviews before. It will go over the same old ground. There is nothing new in that. It will not find some magic solution to solve all the problems which we now face. A poll tax is being considered. I can say right away, speaking for myself and, I think, for my hon. Friends as well, that we are absolutely opposed to anything that is so bitterly and fundamentally regressive as a poll tax. We shall oppose any such idea. Of course local income tax is a possibility, but the idea that we can replace the complete rating system with that is nonsense—it is a non-starter. For many years I have been in favour of a local income tax, but it will not solve the problems.
  The reality is that the rating system can work reasonably well, provided that it is not over-burdened, but it has been over-burdened by the deliberate actions of the Government. That is why we are in such a mess. Revaluation is simply the straw that has broken the camel's back. The whole behaviour of the Government since 1979 has caused the trouble that we now face. I hope that the ratepayers of Scotland understand that.
  We have not been living in halcyon days in 1984–85. The domestic ratepayer in Scotland has been paying two and half times as much as in 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government. He paid £132 then and has paid £328 in the year now ending. There will be an average rates bill of £397 in the coming year, despite the £38·5 million to which I have referred. The rate burden on the average domestic ratepayer in 1985–86 will be just over three times what it was in 1978–79.
  The Government have deliberately taken the burden off themselves and put it on the backs of local ratepayers. They have reduced the rate of grant which they inherited of 68·5 per cent. to 56·6 per cent. for the forthcoming year. Indeed, in reality the figures will be lower than that because it is paid on inadequate and unrealistic figures.
  I and my hon. Friends have consistently pointed out the problems in every rate support grant debate, and especially

  327
  in the debate on 24 January. According to the Government, local authorities over-budgeted by £114 million for the year about to end and are paying the penalty of £90 million. I warned the Secretary of State in explicit terms that there would be considerable over-budgeting in 1985–86, and that is what has happened. The so-called excess budgets stand at £90 million for 1985–86.
  Before Conservative Members say that that simply illustrates the profligacy of local authorities, I must tell them that COSLA estimated — and the figures have never been denied — that if local authorities had standstill budgets in real terms, even using the Government's inflation figures—which, needless to say, are underestimated — they would require £101 million more in the current year just to stand still. If the figure is £90, they are not standing still but are actually reducing their budgeted expenditure in real terms.
  Mr. Ancram rose—
  Mr. Millan: No, I shall not give way. This is a short debate and I am aware that many of my hon. Friends want to contribute to it.
  In effect, we have standstill budgets. There is no real increase in local authority expenditure. In the forthcoming year the average domestic ratepayer in Scotland will pay 21 per cent. more than he did in 1984–85. He will pay three times more in cash terms than he did in the last year of the previous Labour Government. At the same time, he will receive poorer services for the additional payments that he is making. We shall again go through the dreary business of penalties. There will be fire and brimstone from the Secretary of State for Scotland about how tough he will be and all the rest of it.
  Over the past five or six years we have seen a deliberate attack by the Secretary of State on local authorities, on local democracy and on local services. At last the Secretary of State has been found out. It is a pity that he was not found out sooner. He is responsible for the crisis. It is clear that responsibility rests on his shoulders. If he would deal decently and honestly with local authorities, even at this late stage, he could undo some of the damage that he has done.
  11.37 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: This much-heralded attack on the Government has fallen astonishingly flat. We expected to see at least 30 or 40 Scottish Socialist Members in their places to mount the attack, but we see only 13, of which two are from the shadow Scottish Office, two from the shadow Foreign Office, two from the Opposition Whips' Office and one from the shadow Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is hardly a Scottish Opposition Back Bencher in his place. Even the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is in his place to help pad out the attendance of Labour Members.
  Where is the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who was making snide remarks on Monday about the probable attendance this evening? I have a very good idea where he is. Scottish Labour Members have been shouting the odds in the press ever since the debate was announced. We were told that it would be a devastating attack on the Government. If the Opposition can get only six Back Benchers to attend, it is a pretty miserable affair for them. Of course, I did not expect any Scottish SDP Members to be present.
  Mr. Home Robertson: What about the rates?
  Sir Hector Monro: I am coming to the rates. For the moment I am directing myself to the non-existent attack from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) might have been playing the halls tonight as a rather second-rate Billy Connolly. He would do rather better if he stuck to the Belgrano. I suppose that it is unfortunate that he does not have his other half in the Chamber this evening, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
  I was called to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), and that was reminiscent of the mid-1970s, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. The then Conservative Opposition complained bitterly about the way that he was handling rate support grant and revaluation. I recall frequently saying to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have since he left Office, that we were a long way from getting—Well, we have another starter. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has entered the Chamber. I was saying that I remember saying frequently to the right hon. Member for Govan that there was no balance between authorities within the guidelines, especially in the rural areas, and the rate support grant.
  I accept that there has been a reduction in the RSG over the years, and rightly so in terms of public expenditure. As both sides accept, that greatly affected authorities which were keeping within their guidelines. Coupled with revaluation, it has brought about a very serious situation.
  The Opposition, however, have not given sufficient consideration to the great improvement in domestic rates due to the relief provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The figure of 21 per cent. that is bandied about in the press may well turn out to be nearer 14 or 15 per cent. when the rates are actually paid, although much will depend on the revaluation of individual properties. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate what my right hon. Friend has done. As it was done in two stages—first allowing 5p and then a further 3p—it is clear that he was always well aware of that issue.
  We should also like to know—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may not be able to tell us, as it is not his responsibility—how the assessors arrive at different factors for different areas, whether it be of 2·6 as in one district in my constituency, 2·4, 2·3 or whatever. That has a serious impact on the resource element available to district authorities as well as on regional rates. Whatever the reason for the difference in the factors, this has become one of the most serious issues of the revaluation. It will be interesting to see how the figures stand up to the many appeals that I predict will take place in the coming months.
  Great concern has also been aroused among my hon. Friends—and, one hopes, among the Opposition—about the actual figures put on domestic, commercial and industrial property. I have heard of increases from £5,000 to £25,000 for shops in Dumfries and of threefold and even fivefold increases for other properties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has said, the increases applied to hotels will inevitably affect the tourist industry and will cost owners and occupiers a substantial amount when the rates have to be paid.
  Mr. Ancram: As I said the other day in relation to the Borders, although in areas such as my hon. Friend's

  329
  constituency valuations for commercial properties have been increased, there are also gainers, albeit not in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is interesting to note, for instance, that the North-West Castle hotel in Stranraer has had a reduction of 30 per cent. in the actual rates to be paid.
  Sir Hector Monro: That is splendid news for the North-West Castle—a hostelry of the highest repute and an excellent curling club. I hope that it will now be able to offer special discounts to regular customers.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may also have some helpful news for us as to whether the provisions of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 relating to sports grounds have proved effective. I appreciate that this is likely to go to appeal, but my hon. Friend may be able to impart some interesting knowledge with regard to Celtic, Ayr races, Ayr football club, and so on. I believe that there may be some good news for sports ground owners and it would be interesting to hear some figures when my hon. Friend winds up the debate. Indeed, I should be happy to give way now if he has managed to locate the information.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he mentioned Ayr football club. I understand that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has some interests in that area. He might be interested to learn that what it pays in rates will be reduced by 48 per cent. as a result of the revaluation.
  Sir Hector Monro: There we are. Let us have some cheers from the hon. Gentleman who lives in that beautiful countryside. I am sorry to see that he has departed. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is up there in the Strangers' Gallery.") From that exalted position, he has even further to bend to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has achieved such assistance for his football club.
  We have all read with interest — I am sure that Opposition Members will have read every page —the Layfield report and subsequent Green Papers. We all appreciate that it is astonishingly difficult to find the right time to make improvements to the rating system. I shall not pronounce now how I think it should be done. I listened with interest to those with greater knowledge. The present system seems so unfair that it cannot go on for more than another year or two while the proper legislation is brought through the House.
  A relatively small number of people pay the rates, yet they are the victims of Socialist Administrations which are profligate with other people's money. We must find a better system so that we can look after all ratepayers. I am sure that the Government will ensure that the present system does not continue one year longer than is necessary. I am sure that they will make every effort to ensure that an alternative system is in the pipeline and ready for operation as soon as possible.
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should like to bring a note of rationality and reasonableness to the debate. Anyone who thinks that the present system is a shambles, as I do, has to make clear
  330
  his view on the revaluation. Given the present system of rating reviews to raise local government finance, it is imperative to have regular revaluations.
  The Minister should consider closely the work done by the Anderson commission of inquiry into commercial rating in 1970. It concluded that it was reasonable to have regular revaluations only on the basis of their being carried out simultaneous north and south of the border. Those whose live just across the River Tweed from England find it unreasonable that they must bear burdens which their English neighbours escape. That point must be borne in mind. We would accept a regular revaluation, although I must qualify that by saying, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) eloquently said, that the Government could have anticipated many of the difficulties more sensitively. There are devices and ways of cushioning the blows. Although I give the Government credit fro bringing forward extra domestic relief, it may not be enough.
  Earlier, the Government were criticised for the sums that they were giving away. I give them credit for putting back some money, but the fact that it was necessary to do so when they did it demonstrates that they had not fully anticipated the effects of the combination of revaluation and reductions in rate support grant. That is the Government's philosophy and policy and they are entitled to hold that view, but they are culpable for not looking sufficiently far ahead and anticipating the way in which the reduction in rate support grant would compound the revaluation. The Government should be condemned for that.
  I agree with much that has been said about the effects of the domestic increases. My experience shows that retired and elderly people who live on fixed incomes without the benefit of large capital sums are extremely nervous about the way in which the domestic position is affecting and will affect them in future.
  More important is the position that affects commercial ratepayers, especially small businesses. The National Federation of the Self-Employed and Small Businesses has done a great deal of work in my constituency and other areas in trying to assist appeals that will be necessary. The Minister has said in exchanges with me that he believes that the appeal mechanism will deal with the problem.
  Mr. Ancram: If it is unfair.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The appeal mechanism will deal with the problem, if it is unfair. However, the problem is more fundamental than that. Money is now much tighter than it was at the time of the last revaluation, which caused tremendous heartache. We must take into account the present high interest rates. Small businesses have had commercial increases visited on them which bear no relation to their profitability, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said. They cannot anticipate the increases, such as those from revaluations and changes in the rate support grant this year. There is no security for them in future.
  Family businesses find it extremely difficult to control their costs. They often employ members of the family and, like everyone else, they face increased costs, but can increase their income only by increasing the number of customers. In some cases that is impossible. The Under-Secretary comes from an area where there is a huge landward population, and knows that many such

  331
  businesses are situated in small villages and towns. Local authorities throughout Scotland are working hard to sustain landward populations. Changes such as these will have a dramatic impact. The Minister may say that it is localised, but I have examples from my constituency and from my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), and, although the hon. Member for Tayside, North did not regale us with examples, all over Scotland there are many small businesses in rural areas which will suffer. If they do not suffer to the extent of closing, they will let the fabric of their heritable property suffer, whether it is a shop, a garage, a hotel and or whatever. They are laying in store problems for the future. The problems of tourism are also intimately involved, and the Government will have to take them into account.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has defined the problem eloquently. What is the solution? Does he favour the Liberal party's previous solution of a local income tax, given that it would take until the early 1990s to introduce such a reform?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening, because he brings me to my concluding point. If people criticise what is happening now, they must say what should happen in its place. If I were the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland now, the position is so serious for commercial ratepayers that I would introduce an emergency package of relief for them. The hon. Gentleman may say that the machinery is not easily available for that, and I accept that. As he says, commercial ratepayers are not represented locally in terms of votes on local authorities. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect them to suffer increases of more than 50 per cent. in the short term.
  It may not be easy to resolve the problem, but one device could be investigated. If the average multiplier of commercial rates is 2·6 across the board, why do we not consider giving cash relief on an established needs basis to every commercial ratepayer who has suffered a rate increase of a multiplier in excess of 4? In some parts of the country the multiplier is nothing like 2·6; it is somewhere between 4 and 7. The Stirling area is one such area. In the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) talked about such increases. We can all show cases where the multiplier is more than 4. I do not believe that, numerically, that would be a big number. I would guess—it is a fag-packet estimate—that between 1,000 and 1,500 businesses in Scotland are in that position. If they all received an average cash payment of £1,000—that is another fag-packet estimate — the Government would have to spend only £1 million or £1·5 million, which would be a lifeline to those small businesses. That is what I would do, because the problem is so serious that it would merit such treatment.
  If the Minister is searching for gestures that are slightly more hollow but which nevertheless would be welcome, he could increase the percentage that commercial ratepayers could retain while they appeal. At present, the proportion is 10 per cent. Some of those businesses will not last a year. If the Minister made the proportion 50 per cent., to give those businesses a breathing space until their affairs were in order, he would do much to help. Those are the short-term measures that we should be considering now.
  332
  For the long term, the Liberal party has a well-developed policy on local income tax which could be brought forward. The computerisation programme could be put on stream earlier. I know that that is the argument which the Minister will put forward in defence of the local income tax not being introduced earlier.
  The right hon. Member for Govan said that a local income tax would not be the complete answer, and I agree with him. It would have to be supported by central funding. But it is not impossible. This revaluation is my first—I hope that it is my last—and I do not believe that the present system can survive.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that small business people in my constituency are being told that the appeals delay will be not one year but two years? Does he accept that they have no chance of staying in business if their cases take so long?
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is a valuable point, which gives me a good point on which to wind up my speech.
  In my constituency I have had meetings, and I know that other hon. Members have had similar experiences, which have shown that traders are getting together and are systematically and in concert using the appeal procedure, which will get clogged up. If that happens, there is no early prospect of getting this business resolved. I make no apology for indulging in special pleading for small businesses in the commercial sector. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider some of the ideas that I have put forward.
  12 midnight
  Mr. Michael Hirst: I feel that I am uniquely entitled, if not well qualified, to speak in this debate, as my constituents have the invidious distinction of paying the highest rates in Scotland, and probably, outside central London, the highest rates in Britain. I was somewhat rueful to note in The Times this morning that the average rates for Kensington and Chelsea for next year are £743, when many of my constituents would give their eye teeth to be paying only £743.
  It was perhaps inevitable that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) should choose this subject, but it was wrong and unjust of him to try to make political capital out of the understandable fears of the people of Scotland. Labour's position on local government spending bears just a moment of examination. Labour party members are the people who invariably support higher spending. Has one ever heard of a Labour-controlled local authority that wants fewer services? Labour party members can find the money for the striking miners when it suits them. They are the people in Edinburgh district council who have not spared any expense to put up signs all around the city advertising their peculiar notion that higher local spending produces more local authority jobs. They are the people who are sending their councillors off on a freebie to Cordoba to study nuclear-free zones, with not the slightest consideration for the poor ratepayers at home who have to pick up the tab for them. They are the people who, in Glasgow, were prepared to knock down a block of tenements rather than sell them to the private sector.
  I invite the House, although it is gone midnight, to consider what the prevailing level of rates in Scotland would be if it were not for the efforts that my right hon.

  333
  Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made to restrain local government spending. The Conservative party does not take credit for the fact that local government spending is higher in quantum terms than it was in 1979.
  Some Labour Members support revaluation, and I give them credit for their honesty in admitting it. They did so in 1982 when the matter was first discussed, and do so now that it is back on the agenda. They are the people who want higher spending and are not willing to compromise over any restriction on services. That cocktail must mean higher rates for ratepayers. It was an unconvincing performance for the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley to weep crocodile tears on behalf of Scottish ratepayers when one looks at the example of his friends in local government.
  I recognise the widespread concern in Scotland, and the bewilderment and anger of many people who will have to pay substantially higher rates next year. They ask two legitimate questions. The first is why they in Scotland should have a revaluation when there is no revaluation south of the border, and the second is why, on this occasion, the domestic ratepayers are suffering.
  Although the principles of rating may be similar north and south of the border, the practices are different. I notice that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is here. He rather likes the way of organising our rating system that we have in Scotland. The fact that the assessors are bound by statute to have regular revaluations in Scotland, but that the Inland Revenue south of the border is able to postpone, apparently indefinitely, its revaluations is a grievance that Scottish ratepayers are right to articulate.
  I note that Scottish requirements are dealt with under legislation that was passed by the last Labour Government, supported by the Liberal party. Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy that the Opposition should now be weeping crocodile tears about the increases? Scottish ratepayers must not be allowed to forget that the Act of Parliament which calls for periodic revaluation in Scotland was passed by a Labour Government.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect upon the fact, since he referred to hypocrisy, that the manifesto commitment of his party was as follows:
  "We will also take steps to bring the Scottish and English valuation systems more into line, to prevent anomalies occurring."?
  What has gone wrong?
  Mr. Hirst: I spent most of last winter sitting in Committee all through the night on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act. The hon. Gentleman was the Whip on duty and I was convinced that he was blinkered, if not asleep. The fact that he has asked that question, when I recall that we spent about six hours talking about English comparators, proves to me that the Committee discussions went right over his head.
  The other question which many of my constituents are asking is why Scottish domestic ratepayers have come out worse. Few domestic ratepayers recall that the result of the 1978 revaluation was that industrial ratepayers were hammered while domestic ratepayers were treated relatively lightly. However, inflation was running at 25 per cent. under the last Labour Government. Although the
  334
  amount paid by domestic ratepayers went down after the 1978 revaluation, none of us noticed the difference because of the prevailing rate of inflation.
  This time, however, there is a partial redress of the imbalance, or so we are told. Industrial ratepayers will pay less while commercial ratepayers come out about even, but I have heard of no commercial ratepayer in my constituency who finds himself the uniquely favoured recipient of a neutral rates bill. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to leap to his feet, as he has already done with unfailing regularity, and tell me about some of the commercial ratepayers in Strathkelvin and Bearsden who have been presented with a neutral rates bill.
  The domestic ratepayer will bear a larger share of the burden, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was prepared to acknowledge that fact. Although the Opposition may scoff, he was prepared to come to the House and offer Scottish domestic ratepayers more relief than their friends in COSLA had requested. The 5p initially and the extra 3p subsequently may be scorned by the Opposition, but it is not scorned by my ratepayers, who appreciate the relief that has been given.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) was right when he said that one of the causes of higher rates was the reduction in rate support grant. That fact has to be recognised by all hon. Members. It would be quite wrong of me to welcome higher spending on health, social services and law and order without at the same time accepting that other budgets will suffer a consequential reduction. Although I regret the reduction in the level of rate support grant, I accept that it is part of the package which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office believed it right to implement.
  My concern does not stop at the quantum of rate support grant but extends to its distribution. This has caused much anguish in district councils. The needs element of rate support grant has been substantially curtailed. I have made representations privately to the Minister and publicly—[Interruption.] Hon. Members do me a disservice if they think that I am thinking of only one local authority. I am concerned about both local authorities in my constituency. Both have suffered reductions, although they are of different complexions. The irony is that, if ever there was an example of a local authority running its affairs in a prudent and careful way it is the Bearsden and Milngavie district council. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances. He acknowledges the prudent way in which that council has conducted itself. I am grateful for his extra support on the non housing revenue account allocation this year.
  Such a substantial reduction puts pressures on local authorities, their officials and councillors and ultimately upon the ratepayers. I am not ashamed to admit that I argued for a slower shift of resources from the districts to the regions because I believe that a massive shift will create difficulties. As a pragmatist, I am a gradualist in all things. [Interruption.] I am sure that the people of Scotland will be reassured by the fact that after midnight signs of life come from the Opposition Benches.
  I repeat the concern that I expressed on Monday in the Scottish Grand Committee about the rate support grant allocation for 1986–87. I was heartened by the Minister's assurance that he and the Secretary of State would consider my representations carefully. However, like many other hon. Members, I find rates an unsatisfactory method of financing local government expenditure. They are

  335
  regressive. They take no account of ability to pay. The people who are most severely affected by rates are those on modest incomes, those who have retired but have some savings, and those who are on a level of income which is just too high to obtain benefit, but for whom rates take a significant proportion of their income.
  The rating system takes no account of the use made of local services. How many times is resentment expressed to hon. Members on all sides of the House by people who can see that some neighbouring households enjoy four or five incomes, but pay the same rates?
  The Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 made several welcome improvements to the rating system, but one of the objections to the system is that overspending is passed back to the ratepayer. The real losers are the ratepayers who suffer loss of grant, not the people who enjoy the extra services which contribute to the overspending. Construction firms and small businesses who could have a share of the capital spending cake, which is forfeited because of overspending, also suffer.
  Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that an overspend of only 5 per cent. by five regional councils, which does not sound very much, works out in practice, for the reasons that my hon. Friend is giving, in ratepayers having to face a 22 per cent. increase in rates, whereas if there is a cut of 5 per cent., the effect on rate increases in regional councils would be only 2 per cent.?
  Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point. He has made with eloquence a point which can be repeated in councils the length and breadth of Scotland. It is the same old thing, that he, like me, must reflect ruefully upon the fact that the local authority was prepared to churn out money as though is was from a printing machine when it came to helping its friends in the mining community, whose misery was self-inflicted, unlike the misery inflicted upon ratepayers as a result of what has been done.
  I have to argue strongly for a review of the system, not least because the relationship between local government and central Government must be reformed. I believe that there are substantial advantages to be obtained from removing the inevitable haggling that results year after year, the penalties that are imposed on local government for profligacy and the objectionable results that are often passed back to the ratepayers as a result of overspending.
  I believe—here I may be at variance with some of my hon. Friends — that, when the history books are written, revaluation will be shown to have been the catalyst that brought about the reform of the domestic rating system which we all want. I believe that the injustices of the system and the way in which it has worked out in practice have created an irresistible momentum for change which I hope will be picked up and reflected in action by Government.
  I have to utter a word of caution, because there will be those who will argue that there is advantage and merit in Scotland being the guinea pig for some sort of United Kingdom change. The great beauty of the Government is that we have the breadth of vision and the breadth of debate. Unfortunately, that is not be found on the Opposition Benches, whose Members have given us a predictable response. I urge caution because I recognise that a Scotland-only solution will narrow the alternatives. At this stage, I should like to see the field left as open as
  336
  possible. I do not believe that there is any advantage in hurrying towards a solution which will take us off one hook merely to impale us upon another. [Laughter.]
  I think that it is tragic that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley should be bursting with laughter about a serious matter which afflicts his constituents as well as mine. I believe that, when Opposition Members read Hansard, they will reflect upon the matter.
  I do not want a botched solution. I want to see a solution that takes account of the momentum for change both north and south of the border, and one that properly takes account of ability to pay and the use made of local services.
  I am bound to confess to a preference for a system of local income tax with some control. I accept that there will be problems in achieving this, although hon. Members who were present last Wednesday to hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury winding up the debate on the Budget will be aware that he explained that the developments in the computerisation of taxpayers' records south of the border were likely to take place sooner than many of us had otherwise expected. In bringing together the tax and Budget systems, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in Government will not forget the possibility that must exist for developing a system of income tax.
  Mr. Forsyth: Allowing for the problem of computerisation, how would my hon. Friend overcome the problem, with a local income tax, that the Inland Revenue say that the minimum by which the tax could be increased would be a halfpenny, meaning that local authorities would have to increase their revenue by amounts of 10 per cent. on each occasion. That would encourage the very profligacy about which he has been complaining.
  Mr. Hirst: That is a legitimate point. If the political will exists, such problems can be overcome. At the end of the day, a hybrid solution may be produced, though I am not attracted by that possibility.
  I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to reassure the beleaguered Scottish ratepayers that the Government understand the problem, that an important element has been the overspending—which seems to be encouraged by Opposition Members—and that there is at least the prospect of a commitment to reform.
  12.22 am
  Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that many small businesses would find themselves bankrupt before their appeals were decided. Indeed, he thought that appeals could take a year or two to decide. I am one of the few hon. Members who participated in a major appeal at the time of the 1978 revaluation. Four years passed before we received a decision from the appeals tribunal in Edinburgh, and that appeal concerned just over 50 ratepayers. Today, almost everybody who has recently received an assessment has indicated an intention to appeal.
  Appeals of this nature must be based on comparisons. The only way to obtain a comparison is to check the valuation rolls. As those documents are not printed and available locally, an appeal cannot even be started. For that reason, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and

  337
  Berwickshire made a valid point when he said that small businesses would be bankrupt before their appeals were resolved.
  Mr. Ancram: It is worth remembering that under section 9 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 there is a proviso for rating authorities to agree with the appellant for the payment of less than 90 per cent. until the appeal has been determined. Local authorities may wish to consider that.
  Mr. Lambie: On that basis, people who have been charged an increase of, say, £100, could be told, "If you appeal, we will save you £10 this year, but you must pay £90 of the increase." The important part is the £90, not the rebate that they will be given while the appeal is under consideration. The Minister's point represents only a sop. He has no experience of these matters. He should consult the Secretary of State, who knows how long it takes to get these matters settled. Many of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents in Ayr were time-barred from appealing because of the delay that was involved in reaching what has become known as the Troon decision. Therefore, before the hon. Gentleman tries to be smart, let him consult the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The point was made by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that the Government have said that in regard to commercial property the revaluation is neutral. Let them tell the shopkeepers in the main street in Callendar, or the people in my area, or the people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Come), that it is a neutral revaluation. It is all right for the Under-Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and say that everything in the garden is lovely and that Ayr racecourse and Ayr United football club will get massive reductions in their rates bills.
  What will the hon. Gentleman say to all the bowling clubs in North Ayrshire? What will he say to Ardeer bowling club, for example, with a membership of 82 men and 44 women, where the rateable value of £1,750 will be increased to £4,400, an increase of 251 per cent.? The members will be well pleased when I tell them that all the supporters of Ayr United are doing well. All the friends of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who go down to Ayr racecourse will be pleased that it is doing well. What about the ordinary people who are members of bowling clubs which will be put out of business because of the effects of revaluation?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) talked about the by-election result for the North Kyle seat on Strathclyde regional council. That is an area I know well. I was glad to lose it from my old constituency of Central Ayrshire under the boundary revision, because there were not many Labour voters in it. Some of my Labour colleagues were angry when I said that that part of Central Ayrshire should go to the constituency of the Secretary of State. He was happy to get it.
  One of the reasons why the Tories lost that by-election may have been that they sent down their old friend, John Davidson, the Scottish director of the Confederation of British Industry, to speak to the young Tories in Troon the Saturday before the by-election. What did he speak about? He told them that revaluation was the greatest thing since
  338
  sliced bread and that ICI's rates had been substantially reduced. The week before, John Harvey-Jones, the chairman of ICI, made a statement in London that ICI had made £1,000 million profit last year. The ratepayers of Troon had to cheer that. ICI, Beechams and Roches are getting their rates reduced, but the ratepayers in Troon are getting their rates increased. That was probably why the Tories lost the by-election. If the Labour party ever wants a spokesman before a by-election, it should send for John Davidson. He will make a good job of it; he is certainly honest. The CBI is organised and financed by big business, and he is not interested in the small businesses in my area.
  I shall have to say to the garage owners in my area and in that of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, "It is all right. ICI is getting its rates reduced." During the past three years local garage owners have slimmed down their organisations to the bone. Throughout Scotland, garages are going bankrupt because of the economic conditions, and now they are facing increased valuations. For example, in Irvine, one garage rateable value was £4,555; it is now up to £8,500. In Dairy, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, the old rateable value of another garage was £10,247; the new rateable value is £19,150. What is the solution? Men will have to be sacked and facilities curtailed.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Sack the Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member will speak for himself, and I am sure that he will support me when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumfries is not here, because earlier he participated in much banter. Matters are too serious for ratepayers in Scotland for hon. Members to make party political speeches. The ratepayers want decisions—now, not by and by. There should be a united front of all hon. Members interested in being fair to Scotland's ratepayers—not just the major industries—whom we are supposed to represent.
  Mr. Bill Walker: In what would the hon. Gentleman like Conservative Members to join him? It is lovely to be "fair". How does the hon. Gentleman propose to be fair?
  Mr. Lambie: It is always wrong to give way at this stage of a speech. If the hon. Gentleman had waited, I would have answered the point.
  Matters are too serious for party political speeches and for people to indulge in banter about what happened in 1971, 1976 and 1982. As a Member of Parliament representing Troon until the last election, I know how substantial increases in valuation can effect people, especially those on low incomes. It does me no good to say that there is a voice shouting in the wilderness, although I must be fair and point out that our campaign had the full support of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) from 1978–79 until he became Secretary of State for Scotland. He then left the team and battled with me. I am looking for support from hon. Members so that immediate decisions can be taken to help people.
  The foundation of the modern Scottish rating system was the Poor Law (Scotland) Act 1845. Since the passing of that legislation, there have been a series of royal commissions, departmental committees and working parties looking into the rating system. There is nothing

  339
  new in examining complaints about the system. Every one of those major committees, with one exception, has until recently come out in favour of the present rating system.
  In 1976, the Labour Government set up the Layfield committee to investigate rates in the United Kingdom. It too, after all its investigations, came out in favour of the present basic rating system, although it said that it should be modified by the introduction of an element of local income tax. In 1982, when the Select Committee on the Environment decided to investigate the rating system, it also came out, after all the evidence, in favour of the present rating system. Therefore, those who want to change the system must do so in a way that counteracts all the evidence that has been given to the various royal commissions, departmental committees, working parties, Select Committees and so on since 1845.
  It is not right that, as the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said, revaluation was stopped in England and Wales because the Inland Revenue refused to do it. That is not true. Revaluation was stopped in England and Wales in 1979 when the present Secretary of State for Defence, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, went to a Tory party conference and told the ratepayers of England and Wales to tear up the assessment forms that had been issued by the Inland Revenue.
  If the Secretary of State is really serious, why does he not tell the ratepayers of Scotland to tear up their revaluation notices, get us back to square one, and give us a chance to look at the alternatives? Let us not interfere at this stage with the balance between domestic ratepayers, commercial ratepayers and industrial ratepayers.
  That is one of the things which the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and all of us should be advocating if we are serious. I cannot expect the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden to support me, because he is a young guy looking for promotion, as are some hon. Members on this side as well, but old stagers like the hon. Member for Tayside, North and my old friend the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) have nothing to gain in the promotion stakes. The latter has already burnt his boats. He should be speaking up in support of the ratepayers.
  In 1981, after the Secretary of State for the Environment had told the ratepayers of England and Wales to tear up their assessment notices, the Government published a Green Paper on alternatives to domestic rates. They looked at the alternatives—a local sales tax, local income tax, the poll tax, so dearly loved by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—and rejected them completely.
  The Government also put forward the other alternative—the correct one, which I think we should be following—which is assigned Exchequer revenue for such things as education and police, even considering 100 per cent. Government grants. Education is now 50 per cent. of all local government expenditure. Why do the Government not finance education completely? That would solve many of the problems. I know that many councillors and other people, including myself until a certain stage, said that we could not have 100 per cent. Government grants because that would be doing away with local democracy, but there is no local democracy now. Why do we not change the Government? It was a Labour Government who brought in indicative costs. Local authorities are never again to be given a free hand. We have to accept that. The
  340
  Government set the sum of money that is given to local authorities. Local democracy should then consist of the local council deciding on the priorities within the budget.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lambie: I am just about to finish.
  I can remember the old days when my father was treasurer of the borough of Saltcoats, and when the councillors could sit down and say, "How can we benefit the people who stay in Saltcoats?" My father could manipulate grants by the Labour or Conservative Government, no matter how they were paid out; for example, the old equalisation grant. Saltcoats always did well because we had a person who could use local democracy. We built houses when the rates of interest were low. It might not have been a Socialist solution, but we stopped building them when the rates of interest were high. There were no developments then. When the subsidies came down, we stopped building. When the subsidies went up, my God we built. When subsidies were stopped for general housing and the Government started to give subsidies for multi-storey development, we said that Saltcoats would build two blocks of multi-storey flats. We were the smallest town in Britain, but we built multi-storey flats. Because of Dick Mabon we got permission, although it was against the advice of the then Secretary of State. We got the highest subsidy available.
  That was local democracy, but it cannot happen now. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I should say to the Secretary of State, "Let us scrap the rate order tomorrow." The Secretary of State should withdraw it. We should say to him, "Let us tear up the valuation notices and get back to the old valuation." He should give us the opportunity of looking at the alternatives. We could find quick alternatives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) said that we could not change things overnight—
  Mr. Millan: I never said anything of the sort.
  Mr. Lambie: I thought that my right hon. Friend said that.
  The people in Southern Ireland abolished local rates on domestic properties overnight. Why does the Secretary of State not do that? If we want to give a lead, we should do that.
  If Conservative Members and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Opposition are thinking of helping the ratepayers of Scotland, let us unite and stop all this party political battle and banter from one side of the House to another. Let us get things done. We shall force Ministers on the Front Bench to play fair to the ratepayers.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House, as speeches seem to be getting longer, that we need brevity if all those anxious to speak are to be able to do so.
  12.42 am
  Mr. John Corrie: I find myself in trouble again because I am going to agree with much of what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) has just said. Before I go any further, I should like to be the one to claim the small prize of the hon. Member

  341
  for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for the highest revaluation, at 550 per cent. No one has yet made such a claim.
  I remind the House that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) stood at the Dispatch Box in July 1982, when we had the postponement of rating revaluation. He insisted that the Government went ahead with that revaluation when it came about in 1983–84. I assume that, when he stood there and said that, he hoped that he would win that election, so he must have been perfectly happy to see a rate revaluation coming up.
  I am probably the only person on Conservative Benches who sat on the Committee with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1974, looking at ways of changing the present system. It was agreed, as many Opposition Members have said, that we should repeal domestic rates. However, in 1974, it would have taken a few hundred million to wipe out domestic rates. After five years of the Labour Government, by the time we came to power in 1979, that figure had increased to a few thousand million. When we came to power, that was part of the reason why it was not done.
  It is interesting to note the reactions to poll tax from the Opposition. There is no doubt that, whatever else it would do, local authorities would be less inclined to push up a poll tax when it affected people who were also the voters. That may be right, when there is so much opposition to a poll tax from the Labour party. However, it is at that moment that I part company from my hon. Friend the Minister, because no issue in Scotland has angered my constituents more than revaluation has over the past few months. During 11 years in Parliament, I have never had such bitter, angry and, on many occasions, vile letters as I have received during the past few months.
  People do not want even to try to understand why revaluation has taken place—they are against it and that is the end of it. Reasoned replies trying to explain why it has occurred are not accepted. Even more worrying, it has provoked nationalistic feelings in Scotland such as we have not seen since 1974. That is bad for Scotland.
  The regular theme running through many of the letters is that Scotland has become a second-class nation. People wonder why they should be hammered when the English have escaped revaluation. It is no use saying that it is 12 years and England is out of phase, so when the time comes there will be 1,400 per cent. increases in England. We do not know whether that time will come. It is no use saying that domestic rates in Scotland are more, on average, than they are in England because the whole thing is distorted by housing in Scotland. It is no use saying that we must compare like with like because that does not hold water.
  Hotels, sporting grounds and shops are not just hundreds but often thousands of pounds out of phase between England and Scotland. The whole rating system is now so discredited that the public will no longer tolerate it. There can be no more ifs and buts—it is no use tinkering with the rotten system, because the more we do so the more rotten it will become. We must change the system.
  Many constituents are angry about the way that the assessors work. They believe that assessors, at the stroke of a pen, can decide the valuation of any property. Because there are so many assessors and so many variables throughout Scotland, there is a real distortion in the
  342
  valuation of properties. The worry is that if someone appeals and uses a friend's property with a ower valuation as an example, that friend's property valuation might be raised. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that?
  I make no apology for putting forward some examples, such as the small island of Cumbrae which is a tourist island with a small population. It depends on its tourists, hotels and shops. I thank Mr. Bill Reid from the local tourist association for producing figures. The domestic rateable value in total has risen from £173,000 to £493,000, a factor of 2·86. That of the house has risen from £56 to £308—an increase of 550 per cent. The domestic rate paid has risen from £246,000 to £326,000 — an increase of 32·1 per cent. On commercial properties, the rateable value in total has risen from £74,000 to £175,000—an increase of 229 per cent. The rates payable have risen from £103,000 to £122,000—an increase of 17·3 per cent. The rates bill in total for that small island, which depends on its small shops and businesses in the short summer season, has risen from £377,000 to £478,000—an increase of £101,000 or 26·3 per cent. That is about £90 per head of the population.
  I was there last week and saw tears of despair among many of the shopkeepers, who cannot face such an increase. There was one small bar whose rateable value increased from £800 to £4,400. Businesses cannot cope with such impositions. The story is the same throughout the constituency. I was reading the local newspaper only today about a famous restaurant in the area that is called The Moorings. The business hoped to reopen for the tourist season, but it has been told that if it did its new rateable value would be £60,000, an increase of £15,000 since last year. The management has decided not to reopen the restaurant. That is a disaster for Larga, which is a tourist area.
  There are three options. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could do nothing. That would be unacceptable to both sides of the House and to the public generally. Secondly, he could find extra finance. I accept that he has already done so, and that has made a difference. However, it is highly unlikely that he will be able to do so again in the light of the present constraints. Thirdly, he could find a fairer way to spread the burden. That must be done so that those who pay are those who can afford to do so. We must overcome the unfortunate and, indeed, tragic circumstances that many are now facing.
  12.52 am
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) attack local authorities such as Glasgow.
  Mr. Hirst: I did not mention Glasgow.
  Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek to attack any local authority for spending, for he is not slow to spend himself. He spends his Tory party funds on sending out newsletters that sometimes consist of six pages. He does so every month.
  Mr. Hirst: Private enterprise.
  Mr. Martin: I put it to him when I was on the Edinburgh relief road inquiry that it was good of him to send a birthday card to a young girl in his constituency. He could not remember the girl to whom he had sent the

  343
  card. He explained that he sent out so many birthday cards that he could not remember the individuals. If local authorities emulate the hon. Gentleman's example, they will be spending a great deal of money.
  Mr. Corrie: Cheap.
  Mr. Martin: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden attacks local authorities when he knows that he imposed a burden of £39 million on the good people of Edinburgh by approving a relief road—
  Mr. Hirst: I do not think that this is the time or the place to discuss the relief road. However, I remind the hon. Member that the merits of the case were well proved. Does he approve of the decision taken by his local authority, Glasgow district council, to prefer a hole in the ground to selling flats to private enterprise? That is the attitude that it takes in pursuit of political ideology.
  Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman claimed that he did not attack Glasgow and now he has reminded us that he did.
  Mr. Hirst: What is the answer to my question?
  Mr. Martin: Those in glasshouses should not take a bath. The hon. Gentleman should not attack others for spending when he did exactly that only a few weeks ago. He was given legal advice by high respected Queen's counsel on the eighth day of an inquiry. He was advised that the inquiry should not proceed as it was not proper that it should. The hon. Gentleman could have stopped it after eight days but he decided that it should continue. The inquiry continued for 52 days, with six QCs receiving £750 a day. He cost the taxpayers nearly £1 million by not taking legal advice. He should not attack Glasgow for doing anything which might be considered illegal. He is not so good at taking legal advice himself.
  Mr. Hirst: Oh dear. I understood the facts.
  Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the senior officials who give advice to Glasgow councillors all live in his constituency. They all live in Bearsden. He should not attack Glasgow too much, because he may be having a go at his own constituents and he badly needs their votes. He should remember how many people in his constituency depend for their livelihood on Glasgow district council and Strathclyde region, so when he imagines that he is attacking a Labour administration he is in fact attacking his own constituents.
  The hon. Gentleman also forgets that his local authority, to which he gives a pat on the back, does not have the Scottish Opera, the Scottish National Orchestra or the world famous Burrell art collection in its area.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Martin: No, I will not give way. We have been asked to keep our contributions short. The hon. Gentleman was not here earlier.
  Mr. Forsyth: I was upstairs in Committee.
  Mr. Martin: I do not care where the hon. Gentleman was. He was not here to take part in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden should remember that a great deal of Glasgow's financing goes to the benefit of people living in the peripheral areas of Glasgow who do not contribute to the rates.
  Mr. Hirst: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Martin: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.
  My secretary has been on the phone to the Scottish Office to inquire about the poverty fund that the EEC is supposed to have set up. If local authorities are under attack, that fund should be available for projects in Springburn because there is a great deal of poverty in my community. I understand that about £100,000 is available from the EEC to help projects such as the after-school care scheme devised by the Springburn single parents association. With the sum available we shall be lucky to finance four projects a year in Scotland. It is clear, therefore, that the millions of pounds that the Secretary of State says are available to help ratepayers are in fact coming from other funds within the Scottish Office.
  If help is not forthcoming from the Scottish Office for projects in my community, there will be pressure on the local authority. As a result of high unemployment and the other problems faced by communities such as mine, more and more authorities have to consider schemes that they would not have considered in the past when help was available from the Scottish Office, the Manpower Services Commission or the urban aid scheme.
  Mr. Hirst rose—
  Mr. Martin: No, I will not give way. I have waited for hours to make my contribution. The hon. Gentleman has already said his piece. Indeed, if he had not taken so long about it, we should be a good deal further ahead.
  There are now more burdens on local authorities than ever before because of the problems presented to them by the Scottish Office. It is nonsense just to listen to small business men as though they were the only people worth considering. As long as I have been involved in local and national government, shopkeepers and business men have complained about the rates. However, they do not tell us that they depend on local government spending to make a living. Lafferty, the building company, would not exist if it were not for local government spending. Subcontractors who work for such companies would not be in business if it were not for local government expenditure, so they cannot complain about paying rates for their premises. Indeed, they often lobby councillors, COSLA, Members of Parliament and Ministers for more spending on housing and road building.
  Many shopkeepers approached me about the building of the Blindcraft workshop in Springburn. That workshop will not bring business directly, but it will indirectly as there will be more passing trade and activity in the area. If it had not been for Strathclyde regional council, it would not have been decided to bring the biggest blind workshop in Europe to my constituency. They cannot have it both ways—they cannot have projects in Scotland and not pay rates.
  No matter what we introduce, whether rates, a poll tax or any other form of tax, there is no such thing as a popular tax. Whatever we introduce, people will complain.
  1.1 am
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). For small business men and commercial ratepayers, we have heard of rateable values increasing from £800 to £4,000. In one case in my constituency, the increase was from nearly £700 to well above £2,000.

  345
  Commercial ratepayers should be considered sympathetically and urgently. They should be made aware of the accelerated appeal procedure. During an appeal they are entitled to a 10 per cent. rebate. Can it be increased? It should surely be possible to table a suitable amendment or new clause to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill on Report. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would give that serious consideration.
  There is nothing quite so powerful as an idea whose time has come, and the commitment that the rating system should be abolished within the lifetime of a parliament is such an idea. Revaluation will act as a catalyst, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said. The central issue is the unfairness of the system and the fact that only a small proportion of the electorate contribute the vast proportion of the rates burden.
  We should also consider the lack of accountability of the assessors. I vividly remember taking a group to see the assessor in Edinburgh after the new runway of Edinburgh Airport was built. It was clear that those living near the airport would suffer much heavier noise levels and have to have double glazing and the rest; yet he would not give them a reduction in rateable value. They took him to court and eventually defeated him. He refused to give way until forced to do so. My constituents shared the legal costs so that none bore too heavy a risk.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Did not the Conservative party say that the idea's time had come in February 1974, when they made a manifesto commitment to abolish the rates? By 1979, that time had moved on and it had been abandoned altogether by 1983.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot speculate what would have happened, if the Conservatives had won that election, but since they did not, the matter is academic. The present position is very different from that which persisted in the past. Domestic relief will help, but something stronger is required now.
  I now turn to the solution that would work well in practice. A block grant on its own is insufficient because it would lead to inflexibility and the risk of continual confrontations. A substantial block grant funded from income tax, which covered the main services to a large extent and contributed between 70 and 90 per cent. of the expenditure required, would go a long way towards meeting the problem. If a balance is required, poll tax is a possibility. A poll tax needs an equal sum to be charged per capita, irrespective of income. That is not an insurmountable objection if the block grant is sufficiently large. However, there would be the problem of collection of a poll tax. I hope that my hon. Friend will think through all the implications of collection seriously before any firm decisions are made on that matter. I hope that he will also consider small businesses.
  We heard earlier about racecourses. Will my hon. Friend also consider Edinburgh zoo? It is the highest rated zoo in the whole of Britain. It has the finest national collection of animals in Scotland. In the overall scheme of things, that may be a minor matter, but nevertheless it is important for Edinburgh. The time for fulfilling the promise to domestic ratepayers has come, and I hope that it will not be long before it is fulfilled.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his brevity.
  1.6 am
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) made that ringing statement with all the conviction of a man with a majority of 498. In due course we shall see whether the time has come for the reform of local government finance, or for new representation for the city of Edinburgh.
  The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the rating system, the Government have distorted the way in which the rating system bears on ratepayers in Scotland. The Government have gone to enormous lengths to confuse the issue of rates during the past six years. Year after year, they have cut the rate support grant and blamed local councils for the consequences of those cuts. We have seen an unprecedented shift of the burden of payment for local services away from central Government rate support grant to the poor suffering ratepayers. The Minister and the House know that, and the penny is beginning to drop among the ratepayers.
  The rate support grant comes from funds raised through relatively fair central Government taxation, while rates are a spectacularly unfair, arbitrary form of local taxation. We have known that for a long time. We have had seven years of shameless humbug from what is left of the Conservative party in Scotland. How well we remember the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) sitting on the Back Benches four years ago ranting about Lothian regional council being the rogue elephant authority of Scottish politics because it had the audacity to try to protect the services that it was elected to provide.
  Year after year the Government have taken action to force up the rates, but each year, with yet another diversionary tactic, local councils were vilified and we had the fascinating new concept of mandatory guidelines, clawbacks of rate support grant and, finally, rate capping. The latest round of rate support grant cuts, compounded by the effects of the revaluation, have been the last straw for the electorate and ratepayers of Scotland. The Scottish assessors have finally blown the Secretary of State's cover, and the poor Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), has been left to face the music.
  I have some sympathy with the ratepayers of Eastwood and Ayr, because some parts of my constituency are similarly afflicted with irrationally inflated rateable values. I am thinking especially of north Berwick. Those anomalies were more or less tolerable when rates accounted for only a relatively small proportion of local authority budgets, but since successive cuts have meant that rate support grant has been shrunk out of all recognition from what it was before the Government came to power, all Scottish ratepayers have something to protest about.
  In my constituency, the ratepayers of East Lothian district must pay 14·1 per cent. more in rates, although the district council has cut its net expenditure by 6 per cent. I would have wished the district council to improve some services and to spend more money, but the restraints imposed by the Secretary of State compel that local authority to restrict its budget. The fact that, despite the cuts, rates have increased graphically illustrates the impact

  347
  of the latest round of rate support grant cuts. To make matters worse, the revaluation has shifted an even greater share of the burden onto domestic and commercial ratepayers.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has been caught with his hands in the till, and he has panicked. Domestic rate relief has been increased by 3p, and we have unprecedented fluttering in the Tory dovecotes of Scotland. But the fact that the Secretary of State is flapping his wings does not mean that he will necessarily take off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) said, we have been through this before. In February 1974, the Prime Minister gave a manifesto commitment to scrap the domestic rating system. What be came of that? Earlier, I referred to the Scottish Conservative manifesto of 1983 which, under the heading, "Local government: saving ratepayers' money", said:
  "We will also take steps to bring the Scottish and English valuation systems more into line to prevent anomalies occurring."
  I put that point to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), who tried to wriggle out of it by saying that the Government had done something about race courses. There is only one race course in my constituency, and I am unaware of any in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I do not believe that that reform has been of much help to the commercial and domestic ratepayers of Scotland.
  We know now that the anomalies between the Scottish and English systems are being aggravated. The Scottish Tory party manifesto continued:
  "We will make the valuation system more responsive to changing economic circumstances and make it possible for ratepayers to appeal more readily and for appeals to be settled quickly."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth suggested that every ratepayer in Scotland should lodge an appeal with the assessor. We shall see whether that ploy works. I would certainly not blame anyone for doing so.
  The Government have overloaded the rating system to such an extent that it has become intolerable. They could put matters right by restoring a realistic level of rate support grant or by extending a special rating relief package. If they fail to do that, the rating system seems likely to collapse. The Secretary of State is caught between the electors of Troon and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be fascinating to see which way he jumps.
  1.13 am
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: The rating system is an undemocratic system of taxation. First, the two contributors of commerce and industry have no vote. Of those who have a vote, 60 per cent. receive rate rebates, and of the 30 or 40 per cent. who do not receive rebates, only the householder pays. Therefore, the great benefit is to those who receive the services, and the great penalty is to those who must pay for those services. The system must go. If there is one benefit from the split of the various mechanisms that we have had, it is that the death knell of this disastrous system has at last been sounded.
  The Socialists have overspent in their regions, and as Jamaica street has been changed from a shopping street into a desert, so the assessor has had to assess Jamaica street down and the prosperous little towns in the country areas up. As that has happened the needs element has been
  348
  depressed, and the ratepayers who had something of which to be proud in frugal communities have suffered. That has been the result of the formula.
  I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that fact. I find little comfort from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who put through the Act introducing this measure in the first place. He does not even have a house in Scotland, so why is he saying that this is unfair?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: He has two houses.
  Mr. Fairbairn: If the right hon. Gentleman has two houses, he is a true Socialist.
  It is no good having achieved a situation in which the formula has squinted everything and punished the frugal. It has benefited the rate support grant of Socialist, extravagent authorities, such as Edinburgh, while punishing those, such as Perth and Kinross, which have been frugal. Whether or not that was the intention, that is the fact. It is no good talking about averages and saying that the North-West Castle hotel in Stranraer has had a decrease in its rates. Hurrah, it has had a decrease in its rates and if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary were to go to Stranraer for the weekend, I have no doubt that there would be a 24 per cent. decrease in the cost of his bedroom.
  That does not alter the fact that in our ordinary ratepaying areas we have a dangerous situation. Let us take a typical coffee shop in Crieff. In real cash terms, its owners will have to pay an 83 per cent. increase in real terms. They will have to obtain £70 more a week. They can put up their prices by 3 per cent., and add that to the 5 per cent. increase on wages and the 5 per cent. extra that they will have to pay on goods, plus VAT, and so on, but that is not realistic.
  The Government must face the reality of the fact that in Perthshire domestic ratepayers will be faced with real 30, 35, 42 or even 48 per cent. increases. It is no good saying that they can stay in some stupid hotel in Stranraer, or watch football somewhere, when on their principal bill—rates are the biggest bill—they will face an increase.
  Many people who are old, or who own shops, or who support tourism, or who have bought their own houses, or who are saving for their retirement, and whom we were elected to help, will, as a result of this mechanism, be victims. I do not want to give any help to the Opposition, who love it when the ratepayers, the retired, those who live in Perthshire and those who own their houses, whom they despise, are victims.
  If a revaluation system causes inequity for individuals and also unemployment by putting small businesses out of work, and if it damages tourism, closes hotels and harms frugal authorities which have done their best to be economical and sensible, or those who have saved up to buy their own homes or for their retirement, the formula is per se wrong.
  I am not interested in averages, or in whether the rates for one bowling green or one hotel go up or down. With inflation at 5 per cent. there cannot be a rating system in Scotland which forces some people to pay a penalty which in no circumstances is it possible for them to sustain. Be it domestic, with relief provided by the Secretary of State, be it commercial, with no relief, or be it commercial—down or up I care not. A system which creates such inconsequential unfairness cannot be tolerated. It is unfair

  349
  to those who have done their best by their families and to those who have tried to set up in business or attract tourists. The home is the biggest investment that most people ever make. People should not be turned out of their homes by taxation if their circumstances change. Any system that creates such inhumanity is, I believe, wrong and must be swept away forthwith.
  Royal Commissions act like bureaucrats, who have a staggering capacity to find a problem to any solution. Nothing could be worse than this system. It is inequitable and unfair. The Minister believes, as I do, in home ownership and in small businesses, tourism and employment. We must not allow a mechanism to be justified by averages if that mechanism harms employment, tourism, commerce and industry. It must be prevented from doing so much damage. We must prevent it now.
  1.25 am
  Mr. Jim Craigen: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is right to advise the Minister that a crisis is upon us. We do not have much time for reflection about reform. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, many households and businesses are faced with immediate problems as a result of the 1985 revaluation and the cut in the 1985–86 rate support grant by the Government.
  Ministers must have been alarmed when the number held by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) came up tonight in the ballot. Revaluation, as a five-yearly exercise, has always been dramatic, but the 1985 revaluation is nightmarish because of the postponement by the Government for political reasons of the one due in 1983. Many of us believed that it would lead to a reform of the system after the general election.
  After dallying all these years on rates reform, it looks as if we shall be propelled within weeks into reform proposals by Ministers, or perhaps the Prime Minister. The Perth Conservative conference in May might be a dress rehearsal for the measures that are about to be inflicted upon us. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will make a major pronouncement at Perth. Perhaps we shall have another "Declaration of Perth." We know what happened to the last one.
  The suggestion of a poll tax is being floated. I noticed the disparity in views between the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) tonight. Scotland is apparently to be the science lab for experimentation in rates reform, with Scottish ratepayers as the guinea pigs, possibly having attached to their heads £200 per member of their household. No one has yet determined the extent of the poll tax.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) and I entered the House at the same time. He referred to comparisons between Scotland and England. For years, Ministers have said that ratepayers down south pay less than ratepayers in Scotland. Now they are changing their tune and telling us that we do not know how lucky we are in Scotland because south of the Tweed ratepayers pay more.
  I understand that the average rate bill in England for 1985–86 will be £420 per annum, including water charges,
  350
  whereas the average in Scotland will be £397 per annum. Many people rightly wonder how, without revaluation, local authorities in England can operate. I received a letter from a constituent only today asking that question. Perhaps the Minister will explain how authorities have been able to cope since 1973 without revaluation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said, English domestic ratepayers are likely to have a 9 per cent. increase in their bills.
  The period allowed for appeals was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). Although this will run to 15 September, the Scottish Office has spent nearly £100,000 advertising the appeals machinery. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) aptly pointed out, there may well be a two-year period of uncertainty about the amounts that have to be paid. No wonder that another constituent wrote to me suggesting that the Secretary of State for Scotland might be taken before what was called the Race Relations Board because the constituent thought that the Secretary of State was doing down ratepayers in Scotland.
  The Minister knows that I had correspondence with him at the beginning of the year concerning an article in the Glasgow Herald about disparities north and south of the border. The Minister's reply to my letter dated 30 January was a marvel. He concluded by saying:
  "At the present time we cannot say with certainty how the results of the coming valuation will be perceived … People must have the chance to consider the results of the revaluation and the new appeal provisions must be given a chance to work before anyone can conclude that there remain significant valuation problems to be resolved."
  When I listened to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) tonight, I wondered what we had been doing in debates on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) Scotland Bill. He made many speeches during consideration of that long Bill, in the course of which the Government promised that the legislation was going to sort out all the anomalies, except for the zoos. We wait for this legislation to bring comparability between the two systems. The Minister on a number of occasions turned down a suggestion that I made that one cannot have two separate systems of valuation north and south of the border and expect uniformity as a result.
  Mr. David Marshall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I missed most of the debate because, in common with some other hon. Members, I was until recently entrapped in the Standing Committee which is considering the Transport Bill.
  My hon. Friend referred to anomalies. I should like to give him one example in my constituency which emphasises the point particularly well. It is the case of a lady who advises me that she has an empty yard with no buildings on it; she is what is commonly referred to as one of the show people. She keeps a caravan in the yard for six months of the year, and then is out and about in the country as one of the show people for the remaining six months. Her rateable value has increased from £390 to £2,000, an increase of over 500 per cent. What sort of anomaly is that?
  Mr. Craigen: I can only say to my hon. Friend that we were told that the derating of caravans would help sort out these problems.
  I saw a press report that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) had got quite

  351
  excited about remarks in the Glasgow Herald that the Solicitor-General was "dumbfounded" by the increases, and that the right hon. Member for Stirling was "outraged". My hon. Friend described them as a couple of chocolate soldiers. He does a disservice to soldiery in this country. I think that they are more like a couple of chocolate smarties. We awaited the rebellion on the Government Back Benches tonight. In fact, I saw a report that the hon. member for Dumfries was to lead a deputation to see the Prime Minister, no less. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, and he sounded more like the grand old duke of York: he went up the hill, and now he is taking the troops back down again.
  Conservative Back Benchers are stuck with the past actions of their Ministers in relation to revaluation and yearly reduced rate support grants. This is hardly the time for them to complain about those matters, to which they consented. We are indeed facing a crisis. The Government should at least restore the cuts that they have made this year, of all years with revaluation, in the rate support grant orders for Scotland.
  That would help a little with the enormous bills that domestic ratepayers in particular, but also many commercial ratepayers, will face in the coming year. The situation is horrendous for ratepayers. I am seriously worried about the state of local government in Scotland because, as a result of this operation overload, the Government are imposing more burdens on the rating system than it is capable of bearing.
  1.36 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): We did not need tonight's debate to make us more aware of the concern and deep anxiety that is felt in Scotland on the subject of rates. There has been considerable seriousness on the Conservative Benches tonight on this issue. On the Opposition Benches, on the other hand, there has been much frivolity and laughter. If we needed proof that this debate was an opportunist attempt by Opposition Members to take advantage of ratepayers, their attitude and behaviour in the Chamber tonight provided that proof.
  The concern that ratepayers feel is shared by the Government. It is important, therefore, that we have a chance—as the debate has provided—to put the matter into perspective and to canvass the problem. Many points have been raised, but the thread to have come through the debate most strongly is that the rating system is unsatisfactory. We have never made any secret of our dissatisfaction with the system, and I shall say more on that later.
  We start, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) rightly said, from the fact that rates are at present the system by which we finance local government. I wish, in the light of that, to look at the revaluation and the points that have been made about it.
  I was surprised by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who seemed to suggest that there was no reason for the revaluation. He also seemed to say that the wisdom that came after the event, and certainly after one had left office, led him to believe that there were other ways of doing it, and he put forward a number of different ways by which he thought it could be done.
  352
  Labour's shadow Minister of State, when the right hon. Member for Govan was shadow Secretary of State, said in July 1982:
  "The Minister should make it clear now that there will be no more flirting with this halfway house and parboiled non-solution."
  Those were the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about a mixed system of revaluation. He went on:
  "He should tell us that there will be a proper revaluation in 1985–86".—[Official Report, 28 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1195.] That is the revaluation about which we are talking tonight, and at least the hon. Member for Garscadden has had the honesty in recent months to make it clear that he does not take the view that this revaluation is wrong.
  The first main question to be asked tonight was: why the revaluation? I do not want to go into all the basic reasons for revaluation, except to point out that revaluations as a whole do not affect the total burden of rateborne expenditure. They share out that burden according to individual property valuations. It is important in such circumstances that those valuations must not only be fair but up to date. That is why we have always had regular revaluations.
  It is interesting to remember that we have had revaluations in 1961, 1966, 1971, 1978, when again there had been a two-year postponement, and now in 1985. In Scotland we have revaluations regularly by statute. It is important to realise that that is different from the English system, where there are revaluations at the discretion of the Government.
  Several hon. Members have called for a postponement. I have already made the point that the date of the revaluation was set in the order in 1982. That was already a postponement. The House decided at that time that it would postpone the revaluation until now.
  I think that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) was the only Member who raised the possibility effectively of a postponement or a cancellation at this stage. To cancel or try to postpone a revaluation after it has been effectively completed would be a practical impossibility. We would be saying to those who have gained, "Whatever the valuer thinks about your position, you will have to go on paying more." They might have good grounds for appeal, and that might have implications for the rating basis.
  Also, to postpone the revaluation at this stage, once local authority budgets have been drawn up on the basis of what the revaluation has achieved, not least in terms of the resources element, would throw local government finance in Scotland into total chaos. Neither the local authorities nor the ratepayers would thank us for doing that.
  In regard to the effects of revaluation, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) fairly pointed out that the average figure for England for 1985–86 will still be higher than the average rate expenditure in Scotland, the figures being £429 in England, compared with £397 in Scotland, despite the fact that we have had two revaluations since the English last had theirs. The real burden in terms of rates lies in rate poundage and not in revaluation.
  I have to accept that there are variations. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) produced examples which we all have to take seriously. If there is unfairness in any valuation that has been arrived

  353
  at by the assessor, there is a system of appeal which we brought up to date in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984. That is available to allow people to test the assessor's views in the court.
  Mr. Craigen: My real question was: how did the authorities in England cope when they last had a revaluation in 1973?
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that valuations do not affect how authorities cope, because the authorities receive the money that they want, based on the rating base that they find. What has happened, I suspect, in England as much as in Scotland is that there are people who are sitting on valuations which are well out of date and which probably require them to pay levels of rates which are highly unfair.
  The overall balance within the revaluation transferred the burden from the industrial to the domestic ratepayer, the reverse of the last revaluation. Overall, the commercial effects were basically neutral. That became apparent to us in the autumn.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Rubbish.
  Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend may say, "Rubbish". He dislikes averages, but we have to look at the overall position. The overall effect on commercial valuations was effectively neutral. He raised one or two examples. Even within his constituency there are commercial operations, such as, for instance, the bakery in Dunkeld road in Perth, which will have a reduction in its valuation of £3,085. All I will say once again is that we have to consider a revaluation in terms of the balances that it creates.
  When it became clear to us in the autumn that the main burden was falling on domestic ratepayers, we took action immediately, through the domestic rate relief and reduced industrial derating, to halve the effect of revaluation and the rate support grant settlement on the domestic ratepayers. Only later, when we saw the effect which the budgets of local authorities would have—the fact that, once again, we would see local authorities overspending—did we realise that we had to do more. We increased the domestic rate relief by a further 3p — overall a multiplication of eight times the previous level.
  Many people may have scoffed at what they called the 3p increase. It is worth considering what that is worth to the individual ratepayer. On a valuation of £500, £40 is met by domestic relief on the rate bill. On a valuation of £2,000, £160 is met by domestic relief on the rate bill.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The extra 3p does not come to that much.
  Mr. Ancram: This includes the whole 8p. For the average ratepayer in Scotland it is a subsidy of roughly 11 per cent. on the average rate bill. Taken against the increases that are likely, especially in areas which have low rates and have spent within guidelines but still have high values, the subsidy will aid those ratepayers—in many cases, by more than 50 per cent. of their increases. To scoff at those increased subsidies is not worthy of Labour Members.
  The hon. Member for Maryhill talked about the rate support grant. He seemed to forget that domestic relief is part of RSG. That rate support grant has now been increased by £42 million over last year's amount. The total
  354
  of domestic relief has been increased by £88 million. It is worth considering that the cost of revaluation to the domestic ratepayer out of the total changes this year was £90 million, £88 million of which has now been met through domestic relief. Despite the variations, it would be arguable—
  Mr. Donald Dewar: No.
  Mr. Ancram: Those figures are available. Despite the variations the Government have effectively dealt with the whole cost of revaluation.
  Mr. Dewar: Not the whole cost.
  Mr. Ancram: Within £2 million of the whole cost of revaluation.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I cannot give way, because I have only two minutes left to speak.
  The basic problem is that two thirds of the increase of 17 per cent. in domestic rates is applicable to local government overspending. The effect of revaluation and RSG settlements accounts for 6·5 per cent., and the rest of the 17 per cent. is due to revaluation.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I give way. I misread the time previously.
  Mr. Dewar: The point has passed to some extent. The problem is that, however much the hon. Gentleman may plead his case, it will carry no credibility, because people will look at the bill which they will have to meet in the end. People are really suffering from the cuts in the rate support grant settlement that have been forced on them, with the support of the rebel Government Back Benchers, during the past few years. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to help, he will, as we have urged, remove some of the unreasonable burden which has caused the whole system to creak and reach the point of collapse. The general thrust of the cuts which his policy represents have created real problems for ratepayers of every kind.
  Mr. Ancram: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is making a case for an increase in the needs element of RSG. Is he seriously suggesting that if there were an increase in the needs element of RSG, in the majority of authorities in Scotland it would go to the ratepayers, or will it go — as is most likely — to increase expenditure? [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Govan, would stop and listen, he might discover that things have moved on since the days when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Let me make the point again that the basic reason for dealing with the problems of the domestic ratepayer through the domestic relief is precisely that that relief goes individually to the domestic ratepayers and helps most those who have the highest valuation. Those who have been hardest hit by the revaluation benefit most from the domestic relief. It fits hon. Gentlemen ill to mock the fact that very large sums of money have been put into this. As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, when the bills come in those who feared very high increases will find that the Government have helped them.
  Turning to commercial ratepayers, I believe that what has been said in this debate shows that within the variations very serious problems arise. If those

  355
  commercial ratepayers believe that increases of the kind about which we have heard tonight are unfair, they are entitled to take those on appeal against the assessor and require him to test his proposition in the courts. I hope that hon. Members who have mentioned this possibility will look at the way in which we improved the situation last year, not least by the accelerated appeal procedure. I hope that that will be tried in the weeks and months to come.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned the proposition of a special financial deal for commercial ratepayers. I must say in all honesty that there is no machinery; it would require primary legislation. I must ask him this question: what would happen to those who gained in that neutral balance? Would they be allowed to keep what they had got? That could not be done in any way that could be regarded as fair.
  Finally, I turn to the basic question of where we go from here. A number of my hon. Friends have put forward various suggestions. The Government are listening to and looking at all the suggestions that are coming forward at this time. We have never made any secret of our dissatisfaction with the rating system or of our determination to make improvements in the way that local government is financed. Despite our disappointment that no agreed solution emerged from the very thorough and comprehensive examination that we ran before the last election, we have continued to work towards discovering a better way.
  As was announced last October, well before the results of revaluation were known, we have set up a ministerial study, in which I am involved with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment. I would not wish to pre-empt the consideration that we are making in that review. It follows from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today that we are determined to find an agreed solution to the problem. We believe that the system that we have at the moment is unfair and discriminatory. Some of the anomalies have been highlighted by the revaluation. I do not believe that there is any easy way in which solutions to this problem can be found, but our determination remains undiminished.

  Newspaper Industry
  1.53 am
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On 4 May 1984 I had the honour to initiate an Adjournment debate on the newspaper publishing industry. I make no apology for coming forward tonight, 11 months later, to propose basically the same subject yet again because of what I see as the great difficulties connected with the printing and composing unions. They seem to have got stronger while management has been bashed time after time. I believe very much that the industry is now being subjected to industrial anarchy, and I think it is a very important point to make.
  We have to bear in mind that 69 per cent. of people now read a daily newspaper. Recent statistics show that 38·3 million read a daily paper, 35·3 million of them taking a popular paper and 3 million a quality paper. The average readership of a Sunday paper is now 33·2 million people. It can be safely said, therefore, that any strike or loss of copies by shortfall affects many people.
  Some of us recently fought a campaign against VAT on newspapers and on the cover prices, as we saw it as an attack on learning. I believe that denying people the automatic right to buy the paper of their own choice is much the same. I do not knock the regular circulation wars between the papers, but I consider it intolerable when regular availability at every local newsagent of a particular paper is no longer assured because of union interference. The culprits are always, I am afraid, the National Graphical Association and the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades, SOGAT '82, which continue to kick the newspaper industry for petty political points. They do not understand the number of people they are affecting. I do not mean just newsagents, who do not get paid when they do not have the copies to be sold, but all other people involved who want to know what is happening in society. They can listen to local and national radio and watch television, but the permanent word comes from the local or national daily paper, and if they cannot get that, they feel let down, and rightly so.
  Every time one has an industrial stoppage, effectively one is bringing about an increase in the cover price. Both prestige papers such as The Times and popular papers such as The Sun have fought back with large-scale advertising in the former and mass circulation in the latter. However, large increases in the cost of production and cover prices have reduced the number of people buying more than one paper. That must be bad news for the industry.
  I said last year that the industry was fighting to survive. Eleven months later, sadly, I see no change to report to date. The numbers of days lost through industrial action in the past six years are horrific. In 1979, 640,000 working days were lost. Incidentally, 600,000 were for The Times alone. In 1980, 128,000 were lost, in 1981 13,000 were lost—that was quite a reasonable year—in 1982, 15,000 were lost, in 1983, 30,000 were lost and in 1984 the provisional figure is 27,000.
  Let us look at the number of stoppages in the newspaper industry for each of the past six years, which is equally bad, and embarrassing and shocking because it is affecting the industry. In 1979 there were 17, in 1980 there were 17, in 1981 the figure improved, going down to 13, and in 1982, it went down to 12. But up the figure came again in 1983 to 24, of which four were in March and four in

  357
  November. In 1984 the figure was equal to that of 1983, although the industry was supposed to be improving, self-regulating and watching itself for the future. There were 24 stoppages: four in May, six in July and four in October.
  Stoppages are caused for a variety of reasons, no doubt, but they can be costly to the companies concerned. The Financial Times lost £10·1 million in 1983 through one of those kamikaze stoppages. In 1984 it lost £1·3 million in revenue and 2 million copies were lost in that 10-week dispute. That is appalling. In 1985, to date, the Financial Times has already lost 166,000 copies. On 14 March, 49,900 copies were lost. On 15 February, 36,225 copies were lost.
  Therefore, the industry is certainly not healthy and alive and kicking, in the way that I would like it to be. Hon. Members would not be far wrong in considering Fleet street industrial relations as in a state of anarchy.
  I trace the root of the problem back to November 1983, to the Stockport Messenger group, where there was thuggery on the picket lines, but, for a change, a united front by the newspaper companies, which sued the NGA for maximum damages under the Employment Act 1982. I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Employment to his place on the Front Bench. Action was taken under the Employment Act because of the unlawful industrial action of union members in halting production of national newspapers on 25 and 26 November. Believe it or not, an estimated loss of £10 million was caused by strikes against Mr. Eddie Shah.
  It is important to consider what is causing the problems. They are often small incidents of which people may not always take notice — yet they cripple the industry. Between January and February 1984, a dispute involving 550 SOGAT clerical workers halted publication of The Times and The Sunday Times. The origin of the dispute was the appointment of a member of the supervisory section of SOGAT to the position of picture librarian—supposedly a post for clerical branch members.
  On 29 February 1984, all London editions of national newspapers were lost because it was the day following the so-called TUC day of action demonstrating solidarity with the trade union movement against Government action at GCHQ. On 12 April 1982, there was no London printing of the Daily Express and the Daily Star because of a dispute involving SOGAT publishing staff working in a warehouse. In June and August 1983, the Financial Times lost 59 days because of a dispute involving the NGA.
  The number of stoppages, their duration and the consequential financial losses to national newspapers during the past five years include the following. In 1979, The Times was out between 1 December 1978 and 19 October 1979; in 1980, there was no Financial Times between 5 December and 15 December; in 1981, The Times was out between 25 September to 1 October; in 1982, The Daily Telegraph was out between 17 November and 27 November; The Times was out again from 20 December to 31 December.
  It was not too bad a year in 1983, but the figures for 1984 are shocking—and they have been updated since I last spoke in an Adjournment debate on this matter. The Times was out between 13 January and 1 February; The Observer on 26 May; the Financial Times on 5 July; The Guardian on 9 July; The Sun between 13 July and 28 July; and The Daily Telegraph on 11 October.
  358
  There is no doubt that the industry is in a difficult state, and for some strange reasons. On 24 October the dispute at The Times, which had not published for two days, was about a fifth press needed to increase output. The NGA was offered 70 more jobs to man the press, but instead asked for more pay for its existing workers. The Newspaper Publishers Association received a request from print union leaders on 29 September for a 12 per cent. pay rise. Quite correctly, Lord Marsh said that the claim would not be considered until industrial action at the Financial Times and The Evening Standard was called off. He also said that the employers would not negotiate under duress. At that time the Financial Times had already lost 1,250,000 copies. That dispute needs to be put on the record.
  There was more trouble on 28 December at the Financial Times. The management expected to take a tough line and may even have decided to suspend machine room workers — the reason was that there was leap-frogging in the joint press room agreement being sought between SOGAT and the National Graphical Association.
  On 5 January there were, yet again, problems at the Financial Times. They arose over a 48-page edition. The NGA did not want such a large edition and it claimed that it broke an ACAS agreement. The disagreement was underpinned by substantitive negotiations on pay and manning and a new sick pay scheme. All that the Financial Times wanted was a joint press room. However, the NGA wanted to narrow pay differentials between its members. In the composing room its members were to earn £700 a week, but in the machine room it was £350. That is a large disparity, but both figures are incredible.
  The Times lost two editions, on 22 and 23 October 1984, as a result of disputes. I understand that 525,000 copies were lost on both nights. Between 1 September 1984 and 28 February 1985, the Daily Mail lost 5·6 million copies in total. In the same period, The Guardian lost slightly fewer than 3 million copies. The management of The Guardian refer to these problems as "production difficulties". A spanner can fall into a machine accidentally or by design.
  I am not criticising the unions, but there are great problems in the industry and it is time that someone revealed them. The Times group lost £40 million during the 11-month closure of 1978–79. Some disputes may last only a day or two but the result can be catastrophic for the industry from which I come and about which I care. I spent two and a half years working in both printing and publishing for Mr. Robert Maxwell. I watched the industry from the inside just as much as other hon. Members.
  Fleet street suffers continually from a distribution shortfall and something must be done about that quickly. I must blame the unions for the shortfall.
  The greatest bill that Fleet street has to pay — the wages bill—is liable to rise by 12 per cent. It amounted last year to £530 million and the unions want a 12 per cent. increase without any reduction in manning levels. This is an industry which I consider to be overmanned.
  There is fierce competition among the newspapers that are on sale. Each national newspaper must depend on regular publishing, and that is a feature that I want to see. Price rises must be on the horizon, because every time there is a dispute or a strike the price of the newspaper may have to increase.
  All our daily and Sunday newspapers need to remain competitively priced, but that is becoming impossible with

  359
  the high wage bills that they have to meet. The perpetuation of the casual worker — a regular in Fleet street who is protected under the Employment Protection Act 1975 and who has a contract of employment — is putting the entire structure into great difficulties. I have evidence that some casual workers are receiving more than £700 a week. On a Saturday night they can earn £250 for a one-night shift.
  The managements of all the newspapers must tighten up the conditions that apply to the casual worker. The casual worker should be paying tax and national insurance and meeting all the requirements that would normally be expected of someone in employment. He should not be paid if he has a fictitious name. I understand that Mickey Mouse and even Ronald Reagan have been listed as working on Saturday evenings for Sunday newspapers.
  Mr. John Evans: There has been evidence in the past of Mickey Mouse, Errol Flynn and Sir Galahad, for example, being employed casually in Fleet street. However, this is something that the newspaper publishers allow and welcome. If they want to stop it, why do they not do so? The means of stopping the practice are in their hands, but they do not use them. Obviously they are satisfied with the practice.
  Mr. Bruinvels: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am calling for managements to stop the practice. I am grateful to him for supporting my call.
  Mr. Evans: I am not supporting anything. I am merely pointing out what needs to be done.
  Mr. Bruinvels: The proprietors must co-operate to tighten things up and stop casual workers from nipping from one paper to another, perhaps doing the first edition of one and the third edition of another, which is all too easy when they are all based in Fleet street. Incidentally, I understand that during the strike at The Times the strikers helped to put out The Guardian from the same building.
  The fact that there are so few proprietors has been criticised, and I know that the NGA feels this sincerely. That criticism may be justified to some extent, but how many people can afford to own a national paper? Robert Maxwell, with whom I am no longer associated, had the necessary funds, but he took his time trying to get a national newspaper and in 1984 spent £113,400,000 purchasing the Mirror group. Only today Fleet Holdings received a bid from United Newspapers Publications, owner of Punch and various provincial magazines. I understand that it was seriously considering a merger but that after discussions with Fleet Holdings the idea appeared to have no merit. No doubt we shall hear more about that in weeks to come.
  I am concerned about the wages bills, which run to tens of millions of pounds. The proprietors must be tougher with the unions and there must be no climb-downs in the future. Plenty of people want jobs and can be trained, although I appreciate that that takes time. Proprietors must unite against the growing abuses by certain trade union members. A daily paper should be reporting the news out in the big world, not providing the main industrial relations story for every other paper, as The Sun has done in the past week.
  The unions are destroying this great industry, and I find that very disappointing. Have they no shame? All too frequently, the industrial stoppages in the industry show
  360
  the unions betraying the trust given to them by the proprietors who employ them and the people who support and buy their papers. The unions must face the fact that the industry is grossly overmanned and natural shrinkage is needed in the work force.
  The industry is also overpaid. By taking such large pay rises, employees in the industry are not creating jobs but stealing jobs by not allowing other people into the industry. At column 713 of Hansard for 4 May 1984 my hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Department of Employment, now Paymaster General, rightly identified the main problem as the closed shop, but 11 months later the closed shop is just as effective as it was then. In 1985, as in 1984, a newspaper proprietor cannot employ whom he wants because the unions act as an employment agency. If one does not keep in with the union one's job is on the line, but if one co-operates one has a job for life. Like a dynasty or a legacy, the sons and grandsons of union members have first option on any vacancy notified by the employer. Of course, it is good to introduce someone to the company, but he must get there on merit and not just because of whom he knows. Retirement provisions are also not applied and many people over the age of 65 are still working in the industry. I do not criticise that, but it is interesting to note.
  An unfair monopoly exists which should be ended now. Why should power rest with a small number of people who did not put any money into the paper in the first place? I really worry about the NGA, which I regard as the greatest offender in insisting on a tight pre-entry closed shop. Through the closed shop and the tight control that it maintains, the NGA is crippling the industry. Fair competition is denied and the advent of the new, key technology is hindered.
  Industrial relations in the newspaper industry could not be worse. I blame both sides for that, but any stoppage now could finish a daily paper. I talked to the Newspaper Publishers Association today and it told me that, between 1 January and 31 August 1983, £7·1 million and 21 million copies of daily newspapers were lost and that, during the same period in 1984, £7·9 million and 59 million copies of daily newspapers were lost.
  Closed shops in the newspaper industry protect only those in the industry and deny the opportunity for others to come forward. The print unions are too powerful and insular. From 1 November 1984, closed shops were supposed to be subject to employment legislation. That is especially important when a union member might be expelled, perhaps unreasonably, from the union, thus losing his job. I want newspaper proprietors to invoke the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 to help themselves and to stamp out threatened industrial action when non-union members are providing services, such as at Warrington with the Stockport Messenger. There should be no blacking of work from non-union sources if it is good work. Companies must seek injunctions or damages from the union concerned.
  Last Tuesday, 1 million copies of The Sun were lost because of a dispute between the NGA and SOGAT '82. Meetings were held by both unions in the middle of production and without permission, as The Times said on 20 March. The row is about the new plant for The Sun in Tower Hamlets, where it is planned to print the News of the World and The Sun, and has been going on for two years. The machinery is sophisticated, but I cannot see why the unions should object to going down to Tower

  361
  Hamlets. Rupert Murdoch's organisation, News International, has spent £72 million on the plant. The row also involves certain plates, which were subject to a union agreement.
  On Thursday, I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in business questions to provide Government time for a debate because, yet again, newspapers were at risk. He suggested this debate. I was worried, as I saw evidence of yet another long dispute. Until tonight, when the NGA and SOGAT '82 at The Sun kindly went back, the paper had lost 23,280,000 copies and the London edition of News of the World had lost 2,962,000 copies. How on earth can any paper carry on in such circumstances?
  Having spoken to Peter Stephens, the editorial director of The Sun, it is clear to me that such continued industrial action will be catastrophic to the industry. Since June 1984, The Sun has lost 75,840,000 copies. The row involved plate breaking in the machine room, an activity operated jointly by the NGA and SOGAT '82. Was there really a major problem? I do not think so. The NGA claims renewed presence of its members in the day machine room. That is fair, but I want papers such as The Sun to be free and able to manage. Full-time employees will still be guaranteed their jobs after the move. There will be natural wastage, but there is in all industries.
  Contrary to what the union says, Rupert Murdoch has created and saved jobs since he took over. When he came in, there were 8,100 employees. In 1984 there were 11,273. That shows a commitment to the industry. Circulation in 1969 was 750,000—in 1984 it was 4·2 million. He pays well. In 1969, £10,700,000 was spent on wages. That increased to £165 million in 1984. Compositors and piece-rate workers earn up to £50,000 a year. A typical pay slip for a compositor on a three-day week doing 24 hours is £700. A machine operator who works three days a week and a few hours on Saturday, totalling 21 hours, receives £300. It seems to me and, no doubt, to most people that The Sun is looking after its employees.
  I understand that the National Graphical Association bosses have outside jobs. I am told that one has a car repair shop and another runs a few supermarkets. That is interesting, and I am glad that they can do two jobs at the same time.
  Mr. Evans: Most Tory Members do.
  Mr. Bruinvels: Industrial censorship was enacted when there was an editorial on picketing.
  Mr. Evans: I expect that the hon. Gentleman has two jobs.
  Mr. Bruinvels: I have not.
  On 27 June the employees effected a complete ban on an edition of The Sun, which lasted three days, because they did not agree with the editorial. It is outrageous that an editor cannot express his own view. The Budget edition — the major chance for its more than 4·2 million readers—
  Mr. Evans: They only look at the pictures.
  Mr. Bruinvels: They might also look at the pictures. That edition did not come out, despite all the work done by the NUJ, people in the Institute of Journalists, and researchers who were brought in to make the top edition.
  Tonight the paper was published in its usual form, and I welcome it back. It states
  "You've seen the rest, now read the best!"
  I understand that during the dispute, the other proprietors, did not keep solidarity—dare I, as a Conservative, use that word?—and say that, with a shortfall of 4 million copies a day, they would not give in to union abuses. Robert Maxwell immediately authorised the additional printing of the Daily Mirror in excess of 1·5 million copies, the Daily Express published 1 million extra copies, and the Daily Star an extra 600,000.
  I would have thought that they should have stopped the unions from taking advantage. Do not the unions realise that they are cutting their own throats because, with other papers printing extra copies and providing greater interest, they may not attract their readers back? After three days, brand loyalty may be lost. That worries me. Why did not the newspaper proprietors stick together? I would have thought that the best thing for them to do was to fight as a united force. I have heard of awful incidents in print rooms, such as fires, torn rolls of print and broken plates. I urge The Sun to sue now for the 23 million copies lost. There are injunctions against SOGAT '82 and the NGA and damages worth £500,000.
  The newspaper industry is great. I revealed how many people read a paper. Hon. Members should consider circulation figures, the power of unions in conjunction with editors, and the need of people for their papers. The circulation figure for The Sun is 4·1 million, the Daily Mirror 3·5 million, the Daily Express 2 million, the Daily Star 1·6 million, The Daily Telegraph 1·3 million, The Times 456,000, The Guardian 471,000, the Daily Mail 1·8 million and the Financial Times 166,000.
  The circulation figures for Sunday papers are The Mail on Sunday 1·6 million, News of the World 4·6 million, Sunday Express 2·5 million, Sunday Mirror 3·4 million, Sunday People 3·2 millon, Sunday Telegraph 712,000, The Sunday Times 1·3 million, and The Observer 744,000. That shows how many people need, read and rely on papers, and why unions are seen to be taking advantage.
  The provincial side of the industry is going well. The Wolverhampton Express and Star has experienced some local difficulties. It has agreed its copy, and writes and edits directly on to computer screens but is waiting to transfer the copy directly into print, without it passing through the hands of NGA compositors. If it can be done there, why cannot it be done in Fleet street? The row there will continue. That paper has set a good example and is to be admired.
  As for provincial papers, there are 1,300 titles, 7 million daily sales and 9 million weekly sales. In an interview today, a representative of the Newspapers Publishers Society said:
  "Every night of the week one of our members suffers some industrial action."
  It is such a commonplace occurrence that they do not keep figures. There is a dispute procedure where members are supposed to report when there has been a breach. The reports are prepared for a fortnightly meeting, but they are not as accurate as they should be. During the first eight months of 1983, 21 million copies were lost; in 1984, the figure was 59 million. The financial losses are incredible.

  363
  We have a saviour in Eddie Shah, who is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and to get the investment. He believes in and supports the new technology. He wants a free team with greater creativity, and he wants his magazines and newspapers to be in full colour. He believes that the editor should have the freedom to edit, which strikes me as a sound proposition.
  As was reported in the Financial Times of 19 December 1984:
  "There is no single section of British industry where the new technology poses a more dramatic challenge than in newspapers."
  We have a Minister for Information Technology. We have the technology, and I should have thought that the Fleet street unions would be prepared to accept that technology. But they have successfully blocked it for a long time. I assure members of the NGA—I have regular meetings with newspaper proprietors and publishers —that jobs will not be lost, apart from redeployment to other parts of the industry and through natural wastage. When the Portsmouth News moved three NGA compositors into sub-editors' jobs, immediately 73 National Union of Journalists members went on strike. The sooner we have one union, the better for the entire industry.
  I want newspapers to report the news as it is. I want editors to comment on the news as it affects us, or should affect us. Proprietors should put up the funds, managing through delegation, and unions should put it together as good "inkies".
  The contents of a tabloid front page are, of course, the easiest way of selling a paper. I am afraid that we must have sex, or headlines such as, "TV pop star divorced" or "TV pop star engaged"—
  Mr. Evans: Who needs to have sex?
  Mr. Bruinvels: It always seems to be on the front page of the papers. There also seems to be something about religion every time, with a bishop saying something. Anything to do with Lady Diana or any member of the royal family is there, and there must be bingo. That is the magic formula. I want to see decent papers selling because they have a good story to tell. I want the newspaper industry to act responsibly. I want the staff to have the right not to join a trade union if that is their wish. I want the union barons to be told that they have had their day, and that, although they should look after their industry, they will not reign supreme in future. I want the unions to act responsibly for a change. I do not want management always to have to pick up the tab for what the unions have done that night or the night before. If SOGAT '82 or the NGA care about the industry, they should put their money where their mouths are—
  Mr. Evans: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman regaled us with stories about members of SOGAT or the NGA receiving £700 or £300, sometimes for a three-day week or, by the sound of things, only for a Saturday night. Does that not show that the NGA and SOGAT are looking after their members very well?
  Mr. Bruinvels: It is fair to say that they are looking after themselves. I say that they are looking after themselves too well and are forgetting those who must pay the bill—
  Mr. Evans: It is called free collective bargaining.
  Mr. Bruinvels: If they are receiving too much money, and the paper cannot be published because the proprietor
  364
  cannot afford it, or the price of the paper has to be increased, I would not call that a long-term investment in the industry.
  I do not want management to come cap in hand, on its knees, giving in at the last moment to the unions. I want it to be strong for a change and to try to get the new keyboard technology accepted. It has already been well tested in the provinces, and I want Fleet street to take it up. I want SOGAT 82 to trust the proprietors when they say that no one will lose his job. The unions should be proud to represent craftsmen and professionals. They should be loyal to their newspapers. In my constituency, the Leicester Mercury has just such a relationship, which is why 74 per cent. of the households in Leicester buy it.
  The unions should also remember us as customers and as readers. As I said earlier, if The Sun is unavailable for six days, brand loyalty can be lost for ever. If circulation falls, jobs will be put in jeopardy in the news groups as well.
  To keep up circulation, the unions must be prepared to guarantee maximum output, but do they care? They are so interested in milking the company that they forget about the readers. Anyone can strike when they are still getting paid, or know that they are too valuable to be lost for good. I admire the printers for their work. The trouble is that they can step out of one job and join another paper— the Fleet street casual. They can nip down Fleet street, do a casual job, avoid tax and earn an exorbitant rate of pay, but, if the proprietors joined together, they could black troublemakers who did that. I should like to see employers doing the blacking for a change.
  In case hon. Members are worrying about phoney names, we should ensure that no one with a phoney name is taken on—that should assure the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. Evans: They have been doing it for years.
  Mr. Bruinvels: That may be so, but there must be a change, and I am calling for one.
  The proprietors should keep a central register and no one should be paid unless it is clear who they are. The union anarchists and troublemakers in the unions should go. Companies should show increasing readiness to take legal action against unions that take industrial action.
  As I said in Litho Week, not that long ago, I fully support the NGA document "The Way Forward" about the new technology. It makes a lot of sense. There will be some redundancies, but I hope that there will be very few. I want to see a production unit resulting from the amalgamation of the NGA, the NUJ and SOGAT. If they do not agree, some of our daily papers will be lost for ever. The unions must unite in helping to produce good papers.
  We have a free press, and the freedom of choice to choose the paper that we want. The proprietors, publishers, editors and unions must work together to ensure a newsworthy, accurate and readable product paper —a paper that comes out on time. No paper or article should be blacked again, and no editorial policy should be dictated to by the unions. The country knows that Fleet street is overpaid, overmanned and overprotected, and this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.
  The country needs to be well informed. The unions have a moral as well as a contractual duty to co-operate with the editor. There is no time for political dogma. The newspaper industry will die unless it puts its house in order. There is no time to lose.
  2.32 am
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I start by declaring an interest in that I am sponsored by the National Graphical Association. I thought that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who I know takes an interest in the print industry, might have declared an interest. He fills those bits of the British press for which the NGA sets the type, and the Press Association provides the copy. He regularly contributes to the dial-a-quote system, or rent-a-quote system, and is always ready to provide a quotable quote to fill the space between the adverts, or, in the case of The Times, between the adverts and the semi-nude women.
  I welcome tonight's debate. The hon. Member effectively re-read the speech that he made in an Adjournment debate last year, and is therefore already on record as having an interest, and not only on the basis of his previous employment with Mr. Maxwell's publishing enterprise, which was not then related to the newspaper printing industry. From the point of view of the trade union side, I welcome somebody with an interest in the industry, even if it is, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, a somewhat confused interest.
  The print and newspaper industry has different parts and technologies, and different systems in industrial relations. There is a common thread through print houses, the provincial newspapers, the national newspapers, in that there are two main print unions, SOGAT '82 and the NGA. The NGA organises the compositors, the people responsible for the art work, and for general type setting in the industry. It is one of the last almost exclusively craft unions in the country.
  One of the difficulties about creating one union for print workers is the division of the industry into print, craft and process sections. I believe that the difficulties are beginning to be fully appreciated by all sides. The mergers in 1982 that created the present structure of the National Graphical Association and SOGAT have largely been completed. It is the earnest hope of everybody who takes an interest in the printing industry that the two unions will merge and that eventually they will be joined by the National Union of Journalists, although that is a remote prospect. Nevertheless, I am conscious of the fact that the NUJ is meeting this week in national conference, and anything can happen at NUJ conferences. Hope springs eternal.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I am not clear about whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that the two print unions should be joined by the NUJ or whether he is saying that the NUJ should be joined by the two print unions.
  Mr. O'Neill: It is likely that within the foreseeable future the two print unions will come to some form of arrangement. It is less likely that the NUJ will enter into such an arrangement at an early stage. I think it will come eventually, but there are problems, to which I shall refer at a later stage, that put obstacles in the way of a merger. If we can get rid of those obstacles we may eventually have one union for all those who work in the printing industry.
  The most recent problem to confront the industry was created by the Budget, namely the imposition of value added tax on advertisements in newspapers and periodicals. About 19 national titles, 1,644 regional titles and 6,408 magazines are produced within the United Kingdom. The nationals account for about 35,000 workers
  366
  and the regionals for about 68,000. The magazines have a different basis for counting their work force. About 6,000 of those who work for the national newspapers are members of the NGA, while about 10,000 of those who work for the regional newspapers are members of the NGA. Employment throughout the United Kingdom in the industry is about 136,000. It is a major industrial producer of newspapers, periodicals and magazines.
  The imposition of VAT at 15 per cent. will have quite an effect on the viability of this part of the printing industry, in particular on the viability of classified advertisements which in the main are paid for by individuals. The receipts from classified advertisements amount to about £800 million, or 36 per cent. of all advertisements. Fishing rods, old televisions, bicycles and the like are regarded as classified advertisements and the Budget will lead to the imposition of VAT at 15 per cent. on those advertisements. In regional newspapers and local newspapers that are paid for — that is, not free sheet publications — classified advertisements account for about 20 per cent. of total revenue.
  Classified advertisements are used by small businesses and the individual trying to sell an item. The Government have introduced a start-up scheme, but the turnover of many small businesses is not yet big enough to warrant a VAT number and therefore they cannot pass on VAT charges. That is a restriction on a business in its early stages. The £50 million in VAT which is expected to be collected in a full year as a result of the change will cause more of a problem than it is worth. The Chancellor should think again. Detailed debates on the Finance Bill will provide an opportunity to discuss that. However, I have no interest in participating in that exercise.
  The financial sector will also be affected. Banks, insurance companies and finance houses do not have arrangements for VAT and they will have to bear the cost of VAT in future.
  The Newspaper Society, the organisation responsible for representing provincial newspapers suggests that about 3 per cent. of the income from advertising will disappear as a result of the imposition of VAT on newspaper advertising.
  The imposition of VAT will endanger some of the firms which have invested heavily in new technology for the newspaper industry. By that new technology, more newspapers can be printed and excess capacity can be accounted for through free sheets. To ensure the maximum utilisation of the new investment, as many copies as possible must be produced. The existing steps being taken by local newspapers with the NGA and SOGAT could be halted or interrupted by VAT.
  Sometimes provincial newspapers and newpapers produced in Fleet street are confused. Two different types of newspapers are produced by different technologies and they cater for different markets. In the last two or three years about 30 agreements have been made in respect of the new technology between provincial newspapers and the NGA. The 30 companies involved publish about 50 titles. The scale of the operation is such that about 30 per cent. of all English and Welsh provincial newspapers are covered by new technology agreements. The expense of investing in new technology is such that the operations must be fairly large. We are talking about large runs and large papers.
  The new technology is being phased in. At Portsmouth the final stage has been reached and a measure of

  367
  agreement has eventually been arrived at. The process has been painful. We have no illusions about that. Pride is dented and old attitudes have to be set aside. The agreement between the NUJ, SOGAT and the NGA ensures single stroking—that is on a sub-editorial basis —one finger of one hand sets the print for the runs. For that to be achieved, an arrangement has been made whereby some compositors have been trained by management to undertake what hitherto has been the job of the journalists in sub-editorial work. Unfortunately, in the case of the Wolverhampton Express and Star, in which a similar stage was reached, the management chose to renege on the undertakings that it would not introduce the final stage of the new technology without complete inter-union agreement. It sold the deal to the NUJ, as I understand it, on the basis of £15 per week. This deal has now been put on ice at the insistence of the TUC which acceded to the request of the NGA and SOGAT, which said that they were not prepared to countenance the deal because they had not been properly consulted and all the matters had not been raised.
  I realise that the dispute involving the Wolverhampton Express and Star is a messy one, and I do not wish to go into all the details now. However, in Portsmouth a deal has been struck between the unions and the management, while in the case of the other newspaper the management has been breaking out and adopting tactics that have resulted in confrontation and litigation. This, I believe, has not been resolved to the satisfaction of management which has won what can only be called a pyrrhic victory in the courts.
  Another settlement is in the offing in Bolton. From what I understand, the agreement is now subject to ratification. This may be the first deal for settlement on the basis of the new technology which follows on from the Portsmouth agreement.
  The local newspaper industry is, therefore, moving into the final stage of acceptance of new technology. The Newspaper Society as yet is not entering into the national council for the training of journalists scheme with regard to sub-editorial training. The Newspaper Society has made a national decision not to participate in a scheme which has the backing of the NUJ and the NGA. This is regrettable, because it is evidence of a reluctance on the part of the Newspaper Society to accept new technology with anything like the commitment which the NGA has indicated. The hon. Member for Leicester, East fairly paid tribute to the document "The Way Forward on New Technology" which, although it is printed on pink paper, will eventually be regarded as a blueprint for the industry. We believe that this document will show the way.
  The Newspaper Society is not as concerned about training as it should be. In respect of the apprenticeship scheme, it has done no more than reduce the indentured apprenticeship from five to three years. It has not followed the example of the British Printing Industries Federation, which covers the print shops as distinct from the newspapers, the general jobbing printers, book printers and so on. It has not established what has to be regarded as probably the most flexible form of training in any industry in respect of what used to be called apprenticeships. There are modular schemes in the industry which do not require age entrance qualifications. People above the age of 16 or 17 can come back for retraining and gain qualifications in new forms of technology using the flexibility of the modules. In many
  368
  respects, this will probably be regarded as a general example of training in industry. I hope that the Newspaper Society will follow this through.
  I may seem to be making heavy weather of the point. I am stressing the fact that Fleet street does not train people. The national and main provincial papers traditionally do not train people but cream off the best of those who are willing to move from the old fashioned indentured apprenticeship scheme or the new modular scheme. Because those newspapers do not train, they recruit by what might be described as a process of graduation.
  That has meant in some respects that the path towards new technology in Fleet street, and on the part of other national titles, has been more restrictive. Indeed, many Fleet street papers have turned their faces against certain aspects of the new technology. For example, the hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke of the Daily Telegraph moving to a new site. But that paper will not be taking up the new technology; it will use a modern form of the traditional technology because it finds that system better from the editionising point of view. In other words, that is regarded as being better for changing during the run. Perhaps the Daily Telegraph is not a good example to cite in this context because it has such a wide and thorough sports coverage.
  The Minister, being a football fan, will appreciate that people in the north who read papers such as the Daily Mirror are not greatly worried about the fortunes of London football clubs, unless northern clubs are involved in matches. They prefer to read main reports in their own newspapers. Often, those reports are inserted in the middle of runs by what is known in the trade as editionising. It is an effective means of dealing with insertions of that sort.
  The Fleet street newspapers have not shown a great willingness to move towards the new technology in that respect. Nor are their traditional structures such as to afford many opportunities for training because, as I say, they have not been in the business of training.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East spoke at length about the latest dispute at The Sun. I mention that as an example of the problems that create interruptions to print runs and the non-appearance of newspapers. My understanding of the dispute is different from his, and, if I tell the House what I know of it, that may supplement his account of the proceedings.
  Metal plates which are used in the production of The Sun and other newspapers have a tendency on occasions —if there is something wrong with the quality or with the operation in which they are being used—to break. This causes a considerable hazard to the people working nearby. At The Sun there has been a great deal of anxiety about that and various investigations have been carried out by management and the work force with, I must say, varying degrees of enthusiasm.
  The work force eventually decided that enough was enough and said that a chapel meeting woud be held during working time, which was the traditional way of expressing disagreement with the way that things were going. There was nothing untoward about that. It did not mark the end of western society or the start of a bloody revolution in Fleet street. It was the traditional means by which the workforce expressed disapproval.
  There is a process of double locking. The plates are fitted and locked and the rollers are turned for a couple of revolutions. The plates are then tightened again to make

  369
  them doubly secure. This double locking process takes time. It was time in that case for which the management was not prepared to make allowance, and problems arose about bonuses and so on. The meetings of the chapel went on. Management said that the workers must go back to work or they would be laid off. Not only did management lay off the men in the machine rooms, but it laid off the rest of the print workers and, indeed, everybody but the administrative and clerical staff.
  It was three and a half to four days before national officials were given a hearing, because The Sun management said that before union discussions started there would have to be a return to work, with guarantees that no further interruptions would take place. There then followed 12 to 14 hours of negotiation which has resulted in the production of today's newspaper.
  So far as I know, everyone who was laid off, apart from those directly involved, has been reimbursed in full for the days' wages that were lost. A study group has been set up between health and safety executives from SOGAT, the NGA and the management. Subject to discussions with the local chapel officials a report will be produced. At the end of the procedure, provided agreement is reached, the work force who have so far not had any reimbursement may well get their money for the days when they were not working.
  Hon. Members may draw whatever conclusions they wish from that agreement. Certainly it seems to be well balanced. It has got the presses rolling again and has got reimbursement for the unfortunate victims of the dispute between the union and management. There is a prospect of a complete resolution of the dispute. That is an example of how problems arise and can be resolved.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East seemed to suggest that in the next round of industrial relations legislation there should be a ban on strike action by print workers. Perhaps I am putting words into his mouth; he may not have gone that far. The logical conclusion, if that is the right phrase that one could use, given the cerebral processes of the hon. Member, is that we would expect some kind of ban on strike action if he were to draft the next industrial relations legislation. God forbid that he should be given the opportunity.
  The problems which confront the print industry and which in many respects are encapsulated by the latest dispute can by and large be resolved. When managements seek to ride roughshod over the unions, as happened in The Times when management sought to introduce new work practices without consultation, they invariably run into difficulty and many papers are lost. When they take the measured pace that has been adopted in the provincial newspapers and go step by step by consultation and discussion, they can make tremendous progress in a relatively short period in taking advantage of new technology.
  Last weekend no less a journal than The Economist paid a back-handed compliment to the NGA when it said, in regard to the introduction of new technology to the newspaper industry, that it was probably inadvisable for newspaper proprietors to have NGA members doing sub-editorial work because the NGA was a harder-nosed, more effective negotiating body than the National Union of Journalists.
  It would appear that in Fleet street over the years the print workers have been able to get reasonable rewards for
  370
  their efforts. Those rewards have been freely agreed by management. There has not been a dramatic increase over the past six years because of free collective bargaining under the Conservative Government. The print workers have achieved their reward because of a long-standing historical arrangement whereby the craft and the skills of the print workers have been acknowledged and their union officials have been able to get a wage struck.
  I appreciate the fact that problems arise. The hon. Member for Leicester, East has thrown statistics about —many of them used in a previous debate and merely updated—but has not given anything like the reasoned approach that both sides of the industry require. We see in the provincial newspapers, away from the public gaze, that deals are being struck, new technology is being introduced and expansion is occurring. We see in the Fleet street and national newspapers that there is a concentration of ownership, a narrowing of choice and lost opportunities with respect of new technology. Often newspaper owners are concerned not so much with the process but with using the newspapers as a mouthpiece for their beliefs, prejudices, ideas—call it what you will. Editors should have the right to editorialise or to write editorials. At the end of the day, these editors have only the right to say what their proprietors will allow.
  The Times under Harold Evans provides ample evidence of the fact that an independently minded editor was not acceptable to Mr. Murdoch and was sacked. It may be that Government Members preferred a new editor, and that is their privilege. The previous editor sought to exercise his independence and, because it was not in keeping with the views that the newspaper's owner sought to express, the editor was sacked.
  We need to do more than look at the narrow focus of industrial relations, which the hon. Member for Leicester, East tried to do. We need to examine other aspects—who owns newpapers, how they should be controlled and the guarantees which, in the case of The Times, we thought had been established and would provide an editor with the independence that a national newspaper such as The Times was supposed to enjoy. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. If the hon. Member for Leicester, East had dealt with that aspect, we could have had a more meaningful discussion about a healthy and free press.
  The National Graphical Association is proud of its record of speedy and effective co-operation with the management of local newspapers to ensure that new technology is brought in and that, as far as possible in our economic climate, it is not the fault of the association's members that newspapers go under. If other newspapers in Fleet street adopted a constructive attitude towards the newspaper unions, as the provincial papers have done, there would be a transformation in the fortunes of many of the papers that seem to be under difficulty.
  3.3 am
  Mr. John Evans: According to the Order Paper, the debate sponsored by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) is on
  "The future of the newspaper industry."
  I assumed that we would debate what was in The Times today about a takeover bid being launched by another organisation for Fleet Holdings. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the future of the newspaper industry

  371
  is of great concern. The threats that are often placed on newspaper groups by takeover bids of one group against another should be the subject of proper debate.
  I thought that the mind of the hon. Member for Leicester, East might have been exercised by the fact that
  "United"—
  the group seeking to take over Fleet Holdings—
  "already owns 20·1 per cent. of Fleet, most of which it bought in January from Mr. Robert Maxwell, publisher of Mirror Group Newspapers."
  I had thought that that was the sort of issue that we would debate, that perhaps we would discuss the great issues involving the right of reply, or that when people suffer at the hands of a newspaper they should be given the right to put their point of view in the newspaper concerned, or the role of the Press Council and whether it should be strengthened, or the lobby system, which is causing concern at all levels. Those are the sorts of subjects which I would have thought we could discuss. We certainly could have discussed the problems in Manchester, where there is concern about the closure of a great printing works because of problems concerning contracts with certain newspaper groups, and the redundancies and unemployment that will occur in Manchester over the printing of northern editions.
  We did not get any of that. What we got—and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) obviously knew a thing or two in this context—was a long litany of industrial disputes, the blame for all of which, according to the hon. Member for Leicester, East, should be placed upon the shoulders of the NGA and SOGAT '82. The purpose of outlining those disputes over the last three or four years to the House of Commons escapes me.
  In that context, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan on his speech, and I am sure that when NGA members read the record of this debate they will be well satisfied with the case that my hon. Friend made out tonight in their defence.
  The other thing that puzzled me as I listened to the hon. Member for Leicester, East was whether he was the official spokesman for the Newspaper Society or Mr. Murdoch, or was simply a self-appointed parliamentary spokesman dabbling in affairs which presumably he thinks will get him further publicity — although after listening to most of his comments I rather suspect that very few newspapers will want to publish any of them. I certainly have not the faintest idea why he bothered to read out the circulation figures of various newspapers. What purpose that served is absolutely lost on me, other than perhaps to prove that The Sun and the News of the World are at the top of the league of newspaper sales. Well, we already knew that.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East is one of the Conservative Members who are loud in their praise of the Prime Minister, all her works and all she stands for. From time to time the right hon. Lady makes it very clear that market forces and the voice of the market should prevail in all things. What the hon. Gentleman overlooks is that in whatever goes on in Fleet street in the newspaper industry the newspaper trade unions are entitled to defend themselves and their members at all times. The unions and the workers are part of the market forces.
  I would point out a contradiction in terms in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He denounced the trade unions in Fleet street on the ground that the industry is overmanned
  372
  and the men overpaid, regaling us with stories of wages of £700 a week. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's stand on most issues, I would have expected him to praise the NGA and SOGAT '82 for doing an absolutely splendid job on behalf of their members in getting them £700 a week. I only wish that my union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, could get that for our members throughout the country. I am sure that my colleagues in the union would be absolutely delighted.
  Finally, I want to refer to the stories which the hon. Gentleman told us about part-time or casual workers signing on in Fleet street under the pseudonyms of "Mickey Mouse", "Errol Flynn" and various other film stars. This is not a new story. It has been going the rounds for many years. Perhaps the Minister will address some of his remarks to this matter. If that practice takes place, the people to be condemned for it are the newspaper proprietors, the Treasury and the various tax inspectors, who are well aware of it. I do not know whether it is still going on, but, if it is, they are also aware that it has been going on for many years. I well recall a row in the parliamentary Labour party back in 1977 or 1978, when the issue came up. Many of us in the parliamentary Labour party denounced the suggestion that, provided it did not happen in the future, a moratorium would be declared against those who had committed what were criminal offences.
  Let me make it clear that we in the Opposition deplore such practices and believe that people should pay their proper taxes and not be allowed to get away with not doing so. If there is criticism, it cannot be directed at the trade unions. It is a matter for the Treasury and the newspaper proprietors, who could stamp out the practice, tomorrow night if they so desired, but it is obvious that they do not wish to do so. They wish to let it continue. Presumably they allow it to carry on because it is in their interests to do so.
  Not much has come out in the debate apart from the splendid defence by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan of his trade union colleagues. I hope that the Minister will say just a few words about the Treasury and the Revenue presumably being defrauded of many thousands of pounds by those awful individuals who are signing on for £300 or £400 a night under the pseudonym Mickey Mouse.
  3.11 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I am grateful to all my hon. Friends who have come to listen to this important debate. They should join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on raising it. This is not the first time that he has raised the issue; he has drawn the House's attention on several occasions to something that probably matters to more people each day than almost any other issue that can be discussed here. People rely on the newspapers for their information. They rely on them for buying and selling goods. Many rely on the newspapers for their employment. We should remember, as my hon. Friend said, that more people might be able to rely on the industry for their employment if conditions were such that people could enter it as publishers. Therefore, there would he more titles, and more competition. Some newspapers would go out of business. I see no reason why it is any

  373
  purpose of Parliament to protect every title that presently exists. We want to make sure that there can be free and fair competition within the industry.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) made one or two unwarranted attacks on my hon. Friend, and I suspect that he led his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) into similar behaviour. Given that it is the time when the final editions of the national press are being put to bed, it may be a sign that more of us should be put to bed. Perhaps we can conduct the rest of the debate in a more open and friendly way.
  I had not realised that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who had suggested to my hon. Friend that he should raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund. I shall not be buying a drink for my right hon. Friend for some time.
  I do not intend to give a direct answer to the point made on what may be connivance between workers, employers and possibly even trade unions when people apparently work under certain names so that their income tax is not deducted and their national insurance is not paid. My suspicion is that the situation has changed over the past two years, but I shall make sure that the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North are passed on to colleagues in Government. He will receive a reply spelling out the situation, which could also go to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Clackmannan.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan managed to put a more acceptable face on the NGA than almost anyone else could have done. I had my suspicions, and they were only confirmed when I looked up the hon. Gentleman in The Times guide. I see that he is really a member of the General and Municipal Workers Union, and the white collar section at that. I recommend to the NGA that it at least doubles the contribution that it makes to him for his advice and the way in which he puts across its case.
  I should like to refer to the most significant points that underlie the debate and which—
  Mr. O'Neill: Before the Minister goes further, to save myself any extra, if not undue, embarrassment, I should like to say that under the sponsorship arrangement, with which I am sure he is well acquainted, any moneys from unions that sponsor hon. Members go to the local Labour party, not to the individuals concerned. There is a certain nicety there, which should be made clear for those who take an interest in these matters but are not always as well informed as I am sure the Minister is.
  Mr. Bottomley: I do not see any reason why I should be more precise in my remarks than the hon. Gentleman was when he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. The honours, perhaps, are even.
  I am sure that the House will return to these issues on a number of occasions. I do not want to launch into what might be seen as a reasonably standard attack on the unions. I certainly do not think that the Fleet street chapels are under the control of the national executive or the national union. Most people realise that they are independent, autonomous groups of people no more tied to Socialism than I am. Many of them live in my constituency, and when I am canvassing they tell me with pride that they have contracted out of the political levy and they often say that they are rather keen on earning a good deal of money.
  Mr. Evans: What has that to do with the future of the industry?
  Mr. Bottomley: I thought that we were talking about the people in the industry. The underlying issue is whether the trade unions are doing what their members want. In most cases, they are doing that. The questions whether there is a framework within which they can negotiate and whether there is a reasonable balance of power between employers and employees will also be covered in the next debate.
  In the newspaper industry, there is a common acceptance of the priorities for the industry, but different interests in moving towards that. It is a matter of reconciling different union interests and trying to get a better developed common interest between employers and those working in the industry. We must always remember that those who will decide the future of the industry are not those working in it but the customers. It is the response that the industry gives to the demands of its customers that will determine the number of jobs, the pattern of production, the people involved and the industrial agreements that will best meet the needs of the customers.
  It is sad, but true, that industrial relations practices in Fleet street, especially in the printing industry, can be among the worst in this country. When things go well, they are probably among the best. The difficulty is that today's newspapers are of interest today, but not tomorrow. If production is lost employers find themselves in a great deal of difficulty and feel that the bargaining strength is not balanced. I do not believe that Government should step in and try to make special industrial relations arrangements for the newspaper industry. However, we recognise that on occasions resistance to bully-boy tactics in the industry has not been as effective as it might have been. Government legislation — or Parliament's legislation—
  Mr. Evans: Government legislation.
  Mr. Bottomley: Legislation is passed by a majority in the House. It is no better and no worse than motions passed by a majority in a union conference, or even the Labour party conference.
  Mr. John Major: It is better when passed by the House, especially when the Conservative party is in Government.
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall draw a line and start with a new paragraph.
  Legislation has given employers the means to redress the balance of power. The provisions of the Employment Act 1982 on closed shop balloting came into force in November 1984. That is more important outside Fleet street, because in Fleet street the unions are relatively solid.
  Examples have been brought to my attention of disciplinary action against members who have declined to come out on secondary action, which is unlawful, and also examples of some of the fines that union branches or the national union have tried to impose. I suspect that that will come out into the open and it will be difficult to defend the scale of penalty imposed. However, it will also be difficult to justify the weakness of employers in not standing up for their employees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) said, we are not criticising only one side of the industry for there is fault on both sides— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Fallon: But more on one.
  Mr. Bottomley: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) wishes one of us to say that we recognise his presence in the Chamber. No doubt he will be participating in future debates as much as in this one.
  We have seen the virtual legal extinction of the closed shop, although current legislation does not outlaw it. It is still legal for an employer to operate with a pre-entry closed shop and to make membership of a particular union a condition of employment. Where the closed shop is unballoted, there is nothing to compel an employee to remain in the union.
  Legislation affords members of unions some protection. It is unfair if an employer dismisses an employee in a closed shop if he has lost union membership as a result of unreasonable expulsion or if there are complaints pending or proceeding before a tribunal.
  Other factors are the balance of industrial power and protection for individual union members. It is important to recognise, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan did, that within the industry some of the hopes that people had before 1982 are being resurrected and that the idea of getting the NGA and SOGAT together, which as an observer I believe would make a good deal of sense for the members of both unions and would be welcomed by the proprietors and publishers, is likely to move forward.
  That will not happen in a smooth progression because life is not like that. There are issues to be negotiated and bargained over. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington occasionally encourages us to recognise, these are matters where those concerned need to use their own perceptions of their own interests and to come to a deal
  376
  which they believe provides the best balance in meeting those interests as well as providing a way forward for the future.
  Mr. Fallon: These are not matters for the Government.
  Mr. Bottomley: If my hon. Friend were to allow me occasionally to continue, he might hear me say explicitly as well as implicitly that when the Government start to describe these matters in the way that he accepts he should welcome it instead of commenting that they are not even for the Government to think about.
  One of the greatest challenges facing the newspaper industry—and in this instance the Government—is the need to adapt to the introduction of new technology. I am a great believer in those in the industry — those representing the employees as well as the proprietors or managers — working together and trying to move forward together. I am sure that members of the newspaper industry have worked in a similar way to that outlined in the new technology report by the heavy electrical machinery economic development committee.
  I shall pursue with a great deal of interest the movements in the newspaper industry. I look forward to seeing whether without Government interference the industry can put right the wrongs which have properly been drawn to the attention of the House this evening and whether more often the unions and the proprietors can manage to put a face on the industry that is rather like the one put forward by their defender this evening, the hon. Member for Clackmannan. I am grateful to those who have attended the debate. I hope that the newspapers do not feel that they will have to change their final editions following it. I look forward to more discussions on the subject in future.

  Wages Councils
  3.23 am
  Mr. Christopher Chope: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a debate on wages councils. I welcome all my hon. Friends who have entered the Chamber to participate in it. I note that there is only one Opposition Member present, the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), to discuss with us this important subject. A debate about wages councils is one about job opportunities and employment. It is the belief of Conservative Members that unemployment levels can be reduced. It is our conviction that wages councils contribute to unemployment, and that brings us to discuss the issue this evening.
  I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I congratulate him on sitting through another debate at this early hour of the morning. I hope that in about three hours time he will be able to reply with the same freshness and lightness of touch that he exhibited in the previous debate.
  Last Thursday was a historic day, when the Government's consultative paper on wages councils was published. That paper is another important landmark on the road to even more employment and a freer society. I know of no Conservative Member who is other than critical of the current operation of wages councils, although there are sincere differences of opinion about whether abolition or reform is the better course. Whichever one favours, however, I am sure that all agree that the Government should have a free hand. The freedom to create new job opportunities through deregulation should be cherished by every Government and it is sad that hitherto their freedom of action has been inhibited by International Labour Organisation No. 26, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
  The opportunity to deratify that convention comes but once in five years. In the Budget debate there was much discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of being "boxed in". In my view, the Government should avoid being boxed in any longer by that convention, and I welcome the positive statement in the consultative paper that, subject to the outcome of consultations in conformity with ILO rules, the Government propose to deratify the convention in June 1985. It should be remembered that the United States and Japan—and, indeed, the Soviet Union—are not signatories. When the convention is deratified Parliament and Government will be free to make their own decisions in the best interests of the nation.
  I will try to set out some of the basic facts about wages councils. About 260,000 employers in 400,000 establishments employing 2¾ million workers are controlled by 26 wages councils. The employees affected are mainly in the service trades of retailing and catering—more than 1 million in each—plus 400,000 employees in industry, about 250,000 of whom are in the clothing manufacturing industry. Up to two thirds of the employees covered by wages councils work part time—a fact often overlooked by those who argue for retention of the wages councils—and about 80 per cent. are female. Total expenditure by the taxpayer on wages councils is £4·2 million, but the cost to the employers, although unspecified, is clearly substantial when one considers the vast bureaucratic overlay that the councils produce.
  378
  The wages councils establish minimum rates of pay for about 11 per cent. of the employed labour force. Had I been alive in 1909 I should probably have supported the establishment of the wages councils. Indeed, as one who is concerned about poverty I should probably have been on a National Anti-Sweating League rally campaigning against people working long hours in unpleasant, unhealthy and unsafe conditions for low wages. The early wages councils governed tailoring, paper and cardboard box making, chain making and the finishing and mending of man-made lace, and the people affected by them were mainly full-time workers in manufacturing. Looking back, I think it is fair to say that those people were vulnerable to exploitation if not actually exploited.
  Circumstances today are completely different. Our welfare state, with unemployment and supplementary benefits, guarantees a minimum standard of living for each person according to his needs. It is no longer a matter of working in a sweatshop or starving. Today no adult is forced to go to work. He can stay at home and live on supplementary benefit if he so wishes. Indeed, the operation of the poverty trap caused by high taxation and national insurance payments often results in people opting to live on supplementary benefit because they are better off not working. Family income supplement is a valuable resource to working families in relative poverty.
  Wages councils must be justified according to the cirucumstances of today rather than by a sentimental attachment to history. If they did not exist, would we wish to set them up? I think not. No Conservative or even the most hard interventionist-Socialist would want to establish anything like the present system, but would prefer a national statutory minimum wage.
  There is something illogical in saying that there should be a minimum wage of £50·25 for a 40-hour week for an adult shampooist, but that for a flax and hemp worker it should be £65·10, for a boot and shoe repair bench hand it should be £77·65 and for a general assistant in the retail food trade it should be £75·50. Arbitrary distinctions are being made by these bureacratic quangos called wages councils.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the Wages Councils Act 1959 and the Employment Protection Act 1975, the Fur Wages Council (Great Britain) has made the Wages Regulations (Fur) Order 1976 (Order Z (96)) revoking the Wages Regulation (Fur) Order 1975 (Order Z (94)) which ordains that the rate paid for hand fleshing 100 skins of the American opossum shall be £2.38 but that for the Australian opossum it shall be £2·75? Does he think that the Government should be ordaining such matters?
  Mr. Chope: No. I congratulate my hon. Friend on reading so clearly a document measuring about 4 ft by 2 ft, the print of which is minute.
  Who would argue that an assistant in a small shop in a village where rents are low and travel-to-work costs are negligible should be assessed as requiring the same minimum wage as an assistant in a large city? The flexible market approach is the one that works in practice. Many small shopkeepers cannot afford to take on additional staff, because their customers cannot support the required minimum wages.
  Those who advocate the abolition of wages councils are caricatured as hard-hearted men and women who want to

  379
  do down the workers and grind their noses in the dirt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wages councils are not concerned with poverty. There is now little overlap between poverty and low wages because of the welfare state. Single people with few dependants, or married women, tend to be in the low hourly rate of pay bracket, often working part-time. They should be paid at a rate determined by the market rather than according to a rate laid down by a wages council in the belief that such a rate will deal with poverty.
  Many people believe that wages councils are pricing people out of jobs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said that on 27 July 1981. Lord Thorneycroft said so in a debate in the other place on 17 March 1982. The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses said so in an excellent recent publication entitled "Still Priced Out". Many distinguished economists said that. On Friday a shoe repairer in my constituency said that because of the impact of wages councils he could not employ two apprentices whom he would otherwise wish to employ. A mass of anecdotal evidence supports the view that wages councils are pricing people out of jobs.
  The arguments against the minimum wages policy are the same as those against wages councils. Two distinguished black American economists, Professors Sowell and Williams, said that the federal minimum wage law in the United States leads to unemployment concentrated on the young, unskilled, inexperienced, female and, even more severely, on ethnic minorities.
  Mr. Fallon: Blacks.
  Mr. Chope: I used the expression "ethnic minorities" which was chosen by those two economists to describe those whom my hon. Friend describes as "blacks". Their point was that despite the good intentions behind minimum wage legislation, it creates unemployment among those who are weakest in the market place.
  The opponents of the abolition of wages councils suggest many arguments. One is that abolition could lead to increased trade union activity. I would not object to that if it resulted from the abolition of wages councils. It is also said that employers like councils, which is why they should be retained. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said during the Budget debate that he was reinforced in his view of the importance of wages councils
  "by the fact that a large number of employers do not want the wages councils to be abolished. They believe that they do a good job for … 2·5 million … and … bring about good industrial relations."—[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 52.]
  That argument must be scrutinised carefully. Insight into the reality of the position is available by reading the publication by Professor Clegg in 1972 of his book
  "The system of industrial relations in Great Britain,"
  He referred to what happens when there is pressure to abolish individual wages councils. He states
  "In most instances in which abolition of a council has been under discussion, the employers have been more reluctant than the unions. This is because they feared that without legal inforcement of the rates of pay and hours of work, some of the smaller firms might resort to undercutting in both wages and prices and their organisations would not be able to put a stop to it. The unions with their membership concentrated on the large firms were confident that they could ensure that voluntary agreement would be followed there and were less worried about the small fry."
  380
  The Confederation of British Industry and other employers' organisations representing the large employers—it is the larger employers who are represented on wages councils rather than small employers — benefit from the operation of wages councils because the wage councils restrict the labour market.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Could that be the reason why the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said in the House on 19 March that, as an employer, he did not want the wages councils to be abolished because they protected his business from competition?
  Mr. Chope: That may well be the reason. We may hear that quote in the House in future.
  Most people accept that wages councils have an impact on youth employment. A possible solution that I have heard discussed is that people aged between 16 and 18 might be removed from the operation of the wages councils, so that the latter affected only the employment of those aged more than 18. But that would not be an answer to the problem, because many employers who take on youngsters aged 16 and 17 are thinking to the future. They say, "We are taking on an apprentice. Will we be able to employ him when he is 18 or 19?" A small business may be inhibited from doing so because it will say, "When he is 18 or 19, he will be subject to a wage level laid down by a wages council." The problem would not arise with a 16 or 17-year-old. The Government should consider a wider area of the impact of wages councils on employment rather than only the impact on youth employment, important though that is.
  Wages councils have outlived their usefulness. They are clearly an impediment to jobs. There are two options in the discussion paper put forward by the Government: one is to recognise that wages councils are obsolete and that they should be abolished; the other amounts to a recognition that they are obsolescent, and that in their dying moments there should be an attempt to revive or reform them and bring them up to date. The latter would be a futile exercise doomed to failure, because the wages councils have outlived their usefulness and are no longer relevant to today's markets.
  Next year is 1986—
  Mr. John Evans: That is the first thing the hon. Gentleman has got right tonight.
  Mr. Chope: It will be the 75th aniversary of the introduction of wages councils. I hope it will also be the year of their abolition.
  3.42 am
  Mr. John Evans: In his Budget speech on 19 March the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "My right hon. Friend will be issuing a consultative document about the future of the wages councils later this week. Wages councils destroy jobs by making it illegal for employers to offer work at wages they can afford and the unemployed are prepared to accept. This applies in particular to small employers and to youngsters looking for their first job."
  That statement so enraged me that I shouted so loudly that Hansard picked it up:
  "The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself."
  The Chancellor continued:
  "The document will cover a number of proposals for radical change, including complete abolition. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Education and Science will be issuing press notices later today giving further details of these measures."

  381
  I then intervened to say:
  "Bring back sweatshops." —[Official Report, 19 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 794.]
  I was incensed by the Chancellor's remarks for two reasons. First, there is not a shred of evidence to justify the outrageous statement that wages councils destroy jobs. The Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Employment and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) have not offered any evidence to support that contention. The hon. Gentleman referred to anecdotal evidence—whatever that means. It probably means what is heard when a guy in a pub, having had two or three pints, regales his audience with stories that he is inventing in order to impress one of his listeners who he knows is a Member of Parliament.
  Conservative Back Benchers have for 18 months carried on their disgraceful campaign to abolish wages councils, and I suspect that they have been egged on by the Prime Minister, but they have never offered anything like a shred of real evidence that wages councils destroy jobs. All that we have had is the big lie technique, in which Dr. Goebbels specialised during the period of the Nazi party in Germany, which is that if someone is going to tell a lie he tells a huge one, and, if he keeps on repeating it for long enough and loud enough, perhaps people will start to believe him.
  The second and more important reason for my anger is that I believe that sweatshops will be brought back if wages councils are abolished. There is no doubt that sweatshops will again rear their evil head, and that leads to the most significant question that has to be asked in the continuing debate about the future of wages councils. I make it clear to the Minister and to Tory Back Benchers that we in the Labour party do not accept that a debate at 3 o'clock in the morning is the way that important matters of this nature should be considered.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Labour Members?"] Only one of my hon. Friends is present, but many of them volunteered to speak in the debate. I pointed out that there was little need for them to come to listen to the rubbish that we hear from the Tory Right-wingers—rubbish that we have heard for a long time—about wages councils.
  Mr. Chope: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to be suggesting that the constituent who came up to me was a liar? I understood him to be saying that I was wrong to believe what that person told me.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman referred to anecdotal evidence. We all know what that means. It is significant that he did not offer one shred of hard evidence that wages councils destroy jobs.
  We have to ask the question which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing; why were wages councils created in the first instance. They were first introduced over 70 years ago to eradicate the evils of the sweatshop. I urge all those hon. Members who seek to abolish the wages councils, and I urge in particular the Secretary of State for Employment, to read and bear in mind the speech of the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Winston Churchill, on the Second Reading of the Trade Boards Act, which created the first wages council. In particular, they should read and digest the following passage:
  "It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed"—
  382
  I impress this point on Tory Members—
  "that the workings of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil … where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst".—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]
  In fairness, I ought to read out what was said recently by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith):
  "I must tell the Government, as an employer, that I do not want the wages councils to be abolished, because they protect my business from unfair competition. They ensure that my competitors are required by law to pay the same minimum wage as I do."—[Official Report. 19 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 817.] Surely that point is germane to a debate on wages councils.
  Further down column 388, Mr. Winston Churchill said:
  "where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."
  I repeat the earlier extract from Mr. Churchill's speech:
  "It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions."—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]
  That was the position in 1909. What is the position today? Twenty-six wages councils cover about 2·75 million workers. The wages paid to those workers are between £62 and £73, generally for a 43-hour week. I do not believe that even the most hard-hearted Conservative Member would suggest that between £62 and £73 is a king's ransom. The average statutory minimum wage paid to women in the industries covered by the wages councils is just over one half of national average earnings. The minimum wage for men is just over one third of national average earnings. In other words, the statutory minimum wage set by the wages councils is already less than the living wage which Winston Churchill described in 1909 as "a serious national evil."
  It is the height of nauseating hypocrisy for well-heeled Tory Members of Parliament — barristers, lawyers, consultants and directors — to stand up and make speeches about wages councils fixing wage levels that are so high that they are ruining businesses. I suggest that those hon. Members ought to have the guts and the decency to tell the House and the country what are their average earnings in a year. I challenge every Tory Member of Parliament to disclose his earnings.
  There has been no change since 1909. Mr. Churchill then said:
  "where you have … no organisation, no parity of bargaining"—
  he was obviously referring to the lack of organised trade unionism—
  "the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst."
  What has changed since then? The answer is virtually nothing. In the industries covered by the wages councils — predominantly the clothing and retail trades, hostelries and catering and such services as hairdressing and laundries—about two thirds of the work force are part-timers, while about four fifths of them are female. A substantial proportion are under 18 years of age, and a significant proportion of the total work force is made up of ethnic minorities. In other words, 11 or 12 per cent. of the nation's work force are not members of trade unions. Therefore, it is impossible for efficient collective bargaining to take place on their behalf.
  To return to what was said by Mr. Churchill, where there is no organisation there is no parity of bargaining.

  383
  So will the good employer be undercut by the bad, and will the bad employer be undercut by the worst? The evidence clearly shows that that will almost certainly happen.
  Paragraph 16 of the Government's Green Paper on wages councils refers to establishments visited and establishments underpaying. In 1981, 24,399 establishments were visited and 10,074 were underpaying. That represents 42 per cent. of the establishments visited. Similar figures are given for each year. The provisional figures for 1984 are 26,545 establishments visited and 9,461 underpaying — which is 35·6 per cent. of the establishments visited. More than one-third of the establishments visited have been underpaying their work forces.
  Paragraph 17 lists the totals of workers underpaid and the assessed arrears. In 1981, 25,482 workers were underpaid and the arrears were £2,301,910. In 1984, 18,043 workers were underpaid and the arrears were £2,428,991. That is when wages councils are operating and when flouting statutory awards is a criminal offence. One can imagine what will happen if and when the wages councils are abolished and the sharks who criminally underpay their workers now are free to do as they wish —as some Government Members earnestly desire.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a system that costs more than twice as much to administer as it recovers in wages should be continued? The scheme costs about £4 million and recovers about £2 million. Is this really a worthwhile use of taxpayers' money, and is it an efficient system?
  Mr. Evans: The expenditure is worth while, as most taxpayers agree. The establishments visited comprise only a fraction of the establishments which could and should be visited. The Government have encouraged the serious shortage of wages councils inspectors.
  Mr. Churchill's third major point in that splendid column 388 of 1909 was:
  "where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."
  Those words sum up precisely the state of our nation after six years of this awful Tory Government's wrecking of our economy. In excess of 4 million people in the United Kingdom are searching for employment. Our manufacturing industry is collapsing. A major engineering firm in my constituency has just announced further redundancies. Britain, once the world's workshop, is now in substantial deficit in manufactured goods. The NHS, our education system, the nation's heavily populated urban areas and the inner city areas are collapsing. The Labour party, the other Opposition parties, about one-third of the Tory party, and almost every economic commentator and serious newspaper in the land call for a major initiative to combat the evils of mass unemployment. The hierarchy of the Tory party is obsessed with wages councils and their paltry wage awards.
  The debate has an international dimension. It is instructive to go back to the origins of wages councils legislation. In the debate on the Second Reading of the Trade Boards Bill, Mr. Churchill made it clear that similar legislation was being enacted in most, if not all, of the Western industrial democracies. That development, subsequently encouraged by all the Western democracies, moved on until we established the International Labour
  384
  Organisation to regulate matters of this nature on an international basis. In other words, there has always been international co-operation on such industrial affairs.
  Now, however, the Government are not only to set back the clock in Britain, but are seeking to set the clock back internationally by their commitment to deratify ILO convention No. 26. I am bound to ask: what will our EEC partners make of this step back into the dark ages, and what will the EEC commissioners make of this deratification in the light of the Community's competition policy? Will they allow future British sweatshops to compete unfairly against other more civilised European industries? Will not Britain be regarded as the Taiwan of Europe among our European partners and competitors? I am sure that Conservative Members wish that it was the Taiwan of Europe, with the same sort of wages and social conditions for the workers, but not for themselves. Conservative Members are something different, and the salaries that they earn are something different.
  I deal next with what I understand is the Secretary of State for Employment's favoured option, that of retaining wages councils in some form or other, but removing young people from their protective cover, with the additional wheeze of altering the definition of young worker from meaning a person of the age of 18 to a person of the age of, say, 21 or even 22—an outrageous proposition, which is hinted at in paragraph 18 of the Green Paper.
  Before the Secretary of State goes down that avenue, let me remind him and his hon. Friends that most parents in the country already feel that their sons and daughters have been cruelly betrayed by the Government, and that any move further to wangle the statistics relating to employment, which is a particularly nasty feature of the Government, will meet with a mountain of protest from youngsters, their parents and his own Right wing, which will not be satisfied except by complete abolition of the wages councils. The chances are that if the Secretary of State pursues that favoured option he will find few friends.
  As I understand it, the main excuse for introducing such a retrograde step as removing wages council protection from young workers is that they would then be pricing themselves back into a job, something which we constantly hear from Conservative Members. The hard, unpleasant facts are that young people's earnings, expressed as a percentage of the adult rate, have fallen by more than one fifth since the Government took office. At the same time, unemployment among young people has rocketed. The proposition about pricing youngsters back into a job is eyewash, or it certainly has been up to now. If wages council protection for young workers is withdrawn, and at the same time the Government go ahead with their other heinous proposition of abolishing young people's rights to social security benefits, they might very well price young people back into a job—an unskilled, dead-end job without any prospects, for a starvation rate of pay.
  Let me spell out now that if that sort of job is created for young workers it will only be at the expense of adult workers, and probably male adult unskilled married workers at that. Far from bringing down unemployment, it will merely transfer it to an even more vulnerable section of the work force.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman made the point that if we were to denounce the ILO convention we would be out of line with

  385
  our European partners, and he referred to the civilised approach which the rest of Europe would then have compared with what would prevail in this country. He went on to quote paragraph 18 of the Green Paper. Will he read the final sentence of paragraph 18, in which the Government say that in Holland the full adult minimum rate is not reached until the age of 23? How does he square that with what he said a few moments ago?
  Mr. Evans: I was pointing out that the Government's latest squeeze might result in there being an increase in the age of those who come within the definition of "young worker." We cannot discuss the point that the hon. Gentleman raises without all the relevant statistics from all the European countries. I shall be happy, when we have a more wide-ranging debate, to discuss the issue in full, and on that occasion I shall have all the statistics to hand.
  Apart from economic factors, moral issues must be considered when considering the future of wages councils. These councils have in the past protected the weak and the unorganised, have prevented the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable in society and have been an important bulwark against poverty wages.
  The hon. Member for Itchen mentioned the statutory minimum wage and said that he did not agree with such a concept. Throughout the Labour movement, the question whether there should be a statutory minimum wage has always been a source of argument. I suspect, however, that many unions are now moving towards the acceptance of that concept. I admit, as a member of the AUEW, that I have disagreed with my union on the issue and have always believed that the measure of a civilised society is a statutory minimum wage.
  Once wages councils are abolished and appalling sweatshop conditions return, as they undoubtedly will if the Conservatives continue in office, the horrors of privatisation will be visited on thousands of workers, not only in hospitals and Tory local authorities but in nationalised industries such as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Risley, a mile and a half from where I live. Exclusive Cleaning and Maintenance has slashed the cleaners' earnings in that establishment by more than £20 a week. Workers in other sections of industry are becoming horrified as they realise what the Government are up to.
  Certain good results could come from the abolition of wages councils, though they are not the sort of results that Conservative Members want. In the short term it will undoubtedly be dreadful for those who at present have some protection under the auspices of wages councils, but in the longer term more and more workers will appreciate the benefits of trade union membership and collective agreements, which can protect workers from the activities of some of the most appalling employers.
  The opening sentence of the Green Paper on wages councils says:
  "The Government attaches the highest priority to removing unnecessary obstacles to the creation of more jobs."
  The greatest single obstacle to the creation of more jobs in Britain is not the peripheral issue of wages councils, but the evil policies of this awful Government. My recommendation is not to sack the wages councils but to sack this incompetent Government.
  4.9 am
  Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I must confess that I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) with mounting rage. It seemed that he was talking to a great extent about women workers. By implication he was outlining a situation where the women of this country are no better off, no better educated and no better able to fight for themselves than they were in 1909, a year in which, in spite of my not inconsiderable age, neither my mother nor my father was alive.
  My interest in the subject arises unashamedly as a woman viewing an area which predominantly affects women's working conditions. It is generally accepted that some 2¾ million people are covered by wages councils; of those, 75 per cent. are women working in retailing, catering, clothing, hairdressing and related industries. The argument for retaining wages councils is plainly stated; they are seen as the only method whereby those covered by the councils are relieved of the problem that might arise from exploitation, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, North has so vividly outlined.
  Since the opportunity is available under the International Labour Organisation agreement for a careful look at the situation, it would be irresponsible not to take advantage at least of the opportunity to examine what happens in this sector of the labour market and to study whether there is any truth in the allegation that the abolition of wages councils would result in a down turn in average wages from the minimum levels currently negotiated through wages councils.
  I start from the point of being basically hostile to the idea of wages regulations. It has been said with demonstrable truth in another place that the foundation of all economic analyses is nothing more arcane than that prices affect quantities. If wages are increased, other things being equal, the demand for workers will be reduced at the margin.
  Today what we seek is an increase in employment opportunities. My concern is all the greater since the evidence of research shows that when the costs of employment are raised artificially, the resulting unemployment affects females. I am not arguing against minimum incomes. No one could be more concerned than I am about overcoming the poverty trap, but I share with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the view that it would be much better to achieve that through the social security system than by the intervention of Government or Government-inspired bodies in price setting.
  I believe that minimum wage levels are a disincentive to increasing employment opportunities. In the very areas where the wages councils operate, many of the industries which used to exist at the time of which the hon. Member for St. Helens, North spoke — the early part of the century — have disappeared, although it could well be demonstrated in a limited way that many of the skills required remain and are still marketable even today.
  If we examine the female potential for job creation in small businesses, we can see immediately that the skills that many women have can, and could, be used to start new businesses. There are potential employment opportunities in all geographical areas, using the various skills currently covered by wages councils, which may well be stillborn simply because of the existence of the wages councils and the impossibility of meeting at the start

  387
  of a new business minimum wage levels together with the other restrictive practices that are imposed on potential new employers in regard to premises, facilities, time off and so on.
  Many women today expect to return to work — if, indeed, they ever leave it—to supplement the family income. The experience of the present structure within wages councils is not good. Many women are not able to give continuity of service if they are married or caring for other members of their families. Because of this, employers see the costs of recruiting and training, together with other special provisions, such as the necessity to hold open a job following a pregnancy, as strong disincentives and counters to employment. This is particularly true of small business men.
  In other words, wages councils, linked with some provisions—alas, within the Employment Protection Act 1975 — militate against women being offered jobs. I contend that, but for those constraints, it is the experience of employers that many women who face external family pressures would, nevertheless, be readily employed by small firms and would not be disadvantaged in such employment. This applies equally to the financial rewards that the women would gain and the individual arrangements that they would be able to make with those employers. Employers frequently make those arrangements to the mutual satisfaction of the women whom they employ and of their business, without discrimination of payment or of terms and conditions of work. Frequently, women employed under such flexible arrangements prove to be of excellent worth to employers, giving unstintingly and willingly of their time if they do not feel that there is some threat to them of a watchful eye to note whether they are to be judged on the legal constraints currently imposed by, for example, the wages councils. If the Opposition genuinely wish to improve job opportunities on an equal basis, it is crucial that this factor should be openly recognised.
  Women are increasingly beginning to create small businesses—this is a more recent development—some of which might be termed cottage industries. Others, such as successful businesses launched by Anita Roddick, called the Body Shops—truthfully, such an initiative is not taken by a large number of women, but, nevertheless, that instance needs to be cited—prove that women have an initiative-taking facility which is beginning to be explored and to be shown to be highly successful in enterprises such as catering, hairdressing and clothes design and clothes and furniture making.
  Women not only go in for those areas covered by the wages councils but now enter the high technology area, which, fortunately, is not numbered among the industries covered by the wages councils. Where such businesses can begin—often they begin at home—the conditions that would be imposed by the wages councils are sufficient to prevent them expanding and increasing employment levels.
  It is not merely a question of minimum wages. Although all women expect and seek parity — they should get parity of payment for equal work —many—
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is a scandal that the hon. Lady should argue such a case. Is the hon. Lady aware of the life led by working class women in the sense that in many ways they are protected by wages
  388
  councils and in many other ways they are incapable—for reasons that will not be known to the hon. Lady—of making inroads into small businesses or employment? The hon. Lady's approach clearly shows her complete inadequacy and her lack of knowledge of working class people who are trying to make their way through life in the difficult conditions presented by her Government.
  Mrs. Rumbold: That is a disgraceful slur on women, whatever their origin.
  Mr. Loyden: The hon. Lady is casting the slur on women.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I certainly am not casting a slur on women. I certainly would not make such a sexist remark or choose to denigrate women, whatever their origin.
  Mr. Loyden: The hon. Lady is denigrating women.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I ask the hon. Gentleman to—
  Mr. Loyden: The hon. Lady has no experience of working class women.
  Mrs. Rumbold: It is very difficult to answer the kind of intervention that the hon. Gentleman is making, since it is quite clear that he is not willing to show the decency of allowing that women of any origin have the ability to move forward for themselves. We do not need to be supported indefinitely by the opinions or views of the male sex. This is the first time in my life that I have ever been moved to make such a feminist and pro-feminist speech. But I find that increasingly in this place the number of times men wish to tell women what they are capable of doing and what they should do with their bodies and their lives is becoming quite intolerable. I do not, nor do my women colleagues in this place, tell men how they should conduct their lives or what they should do with their bodies and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would wait while I finish making the point I had embarked upon.
  I was trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the flexibility that women require in order to achieve success in both starting enterprises and continuing them is something that can be negotiated with both male and female employers, mercifully. I think that this is something that will increasingly appeal both to women who have not so many family ties and even more to women who today, fortunately, have the advantage of a better education and improved communications and of seeing how others can get a job which it is worthwhile to pursue through their contacts and can expand those contacts and those jobs if the terms that they work under are sufficiently flexible.
  The arguments that led in the early 1900s and the early part of this century to the starting of wages councils—the exploitation of the low paid, the inability of home workers to negotiate proper rates of pay—simply do not apply today. I am amazed to hear that these arguments are levelled when in particular, the whole communications system in this country and throughout the world is so totally different that it makes the points about communication, low pay and negotiation quite irrelevant. It is as though the people who are employed through the wages councils or are looked after through the wages council were being judged incapable of managing without these bodies. This is simply not so. The wages councils today seem to me to be completely irrelevant since the communications media can provide adequate information to all who work about the right rates of pay and the right

  389
  amount of work to be done. Sensible arrangements can be worked out through the much more exposed system that we now have. It therefore seems to me that the wages councils have lost their relevance, in particular to those sectors of the female working population to which I have referred.
  4.23 am
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) would have carried a little more conviction if the Benches behind him had not been empty. I have often thought that Labour Members here have started to work a three-day week. They never seem to be here on Mondays or Fridays, and now it seems that they are not here in the middle of the week either.
  The question that we have to consider is: are wages councils to be abolished, or, if they are not abolished, as everyone from the low-paid to the Institute of Directors is unhappy about how they operate at present, how should they be reformed?
  There are three questions that need to be asked and answered about wages councils. First, do they in fact protect the weak, and would their abolition remove such protection? Secondly, do wages councils inhibit the creation of new jobs? Do they, as Professor Marsland argues
  "provide a haven we cannot afford for incompetent managers, inefficient employees and people in industry with the least capacity for innovation and enterprise?"
  Do wages councils seek to give job security but in fact just end up leading more people to social security? Thirdly, if wages councils protect the weak but also inhibit the creation of new jobs, what is the correct balance?
  Conservatives favour the view that wages are a matter for employers and employees to negotiate according to the circumstances of the industry, with the minimum outside interference. Hence the repeal of schedule 2 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 by the Employment Act 1980 and the rescinding of the Fair Wages Resolution in 1983. However, until now, minimum outside interference has none the less presumed a duty on the state to seek to protect those who, for one reason or another, are in a weak bargaining position when offering their labour.
  As Winston Churchill said:
  "But where you have … no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst … where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. IV, c. 388.]
  Of course, there have been substantial changes since Winston Churchill was at the Board of Trade. The balance of bargaining power as between employers and employees was very different then, and there was no social security system as it is understood today. Many employees in the "sweated trades" then faced the alternative of either working at extremely low rates of pay or starving. Today, that situation has completely changed. The system of social security benefits ensures a floor below which no one need fall. Indeed, today often the two main problems affecting the low-paid are either the poverty trap, whereby a pay increase may, in certain circumstances, lead to a lower standard of living as a result either of having to pay more tax or of the loss of social security benefits, or the
  390
  unemployment trap, where in certain circumstances people are better off unemployed than in work. The question today is whether a better safety net than social security benefit levels is still needed for low-paid workers.
  Before attempting to answer those three questions I should like to refer to a substantial misconception, which has to be cleared out of the way. It is the suggestion that wages councils and minimum pay levels are necessary to tackle poverty. There is in fact little correlation between low pay and poverty. The Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth — the Diamond commission — initiated research by Richard Layard, described recently by The Sunday Times as a leading Government critic, who concluded:
  "Of workers in the bottom 10 per cent. of income relative to supplementary benefit only one fifth were in the bottom 10 per cent. of hourly earnings. The reason is that the poorest workers are men with large families, many of whom earn a reasonably high wage, while most of those on the lowest pay are married women where earnings ensure that the family are not amongst the poorest … a substantial proportion of low paid employees are not in poor households, and a substantial proportion of the poor are not low paid."
  The most recent available evidence, "Low Income Families", published by the Department of Health and Social Security, shows that, taking into account the effect of state benefits, only about 1·5 per cent. of families, the head of which was in full-time work, had a family income below the supplementary benefit level, whereas 14 per cent. of families, the head of which had been unemployed for three or more months, were below supplementary benefit level. In short, poverty is a problem not so much of low pay as of no pay. For example, pensioners and single-parent families with no pay are in the group with the highest incidence of poverty.
  The misconception of the need for minimum pay legislation to combat poverty is further exaggerated by the insistence of the low-pay lobby to talk of low pay as a percentage of the average. The Trades Union Congress talks of a low-pay target of two-thirds of the average male earnings, and the Council of Europe seeks a minimum "decency threshold" of 68 per cent. of average adult pay.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): This Council of Europe problem keeps coming up, and I am sure that my hon. Friend does not need me to remind him that the Council of Europe has adopted no such thing.
  Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
  The substantive point is that it is ridiculous to talk of low pay as a percentage of the average, because if everyone were, for example, 10 times better off, the problem would be as intractable as ever. To make low pay a percentage problem simply means that it is just a matter of trying to keep up with the Jones's and, as even the Low Pay Unit is forced to admit,
  "a target based on the average represents an unobtainable goal".
  It is also important to remember that since 1948 real pay has increased considerably. Average weekly earnings of the male manual worker have increased at about 2 per cent. per year faster than the rate of inflation, and have doubled in real terms.
  Indeed, ever since the start of the recession in the first quarter of 1979 average earnings in Britain have risen faster than retail prices, and real earnings are still

  391
  increasing at just over 2 per cent. per annum. Therefore, it is not helpful to see low pay as a relative problem, and it is misconceived to link low pay and poverty.
  As the National Board for Prices and Incomes commented when charged with identifying pay levels which were too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living:
  "the fixing of the minimum standard of need cannot be exact. The only yardstick which we can appropriately use is that laid down by practice by Parliament, in that Parliament has approved scales of supplementary benefit and made other provision with the result that it has de facto expressed a view as to the level of income below which families are in need."
  In short, the most efficient way of relieving poverty consists in targeting social security assistance where it is most needed. Minimum wage legislation will not help here.
  In so far as there is any overlap between those who are poor and those on low wages, it is much more because of post-tax wages than pre-tax wages. In 1956, a married man with three children did not become liable for tax at the standard rate until he was earning nearly twice the average wage. Today, the basic rate liability of a man with three children starts at 40 per cent. of the average wage. Indeed, DHSS figures show that in almost every case means-tested benefits payable to employed people are necessary, not because of low pay, but because gross earnings have been whittled away by income tax, national insurance contributions and local authority rates. Therefore, wages councils and minimum pay levels are not necessary to tackle poverty.
  Having dealt with that misconception, I return to my original three questions. First, do wages councils protect the weak? Successive Governments have abolished wages councils when it was felt that they were no longer necessary because sufficient potential existed to protect the interests of employees. Indeed, 17 have been abolished since 1960, many of them by a Labour Government.
  After the abolition of the cutlery wages council in 1969, the Department of Employment commissioned research on the impact of its abolition. Research paper No. 18 of 1980, "Abolition and After — the Cutlery Wages Council", concluded:
  "There was no significant improvement in wage determination in cutlery after abolition, no catching up with rates in voluntary collective bargaining agreements in similar industries and sufficient evidence of under-payment of female workers to suggest that the degree of protection has deteriorated."
  A further report on the impact of six other wages councils which were abolished concluded:
  "The overall picture to emerge from the survey of six ex-wages councils was that low pay and inadequate system of collective bargaining had persisted … thus the most important effect of abolition was to increase the size of the unregulated sector and therefore the potential for low pay."
  It is also right to observe that those were all wages councils covering areas where, as a precondition of their abolition, it was thought that sufficient potential for fair collective bargaining existed to protect the interests of employees.
  In dealing with wages councils one is dealing with the small firm, the average employing seven people. About half of the employees covered are part time and there is generally a low level of trade union activity. Undoubtedly, wages councils at present cover many of the lower paid in the community who can justifiably be described as weak — weak in the skills that they have to offer in the market place and weak in their bargaining power.
  392
  Wages councils can fairly be described as protecting the weak, but do they assist in the creation of new jobs? There can be no doubt that there is a clear link between pay levels and jobs. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) once said:
  "the number of people who have a job will depend directly on the level of pay received by those in work."—Official Report, 6 April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 271.]
  Wages that are not earned by productivity can only cause greater inflation and result in the loss of jobs and fewer jobs.
  There are those who argue cogently that any minimum pay legislation costs jobs. While giving full weight to such arguments, which of their nature are theoretical, and appreciating that often the marginal product of workers in industries covered at present by wages councils is low so that little added value may necessarily be created by their work, one none the less has to have full regard to the facts of how wages councils actually do impact in practice before making a judgment on whether they inhibit the creation of new jobs or help accelerate the destruction of present jobs.
  Minimum rates of pay for full-time adult workers covered by wages councils range from about £45 a week for a hairdresser and shampooist to about £67 for shop assistants. Most wages councils set a minimum basic rate between £55 and £65. Is further depressing the pay of such low-paid workers a valid way to create jobs? Let there be no illusions. Even if all wages councils were abolished tomorrow, many would still be out of work. There might just be some more people in work, but they would receive very low rates of pay.
  It does not appear that the activities of wages councils have led to higher earnings or rates of increases in earnings than in other sectors of the economy, or that wages council industries pay higher than average earnings. However, some organisations, such as the Association of Small Firms, argue that during the 1970s wages councils increased wages faster than inflation. It should be remembered that during the 1970s all wages rose faster than inflation. ACAS concluded in its annual report of 1981 by saying that
  "minimum rates set by wages councils have been relatively very low and have often increased at a slower rate than pay rates in industry generally."
  Wages paid to male manual workers in the wages council sector are consequently lower than those paid to the same group in the economy as a whole. They were 77 per cent. of all-economy average earnings in 1982, a lower percentage than in the mid-1970s. However, it has to be recognised that generally speaking the skill content of the great majority of jobs in the wages council sector is low and that the composition of the sector has changed with the exclusion of certain high-paying industries, such as road haulage.
  Further, the minimum rates of pay set by wages councils are consistently lower than those set in national agreements. The unweighted average of wages councils minima was equivalent to 43 per cent. of average earnings of all workers aged 18 years and over in April 1980, and it was 42 per cent. in April 1983.
  One group for whom wages council rates have almost certainly created barriers to employment by setting too high pay rates is that of 16 and 17-year-olds. The figures show that the average minimum rate for young people under wages council cover is significantly higher relative to adult rates than the relative minimum rates under

  393
  national collective agreements. Indeed, no fewer than 22 of the 26 councils pay 16-year-olds a higher proportion of the adult rate than the average proportion paid to this age group under national agreements. In some instances the youth minimum set by the councils is exceptionally high. Furthermore, this has to be set against the background that starting pay for school leavers in Britain is now averaging about 60 per cent. of adult rates, while in the rest of Europe it is averaging below 20 per cent.
  Youth wages as a proportion of adult wages are higher in the United Kingdom than in any other Western country. Given the higher proportional minimum rate and the higher level of earnings relative to adults, it is reasonable to conclude that wages councils have reduced, and continue to reduce, the employment opportunities of young people. There is, therefore, a clear case for removing young people from the provisions of the councils. Such a move would certainly help price young people back into employment.
  There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the abolition of wages councils would lead to the creation of a sufficiently larger number of new jobs so as to make acceptable the loss of the protection that they offer to those who are in a weak bargaining position with low pay—
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baldry: I am aware that a number of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), so I shall not give way.
  The Select Committee on Employment has received direct evidence from two bodies urging the complete abolition of wages councils. The Institute of Directors had 120 replies to a survey on wages councils that was sent out to its members. All the replies came from those who had had direct experience of wages councils, of whom 54 per cent. said that they would employ more people if they did not have to follow wages council directions. As the institute fairly observes.
  "it is not possible to draw detailed conclusions from a limited survey of this type."
  It is interesting to note, however, that the principal concern of those members of the institute who responded to the survey was not wages rates but the plethora of other terms and conditions which wages councils are presently able to set.
  The Association of Small Firms had 206 replies to a similar survey, 66 per cent. saying that minimum wage legislation encouraged them to reduce the number of employees. Again, however, it was not a large survey and there was no evidence of how many of the respondents actually had reduced the number of employees because of wages councils or would actually employ more people if they were abolished, and at what rates of pay.
  In short, even from those bodies calling directly for all wages councils to be abolished there is little hard statistical evidence to support the suggestion that, with the exception of young people, the rates of pay set by wages councils have of themselves resulted in the loss of jobs or that there abolition would of itself result in many more adults being in employment.
  Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baldry: No, I have already been told that I am taking too long and I am conscious that there are some strong abolitionists around me waiting to speak.
  Against such evidence as there is, we have to balance the fact that wages councils have had a role in preventing the competitive undercutting of labour and that a number of companies, particularly smaller ones, have benefited from multi-employer bargaining.
  Furthermore, industrial relations have generally been good in those areas of employment covered by wages councils. To abolish wages councils completely would inevitably mean a considerable growth of trade union activity and a possible consequent deterioration in industrial relations. Moreover, if total abolition of wages councils led to continuous allegations of low-paid workers apparently suffering because of the absence of any minimum pay legislation it might be an excuse for a future Labour Government to introduce a national minimum wage. That would be economically disastrous, as such a move would be bound to inflate wage costs even further throughout the economy, leading to bankruptcy of businesses and loss of jobs.
  It should also not be ignored that the overwhelming consensus of both the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, who between them represent a substantial proportion of British employers — not just large firms but many smaller businesses as well—is for radical reform rather than outright abolition.
  Mr. Fallon: Did the CBI not testify in evidence to the Select Committee that if it could not achieve radical reform of the wages councils it would prefer complete abolition?
  Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend were less keen to intervene and actually listened to what I was saying, he would realise that my argument was directed entirely to radical reform of the present position.
  In the absence of any substantive evidence that the abolition of wages councils would lead, in practice, to the creation of a significant number of new adult jobs, one has to ask what real benefit can be obtained by abolition which cannot equally be achieved by reform of wages councils. Wages councils should be reformed, not abolished, so that they can set only a single adult rate and a related rate for those aged 18 to 21 and not any other terms or conditions such as those at present covering hours of work, holidays, overtime rates, and so on.
  The Department of Employment consultative paper correctly sets out a number of problems faced by employers in coping with the wages council orders and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington has illustrated the situation graphically by reference to the fur trade. The consultative paper states:
  "All these burdens can inhibit the growth of small businesses in the wages council trades and thus damage employment."
  Substantially simplifying the wages councils system by removing the council's ability to set detailed statutory terms and conditions would also greatly assist compliance with wages council orders. The director of personnel for John Lewis has commented:
  "In their present form wages council orders are self defeating."
  Such overall reform should also be accompanied by a full review of each and every wages council, with a view to seeing whether some councils might be merged—and, indeed, where appropriate, whether individual

  395
  councils should be abolished, using the criteria adopted by successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, in recent years.
  The question that I put to my hon. Friends is simply this. Is there any real benefit to be derived from abolition which cannot be obtained by reforms such as these? I submit that wages councils should be reformed and not abolished. Young people should be taken out of the control of wages councils. Wages councils should be able to set only a single minimum adult rate and a related rate for those aged between 18 and 21, and such reforms should be accompanied by a full review of each and every wages council.
  4.44 am
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: We all ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) for raising this subject because of its happy timing in view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget and because it marks an achievement of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses. It started campaigning on this issue in 1981 with its admirable publication "Priced Out", which has been updated in "Still Priced Out". The title is appropriate as, from 1981 to 1985, yet more youngsters have been deprived of jobs because of the existence of wages councils.
  We are in a climate of high unemployment, especially among young people, but that fact should not distract our attention from the plight of other groups whose employment is also affected by wages councils. I refer to the disabled, ethnic minorities and the educationally subnormal, all of whom suffer greater than average unemployment because, when wages councils set a minimum rate, it is all too easy for an employer to get someone who suits him, reflects his prejudices or has the highest possible educational qualifications. He might well take on a different type of person if the pay rates were lower.
  There is also a growing awareness that the balance between capital and labour has been out of kilter for some time. That led to a change in the basis of capital allowances in the Budget before last. It was recognised that they often led to the unloading of labour precisely where unemployment was highest. With wages councils, there is too much encouragement to employers to bring in automation rather than to employ youngsters or the groups I have mentioned.
  The wages bill as a whole affects unemployment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that every 1 per cent. extra in wage settlements costs approximately 200,000 jobs. I need only to compare the United States, where unit labour costs have risen by about 36 per cent. in the past five years, Japan, where they have risen by 31 per cent. and West Germany, where they have risen by 64 per cent., with the United Kingdom's whacking 104 per cent. for people to realise the close link between our unemployment and the pattern of wage increases.
  In his extremely long and detailed speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) referred to pay rises and said that the pattern of the past decade is that they have increased faster than prices. He was right to observe that that was true of the economy as a whole, but the creation of large-scale unemployment is merely an example of wages councils writ large. The increase in wages in the wages council sector has been especially
  396
  large among young employees. That has led me to the conclusion that they should not be covered by wages councils. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) referred to the lack of evidence in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. I hope to rectify that. In 1984, H. Neuberger, in a publication of the Low Pay Unit, related the abolition of wages councils to the creation of 8,000 jobs. Therefore, even someone from that sector was prepared to admit that there was a relationship between the number of employees and the level of wages imposed by councils.
  To be fair to Mr. or perhaps Mrs. Neuburger—
  Mr. Evans: Mr. Neuburger.
  Mr. Jones: Mr. Neuburger would have argued that wages councils were worth it for the standard of living enjoyed by workers covered by them, but he nevertheless accepted that 8,000 more jobs would exist if wages councils did not. Robert Meyer and David Wise, in a learned article in Econometrica, showed that 7 per cent. more people would be employed if wages councils did not exist in the sectors covered.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will accept that Henry Neuburger said:
  "According to our simulation of the Treasury model, the abolition of Wages Councils would result after five years in the creation of just 8,000 jobs—the rise in unemployment in June—one of the best months this year."
  Mr. Jones: I am not disputing whether the figure should be small or large. I am pointing out that even on all of Mr. Neuburger's assumptions, which would not be mine, he recognised that extra jobs would be created. We can go on to talk about whether his assumptions are right and whether more jobs would be created, but he accepts that 8,000 more jobs would be created over that period.
  Lasyard, in his "Youth Labour Market Problem", published in Chicago, said that a 1 per cent. increase in wages would have destroyed 15,000 jobs. Although the hon. Member for St. Helens, North does not like anecdotal evidence, I shall cite an example from my constituency of the relationship between youth unemployment and the existence of wages councils. A mother told me that she had approached a local hairdresser to ask whether he would train her daughter, and offered to pay him to look after the daughter while she was not contributing economically to the well-being of the business.
  Mr. Evans: That would be a novel solution to unemployment. People will pay to work.
  Mr. Jones: If the mother was willing, I see no objection to her offer being accepted, but sadly, because of the existence of wages councils it is against the law.
  My final comments relate to a more technical matter—the existence of the independent members on wages councils. That has led to a general impression that wages councils are biased against employers. I would not necessarily go so far as to say that, but independent members are far from familiar with the workings of the industries that they hope to influence. They serve on a wide range of wages councils, for example, Sir John Wardie, who is a barrister—I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen in saying that — serves on councils which deal with everything from hairdressing to cafes. No doubt he has built up expertise in those subjects, but I wonder whether he is familiar with the detailed workings of those varied industries.

  397
  Mrs. P. Fea, who is a former teacher—an excellent qualification for something like this — is on wages councils for button manufacturing and unlicensed places of refreshment. The notorious Sir John Wood, who still serves on many councils, including licensed residential establishments and licensed restaurants, and the boot and shoe wages councils, — I hope that the Minister will notice that broad range — chaired the road haulage wages council and, by some coincidence, chaired the commission of inquiry into the future of the road haulage wages council. That fact did not come to light until my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Sir P. Holland) pointed it out in his excellent work together with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on quangoes. Curiously, that issue was resolved, and Sir John departed. There are far too many academics. Of the 70 independent members of wages counsil in December, no fewer than 38 were academics — lecturers, professors, university administrators, or people who had retired from those professions. The Government must reconsider the existence of independent members.
  Wages councils are extremely rigid. They do not differentiate between the prevailing economic costs and wage rates in different parts of the country. How can it be right to pay people the same wage in the same industry in an area with low costs, such as the east midlands and Yorkshire, and in an area such as mine, which has extremely high costs? That is a weakness of the wages councils system, and of national wage bargaining generally.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury mentioned the working conditions that are set by the councils. They can set holiday requirements, the number of hours that people may work, and sick leave. It is possible that a wages council could set a low minimum wage per hour and an employer could pay three or four times that wage; but if he asks an employee to work more than the set hours, he could be in breach of the law. That becomes especially stupid when, at the request of the employee concerned, the employer has allowed him to work on a Saturday or Sunday, when he is entitled to considerably enhanced wages. That may not be the wish of the employer; he may do it out of courtesy and kindness to the employee.
  In conclusion, either wages councils increase wages to above the rate at which we would start to reduce unemployment—whatever that level may be—or they have no effect on wages at all, in which case they are useless and we should not spend £4 million a year on the edifice that creates them. In either case, the time has come for them to be abolished. I hope that sufficient attention has been paid during the debate to the unemployment that wages councils create to persuade my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to recommend their abolition to the Government.
  4.57 am
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am not surprised by the contributions that we have heard tonight from Conservative Members, because it is the Government's clear intention to deregulate almost everything in sight. As a long-standing trade unionist, I must say that trade unions have had differing opinions about wages councils. At the time of full employment, many of us argued about the restrictions placed on some
  398
  sections of workers by the wages councils. But now the Government are intent on deregulation, which is aimed at the most vulnerable sections of society — at the categories of workers who are protected by the wages councils. There is some difference of opinion about the direction in which the Government are moving. My view is that the Government do not intend to abolish the wages councils but that they will so draw their teeth that they will become ineffective.
  There may be a valid criticism of the trade union movement for not drawing those areas which are now covered by wages councils into collective bargaining. That is a historical fact. Certain industries were difficult to organise because of their nature and have a history of low wages, poor conditions and part-time work.
  I was somewhat amazed by the contribution of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who raised the issue of women in employment. What she said was contrary to the reality of women in factory work, many of whom are under the protection of the Wages Councils. As the hon. Lady will know, many of the people employed in such work are female and on part-time employment. The exploitation of those people is greater than in industries where women are organised and capable of asserting their position as women in the industry, and can argue for parity with their male counterparts.
  The Government's intention has been shown by Tory Back Benchers. It is about the philosophy of cutting the living standards of ordinary working people to maximise the profits of those who employ them. We should not lose sight of the fact that that is the Government's intention. Facts and figures about the value of the Wages Councils can be argued, but below the surface the argument comes through from the Tory party that it is in the process of whipping back all the rights that have been established by workers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) made a good case showing that the Conservative party's greatest leader was of the opinion that there should be protection for those who worked in industry but, for whatever reason, had not joined trade unions and therefore had not become part of the collective wages bargaining system, but should still be protected.
  The Tory party is saying that that protection, little and inadequate though it be, should be removed. It is arguing that that will create more jobs, but in reality that argument is nonsense. Today, 45 young people from Merseyside came down to the House of Commons to meet the Prime Minister. Anybody who heard what they said after that meeting would have no illusions about the attitude of the Government to the job seeking generation, and the chance of the young ever having jobs.
  Since 1979, the Government have set their course clearly in one direction. In the economic crisis which we, and the rest of the world, have been in, they argue that it has been necessary for the Government to take a radical Right-wing line to attempt — I underline that word attempt—to stabilise our economy. Their line is that they should challenge all the things that have been achieved by negotiation and trade union activity, and, in particular what has happened since the war, when the working class has been able to gain some more of the wealth that they create and increase their living standard.
  This Government have adopted a radical, Right-wing line. They are prepared to reduce the negotiating powers of the trade unions and to abolish regulations that have

  399
  provided some measure of protection for the real creators of wealth. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister refer during the weekend to the wealth creators. Those who create wealth do not sit in City boardrooms. They are to be found in the coalfields, docks, factories and commerce. By hand or by brain they are the creators of wealth and it is right that their living standards should be protected by means of wages councils. They were established to protect the weakest workers in industry and commerce and prevent their exploitation.
  I am surprised that Conservative Members do not recognise that the wages councils have been able to stabilise the very low demands regarding pay and conditions of this part of the industrial sector. Instead, the Government are seeking to abolish the wages councils and are attempting to remove all protection relating to pay and conditions. Therefore, the Labour party is quite right to stand up and object strongly to the attempts that are being made by the most reactionary section of the Conservative party. They say that now that the trade union movement has been weakened the process ought to be taken one stage further by attacking the very inadequate provision that is made for such workers by the wages councils.
  Conservative Members have made it clear in this debate that they believe that the only way to achieve the maximisation of profits, which they say is the essential ingredient for creating a prosperous economy and full employment, is to adopt this course. Nothing that the wages councils abolition can offer will increase the employment opportunities of those who live in the north-west and other industrial areas. The Government completely fail to recognise that those who are seeking work today are completely different from those who sought work in the 1920s and 1930s. They have a higher level of aspiration and objectiveness. Our society is not providing the right kind of work for them. They are becoming increasingly alienated against society. Society cannot now offer young people work when they want and need it. Many young people in my area leave school at 18 or 19, marry and start a family without ever having had a job. 'That is a condemnation of our society and it will cause major problems.
  Government Members look for ways to maximise profit and say that the revival of British industry depends upon small businesses which employ only a few people. They are trying to recycle the capitalist system.
  I have no doubt that if we rely on small businesses we shall have to wait for at least three decades before we begin to solve the unemployment problem. I do not think that Government Members really believe that the abolition of wages councils will create employment. However, abolition will allow the hyperexploitation of young people who are already working and of female employees. The maximisation of profit can be gained only at the expense of cutting the already abysmal wages offered under the wages councils' protection.
  I am not surprised at the Government's approach. In some senses we should welcome it. Some workers who have not so far been organised by trade unions have had to seek help elsewhere. Because of changes in the pattern of industry, unemployment, and changes in technology, people have had to turn elsewhere. If the wages councils were abolished, we might welcome the opportunity to move into other areas. The trade union movement is already aware of the opportunities.
  400
  If the limited protection of the wages councils is removed, workers will seek protection from the trade union movement. We would welcome that. That will be an inevitable consequence of the abolition of the wages councils. The argument might seem contradictory, but I have never had a full regard for wages councils. However, they protect workers in some industries who are not able, or who do not want, to belong to a trade union. Wages councils have provided some minimum protection so that workers are able to achieve a certain standard of living.
  The Government might decide to draw the teeth of the wages councils rather than to abolish them. They might retain the structure but remove the effectiveness. That might be of benefit to the multitude of people who at present rely upon the protection of the wages councils. It will be a new recruitment field for the trade union movement which I would welcome. In those circumstances, in spite of the fact that the Government are in the process of attempting to weaken the basis of trade union collective bargaining, there will be a short-term advantage for the Government, and in the longer term the trade unions will be able to establish new areas of recruitment which will bring people who hitherto have not been organised under the protection of the trade union movement so that they can advance their living standards and wages and conditions.
  The Labour party, in my view, is right to argue that there is no logical reason why those people who are at least minimally protected by the wages councils should be deprived of that protection. The proposed removal of wages councils can be seen only as a blatant political attempt by the Government to weaken the power of working people by denying them this protection.
  The retention of wages councils should be viewed in two ways. First, we see a need for the retention of wages councils to protect those who are most vulnerable from exploitation by certain categories of employer. Secondly, they open up the possibility of a wider recruitment of people into the trade union movement, and will reassert the position of working people.
  I believe that in abolishing the wages councils the Government are going in the wrong direction. I hope that at the end of the day sense will prevail and that there will be no drawing of the teeth, particularly with regard to the inspectors. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North, the number of cases in which inspectors have found employers paying below the level demanded by statute is an indication of their value.
  A Government who go in the direction of abolishing wages councils will be exposed outside the House as a Government who do not care for those who work in industry because working people would be deprived of the protection that trade union organised industries have. They will be seen as a Government who are not concerned about people or about employment.
  5.20 am
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) spoke at considerable length, hoping, no doubt, to make up for the lack of troops on the Labour Benches. This debate is important and, in essence, has been conducted by Conservative Members. Opposition Members, who made such a fuss about the issue when the Chancellor presented the Budget, have opted out of the debate, both in the Chamber and in the nation.

  401
  It is clear that the main debate on the subject will be conducted by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) dealt with the issue in a restrained and considered way, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who called for total abolition. The Green Paper reflects the Government's misgivings about the way in which wages councils have contributed to unemployment in recent years. It is an excellent document which contains a number of alternatives. Indeed, the Green Paper provides the answers to those who argue for abolition or reform, for it contains two paragraphs devoted to abolition and four devoted to the need for radical reform.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it was possible to put the abolition proposal in one paragraph — indeed, it could have been put in one sentence—whereas with reform it takes more words to describe some of the problems.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I was about to congratulate him and his colleagues who prepared the Green Paper, because, as I say, it answers the questions that hon. Members have asked. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury wondered whether it should be abolition or radical reform. Paragraph 20 says:
  "Reforms of the kind outlined in paragraph 16–19 would remove many of the detailed inflexibilities of the system and greatly reduce the bureaucratic burdens on employers, and above all help to promote job opportunities particularly for young people."
  That proposition was supported by my hon. Friend. The paragraph goes on:
  "But compared with the abolition option they are unlikely to have as much effect on the overall level of employment and risk maintaining artifically high rates of pay for adults, damaging to employment."
  Thus, the Green Paper answers the debate. If the option of radical reform is chosen by the Minister, then, according to that document, it would be
  "unlikely to have as much effect on the overall level of employment and risk maintaining artifically high rates of pay for adults, damaging to employment."
  That is the importance of what we are seeking to do. The Government are seeking to address themselves seriously to the problem of unemployment. They have recognised the contribution which wages councils have made to unemployment.
  Mr. Loyden rose—
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman had a long innings. If he had not spoken for so long I might have given way, but I will not give way because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  The main purpose of the debate is to consider the two alternatives put forward in the Green Paper. The answer is in the Green Paper itself. If we are determined to do something about the level of unemployment and if we recognise that wages councils have contributed to unemployment, then by going down the route of radical reform we will not address the central question in the Green Paper.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to what was said last year by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who was then the Minister of State at the Department of Employment. I seem to have an incredible ability to quote
  402
  things said by my hon. Friend. Last time he was not happy about something he had said which I placed on the record. I think he will be more relaxed when I draw to public attention something which he put on the record last year in his capacity as Minister of State. In reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), he said in regard to wages councils:
  "if the operation of such councils leads … to fewer jobs and less opportunities, it would be quite wrong for any Government concerned about unemployment not to consider carefully the way in which those wages councils work."—[Official Report, 15 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 285.]
  He and his successors have honoured that commitment. The Government have recognised that wages councils lead to fewer jobs and opportunities. Even on the bleakest analysis by the Low Pay Unit, it acknowledges that more jobs will result from the abolition of wages councils. I take the point of the Low Pay Unit that over a five-year period it will be only 8,000 jobs and that the number of unemployed is 3½ million. The Low Pay Unit recognised that against a backcloth of 3½ million unemployed the likely effect of abolishing wages councils would be more and not fewer jobs. Even if it was only one single job that would be created as a result of the abolition of wages councils I would say that it was worth doing.
  Mr. Evans rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am quoting the Low Pay Unit. The hon. Gentleman has got from the Library the research brief which he quoted. I have it here too. I will give way briefly.
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give the rest of the quote from Mr. Neuburger? After his reference to 8,000 jobs he said:
  "Moreover, because the Treasury model tends to overstate the effects of changes in wages on employment levels, the number of extra jobs likely to be created by abolishing the wages councils is probably less than half the number estimated by the market."
  That was over five years. Now we have over 4 million unemployed.
  Mr. Brown: I am not in any way seeking to suggest that the Low Pay Unit wants the wages councils to be abolished. The Low Pay Unit is defending the status quo and, in doing so, it must acknowledge in the final sentence that more jobs—the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has suggested 4,000 more—will be created because of the abolition of the wages councils.
  Let us leave on one side that rather biased and prejudiced analysis, which still acknowledges that there will be more rather than fewer jobs without the abolition of the wages councils, and discuss the analysis by the research institute of the university of Chicago. The analysis suggested that a 1 per cent. wage increase levied by wages councils in this country would adversely affect the employment of 15,000 young people.
  Although the hon. Member for St. Helens, North may not suggest that the abolition of wages councils will create jobs, their existence certainly loses jobs. That fact cannot be denied. Even if we examine the terms of reference of the hon. Gentleman's argument—looking at the impact of the wages councils on the negative side, rather than considering, as Conservative Members are doing, the positive side of their abolition — we find that wages councils have a negative impact on jobs and, indeed, lose jobs. No hon. Member would deny the impact of job losses that have occurred because of wages councils' wage increases.
  Mr. Evans: Nonsense.
  Mr. Brown: It is not nonsense. The former Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Albert Booth, who had responsibility for defending the expansion of the wages councils following the Employment Protection Act 1975, had some embarrassing moments during the late 1970s as a result of the existence of the wages councils. A number of Opposition Members will recall those days.
  Mr. Evans: Put the evidence.
  Mr. Brown: There is no doubt that the abolition of the wages councils will create more jobs. By whatever test one cares to apply and however bleak the analysis, the fact is that more jobs will be created.
  The Green Paper acknowledges that radical reform will not lead to as many jobs being created as would be created with total abolition. I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have regard to the paragraph in the Green Paper to which I referred when the Government make their final decision.
  5.32 am
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) on gaining this debate. If we are to have wages councils, I wish that my hon. Friend could get them to fix more sensible hours for beginning and finishing the debate.
  When I look at the attendance in the Chamber, it is obvious who is concerned about unemployment. The Opposition are concerned only with their union membership and protecting their union rates. Government Members are concerned with unemployment. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) wanted to see the evidence. I should have said that the evidence of 3 million unemployed after 75 years of wages councils was sufficient evidence for anyone.
  We are debating more than the economics of workers pricing themselves out of jobs. We are debating something greater—our compassion for those on the lowest wages on the ladder of earnings and for those who are not yet on the ladder, who are without a job. We have compassion for the dignity of man.
  I originally felt that wages councils were no more and no less than a great restrictive practice, a giant conspiracy between employers and the employed against the unemployed. That is the evidence for the hon. Member for St. Helens, North.
  Our concern is greater than that. It is for all those whose lot is the lowest. How do we improve their lot? Is the best way to increase their low earnings by taking away the bottom rung of the ladder, or is it better for them to earn more by learning how to climb the ladder of earnings from the bottom rung?
  Conditions were very different when Charles Kingsley wrote "Cheap Clothes and Nasty" and when the House first started deliberating legislation for minimum wages. Today's world is one in which average earnings are far greater than they ever were in the past, in which job mobility carries people up the ladder of earnings and in which the welfare state has taken over the social need for a minimum income; a world in which this country is no longer the richest, with a dominant share of world trade, in which industry could be given the task of carrying the social can. Today we have lost our premier position. We
  404
  no longer have the largest financial reserves in the world. Our share of world trade has dwindled. We have squeezed the lemon and there is no juice left.
  If Charles Kingsley were alive today he would not be worrying about the return of Victorian sweatshops; he would not want to be writing "Cheap Clothes and Nasty" today; he would be worrying about why the bottom rung of the ladder has been taken away, so that those who want to work cannot find jobs. Today he would be writing about "Closed Shops and the Nash"—as national assistance is known to those who have to live on it, people who cannot get a job because the bottom rung has been taken away, in a world in which unions thought that they could dictate the terms.
  I believe that the dignity of man requires that every man has a rung on the ladder of opportunity so that however low he starts—and I started work at £4 5s. a week—he can look up to the next step and the step above that.
  By setting minimum wage levels, wages councils have taken away the bottom rung. By artificially lifting some people up they have taken away the incentive for them to climb by their own efforts. They have taken away the first rung for those without a job.
  By doing away with wages councils we are not going back to the sweatshops of Charles Kingsley's days but are going to the wealthshops of our competitors today. Germany and Japan recovered after the war by running their countries like one big sweatshop, and now they have a higher standard of living than we do. The most telling example of all is Hong Kong—the world's archetypal sweatshop; the place where, if someone does not work, he starves. Hong Kong now has a higher average income per head than we do.
  If we want to increase our standard of living faster than our competitors, we are going to have to work, not in Government-created jobs, not in infrastructure schemes, but in jobs which will win back our share of world markets. There is plenty of demand in world markets; the problem is our ability to compete.
  If sweatshops are synonymous with wealthshops, I am all in favour of this country becoming a wealthshop where by the sweat of our brow we can once again become the workshop of the world; where our compassion for the dignity of man allows every one of our fellow citizens to climb the ladder of earnings and where no one in government wants to take away the most vital of all rungs of the ladder, the first rung.
  5.38 am
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) on the timeliness of the subject he has chosen.
  It seems to me that the arguments are absolutely clear. The wages councils are an anachronism. They have failed in their purpose. They have been defended with fairly colourful rhetoric by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who seem to be the entire representation that the Labour party has been able to muster on this important matter. It has been the rhetoric of sweated labour and exploitation that we have heard, and precious little else. But the reality is that of protecting the interests of Britain's poorest paid. The reality is that these wages councils have destroyed jobs for young people and

  405
  have rewarded the semi-skilled at the expense of the unskilled, the ethnic minorities and the most vulnerable section of the work force.
  I do not want to go, into all the absurdities in the make-up of the wages councils; there is not time for that. But progress has been made and I am delighted to see that we have got rid of the hair, bass and fibre trade wages council and that the wholesale mantle and costume manufacturers wages council has gone. I see that we still have the ostrich, fancy feather and artificial flower wages council and apparently it is necessary to have a wages council for the 200 people who are employed in making coffins.
  However, despite the fact that the members of those wages councils are appointed by Government and that they and the inspectorate to enforce them are financed by the taxpayers, they are apparently independent. They can and do impose wage levels that they think right, and the efforts of the present Government and of their predecessors to restrain pay levels have at times been freely ignored. Ignored, too, have been the interests of the small business man and smaller employers. Wages awards are written in complicated and quite incomprehensible language, leading to frequent mistakes.
  While Opposition Members have tried to argue that the success of wages councils lies in the inspectors having identified cases of underpayment, all too often the fault lies in the misreading of difficult and detailed documents by overworked bosses rather than any deliberate or malicious attempt to hold down wages. Indeed, in some cases, inspectors have treated as underpayment private arrangements made to suit an employee's special needs. If the hon. Member for St. Helens, North says that there is no evidence, I can only imagine that he has not bothered to read the welter of particular cases produced by the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, and other bodies.
  One case that struck a chord with me was that of a small business—a restaurant owner who had decided to close his restaurant. The manageress said that she would take a pay cut if he would keep it going for another year, which he agreed to do. Shortly afterwards, the inspector arrived, and subsequently fined him for failing to pay the laid-down rate. The low-paid were protected and looked after because the restaurant closed down and the manageress lost her job.
  Mr. Evans: Name the restaurant.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman proves my point. He has not bothered to read the material from the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses. If he would like to borrow mine, he can read it for what remains of the debate. He makes a cheap point by trying to get me to name the individuals concerned, and he can find the case for himself.
  It is significant that the arrears that are paid following visits by inspectors are generally small, covering relatively few workers, and lead to only a handful of prosecutions. At £4 million a year, it costs substantially more to operate the system than the £2 million or so that it recovers for underpaid workers.
  Further criticisms that need to be made concern the attitudes — my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made this point vividly —of the so-called independent members of the councils.
  406
  They are usually academics, they seem to have little understanding of the real world in which businesses have to operate, and they have insufficient sympathy with the problems of making an enterprise pay. There is a tendency to appoint the same people to the councils, as with all quangos, and the number of individuals sitting on more than one is staggering.
  However, it is the effect of wages councils on pay and employment that is the fundamental criticism. Research carried out in 1979–80 for the Department of Employment suggests that the wages councils have had little effect on levels of pay, employment or trade union membership. Other evidence suggests that in some areas, particularly in the employment of young people, wages have been raised above market levels, leading to a loss of jobs.
  I do not understand the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). If it is true that raising wage costs in a business will result in fewer young people being employed, why.is it not also true of older people? Why is it not true of people who represent particular groups in society who find it difficult to find employment? The logic of his position seems unsustainable. I cannot help thinking that in trying to justify a pragmatic solution, he has got himself into difficulties.
  In 1945 wages councils set youth pay at 30 per cent. of adult levels. Today it is 62 per cent., despite several studies that have concluded that that increase in young people's pay leads to disproportionate increases in youth unemployment. In April 1970 only 12 per cent. of those aged 18 were receiving adult rates of pay, but by April 1980 the figure had risen to 53 per cent.
  Low pay is not something that should be denigrated in itself—it is often a road to high pay. The patronising attitude of the Opposition to those with low pay must be heard to be believed. They want to see a pool of people who are permanently low paid being looked after by some regulatory body, whereas we want an opportunity for people to be brought into employment, to be given the opportunity to learn new skills and to be able to advance their role within the labour market — a constantly changing group of people who are taking jobs at low levels of pay rather than a permanent group who remain at that level and are looked after by some apparatus of the state.
  Even the TUC has admitted that there must 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. In addition, every extra complication that is imposed on small businesses reduces their willingness to take on permanent employees. Not only are the regulations complicated and the attention of the inspectors a further time-consuming nuisance, but the awards themselves are often backdated, which makes financial control and discipline extremely difficult.
  In fairness, it was suggested that wages councils had a role to play in preventing unfair competition. It is competition that actually creates jobs and wealth. Unfair competition and the role that wages councils play in that means keeping inefficient managers in their jobs; keeping down the flexibility and the innovation in firms and preventing businesses from being able to win new markets and create further employment.
  I believe that wages councils have survived because of what people believe they do rather than because of any objective assessment of their benefits. They may have been an understandable response to the sweat workshops

  407
  of the 19th century; they may have made some sense in a society with poor communications which left workers unaware of wage levels elsewhere, let alone able to move to better locations; but in today's world they are an unnecessary nuisance. At best they do little more than reflect the market and at worst they distort it to the detriment of the weakest members of society, creating unemployment where none need exist.
  One thing is certain: wages councils have failed utterly in their task of eliminating low pay. The Low Pay Unit recently produced figures that show that 100 years ago 10 per cent. of the British work force earned only 68.6 per cent. of the then average wage—today the bottom tenth earn only 68·3 per cent.
  If we are to rid ourselves of these relics of an Edwardian era, we must give the International Labour Organisation a year's notice of our intentions. The case for abolishing wages councils is clear and has been repeated over the years. This Government have in the past prided themselves on taking decisions that were unpopular because they believed that they were right. The time is fast approaching —I hope that tonight's debate will have helped—when the same courageous stand will need to be taken over wages councils.
  5.50 am
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is all too often that debates take place in which all the arguments are deployed by Conservative Members and we hear nothing from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), realising the inadequacy of his argument, took refuge in incoherence. It was an occasion when one had the greatest sympathy for those who compile the Official Report. They have the unenviable task of trying to make head or tail of such speeches.
  There can be no greater contrast between the speeches in this debate than that of the hon. Member for Garston and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). We look forward to reading the latter in Hansard the day after tomorrow. I am sure that we shall find the contents of my hon. Friend's speech rather more digestible in print than it is possible to find them in a debate of this sort.
  I share the astonishment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) about one part of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, which I believe I understand correctly. If the fixing of a minimum wage creates youth unemployment, why does that not have the same result for adults? I suppose that part of the reason for this is that youth wages are fixed at a higher than market clearing level than the level for adults. There is a differential between the two, but in principle there is the same fixing of minimum wages. Unemployment, albeit to a greater or lesser proportion or extent, is nevertheless created. If we are against unemployment, as all my right hon. and hon. Friends are, the logic of my hon. Friend's argument is that wages councils should be abolished and not merely radically reformed.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: Yes, but there is not much time remaining to us.
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall take the duration of my intervention from my time to reply to the debate. It seems that my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr.
  408
  Hamilton) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) have confused themselves over proportionality. If the relationship of youth pay to adult pay has moved from 30 per cent. to 60 per cent., it might be halved. My hon. Friends have not suggested that the adult minimum rate should be halved.
  Mr. Hamilton: These relationships are not necessarily absolutely proportional. I have no idea of the elasticities that are involved. Surely the principle is the same if wages are fixed above market clearing levels, whether for youth employment or adult employment. Logic suggests abolition and not merely reform.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State seemed to be asking my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) to quantify the relationship between youth wages and adult wages in the wages council area and outside. In wages council industries, youngsters earn 66 per cent. of the adult wage whereas in the non-wages council sector they earn only 53 per cent. That is the gap that we are discussing.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. The labour market is like any other market and it responds to the price mechanism. If the price of labour is fixed at an artificially high level, the demand for it will fall. That is something that Keynes well understood. In the "General Theory of Employment Interest and Money" he stated:
  "With a given organisation, equipment and technique, real wages and the volume of output (and hence of employment) are uniquely correlated so that, in general, any increase in employment can only occur to the accompaniment of a decline in the rate of real wages. Thus I am not disputing this vital fact which the classical economists have (rightly) asserted as indefeasible."
  All the so-called Keynesian guff that we hear about expanding the economy and investing in infrastructure as a means of reducing unemployment seems to miss the fundamental reality that the main cause of unemployment is micro-economic and nothing to do with the failure of demand. The situation is different from that which prevailed in the 1930s when unemployment was a monetary phenomenon. If we are to make inroads into unemployment, we must concentrate on the micro-economic causes, one of which is the existence of wages councils.
  The effect of the activities of the wages councils has been to discriminate against those who are the least skilled and the least productive in society. Their effect has been to institutionalise the benefits to those who are employed at the expense of those who are unemployed. That is fundamentally unacceptable and, indeed, immoral. That is why we should opt for the abolition of the wages councils and not for fundamental reform.
  Wages councils have effects upon employment because they affect wages and influence a host of other matters as well. In particular, they have substantially increased youth unemployment because the qualifying age for the adult rate has been reduced as a result of wages council activity over the years. The evidence for that is clearly set out in the booklet from the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, to which reference has been made several times in the debate.
  Wages councils have also affected entitlement to holidays. That, too, affects the costs of a business and thus the number of jobs that it can provide. It also greatly adds to the complexities facing small business men. I could cite

  409
  many examples. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) would no doubt describe them as anecdotal, but they are none the less real and substantiated. For example, a stationer in Liverpool, says:
  "After a visit by the wages inspector I have discovered that, due to my incomprehension of the Retail Wages Council publications, I have underpaid two employees. They have contracts for 37½ hours per week and have been paid for that time. But in the 'definition' section, a 'full-time worker' is one employed for at least 36 hours a week. Under the 'guaranteed weekly remuneration' provisions, however, the weekly remuneration is based on workers' entitlement for 40 hours. Consequently, they have been 'underpaid' for 2½ hours per week which they did not work."
  That is absurd and cannot possibly be justified. No fundamental reform of the wages councils will get rid of those anomalies. The only way to get rid of them is to abolish the whole institution.
  There are other equally absurd anomalies. For example, it almost beggars belief that a part-time employee in a hotel working Monday, Wednesday and Friday is entitled to pay on most bank holidays whereas one who works Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday is not. What on earth is the justification for that ridiculous state of affairs?
  The only way to do away with that catalogue of absurdities is to do away with the institution itself. In so doing, we shall be recognising that the whole institution is based on an unreality which has very damaging effects on those in society least able to look after themselves. That is the paradox of the institution. The intention behind the setting up of wages councils was, of course, benign—to try to increase artificially the income levels of employees in certain industries and trades. In so far as they have achieved that—and it is doubtful whether there has been any substantial effect in that respect—it has been at the expense of those who are even worse off. That being so, I find it difficult to understand how Socialists can support such an institution.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, North said that there was no empirical evidence to prove the case against wages councils. In fact, there is a wealth of evidence, much of it in a document on "The Case for Abolition" published by the Institute of Directors. I commend that document to the hon. Gentleman, as it considers the academic evidence published in learned journals throughout the world. There is no time to go into the details, as we are all anxious to here my hon. Friend the Minister reply to the debate, but there is a considerable body of evidence from the United States and from other countries with minimum wage legislation showing the damaging effects of wages councils and that minimum wage regulations actually institutionalise unemployment.
  If we are, as a party, to recover our respect, which in many parts of society has been damaged by unacceptably high unemployment which, alas, has grown upon us in the past 20 years, we must accept that we can begin to reduce unemployment only if we look to the root causes. The root causes are labour market regulations and institutions which prevent people from putting into effect their desire to employ other people. That is why the Government's opportunity to denonouce the ILO convention is important for us as a party, no less than as a country. I counsel my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to take the radical course, which is right for a Conservative Government in this difficult economic climate, to abolish
  410
  wages councils and not to mess around with any unacceptable compromise which would only reduce the beneficial effects that the Government wish to achieve.
  6 am
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I am a little surprised at your sums, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is probably because I have sat here longer than any Back Bencher and applied for this debate. I have been in the Chamber since the middle of the previous debate and have still not been called. I wonder—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not reflecting on the Chair. If he is, I must ask him to withdraw such a reflection.
  Mr. Fallon: It is the Chair which selects the order of hon. Members who speak. I wonder whether you—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter is entirely at the discretion of the Chair. There are many factors that the Chair has to take into account. The hon. Gentleman must not reflect on whom the Chair calls to speak.
  Mr. Fallon: I am simply emphasising that it is a matter for the Chair. That is no reflection on the occupant of the Chair. It is obviously a matter for the discretion of Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you were surprised that the Opposition could not draw more than 0·5 per cent. of their parliamentary strength for this debate or that we could muster only my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) to question abolition.
  I am not ashamed to speak in favour of the abolition of wages councils, partly as a matter of principle but certainly not in opposition to trade unionism. I often wonder why the Labour party does not see the potential for some unionisation after abolition. I favour abolition only because I want more people to be in work especially young people in depressed areas of the country. The whole and sole effect of wages councils is to price people out of work.
  Wages councils fail to give workers more money, and jobs that we might have expected have not been created. It is no part of the abolitionist's duty to prove that a given number of jobs might have ceased to exist because of wages councils. The numbers out of work should prove the case, as should the ratio of young people out of work. In the late 1960's it was similar to the national average, but it is now almost double the national average.
  Others have emphasised the irrelevance of the low pay argument in this debate. Those who argue that the abolition of wages councils is linked to low pay ignore the fact that what matters to the average family is not low pay but low income. The draft Council of Europe definition is a definition of low income. It is vulnerable because it is a definition of an average. There will always be low pay—under 66 per cent. of the average—so that definition should not affect what we say.
  If we want to tackle poverty, low pay or whatever the Opposition want to call it, we should improve job prospects rather than raise pay levels. Where jobs are not relevant, other things can be done, such as providing proper benefit for those who are retired, for single parent families, and so on.
  My major objection to wages councils is that they are discriminatory. It is not that they price people generally out of work, but that they particularly exclude from work the most disadvantaged people — the youngest, the

  411
  unskilled and the poorest. Retail trades would most easily take on young people in the north of England. The unskilled do not normally enrol on Government training schemes, they need work experience and they are being denied the chance to acquire disciplines and skills by the wages council system. The poorest are effectively thrown out of work each time that the councils' minimum wage is raised.
  Of those three categories, I am most worried about the youngsters. It is said that youngsters will not work for a particular wage. That is not true when one considers the number of youngsters who enrol willingly on the young workers scheme, and who are prepared to accept a wage of £26 a week on the youth training scheme. It is nonsense for hon. Members to say what youngsters will or will not work for.
  The youngsters have not been free to say what they will do. Whatever system we believe in, our one duty to them is to give them the chance to decide for themselves. If they are not willing to work for £40 a week and prefer to stay on the dole for £26 a week, they have nothing to lose, but if they are, they can price themselves into work.
  Secondly, by ending the wages council system, we would end a limit on growth. About 86 per cent. of employees covered by wages councils are in the services sector. Those are the services that are expanding and creating new jobs—catering, retailing, hairdressing and so on. In ending that limit on growth, we would be freeing business. Just as important as the nearly 3 million workers covered by the councils are the 400,000 establishments and the 260,000 employers who would by abolition be freed from interference, such as the regulation of overtime, rest days, holiday entitlement and hours of work. It is enormously important to sweep that away.
  The consultative paper has a further importance. Although it is flimsy—a mere 24 paragraphs covering five pages of typescript—it represents a change in the approach of the Department of Employment, away from the head counting and macro-economic approach to industrial relations. I hope to see a change in attitude and approach towards a framework of labour market policies, which genuinely free employment in the labour markets and which will lead us on to tackle the restrictive practices in the labour markets, to relax rent controls, to recapture the jobs in the black economy and to make a reality of the right to work in our society. I hope that it would go some small way towards tackling the paradox that there is plenty of work, but remarkably few jobs.
  6.9 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley)rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Bottomley: What a pity!
  One of the advantages that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and with the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) is that discussing the statutory minimum wage rates set by wages councils of about £60 or £70 a week makes a fair contrast with what we discussed earlier in relation to the printing industry, when we were told that some people earned £700 a week for half a week's attendance. But I do not wish to
  412
  use my time discussing that. Although we shall no doubt return to the subject of wages councils, low pay, low incomes, and the overlap between the two, I wish to try to deal with some issues today.
  Without the interventions of the hon. Members for St. Helens, North and for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), at one stage in the debate it may have been thought that Conservative Members were a pale imitation of the Labour party in one of its friendlier moods. That would be an error. It is important to recognise, as most hon. Members who have spoken do, that there are serious issues underlying the Government's determination to create job opportunities and to ensure that unmet needs and resources are put together by voluntary association — between customer and supplier or between employer and employee.
  Any of my hon. Friends who believe that their eloquence or oratory will persuade me to announce tonight that the Government have taken a decision on the consultative paper will be disappointed. We expect to receive comments on the paper by 31 May, and after we have gone through the consultation process, we shall announce decisions. But for those who may have been misled by some newspaper reports about possible differences within the Government, perhaps I could refer the House to column 107 of the Official Report for 25 March, where my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about,
  "the proposal radically to reform the wages councils." —[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 107.]
  I should tell the House that, had he had more time to reply to the debate, he would have said that another option is to abolish them. The Government stand four-square behind what we see as the two proper options facing the House and the country.
  Last year or the year before, I spoke in a debate about low pay. When I re-read my speech after I took responsibility for answering questions on low pay, I discovered that I was not embarrassed by what I said before I became a Minister.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman must be unique in the Tory party.
  Mr. Bottomley: There are those who say that I got this position as a reward for bad behaviour and consistency.
  Mr. Michael Brown: What did my hon. Friend say about fluoride?
  Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that my hon. Friend would have quoted anything that I had said on fluoride. But having listened to him at this hour of the morning on the subject of fluoride, I am tempted to pay less attention to some of his remarks, knowing that he can speak at great length about matters in which I am sure he does not really believe. Most Members of Parliament have been shown to have said one thing on one occasion and another thing on another occasion, as my hon. Friend has demonstrated.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) said that he did not believe it was possible to get rid of the anomalies without wholesale abolition. If we chose the option of keeping an adult minimum hourly rate, all anomalies would disappear. All that would be left would be possibly a market distorting or matching adult rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) put forward a rather more balanced description of the issues facing the Government. Although there were accusations of "planting" to him and to those of my hon. Friends who

  413
  advocate wholesale abolition, anyone who reads this debate in the context of the Budget debates, especially Monday's debate when some of my hon. Friends gave their views on the options, will discover that they came down not especially in favour of wholesale abolition.
  There is an area to be debated, but it must be debated not just in one party or only in Parliament, because nearly 3 million people are, or might be, directly affected by wages councils as they work full or part-time in wages council industries. But there are also more opportunities for more people to get jobs, if we make the right decision and if the right consequences follow. The latter are not just market forces, because effective market operation requires information and something that could be called enterprise, confidence or risk-taking. People need to believe that if there is a change in the law, it is likely to stick, which means trying to avoid some of the issues in rent control, to which hon. Members have referred. Measures in that sector have not had the impact that they should have had because people have not had the confidence that they would stick.
  The hon. Member for Garston said that he almost relished the idea of the abolition of the wages councils. If he is right, perhaps there will not be too much opposition from the Labour party. We are in the slightly paradoxical situation in which the trade unions and the Labour party believe that the Government want to abolish the wages councils wholesale, and many of my hon. Friends believe that we do not. Perhaps both sides are right, and what I say about us making up our mind after we have had the responses is what matter.
  A good deal of attention has been concentrated on the wages councils issues. I recommend to those who will read our debates various documents that they should also read. One is the consultative paper itself, which, although it is brief, could not be described, except in the physical sense, as flimsy. It is one of the best papers that the Government have produced, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the subject.
  I also recommend the research note from the House of Commons Library, which is up to the Library's usual standard, and covers the ground well. For those who want to go a little further, there is a book by F. J. Bayliss, called "British Wages Councils", which is unfortunately out of print and was produced in 1962. It is interesting to see that at that time the country was facing the problem of over employment. If we managed to go from 1962 to 1985 and change the situation in a dramatically harmful way for many people who want to go to work but cannot, we should, within the same period of time or less, be able to reverse the process. I know that the House will expect the Government to show a little more of their thinking, during the next few days and weeks.
  A good booklet, which has been mentioned once or twice is called "Still Priced Out! Wages councils versus economic recovery", which is by the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses. I caution some of its readers and my hon. Friends that the underlying issue, in terms of dividing up nominal demand into growth and inflation, depends not just on what happens in wages council sectors but, more crucially, on the majority of people who are paid more than most of those in wages council sectors.
  414
  Three other articles are relevant. One is an article in The Observer on 24 March by Peter Kellner, talking about how my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposals on national insurance contributions can add to the expectations for extra jobs and lower unemployment, especially with the impact on younger people in full-time work. He singles out retail business, hotel and catering, textiles, clothing and footwear among others. All these industries are in wages council sectors, and if one can give a double boost to employment opportunities in the sectors covered by wages councils, the insurance contribution changes, both for the employer and the employee, and the possible changes in the wages councils will make a good deal of difference.
  For those who still doubt the impact of pay and jobs, especially among young people, there is an article in The Financial Times of 26 March, by Philip Bassett, describing what has happened in the electrical contracting industry.
  I am sure that my hon. Friends will not mind if I do not pick up every point that they have made. Some of my hon. Friends as total abolitioners have put their case across in a way that is likely to attract the support of unemployed people looking for the bottom rung of the ladder. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) made that good point. Some have put a case that would convince the Conservative activists at a party conference, but that may be going down the line already set out by the Labour party, which is how it gets its approach to the country wrong, not to mention its approach to economic problems wrong. 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 it would be difficult to defend.
  One needs to consider the conditions when the trade boards were originally set up. Towards the end of the last century, a House of Lords Select Committee characterised the "sweat" industries as those with unhygienic and unsafe conditions, very long hours and extremely low pay. Two-thirds of those who are covered by wages council orders now are part-time workers. The conditions in which people work are covered not by wages councils legislation but by other legislation. Those protections would remain, even if the Government were to propose the total abolition of the wages councils.
  May I go on to point out that it is incredible that businesses are still covered by every single detail of wages council orders which can amount to 30 pages. The point was made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington that, although three times a wages council statutory minimum rate may be paid, if any single condition is worse than that laid down under a wages council order, that employee would appear in the information which has been made available to the House as under-paid, and his employer would appear as one who under-paid.
  There is clearly common ground about trying to improve the job prospects of young people. It is also quite clear that there are anomalies, confusions and complications that need to be tackled. Furthermore, there is the underlying problem of whether to implement radical reforms or total abolition. I hope that the debate will go wider than the one that has taken place during the last two hours and 59 minutes, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friends could arrange for future debates on this subject to take place at a rather better time of the night.

  415
  Whatever decision we eventually take, I should like to pay a big tribute to those who serve on the wages councils, especially the independent members, and to the wages inspectorate which does a very difficult job in a sensitive way. Both have served the country well. It is up to the House to decide what their future roles should be, but for the work that they do I thank them.

  Voluntary Sector
  6.23 am
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I am glad to have the opportunity to introduce a debate on the voluntary sector. The paucity of attendance in the House this morning and the fact that the few hon. Members who are in the Chamber seem to be leaving does not, I am sure, reflect any anxiety about the quality of the speeches in the forthcoming debate, which no doubt will be of the highest order. Nor, I hope, does it reflect the view that the subject which we are about to debate is other than of great importance.
  The voluntary sector is not only a very important subject for debate; it is also a very large one. Very few people, if any, complete their journey through life without contact with the voluntary sector at some stage. It may be through active contact as a volunteer, or financial support as a donor, or as the user of services provided by a voluntary organisation. As it is for individuals, so it is for the state. Very few Government Departments can conduct their business from the beginning of one year to its end without coming into contact with the voluntary sector.
  The Home Office is this morning represented on the Front Bench by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), who, I understand, has responsibility within the Home Office for the voluntary services unit, a unit that is very much involved with the development of the voluntary sector. The Home Office has legal responsibilities for charities. Through its responsibility for prisons, immigration and race relations, the Home Office also deals with a range of voluntary organisations.
  Other Government Departments are also involved with the voluntary sector. The Treasury has an interest in charities and tax concessions. The Department of Education and Science has an extensive interest, not only in special and higher education, but in research. That Department gives direct financial support to many voluntary organisations for young people.
  The Department of Employment is involved in community programmes, many of which impinge upon the voluntary sector. The Department of the Environment has a wide involvement through its work on inner city projects and with housing associations, local authorities, sport and historic buildings organisations. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office deals with overseas aid, in which voluntary agencies have a major role. Such agencies are free from political constraints and can do things which Governments cannot do.
  The voluntary sector is also heavily connected with the DHSS. Organisations interested in health, disability, retired people and so on work with the DHSS. Even the Department of Trade and Industry — a less likely candidate—has a relationship with the voluntary sector through the Citizens Advice Bureaux and various consumer bodies. The Department of Transport deals with transport for disabled people. Even the Ministry of Defence has a relationship with the voluntary sector through its dealings with organisations helping former service personnel, such as the Royal British Legion.
  That is not a comprehensive list. The Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and other Departments are also involved. When I came sixth in the ballot for today's debates, a Minister from another Department told me that he might

  417
  be responsible for answering the debate because of the extent of his Department's involvement with the voluntary sector.
  It can faithfully and truthfully be said that the voluntary sector enriches our national life through its diversity, its innovative nature, and its capacity to attract and harness the talents and enthusiasm of many individuals. We should not shrink from acknowledging that the existence of the voluntary sector removes a burden from the state and saves money for the taxpayer by reducing the cost of providing services.
  Celebrating that happy circumstance does not mean abandoning the Government's absolute responsibility to provide and finance a basic framework for education, health and social services, nor does it involve any weakening of the Conservatives' commitment to continue that provision. If using the voluntary sector cuts the cost to the taxpayer and releases resources which can be redirected to the most needy, the Government would be derelict in their duty if they failed to seize the opportunity.
  The voluntary sector enriches the nation's life and brings greater fulfilment to many individuals. Participation in voluntary work is a source of inspiration and satisfaction to many. When I was still working in the City, I was a volunteer with the North Islington nursery School Trust. I was a trustee, and we set up a project to enable children of nursery school age from one-parent families to use a nursery school's facilities during the long summer holiday. My enthusiasm for that project communicated itself so much to my wife that she suggested that I should take a full-time job which would give me the opportunity to do that type of work more frequently. It was that which about a year later led to my applying for and being appointed as director of the Spastics Society.
  Three characteristics strike me most forcefully about the voluntary sector. First, it is very large. Estimates of the annual expenditure range up to 3 per cent. of gross national product. These figures are difficult to be precise about, but there are thought to be over 100,000 people employed in the voluntary sector, besides the millions of volunteers. The second characteristic is the diversity of the voluntary sector. As the range of departmental responsibilities shows, nearly every aspect of life is covered. All age groups are involved. The voluntary sector is active at home and abroad.
  The third characteristic is the innovative nature of the voluntary sector. From the time when the Churches were the first organisations to carry the message of European civilisation into other continents, through the post-war period when organisations such as the Spastics Society pioneered the new attempts to educate children who had previously been written off as ineducable because of their handicap, right up to the present day when a small charitable organisation called Comet is now harnessing microtechnology for the benefit of physically handicapped youngsters—at each stage the voluntary sector has had a fine record of innovation and initiative. It has often blazed a trail which the state has then followed. It has gone down routes which properly the state would not have pioneered on its own.
  The voluntary sector also performs many functions which could not otherwise be undertaken. I give the example of the huge sums which are raised and spent on
  418
  medical research, cancer research and so on. The relationship between the voluntary sector and the Government—this is where we come to the nub of the debate—generally speaking has been a constructive one. Broadly speaking, there is, happily, a bipartisan approach politically. There is an attitude of co-operation on the part of all Governments. But in my view there is considerable scope for improvement in that relationship.
  A number of questions are asked with increasing frequency. For example, where the voluntary sector receives finance direct from the Government, does it reflect the Government's own priorities and policy objectives? Is the Government's policy towards the voluntary sector clearly defined and co-ordinated? Is the voluntary sector sufficiently accountable for what it does? How could the voluntary sector obtain more support from business, and so on?
  To understand those questions and to explore the answers, it is necessary to look at the relationship, particularly the financial relationship, between the state and the voluntary sector. There are three aspects to this relationship. First, there are the considerable tax concessions enjoyed by those voluntary organisations which are charities — and, of course, that is not all voluntary organisations, because some are not charities—embracing freedom from pretty well every kind of tax except VAT, on which I will touch later. Those concessions allow voluntary organisations a far greater use of their own financial resources and a greater facility to raise funds than they would have if they were not enjoying that status.
  Those concessions are a way in which Government promote the voluntary sector generally. They do not discriminate, except, of course, where organisations fail to achieve charitable status. The precise value of these concessions is difficult to quantify, but I have seen estimates that they are worth perhaps £400 million a year—money that is lost to the revenue.
  The second aspect of the financial relationship is the direct Government aid, grants which go from Government Departments into the voluntary sector. It is not easy to track down precisely how much those grants amount to. Various Members have asked a series of parliamentary questions, but we can only build up a picture in a piecemeal way, partly again because of the number of Government Departments involved. It could be estimated that the value of these grants is about £200 million per annum, although a certain amount depends on definition.
  The third aspect of the financial relationship are those payments which are made by Government for services which they are legally obliged to provide; in other words, services that the Government must themselves provide but which they buy in from voluntary organisations on an agency basis. Most of those payments go from local authorities—such as fees for old people in residential homes or fees for handicapped children who attend special schools run by voluntary organisations — and those payments are a way of implementing Government policy.
  What are the benefits to the Government of using the voluntary sector in this way? First, the general tax concessions promote voluntary giving. They attract resources into the voluntary sector for, say, medical research which otherwise would not be attracted or would have to be funded 100 per cent. by the state. Secondly,

  419
  specific grants made to voluntary organisations, and the payments made for services, should be a way of enabling the Government to get value for money.
  Voluntary organisations are often cheaper in the provision of such services because they have attracted voluntary funds by way of donations and because they enjoy the help of many voluntary workers. I say that there should be a way of getting value for money, but that is not always the case, and I shall return to that subject later.
  The third benefit for the Government is that the existence of the voluntary sector alongside the state provides an element of competition. Sometimes the voluntary sector can show that it does things better than the state. For example, the Tadworth Court children's hospital for the last year has been managed by a new charitable trust with backing in the form of a Government grant from the DHSS, and that hospital is now operating about 20 per cent. more cheaply than when it was part of the National Health Service. It is also attracting more children; more of the beds in the hospital have been used in the last year compared with the previous year, which was its last year as part of the NHS.
  Given that there are these advantages and that they are widely acknowledged, I have four suggestions to improve the relationship between the state and the voluntary sector. These suggestions, if adopted, would, I believe, lead to a successful and substantial expansion of the voluntary sector, to the advantage of everybody.
  My first suggestion concerns the support which business gives to the voluntary sector. This is an area of huge potential. Estimates provided by Business in the Community suggest that at present 0·1 per cent. of the pretax profits of companies in the United Kingdom are devoted to helping the voluntary sector. The comparative figure in the United States, again estimated by Business in the Community, is between 2 and 5 per cent. of pre-tax profits. As the Financial Times commented in August of last year, by comparison with the US the sums here are miserly. Even if we take the bottom end of that range, it looks as though about 20 times more support goes from business in America than it does in this country.
  In drawing attention to that, I do not want to appear critical of business, because many splendid projects are under way. Project "Full Employ", which was started as long ago as 1973 by a group of City institutions and banks, can train up to 1,000 people a year, a large number of them from ethnic minority backgrounds, and it claims a success rate of 75 per cent. in achieving permanent placements.
  Another example is the strong support that we have seen recently for enterprise agencies. The business community supplies these agencies with cash and management, through secondments. An example of that is the joint initiative taken by Legal and General Assurance, Citibank and the Abbey National in their backing of Lenta housing, which is the non-profit making subsidiary of the London Enterprise Agency, which is investing in residential housing in Brixton. Those are a couple of excellent examples, and there are many others.
  I am still left with the strong impression that more could be done. To facilitate the expansion of business involvement, and to promote what might be called corporate social responsibility, three actions should be taken. First, we need to improve the tax incentives for corporate giving. All charitable donations made by a company up to a limit of, say, 10 per cent. of its pre-tax profits should be made tax-deductible. The cost of
  420
  granting such a concession would reduce as corporation tax rates come down to 35 per cent., as announced in the Budget last year.
  At the moment the difficulty for business is that if it wishes to make its donation tax-deductible it has to make the donation under a four-year covenant. Covenants, although a suitable and desirable way for individuals to give money to charity, are less suitable for businesses because the nature of corporate income is that it tends to be less reliable and to fluctuate more than an individual's salary.
  Secondly, we should clarify those activities which are eligible for business help on a tax-deductible basis. That help could be in the form of cash and of management who are seconded. The charitable definition is somewhat restrictive. We have seen this recently. Only at the end of 1983 were organisations promoting harmonious race relations able to achieve charitable status. Even today, an organisation whose sole objective is the reduction of unemployment may encounter difficulty in securing charitable status. So we should either reform or reinterpret charity law to allow a quicker and clearer definition of what constitutes charitable activity.
  Perhaps a faster and simpler solution to the problem would be to identify those areas where corporate expenditure could be made tax-deductible, as it is now for enterprise agencies. After appropriate consultation, the Government could define those areas in which they believed expenditure could be made tax-deductible. It might involve expenditure in inner cities. After all, the business community responded positively to the problems in Liverpool. It might be expenditure designed to reduce unemployment or expenditure on the arts. Some areas could be designated on a permanent basis and others perhaps on a temporary basis, if there were particular problems in a geographical locality as a result of a business withdrawing as a large employer.
  The third change I should like to see to promote business interest in the voluntary sector follows on from the second. If we were to prevent abuses from extending the area to which businesses could contribute on a tax-deductible basis, we should require greater disclosure in the annual reports of those companies that took advantage of the tax concessions. The annual report and accounts would be subject to audit. This could replace the very limited and narrow disclosure which confines itself to a statement on charitable donations.
  If the incentives were improved, I am confident that the business community would respond positively. In my constituency and elsewhere, one consequence of the high level of unemployment is a much greater feeling of responsibility on the part of employed and privileged people, particularly in the business community, towards the problems of the unemployed and the under-privileged. The existence of what we might call a 1 per cent. club of major companies which would pledge themselves to give, say, 1 per cent. of their profits before tax, would, if widely adopted, increase tenfold the level of corporate support.
  I am not advocating here any extra Government funding. It is important to get that clear. To the extent that corporation tax revenue was lost to the Government because of businesses taking advantage of the scheme, since the areas into which the extra payments were made would be identified in the companies' accounts, it would be possible for the Government, if they were providing direct funding in those areas, to reduce their contribution

  421
  correspondingly. In the arts, for example, there might be substantial scope for Government savings if their expenditure was offset by additional business support.
  This would be advantageous because, for every £100 spent by business, the Government would lose only £35 in corporation tax. Therefore, even if they decided to cut their support for that area by the full £35, almost three times as much money would go into the area, because of the contribution made by business. There is a sort of beneficial multiplier effect. The effect would be to reduce total public expenditure, although not to reduce the PSBR, because there would be a matching fall in revenue and expenditure.
  More importantly, this process would transfer decision making to the private sector. I believe that the private sector is generally likely to be more responsive and less bureaucratic than the public sector. Local private sector decisions, with the benefit of some management expertise provided by the business community and injected into the voluntary sector, are likely to produce more cost-effective results than a Government Department sitting in London trying to supervise and monitor the performance of the voluntary organisations to which it gives money. One worthwhile spin-off could be the development of local voluntary trusts of the sort advocated by Mrs. Felicity Craven.
  I may come into slightly more conflict with Government thinking with my next suggestion—that we should remove the remaining tax burden from the voluntary sector. I do not wish to make that a major part of my speech, because my views are already well known. VAT is a real burden on charities. In the 1983 Budget, the inclusion of building alterations for VAT purposes had a major effect on charities. Many charities are unable to acquire new buildings or build from scratch. They are frequently involved in the adaptation of old buildings which may have been received as part of a legacy. A considerable extra tax bill was imposed on charities in the 1983 Budget.
  I have to admit that I overlooked the fact that in the latest Budget the extension of VAT to press advertising represents a further major financial blow to charities which rely heavily on the use of press advertisements for their fund-raising programmes. New organisations and charities that had not previously been worried about VAT, because their activities had mostly taken place abroad, are now concerned with this problem
  VAT is an anomaly for charities, because it is one respect in which they are treated less favourably for tax purposes than commercial companies, which can usually offset their inputs and outputs, and local authorities, for which there is a mechanism for recovery of VAT. It would not be administratively complex to grant relief from VAT, as has sometimes been claimed
  Even if it is impossible for the Government to grant blanket relief from VAT, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to ask Treasury Ministers to look again at the specific shopping list which the Charities VAT Reform Group submitted before the Budget at the Treasury's request. The group suggested that, where VAT is paid on building alterations that are required because of new fire regulations, VAT should be recoverable by charities. VAT remains a real problem and a substantial cash drain.
  422
  My next suggestion for improving the voluntary sector is aimed at the voluntary sector itself, but it has a dimension where Government action could help. It concerns the accountability of voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend the Minister will already be aware of my concern about the lack of accountability of charities and voluntary organisations. Last summer, I introduced a ten-minute Bill which dealt with certain aspects, such as the need for charities to file regular, up-to-date accounts.
  It is astonishing that the public have normally no opportunity to inspect the accounts of charities. Charities over a certain size should be required to have an independent audit of their accounts. Larger charities should have independent qualified audits. There is a need for a compulsory and universal register of all charities, instead of the somewhat incomplete system, which is at present confined to England and Wales. I have previously stressed the desirability of giving financial supporters of charities the right to attend annual general meetings.
  I welcome those aspects of the Charities Bill, which has passed through all its stages in the House of Lords and has received a Second Reading in the House of Commons, that strengthen the accountability of small charities. Last year's report of the evidence received by a House of Lords, Select Committee clearly bore out my previously stated views about the need for greater accountability within the voluntary sector.
  All the issues that I have mentioned in this section could be dealt with by simple legislation and I continue to urge my hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office to consider introducing such legislation during the lifetime of this Parliament.
  I have one other suggestion on the subject of accountability and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will be glad to know that it does not involve any legislation or Government expenditure. It is an initiative which the voluntary sector itself could undertake off its own bat, and it is modelled on existing practice in the United States.
  In the United States there is an organisation called the National Information Bureau which has for many years been providing an advisory service to prospective donors with the aim of, first, maintaining high standards in the voluntary sector and, secondly, aiding wise and well-informed giving. The bureau issues advisory reports on voluntary organisations, evaluating their performance against eight basic standards, which one listed in the leaflet which I have here.
  These relate to the membership of the board of the organisation; the clarity with which the aims of the organisation are stated, whether its programme of activities is relevant to those aims; whether its administrative and management expenses are reasonable; whether its promotional and publicity material is ethically based; whether its fund-raising is conducted in an efficient and proper manner; whether is is adequately accountable—the statements made in its annual report, and so on, are scrutinised; and, finally, whether it draws up an annual budget in a form which is consistent with the other criteria.
  The results of that scrutiny are reports which are of great value to people and companies thinking of making donations — and indeed can be of great value to the organisations themselves—and I believe that we could well follow that model. If in this country large donors were able to link up with a few large charities initially and with appropriate professional help, a suitable list of criteria

  423
  could be compiled for application to voluntary organisations in Britain. Then such organisations could submit themselves on a voluntary basis for scrutiny.
  No legislation or Government funding would be needed for this, although perhaps an advisory input from the VSU or the Charity Commission would he helpful. Provided that the large donors were willing to fund this exercise—it would be in their interests to do so, because they would then be able to make their donations on a more informed basis—the cost, which would anyway be fairly small, would not fall on the charities themselves.
  My fourth, and final suggestion concerns Government rather more directly. It is a plea for a more clearly co-ordinated approach by the Government towards the voluntary sector. Of course, I am not suggesting that there is no co-ordination at the present time. I am well aware of the role of the Voluntary Services Unit and I understand that ministerial meetings do take place from time to time between Departments. Also, I do not want to give the impression that I am seeking some sort of Government-imposed uniformity for the voluntary sector, whose strength lies in its diversity, its plurality and perhaps even its untidiness. But I am concerned that the Government are not necessarily getting the best out of the voluntary sector.
  It appears, for example, that different Departments have a very different approach to the question of how their direct grants should be made. The Department of the Environment appears to have a straightforward approach. I see from a written answer of 10 December 1984 that the Under-Secretary of State said that his Department's grants were intended to assist national and regional voluntary organisations carrying out activities which furthered the Department's policy objectives. There is nothing very surprising or exceptional in that.
  Other Departments have a different, sometimes rather more stringent and narrow, approach. On the face of it, for example, to secure a DHSS grant under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, one has to do more than just carry out activities which further the Department's policy objectives. I know that from experience, having tried to apply for such grants on behalf of the Spastics Society.
  Within the criteria laid down by particular Government Departments, it is not always clear to the outside world why one organisation is selected in preference to another. My own view is that Government support should be concentrated, where possible, on organisations whose work is not particularly eye-catching or emotive, because organisations that have such activities ought to be able to fund them elsewhere.
  In general, smaller organisations should be preferred to larger organisations. I understand that the criteria applied by the VSU are that either it must be a national organisation whose work spans the interests of several Government Departments, or falls outside the interests of one specific Department. Alternatively, it could be a local body engaged in a local project that is innovatory and likely to have national significance, or an organisation working in an area of social priority for which alternative funds are expected to be available in due course. I would be interested if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister elucidated to the House what leads his Department to choose one individual organisation as opposed to another, given that those criteria are satisfied
  I should also be interested to know what comparative measure, if any, is made of the relative efficiency of
  424
  different voluntary organisations. Quite a few organisations receive grants from more than one Government Department. No doubt they serve more than one Department, but it would be interesting to know what, if any, co-ordination takes place between the two or more Departments that are funding the same organisation.
  Before I came to the House, in the days when I was engaged in full-time work in the voluntary sector, many of the voluntary organisations that I talked to found the process of applying for grants rather confusing. The criteria for success were hard to understand. The decision-making process, on occasion, was rather slow. That concern remains today.
  I should like to mention one current applicant without, I hope, damaging its chances for a Department of Health and Social Security grant. It is the Campaign for Mentally Handicapped, a small organisation that does unemotive work. It is doing research into the ways in which mentally handicapped people can be brought out into the community. It is not involved in the provision of services, but is working in an area of stated Government priority. I find it hard to understand why a fairly small application for such an organisation should encounter much resistence when larger organisations, the work of which might be thought to be rather more emotive or appealing to private donors, appear to achieve ready success in large applications to the DHSS.
  Therefore, there is sometimes a question mark over the coherence of the Government's policy towards the voluntary sector. That also applies at the macro level. For example, is proper attention paid to the potential role of the voluntary sector when new Government policies are determined? Are we making as much use as we could of the voluntary sector in fighting unemployment?
  Let me take a specific example. The Government's policy on care in the community, widely supported, involves many voluntary organisations whose normal relationship would be with Departments other than the DHSS, which is the lead Department for that policy. Housing associations and bodies concerned with sheltered housing have a function relating to the care in the community policy. Transport and employment organisations do. All those bodies, as well as the DHSS-related voluntary organisations, could be involved. Is there a stage at which the impact of the voluntary sector on a policy such as care in the community is discussed interdepartmentally? Is it at an early stage? Such discussion would be needed if the Government were to get the best value for money from the voluntary sector.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: If my hon. Friend does not have this information, perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will supply it later. When the Voluntary Services Unit was originally established in the Civil Service Department, there was regular liaison between officers at assistant secretary level, in Government Departments, during which such matters were regularly discussed. I am ignorant as to whether it continues, but if it does not, I wonder whether it would be a good idea to revive it.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not know the answer to that question, but no doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to enlighten us when he replies to the debate.
  I summarise my four suggestions. First, I suggest more business involvement — the promotion of corporate

  425
  social responsibility. Secondly, I suggest the removal of the remaining tax burden. Thirdly, there should be greater accountability in the voluntary sector, and, fourthly, better co-ordination of Government policy.
  My final point concerns the Local Government Bill, which will be debated in the House later this week. Real concern has been expressed by the voluntary sector about the consequences of the abolition of the Greater London council. I hope that the Government will pay heed to it. Of course, it is high time that we stopped wasting taxpayers' and ratepayers' money on many of the absolutely loony organisations that have been supported by the GLC. But let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. We must make sure that the important work that is done by genuine organisations, which is funded by the GLC, is able to continue.
  The voluntary sector already plays a very distinguished, valuable and major part in our national life. I believe that that role could be further developed and expanded, and the suggestions that I have made this morning are designed to achieve that end.
  7 am
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on raising an important issue, even though he has the misfortune to do so at this time of the morning. I listened with interest to what he said and noted his comments about the size of the voluntary sector, its diversity and its innovative nature.
  The voluntary sector can sometimes be local and sometimes national—it can even be international. At all those levels there may be a relationship between the state and a voluntary organisation. I was a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not develop the relationship between voluntary organisations and local authorities. He concentrated more on the national rather than the local level. From what I know of the voluntary sector, a great number of organisations have their main activities at a local level and, to some extent, depend for their funding on local authorities.
  The other dimension is the European social fund. It is another confused set of arrangements and many voluntary organisations are unable to derive full benefit from it. However, that is a subject for another day.
  I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about business support, although he did not tell us why business should find it possible to increase its level of support. I understand the argument about taxation, but there must be a different attitude by business if it is to increase its support for many of these worthwhile activities.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more than we do about what would make business more energetic. Before I entered the House I was involved in a community relations council. We had the support of a large multinational organisation, which seconded to us one of its computer executives who moved from the world of selling computer systems to community relations in an inner-city area. It was a tremendous shock to him, but also, I hope, of great benefit to his subsequent business career. Alas, that does not happen often. I am not convinced that many organisations would be so generous as to second their staff.
  426
  I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the VAT burden. The voluntary sector has four specific advantages and four things to offer which the state—either through central or local government—cannot easily emulate. The first is the experimental and innovative nature of much voluntary work. At a local level it is impressive how voluntary organisations can experiment and try new things that a local authority would find it hard to do.
  Secondly, there is the speed of response by the voluntary sector. It can get projects off the ground very quickly while the state, understandably, finds that more difficult.
  Thirdly, a voluntary or community organisation has a particular strength as it can involve local people in its activities in a way that a local authority seldom can. It can achieve a level of commitment and interest which is healthy for a community. This is because it makes it feel that a project or activity belongs to it and not to a remote town hall or to central government. That is a great strength of voluntary organisations. If it is developed, it gives them the ability to call on a wider range of support in the community and to get more people involved, or to have a better awareness of the problems in the community. By having so many feelers in the local area, there is an ability to understand quickly and sensitively what is happening.
  Lastly — I do not press this argument too strongly when we have a Government who are trying to cut public expenditure all over the place—some of the community groups and organisatons provide good value for money in what they are able to achieve. It should be remembered that they often operate on a shoestring.
  Unfortunately, there are a number of difficulties. The hon. Member for Suffolk, South indulged in the familiar game of knocking the GLC. I think that he knows better than to do that really. If we were to go through the list of projects and voluntary organisations that are supported by the GLC, the difference between us would probably be confined to 1 per cent. of all GLC grants. I am not conceding that the 1 per cent. are wasteful or loony, as I think the hon. Gentleman described them. I am saying that the bulk of the money that is provided by the GLC is not directed to controversial areas. It is channelled to worthwhile activities and to organisations that are fearful for their future.
  The Minister knows that many organisations in the black community, for example, have been funded by the GLC and have done useful work. That has happened because of the far-sighted work of the GLC. These organisations are extremely concerned about what will happen if the GLC is abolished. No arrangements have been made for their future or for that of the many other organisations that are similarly funded by the GLC.
  The second area of uncertainty is that of urban aid. Many voluntary organisations depend upon it and they face uncertainty because the way in which the funding operates does not give them a guaranteed financial basis in future.
  An area of enormous political controversy between the two sides of the House that comes to the surface at intervals concerns the accusations that are made by Conservative Members that some voluntary organisations are too political in their activities and adopt something of a campaigning stance. I do not wish to spend too much time on this argument. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he did not mention the issue.

  427
  Over the years some voluntary organisations have found themselves in difficulty, and in my opinion unfairly so. By their very nature, organisations that are active in and dissatisfied with the care of the mentally ill, or the provision of legal services in the community, for example, are bound to adopt a somewhat political stance. If there is a feeling that these organisations operate a little to the left of the political centre rather than to the right of it, I do not think that that is a reason for being as hard on them as some Conservative controlled local authorities and some Conservative Ministers have been.
  Mr. Rowe: I take the hon. Member's argument, but I should hate him to feel that that is only because these organisations sometimes have a stance to the left of the political centre. There have been many occasions, especially at local government level, when Labour councillors have found themselves extremely annoyed by what they regard as the political activities of voluntary organisations.
  Mr. Dubs: The hon. Gentleman says so and that must be true, although I cannot think of any examples. However, if I press him to do so he will no doubt want to intervene again to give me some.
  Organisations which have their roots in the community are bound to take a somewhat campaigning stance. It is not sensible for politicians to jump on them immediately if they feel that their local authorities are providing funding. Organisations have to toe the line or at least shut up on some of these issues. I think that that is asking too much of community activists. Mercifully, such criticisms are not made very often, but they surface from time to time.
  Another aspect is the relationship between voluntary organisations and political parties, and indeed the House itself. I suppose that political parties could be defined as voluntary organisations, but I shall not pursue that line. Members of Parliament have cause to be grateful to the voluntary organisations. Many of the all-party groups in the House depend for their ability to function on the generosity of voluntary bodies in providing the secretarial back-up to enable us to be effective Back Bench groups. One thinks of the all-party penal affairs group, the all-party disablement group, the all-party group for pensioners, and so on. In a sense, Parliament is run on a shoestring and we should be grateful that information comes to Members, especially Back Benchers with specialised interests, because voluntary organisations are willing to invest the time necessary to educate Members of Parliament and to keep us properly informed.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: And the political parties.
  Mr. Dubs: In that sense, of course, political parties are voluntary organisations and provide the wherewithal for the operation of our political system. Indeed, I believe that we are not generous enough to them. I should certainly like a different approach to the funding of political parties in this country, but that is wider than the subject with which the hon. Member for Suffolk, South sought to deal.
  Members of Parliament, especially when in opposition, also depend on voluntary organisations for briefing on the details of legislation. Some of them may be something of a red rag to the Minister because they make his life more difficult, but they also make Parliament more effective. The National Council for Civil Liberties, for example, has
  428
  been enormously helpful in alerting Members of all parties to the dangers and anti-civil-libertarian aspects of certain legislation. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants — no doubt the Minister's favourite organisation — provides help for individuals with immigration problems and offers helpful criticism of legislation. There is also the Legal Action Group and dozens of others, all of which help Members of Parliament. Without them our debates would be less well informed, and we should be the poorer for that. I mention that dimension as I should like to express my gratitude to the many organisations which go out of their way to help us and to provide back-up information and briefings at very short notice, although I appreciate that those matters are some distance away from the starting point of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South.
  In conclusion, I believe that voluntary organisations or community groups, however one defines them, play a very important role and I should like to see more generosity to that sector by the Government — and by local authorities, if only they were not inhibited by the lack of Government money and the tight controls imposed on local government by central Government. We need more generosity and more understanding of what the voluntary sector does and the useful role that it has to play.
  An element of certainty in the funding is also necessary because it is unreasonable to expect voluntary bodies to plan ahead and look to the long-term if they do not know from one year to the next whether they have any basis for their operations.
  I am looking to the Minister for a generous response and an understanding of what the voluntary sector does and its important contribution in the community and at national level so that it can operate with a bit more certainty in the knowledge that the Government back what it does, even if they are sometimes critical of some of its activities.
  7.14 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): This has been a good debate and I shall do my best not to spoil it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) raised so many interesting and important issues that his was the type of speech that people will go away and read, digest and make their minds up on rather than come to swift conclusions about. I recognise his expertise and feel humble. As the Minister with my responsibilities but having never worked in the voluntary sector, I am at a disadvantage and have a great deal to learn from my hon. Friend. The House is fortunate to have had the benefit of my hon. Friend's long experience in the world of charities. I shall read carefully all that he said.
  There should be no mistake about the fact that the Government recognise the enormously valuable work done by the voluntary sector. In our 1979 manifesto we referred to our determination to encourage the voluntary movement. Nobody who looks at the figures can doubt that that is what we have done. During the past few years, in the interest of the fight against inflation and the laying of the foundations for economic recovery, there have had to be considerable constraints on public expenditure. In spite of those constraints, Government support for an enormous range of voluntary bodies, embracing the whole gamut of voluntary endeavour, has increased considerably.
  Leaving aside the £300 million spent by the Manpower Services Commission on training and employment

  429
  projects provided by voluntary bodies and considerable grants by non-departmental public bodies such as the Arts Council, Government grants in 1983–84 totalled more than £182 million. That represents an increase in cash terms of 95 per cent. and an increase in real terms of 35 per cent. over 1979–80.
  I have been presented with a table which I am sure is pretty accurate. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that it is not always easy to get accurate figures and to decide what is grant, what is payment for service and the rest. No doubt the table will emerge in Hansard as the answer to a parliamentary question, but if my hon. Friend is interested, I shall let him have it.
  We know less than we should like about local authority funding of voluntary bodies. Taking grants and payments for services together, in 1982–83, social service authorities in England spent about £110 million, but there was less easily identifiable funding for education, the youth service, to ethnic minority groups, the arts, environmental bodies, advice centres—the list is almost endless. We all know examples of local authority grant giving which some of us criticise as being plain eccentric, but the great majority of authorities adopt a thoroughly sensible approach and the great majority of grants have gone to thoroughly useful organisations.
  I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said about that. I agree with him that many local voluntary services are of enormous value and fulfil a unique role that cannot be fulfilled either by central Government or a local authority. They can be sensitive and informal in a way in which a statutory body cannot, they can reach out to those who may be wary of officialdom, and they can help people to tackle the problems of their communities.
  Recently the Government's policies for local government have often been portrayed as a threat to the support by local authorities of voluntary bodies, but once councils have adjusted to their new post-abolition responsibilities and thought how to make the best use of their necessarily limited resources, those fears will be found to be groundless, and we shall find that the voluntary sector has not lost out.
  It would not be appropriate for me to get greatly involved in the debate about abolition, because we shall be talking about little else during the next two days. I merely remind the House that steps have already been taken to strengthen the collective grant giving arrangements. Various undertakings have been given about the reconsideration of the upper limit on collective grant giving. There is also transitional funding and the undertakings given about the targets for successor districts taking into account new responsibilities.
  However, we need to draw in new resources if we are to see even further beneficial expansion of the voluntary sector to all those areas where it has proved itself so able to help the community. That means stimulating support from individuals and the wealth-creating sector of the economy.
  Many charities demonstrate the art of successful fundraising. My hon. Friend, as former director of the Spastic Society, knows all about that. The Government should do what we can to encourage people to give to charities, and to encourage charities and other voluntary bodies to tap the resources which are undoubtedly available. As the
  430
  Government we have introduced increased tax reliefs for charities and tax incentives for donors, and publicised them so that small and large charities can profit from them. My hon. Friend will know about the little booklet "Tax Benefits for Charities" published by Voluntary Services Unit, which provides answers to questions, such as, what changes have the Government made to help charities since 1980, what tax reliefs are available for charities, and what tax incentives are there for donors?
  I am glad that the booklet has had to be reprinted. I am told that the demand for copies shows little sign of falling off. That is therefore a success for VSU. I am glad that it is there to remind people of the changes that we have made. As my hon. Friend said, we have reduced the minimum period of a covenant which qualifies for tax relief to four years. We have exempted direct gifts and bequests to charities from capital transfer tax, and enabled a company to claim tax relief on the salary of an employee while he or she is seconded to a charity. Recently there has been more good news with the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing in his Budget that higher and additional rate tax relief on annual gross covenanted payments will be raised from £5,000 to £10,000.
  My hon. Friend says that there should be more incentives for corporate giving, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear his words in mind. He also asked for further VAT relief for charities. He will have heard this answer before, but it is a fairly good one and should go on the record in view of what my hon. Friend said.
  The main complaint of charities is that they must bear VAT on their non-business purchases, and they have been lobbying for some years for a special refund mechanism. Although limited schemes to benefit some sorts of charities have been put forward from time to time, it is clear from discussions with the VAT Reform Group that, in practice, relief would have to apply to all charities, since no method of discrimination would be acceptable to all charities generally. The number of charities which would seek to benefit from a general relief is estimated as at least 100,000, and its administration would be complicated and expensive in terms of staff.
  The cost in revenue terms would also be significant. Charities would benefit unequally, with controversial charities or those with limited objectives benefiting as much as or more than those with wide public support. In short, indiscriminate VAT relief would be an inefficient and expensive way of helping charities. But the Government recognise the valuable work that they do, which is why they have preferred to use limited resources in other ways, some of which I have just outlined.
  There is a potential for company giving that we have hardly begun to develop. Bearing in mind the fact that by no means all voluntary bodies supported by industry are charities, we must, therefore, treat with a little caution figures that relate only to charities, but I believe the following figures to be pretty startling. They are the figures given by the Charities Aid Foundation, which I am sure my hon. Friend knew when he quoted the other figures from Business in the Community. The Charities Aid Foundation says that the top 200 corporate donors to registered charities gave £34 million in 1982–83, which represents only 0·21 per cent. of profits before tax. In 1983 in the United States of America, corporate contributions amounted to $3·1 billion, which — according to the Charities Aid Foundation, whose mathematics is bound to

  431
  be right—represented 1·51 per cent. of pre-tax profits. The figures given by my hon. Friend are even more disappointing.
  But progress is being made. The fast-growing local enterprise agency movement represents a major voluntary contribution by business in Britain to job creation through help to small businesses and the self-employed. Public-spirited businesses—the sort that join Business in the Community, that help not just their local enterprise agencies, but local environmental or social groups and, indeed, young musicians and artists—are growing in number. The discernment which they show in making their contributions, be it by grant, sponsorship, secondment or other help in kind, is there for all to see.
  We are interested, too, in the idea that experimental community trusts might be able, as in America, to stimulate new giving to charities and charitable groups at local level.
  I have said that the Government have the clear objective of encouraging the voluntary movement; and there are various means — grants, payments for services, fiscal reliefs and other financial advantages and incentives—which we may use, according to circumstances, to help useful organisations and to create the right climate for voluntary sector growth. We have a principle that grants should normally be given by those responsible for policies or services because they can best judge whether the recipients are giving value for money. Our style of grant-giving emphasises the need to ensure that grants go to bodies with the capacity to manage their work cost-effectively and to set and achieve realistic objectives.
  I am not sure how much real scope there is for more co-ordination between Departments. This has always worried me. The VSU is in the Home Office, and I am the Minister with a special concern for the general health of the voluntary sector and our dealings with it. Because of that, I have regular meetings with those of my colleagues whose work brings them in close contact with the voluntary sector. I am not, and could not be, a Minister charged with working out a common policy towards grant giving. My hon. Friend showed how enormously varied are the bodies that are supported by different Departments, and my colleagues know better than anyone else how money can best be spent. We can learn from each other, and by meeting we can try to create conditions in which useful, voluntary bodies can flourish.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Minister has raised an important point about co-ordination, which
  432
  can be a minefield. Referral bodies can be brought in to make the work of parliamentarians easier, and to bring to their attention the problems in their communities. Co-ordination is of prime importance, whether it be with the Home Office, the Department of the Environment or any other. There is a great need for co-ordination that will explain in simple and explicit terms to voluntary organisations the path that they have to follow to gain the advantages that are there to help those bodies to function. There is a great deal of concern about the transitional period that may occur with the abolition of the metropolitan county councils. I hope that the Minister will take on board what he has said about the need for coordination so that th benefits for those who play a useful part in community with referrals will continue.
  Mr. Waddington: It is the responsibility of the Department that is financing a voluntary body to have a close relationship with that body so that there is understanding as to what is intended. I was concentrating on the difficulties of laying down a policy of grant giving to voluntary bodies, which will be appropriate for the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security. I doubt whether it is possible to lay down a policy in that way.
  I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South said about the desirability of funding small rather than large bodies, if I understood the importance of what my hon. Friend was saying, when he said that it was probably better to fund less eye-catching bodies rather than the more glamorous. However, one cannot develop that into a policy for Government, controlling what one particular Department should do. Each Department is aware, or should be aware, of how volunteers and the voluntary sector can help them in the carrying out of their statutory responsibilities, and can fulfil needs that cannot be met by the statutory bodies.
  I hope that what I have said shows that the Government take the question of the relationship between the state and the voluntary sector seriously. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to put on record some of our ideas about this complex, ever-changing but durable relationship. I shall go away from the debate weary, but happy to have listened to my hon. Friend and Labour Members. We sometimes quarrel, though tonight there was a recognition on both sides of the House of the valuable work that is done in the community by the voluntary sector.

  Education
  7.35 am
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Occasions such as this provide an opportunity to release bees from Back Bench bonnets to buzz busily around the Chamber. Sometimes, one hopes, their sound may be heard more widely outside. Sometimes, too, they provide opportunities for the emission of Back-Bench spleen against Ministers, so I am particularly pleased to pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and his team. It is my serious belief that the present Secretary of State could well go down in history as one of the most effective and genuinely reforming Ministers of Education. But the task facing my right hon. Friend and all of us in truly formidable.
  Let me begin by making this point. When a man is encased in plaster from head to foot it is demonstrably absurd to berate him for not moving more easily. An unattractive feature of the present educational debate—I fear that some of my hon. Friends have a share in that unattractiveness—is the widespread readiness to attack teachers. Teachers are immured in a straitjacket made up of institutional rigidities, definitional rigidities and a strangely out-of-date blindness to the whole range of opportunities which would in other circumstances be open to them. They are not, for the most part, idle. Many work very hard indeed, well beyond the narrow terms of their paper contract. But too many of them are weary, stale or disenchanted. It is my purpose in this debate to seek relief for them rather than to denigrate them.
  It is time to move, and to move fast. The Secretary of State has taken a number of bold steps, but there is much more to be done. The report of the National Economic Development Council and the Manpower Services Commission—Competence and Competition—tells us that 50 per cent. of the British workforce has not even the equivalent of one CSE pass. And what employer values one CSE pass? In 1981, 52 to 60 per cent. of our 16 to 18 year-olds were in education, against 86 per cent. in Germany and 91 per cent. in Japan. If I may be allowed to adapt H. G. Wells, British history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
  Yet we do have room for manoeuvre within our present resources, so we must look for a moment at what those resources are. They include, of course teachers. But teachers are faced with the trauma of falling rolls: 7–8 million children in schools in 1984, a projected 7–1 million in 1991. They are faced with stagnation in preferment. It is very hard indeed for the average teacher now to see himself or herself in a post that represents promotion. Teachers are also faced with rigidities in the structure. It is extremely hard and unusual, for all sorts of reasons, for teachers to move between one sector of education and another. Teachers are faced, too, with constant demands for changes in their role.
  To give some examples, many teachers are much less subject oriented than they were when they came out of teacher training college. They are expected to be much more concerned with passing on skills and, in some mystical way, with the growing up of their pupils to an extent which parents used to feel was much more their role than some do now. Teachers have much less authority and much less parental support. As the school leaving age rises, so do the height, weight and truculence of many of
  434
  the pupils. Teachers therefore are regarded with less esteem in society, although they have made tremendous efforts to create an all-graduate profession.
  Teachers and others are unclear about their job definition. In school and out of school, in class and out of class, they are unclear. At the heart of the present unfortunate and unattractive dispute lies an anxiety about the definition of the teacher's role and job.
  Further education is bigger than it has ever been. It involves 80,000 full-time academic staff and an unknown number of part-timers. The Manpower Services Commission is spending more than the whole of the further education budget on tasks which hitherto would have been done by further education rather than some outside organisation.
  There has been an explosion in courses and qualifications. An extraordinary incoherence and obsolescence exists. Many courses and qualifications are too narrowly based, too backward looking and too long in the acquiring. I therefore warmly welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Employment of a full-scale inquiry into qualifications.
  The number of home students has increased by 60,000 since 1979–80. That is encouraging, and yet people on the dole are unable to afford self-improvement, even to meet declared needs in the market, because of the crippling loss of benefit which might result. I hope that the Government will seriously re-examine that aspect urgently.
  Higher education is perhaps our most inefficient sector. It is large with 31,499 full-time staff and 2,739 part-timers. However, causes for anxiety exist. When selecting students, universities depend heavily on "O" levels and head teachers' reports, which almost by definition are biased because it is good for a school if its pupils are accepted by universities.
  The system of "O" levels is also an inadequate basis for assessing whether a student will make a success of university. I know from my experience as a university teacher that one of the most depressing features of teaching in universities is the number of young people who arrive at university with their intellectual curiosity already dead. One carries them through an over-taught course so that they receive a qualification when one should be stimulating and exciting them with intellectual curiosity. Many colleges and universities do not even interview potential students and are wholly dependent upon inadequate selection procedures.
  It is too easy in some subjects and in some universities—but less so in polytechnics—to coast through on the basis of a good schooling. I wonder whether, in an era when young people will have to re-educate themselves throughout their lives, it is necessary to take three or four years to turn out people with only the basis of a qualification to which they will have to add later to be employable. Secondly, they retain too many inadequate students. There is virtually no counselling out of university. At £5,000 to £6,000 per annum, the business of keeping on a student who at the end of the first year is causing enormous anxiety to the course and to the teachers on the course, with the sense at the end of the third of fourth year that any inadequacy that he displays in his examinations is a direct consequence of the incompetence of the teaching so that one feels responsible to the student and allows him to graduate, is not an efficient way of running a part of the education system for which there is still intense competition.

  435
  It is worth reflecting that in the United States as many as 50 per cent. of students drop out, but 35 to 40 per cent. more go to university. It may be that somewhere in that discrepancy between us and the United States there is room for adjustment.
  I believe that in many colleges and universities the examinations procedures are still grossly inadequate. They are too dependent on written tests and on asking what one knows, not what one can do.
  There is a lot of room for argument about how much each of these resources which I have enumerated should be pruned, expanded, controlled or given more autonomy. However, I think that there is no room for argument that, as a nation, we are on the edge of a gigantic expansion in demand, call it what you will. Throughout the country pensioners, the unemployed and wage earners in their growing spare time are taking courses in everything under the sun, in classes, on video, increasingly by cable, as well as through the traditional medium of books. People in work are seeking to diversify their skills, employers to upgrade their work force's skills. Re-education and training is the name of the game, and what a rapidly growing game. Why, then, are our existing teaching resources locked into what is seen as steadily narrowing cul-de-sacs when out there is a whole world to conquer?
  There is some interchange between schools and further education, employers and further education, universities and industry, but this depends entirely on local personalities, and not on any coherent national or regional strategy. In this morass, it is not surprising therefore that the Government have used the Manpower Services Commission as their principal agent for change, but how bad that must be for the morale of teachers in the education service.
  When the MSC gave evidence to the Select Committee on Employment, the chairman declared that he felt strongly that he had a dotted line of responsibility to the Secretary of State for Education and Science as well as a solid line of accountability to the Secretary of State for Employment. I should like to ask how real the dotted line is, and to what extent the MSC with its many tasks is effectively able to keep in close touch with the Department of Education and Science.
  If I may give one small example of the rigidities that I should like to see broken down, Lady Warnock the other day said rather well that teachers are finding themselves increasingly unable to stay in teaching—the job which they like to do—because in order to make a living they have to go into administration. She suggested, among other recourses, that they might go into teacher training colleges. I believe that would be one minor but important rigidity reduced.
  We have to look for new boundary definitions. We have falling rolls and empty school buildings, and at the same time inadequate training provision by and for private employers. That by itself is a demonstration of the need for imagination.
  When the members of the Select Committee on Employment visited a private recruitment agency recently they discovered that the differential between the price payable to staff capable of operating expensive modern machinery such as word processors and those who were still stuck to their typewriters was so great that it was worth the agency's while to provide a sophisticated training
  436
  course with one tutor to three students. So great was the demand for the course that the agency decide to expand the operation.
  There is scope for placing that kind of resource within the campuses of schools. Training colleges work mostly at evenings and weekends, so that sophisticated expensive machinery—which, by its nature, has a short life span —can be available to schools. The agencies would have access to some of the brighter pupils at a young age and the schools would be able to make use of the machinery. There is too little liaison between schools and employers about the provision of mutual aid.
  We must make the maximum use of our resources. It is better to burn them out by using them fully in many different ways than to husband them frugally well past the date of obsolescence. Visits to centres of education are too often like expeditions into industrial or educational archeology.
  The training explosion must be understood to realise the demand that exists for teaching skills. Few commercial and industrial organisations have more than a handful of people with real teaching skills. The scope for exchange between an education system in which teachers feel themselves to be boxed in and the commercial world must be great.
  When a CBI delegation recently came to the Select Committee, we discussed this issue, and although the members of the delegation held varying views on almost every point, it was clear that some of them were already discussing with the Department of Education and Science the possibility of using teaching skills which are available in schools to help them with their training.
  We must look again at the school day. Is there any reason why we should be constricted to a 9 am to 4 pm day? The limited school day was devised in a bygone era and it now serves mainly a purpose of social control. Its intention is to make it possible for two wage earners to go out and earn money while their children are taken off their hands by the education system.
  As a long-term goal, we should seriously consider altering the use of schools, adopting a shift system. This is not a new idea, but an idea whose time has come. The Columbus technical institute in Ohio operates from 7 am until 11 pm on Mondays to Fridays and from 9 am until 4 pm on Saturdays. It has considerable use in the evenings, but it is available throughout those long hours, and that must be valuable to a community in which the work patterns of the adults is constantly changing. More and more shifts are being worked, even by senior managers.
  Further thought should be given to teacher retraining. It is absurd to suggest that for teachers—or, indeed, for anyone else — one qualification is sufficient for a lifetime. I welcome the Secretary of State's suggestion of more money for local education authorities, although we are still a long way from the recommendations of the James report all those years ago. Why not pay teachers, and not only teachers but employees in many other industrial and commercial operations, with some kind of voucher which would give them a right, as they built them up, to choose where they went for training or retraining? The advantage would be that, if a person did not cash the voucher in that way, it would cost the education authority or the firm nothing. Those who were prepared to Undertake training would be able to cash the vouchers at approved institutions.

  437
  We need a huge increase in the number of part-time contracts, not as a cost cutting exercise, but because the opportunities are great for people in education to spend part of their time in adult education, technical training and so forth. It is absurd, for example, that in one educational institution that I know of, the suggestion that one of the staff should be entitled to a job share was turned down out of hand. Yet of all activities teaching is one which lends itself to job sharing. In theory the Government are keen on increasing job sharing.
  If students grow out of school at an ever earlier age —and there is clear evidence that many school children find being constrained in school sufficiently irritating for them not to give of their best—might they perhaps be allowed to take an educational allowance with them into the public or private college of their choice? The output and standard could be controlled by the Government through the qualifications.
  We now see a massive paradox. We see despair and disillusion among teachers while all around us the demand for education grows exponentially. I urge the Government to change the name, the system, the input and the outcome, and today's despair will become tomorrow's golden opportunity.
  7.57 am
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on entering the ballot for the debate, on getting it and on making a thoughtful speech? Although it is perhaps too early an hour to be excited about speeches in the Chamber, we owe him a debt because he has brought the issue before us this morning. I agree with much of what he said, although there might be a problem in turning some of his more interesting ideas into practical realities.
  I go back to the first question. The hon. Member did not address himself to the sad fact that over the past 10 years our belief in education has evaporated. It makes an interesting exercise to compare yesterday's White Paper on education with the one that was introduced by the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education during the 1970–74 Conservative Government. The Government talked then about the expansion of nursery education and their aim to get 22 per cent. of the relevant age group into higher education. It is a sad reflection that in the intervening period the sights of the Conservative Government, and perhaps the sights of the nation, have been lowered so much. It would be attractive if we could rekindle that belief in education. We must consider carefully why a belief in education has evaporated to a certain extent. Too often in schools and elsewhere people were told, "Work hard at school and you will get a good job." Once graduates did not get jobs, the belief in education as a means to a meal ticket started to evaporate. It is sad that we did not encourage many more people with the intellectual curiousity to which the hon. Member referred to enjoy education for its own sake rather than as a meal ticket.
  The education system was too much a failure system. Whatever the stage at which people left the system, they left feeling like failures. It is regrettable that tremendous emphasis' at all ages is placed on getting through examinations. The obverse of that point is that people will fail. The 11-plus examination has not yet been abolished
  438
  in many parts of the country. From 11 onwards, a number of tests and examinations are imposed on youngsters, most of which say, "You have failed." At university the emphasis is on the quality of the degree. The other day, I heard someone comment, "He got a PhD, but it was not a very good one." Failure seems to stay with people.
  The hon. Member talked also about youngsters outgrowing schools. Recently I have been in many schools and have been amazed by the fact that in many primary schools the teachers often treat the youngsters as adults, giving them amazing amounts of responsibility. The youngsters respond extremely well. Too often, the teachers at secondary schools start to treat the youngsters as children, rather than as young adults. It is paradoxical that, the older the youngsters in a school, the less responsibility and independence they are given. I agree with the hon. Member that many youngsters outgrow school, because some schools impose rigid restrictions. Many youngsters move to tertiary colleges and sixth form away from traditional schools because of such attitudes.
  It is important that we apportion some of the blame for the way in which belief in education has disappeared. Shirley Williams, as the Secretary of State for Education and Science, during the Labour Government, has to accept some of the blame. The dithering over the examinations system was fatal to education. She allowed the myth to develop that standards were falling. When the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Carlisle) was Secretary of State he allowed the myth about falling standards to continue. Assisted places and vouchers implied that some of the state schools were not good enough and that standards were falling.
  Standards have risen. If standards are measured by examination results or other criteria and if schools of today are compared with those of 20 years ago, the achievement is considerable.
  We do not give enough credit to the education system which coped with a major bulge in the population of young people. By and large, the school system coped successfully. It is only now that youngsters are leaving school and searching for jobs and only now that they are searching for housing accommodation that society is letting them down. We should have placed on record the fact that over the past 20 years our education system has succeeded, although, of course, it could do better.
  The Government were right in the White Paper yesterday to talk about wanting to raise standards, but they should give credit also to the fact that schools have done well. I appreciate the fact that the Government are grasping the nettle of reorganising examinations. I am a little worried, especially with the present dispute, that the Government are not giving teachers sufficient time to get the curriculum going. I am worried also that many schools with imaginative curricula will find that their curricula will be reduced to fit a national pattern. That would be disturbing. At least the Government are getting on with reorganising the examination system. I am pleased that the Government are going for the record of achievement, which I believe will encourage youngsters.
  The real problem with all of those initiatives is whether the Government are producing the money. Resources are the key to improving standards. We got through the past 20 years with massive economies of scale. The education system has done well to get through those economies of scale, but now the Government are asking for economies

  439
  from contraction. That really is not possible. The Government say that the pupil-teacher ratio is better and expenditure per pupil is better, but an awful lot of capital items are there whether there are 30 pupils or 20 in the class room. They are not items on which you can benefit from economies of contraction. And it is going to cost more to maintain curriculum width for fewer pupils. So the Government have to take on the question of the amount of resources available.
  Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman is right that there is going to be a tremendous expansion in demand, we have got to convince the country that it must be prepared to pay. I wish that the Minister and the Secretary of State would spend a bit more time going out into the country campaigning for education and pointing out that if we want to be a prosperous country education is important.
  The hon. Member gave a few details of the number of people getting education in this country as with other countries and pointed out that if we are to be able to compete in the world we must have more highly trained personnel. He reminded us that we are very proud that we are a democracy in this country, but increasingly taking decisions involves a great deal of information and the skills to evaluate it. If we want to be a genuine democracy we have got to talk about widening educational opportunities and supplying information and skills to the whole population, not just to a selected group.
  When it comes to leisure opportunities, again education is a very important component for a very large number of people in making their leisure enjoyable.
  There is a Government myth that we can transfer resources from the arts and the social services to technology. We cannot do that effectively. We must find extra resources. It is ironic that in many ways it is not our scientists and technologists who are letting this country down. If we take the mining industry in the last 12 months, it was not that we did not have good mining engineers and good mining technology; it was our inability to manage the industry effectively that let us down. If we take housing, it is not that we have not got good architects and builders; it is our inability to put those skills together to ensure that people live in decent housing. I could give a lot of other examples.
  If the Government want a peaceful, contented society, it is important that we put extra resources into the whole education field and that we do not rob one diminished area to build up another area.
  It seemed to me very sad that in the Government White Paper on better schools there was not a commitment to expand nursery education. Getting the start right is crucial in our education system. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent made the point that we have an awful lot of empty school buildings, so it would not be all that expensive to take the opportunity now to expand nursery education. Even if we returned to the target set by the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, we should be talking about a very considerable expansion of nursery education.
  The Government must also take up the whole question of teacher morale. There will not be good results from education if the Government continue the conflict with the teachers. In one of the schools that I visited this week the head was talking about wanting to get curriculum development going. He pointed out that for much of the summer term last year there was virtually no discussion of this among the staff outside school hours because of the
  440
  sanctions. And the same thing will happen this year. I believe that the Government have got to find some more money and that with an injection of new money they could get effective talks going, improve the morale of teachers and set in train many of the things that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent wants to see done in the schools.
  If we have got falling rolls we must look at making the schools a community resource. We have got to tell the teachers that it is important that they bring other people into them, because that changes the attitudes in schools.
  We await with interest the Government Green Paper on higher education, but it is very sad that this is being prepared in terms of maintaining the status quo and of contraction rather than in terms of the importance of expanding higher education in the interests of prosperity, democracy and enhancing people's leisure.
  I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member did not refer to the Open University. This would have been an opportunity to put in a firm plea for the Government to listen to all the advice that was given by the visiting committee, which said that the Open University was doing a first-class job. We should be talking about expansion and widening the university's role, demonstrating that its skills of distance learning can be applied to a wider group of people and can also be used as a resource for many of the schools and other educational areas. Yet apparently the Government's response to the visiting committee is to leave the Open University with the same cuts, but just a year later than was said before.
  The point that I want to make to the Minister — I think that it is the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent was really making—is that for all our futures' sake, we must expand education and make sure that it becomes an exciting world where intellectual curiosity is important, but where we are also serving the nation. All our futures depend on having a first-class education.
  8.11 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) not only on his good fortune in securing a place in tonight's debate but on his choice of subject. From the compendium portmanteau title that he gave to the subject, it was a little uncertain quite what to expect. The debate strayed somewhat into the area covered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and it would not be proper for me to say too much about it, but I hope to say something about relations between the Department of Education and Science and the Manpower Services Commission. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the manner in which he holds his office in my Department. It is also a pleasure to have the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish taking part in the debate.
  There is an element of chance that we are having the debate within the same parliamentary sitting as the launch of "Better Schools". I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say something about "Better Schools", because the more widely the propositions in it are understood in the nation, the better it will be for our system.
  The White Paper sets out the Government's policies for schools in a way that has no post-war precedent. Whereas

  441
  earlier White Papers were mainly concerned with the structure and organisation of the school system, "Better Schools" is mainly concerned with what is actually taught and how it is taught. That follows logically from the Government's two principal aims for education at school, first to raise standards at all levels of ability, to which I shall return, and secondly to secure the best possible return from the resources invested. I shall also return to that matter in the context of the speech by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.
  The White Paper shows how all the Government's policies for schools pursue those two aims by making the curriculum as it is delivered in the schools serve better than it does now the needs of the individual and of the nation by developing each pupil's full potential and preparing him for the responsibilities of citizenship and working life in a technological and competitive world. Many schools cope successfully with their increasingly demanding task, to which my hon. Friend referred in his remarks about the teaching profession. However, many schools also show weaknesses. If the high standards achieved by pupils of all abilities in some schools could be achieved in all comparable schools, the quality of school education would rise dramatically.
  The Government cannot act alone. The education service is a partnership in which local education authorities and teachers have essential roles. However, the Government have a responsibility and a duty to give a lead and also to have regard to the needs of the schools' customers, not least parents and employers. The Government are not taking new legal powers to discharge that responsibility, but are using their existing powers to fulfil a duty and meet a national need. Criticism that the Government's policies are centralist is misplaced. They acknowledge the distribution of functions between the partners and the need for a co-operative effort. It can only help good education for the Government to set out how they will discharge their functions and what they expect of their partners in the discharge of theirs.
  In terms of the objectives in the White Paper, the Government will take the lead in promoting national agreement about the purposes and content of the curriculum. The proposals will encourage schools to do more to fulfil the vital function of preparing all young people for work. They will complete the reform of the public examination system taken at 16 in the interests of the curriculum and standards. They will introduce the new examination—the AS-level—to broaden the programme of students on A-level courses. They will work towards a national system of records of achievement, and I was pleased to hear a welcome for that. They will make the in-service training of teachers more effective through new financial arrangements; that matter played a large part in my hon. Friend's speech. They will give school governing bodies more balanced membership and improve the distribution of functions of governors, local education authorities an heads in regard to their schools. They will set new guidelines on the minimum size of schools. They will take steps to reduce under-achievement, including that found among many ethnic minorities, and they will tackle truancy through improvements in the work and training of education welfare officers.
  As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, the Government recognise that it may be difficult to achieve
  442
  those policies in full within existing real levels of expenditure per pupil, but substantial progress can be made with better use of the available resources and there is considerable and continuing scope for redeployment through increased efficiency. The efforts made by the education service can only help its future claims on resources.
  My hon. Friend cited the proportion of the work force who do not have even one CSE pass. It was that basic statistic, among others, that stimulated my right hon. Friend's speech in Sheffield a year ago, in which he addressed the questions of breadth, balance, differentiation and relevance in the curriculum and also signalled the changes in the examination system.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is more confident than the majority of the House that standards have risen during the past 20 years. He clearly joined issue with us on that, and it was one of the common causes that followed the Sheffield speech. But much still needs to be done and the more that the various partners in the system can collaborate the more we are likely to achieve.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister really claiming that standards have not risen? Surely he accepts that standards have risen in exam results. I remember teaching in secondary modern schools in the 1960s and the problems we had to contend with then are not present in the vast majority of schools now.
  Mr. Brooke: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. By putting the matter in the way that he did, he underestimated the concern of parents about the quality of present standards, which of itself provides motive for a further improvement.
  Although the fact that a large number of people have limited qualifications played a large part in the Sheffield speech, the speech also continuously emphasised the concern about our under-achievement overall and not simply in the bottom half.
  My hon. Friend referred to the role of teachers and the new demands on them. "Better Schools" addresses itself specifically to that issue and recognises the difference in roles which they are being asked to fulfil. The White Paper reminds us of the work which was set in motion by DES circular 3/84, which was Welsh Office circular 21/84 on initial teacher training. It set out the considerations on which the council for the accreditation of teacher education will base its work in the reform, review and upgrading of teacher training throughout the system.
  The most significant element is that which relates to in-service training. This is a response to the recent ACSET report. I remind the House of paragraph 176 in "Better Schools", which sets out what is envisaged. The Government have concluded that the most effective way of achieving these aims on in-service training would be through the introduction of a new specific grant to support LEA expenditure on most aspects of in-service training, including that expenditure currently supported through the in-service training pool. They propose accordingly to introduce legislation to extend the Secretary of State's existing power to grant-aid in-service training.
  It is envisaged that the grants paid under the extended power would fall into two parts. One part would continue the existing in-service training grants for national priority areas of training. The other would be a general in-service training grant to cover both provision and release costs for

  443
  training that is planned to meet locally assessed priorities. The expenditure to be supported by the grant will be determined each year. It is envisaged that the conditions of grant to be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State would require each LEA to submit information about its plans for in-service training, including arrangements for identifying teachers' needs for in-service training and making good use of the teachers who have been released to engage in this training.
  Responsibility for planning and implementing much in-service training would continue to rest with the LEAs as employers of most teachers, but within a framework that would enable the more effective planning and management of training. Those last three words are key words in the process that is envisaged.
  I recognise the problems which are contained within the present situation which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent graphically described. The Government are clear that a key method of improving standards is to concentrate on teacher training both initially and in in-service work. Clear proposals are coming forward on how that will be implemented.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent talked a bit about further education, but it did not play as large a part in the speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. My hon. Friend referred to the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that there will be a working study and review of qualifications in this area.
  In further education, there is a responsiveness to meet the changing needs of industry and commerce. That was very much a problem which was addressed in "Training for Jobs". I remind the House that that was a White Paper which was brought forward by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment. As the House will recall, there was an Her Majesty's Inspectorate report shortly thereafter on the relationship between the further education college system and local industry. It showed that in nearly half the cases considered relations were good and that in a further third relations were adequate. However, in 20 per cent. of cases relations were not good and that is where work needed to be done. "Training for Jobs" is directed to that objective. It is now well known that the Audit Commission will be producing a report on efficiency within the FE system, and that will demand a response by the Government. There is also concern to exemplify value for money within the system.
  In this context, I acknowledge—I am glad to say that employers now acknowledge this, too—that employers do not always articulate their needs as clearly as they might. I was delighted to have the chance to launch one of the college-employer link projects. These are being undertaken on a pilot basis to see what can be learnt from eight cases spread around the country—north and south, urban and rural—about ways of further improving the links between colleges and employers. Those projects are now well advanced.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to the report "Competence and Competition". A clear message of the report is the need for greater investment by employers in the whole training process. The Government's response is the commitment to the youth training scheme that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made last week. A substantial part of the additional cost of a two-year scheme will be expected to come from the
  444
  employers' side. A significant feature of the move towards a two-year scheme is that a longer course should lead to recognised qualifications. My hon. Friend referred to the study that is to be made of that. One thing that will be examined is the extent to which we can build up a modular credit system in the framework of CPVE — the certificate of pre-vocational education—so that people on the scheme can put together a qualification by means of a series of modules.
  I am not sure that it is sensible to dwell at length on TVEI — the technical and vocational educational initiative—today as it is still at the pilot stage, although it has been greeted with enthusiasm by all those involved —teachers and pupils. Local authorities have also been anxious to participate. What is clearly emerging is a shortage of teachers to teach the required subjects in certain areas, so in the next couple of years, before the Government secure through Parliament legislative powers for specific grants there will be a period in consultation with the Manpower Services Commission of expanding in-service training in those areas.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The attractive feature of TVEI for the schools participating is the injection of resources and equipment. If it is intended to extend TVEI or anything else, the Government will have to find the resources to make it a practicality.
  Mr. Brooke: I take the point. An element of the enthusiasm has been the availability of resources with which to work. The presence of volunteer teachers and pupils and of some extra resources clearly does wonders for enthusiasm.
  Incidentally, on the industrial secondment of teachers under the Department's scheme to provide direct grants to LEAs in this context, I am glad to say that that now extends to further education. Likewise, I am delighted that one of the education support grants is directed to in-service training among further education teachers in information technology.
  My hon. Friend used fighting words about higher education and talked of it being the most inefficient sector. This is a matter in which I have direct responsibility. Indeed, I am chairman of the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, so I am clearly on sensitive and vulnerable ground in the light of what my hon. Friend said.
  The review being conducted under the chairmanship of Sir Alex Jarratt by industrialists and academics on efficiency in the university system is due next month.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will it be published next month?
  Mr. Brooke: It will be received next month. I cannot give a date for publication, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have a good record on publishing documents, even when they are sometimes inconvenient.
  My hon. Friend will know from public expenditure White Papers that there has been a continuing efficiency squeeze on universities' resources, which is reflected in staff-student ratios. The effect is even more noticeable in the public sector where the increase in productivity has been significant—it has gone up from about 8:1 to 11:1 under this Government.
  My hon. Friend took an idiosyncratic view of the low drop-out rates. Many people feel that one of the glories of

  445
  the British system is that those who enter higher education pass out with degrees faster and more efficiently than elsewhere. One in four of the cohort which arrive each autumn—not just freshmen—get a degree the following summer. The figure for the West as a whole is one in seven, so in terms of the deployment of resources, ours is a significant achievement. Professor Marris' recent lecture at Birkbeck college dwelt on that. I should be loth to extend our successful three-year course. The familiar statistic is that there have been 60,000 more students in higher education since 1979.
  As for the efficient use of buildings, I hesitate to say that, outside the House, few people like working through the night, so there are problems associated with getting more intense use of facilities. Much maintenance of buildings and equipment is done during vacations and, of course, research continues. A significant development has been the use of university facilities and campuses for conferences on a large scale. It is not widely known that the total income of British universities, including all outside sources of income, research contracts and grants, has increased by 18 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is a significant achievement on the part of the institutions.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the switch to engineering and technology. The Government are determined to pursue the conversion of higher education to even greater economic and social relevance. The hon. Gentleman said that we are deploying resources away from the arts to science and engineering. The extra numbers of science and engineering students are among the 60,000 I mentioned earlier, and there is no reduction in the other subjects to which he referred. The hon. Gentleman will know that £43 million for the next three years was announced in the Budget, and further exemplified in documents since.
  Mr. Bennett: Not completely new money.
  Mr. Brooke: I agree that there is a degree of redeployment. Nevertheless, three quarters of it is money that would not have previously been available to higher education, and in that sense it is an expansion.
  Mr. Bennett: How much of it is new money?
  Mr. Brooke: It is new money to those who will be able to deploy it in science, engineering and technology. It comes from outside the UGC's previous grant.
  I welcome my hon. Friend's emphasis on quality and rigour. Some of what he said will be read with interest in higher education institutions throughout the land. I am not wholly sure that his comparison with American experience is helpful in our context because much of the American emphasis in higher education is on the graduate degree, and the undergraduate degree would not be regarded as strictly comparable to that which exists here.
  My hon. Friend referred to adult and continuing education in his comprehensive speech. In terms of the adult training strategy, my Department and the Department of Employment are involved. I am delighted at the success of PICKUP. It is possible to under-estimate what is happening and the strength of the current in this area. To take an example from my hon. Friend's county, it is warming that the university of Kent and Kent local education authority have combined in an adult education
  446
  centre, where university and county provision go on side by side. It is reported that students in one category are sampling what is available in the other. A great deal is going on in adult education.
  My hon. Friend referred to the Manpower Services Commission. The new chairman of the MSC and I have, wholly by chance, known each other for more than 20 years. He is kind enough to say that I launched him on his career. It profoundly helps the quality of the working relationship between my Department and the commission.
  I shall say a brief word about the links betwen schools and business. Again absolutely by chance, I had occasion yesterday to visit St. Mary's, Twickenham, where there is a pilot diploma in the practices and principles of industry and commerce as an in-service training exercise. I met the teacher-students on the present course and those from last year's course. The enthusiasm for the work that those on last year's course were getting from pupils, employers and fellow teachers was particularly warming. At present the diploma course is funded by industry. It is a most impressive initiative.
  My hon. Friend referred to hours in schools and in other parts of the system. He would be encouraged by the considerable use made of equipment in the TVEI experiments. In the public sector of higher education, the contact hours on computers is jumping regularly each year as a function of their being used longer and longer throughout the day.
  Of course, I understand what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said about resources, and he will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday. He will also be aware of the study which we published late last year on how the teaching force might be redeployed, with the intention of increasing the number of teachers in areas where we wish to see improvements and for which we have set objectives. That increase would be partly sustained by the redeployment of other teachers from areas with falling rolls. I recognise that that requires a considerable exercise in political will, but we shall not need extra resources to achieve the switch. I hope that we shall see more of it. The hon. Gentleman regretted the fact that there was little reference to nursery education. I am delighted to say that more under-fives are receiving nursery education now than ever before, but I recognise that it is still a minority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to the process of recruitment into universities and higher education generally. The advice that we received from the University Grants Committee and the national advisory body last September extended the Robbins principle into the ability to benefit. In a debate in the House on 26 October, when giving an initial Government response, which will be amplified in the Green Paper, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was content with that extension, provided that there would be real rigour in the higher education institutions in analysing and assessing the ability of the candidate to benefit from the system. I am delighted to say that the number of mature students in higher education has increased during the lifetime of this Government and their immediate predecessors, and the projections for the rest of the decade and into the 1990s show a higher increase.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned the Open university. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in response to the visiting committee's report, in one way or another a further £2 million has been

  447
  provided for each of the next two years, against the original cut of £4·7 million. I agree that the Open university still believes that it needs more, and that dialogue will continue.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: But the Open university did not accept the Government's figure for the cut, did it? It believed that it was much more.
  Mr. Brooke: That is perfectly true, but we eventually reached reconciliation. A problem with the Open university, which was exemplified by the slowness with which it explained the figure of £13·2 million which it cited, is also reflected in the visiting committee's report. Chapters 1 and 6 contain references to the visiting committee asking the Open university for details of how its costs were made up, in terms of the savings that it was seeking, and the Open university was unable to answer those questions.
  I said at the beginning that it was impossible to know what to expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent. He has stimulated a most valuable debate, and I am delighted to have taken part in it. I hope that in the future there will be similar opportunities to discuss the education system. It was warming to see yesterday the many hon. Members who wished to ask questions about the White Paper, which is a sign of the concern which the House has for education.

  Radio Regulatory Regime
  8.43 am
  Mr. Barry Henderson: Despite having sat through the night, we have only 17 minutes before the end of the debate during which I must make my points and my hon. Friend the Minister must respond to them. Therefore, I shall cut significantly points that I felt it would be important to draw to the attention of the House about the radio regulatory regime. I shall concentrate—in so far as one can at this time—on some of the key points which I believe require further study, and which I hope will be further studied by the House on another occasion. Parliament has granted the Executive exceptional powers for radio regulations, stemming from the first Wireless Telegraphy Acts of the last century, and continuing to the most recent enactments. Great advances in technology have been made, and recently, the Government have committed themselves to the liberalisation of the telecommunication and radio regimes.
  There is a new explosion of services—new firms are being established and new jobs are being created in response to the growing number of business and personal users. Everybody is catching up or catching on, except the radio regulating department, despite its transition from the Home Office to the Department of Trade and Industry. Parliament has given it extraordinary powers, but, if they are to be granted, there must be certainty that they will not be used harshly by the Department.
  If a policeman seized a bicycle chain from somebody at a football rally, that would be good, and most of us would agree that that would be the right exercise of his powers as an officer. However, if he went along to the newspaper boy's bicycle and took the chain off it, that would be bad; and, even if it were legal, it would be an abuse of the powers conferred on that officer.
  The regulatory authorities also have powers, for example, through the Telecommunications Act 1984. Section 79 (3) says:
  "If a constable or any person authorised by the Secretary of State to exercise the power conferred by this subsection has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence to which this section applies has been or is being committed, he may seize and detain, for the purposes of any relevant proceedings, any apperatus or the thing which appears to him to have been used in connection with or to be evidence of the commission of any such offence."
  In individual cases, these powers should never be used, unless we can be sure that such extreme action was the only reasonable and practical course.
  How much more that consideration should apply when the equipment concerned provides a common base station for a number of users. The one near me provides a medical emergency service and private security services. However, the power exists to pull the plug on that without so much as a "by your leave" to anyone.
  If such use of the power could ever be justified, it would have to be in such circumstances that the combination of evidence and necessity should be so strong that immediate and real action would be taken against the alleged transgressor. If it were not so, I hope that the House would condemn the use of the administrative procedures in the way that they have been exercised. That a business can be killed by having its equipment removed and by dragging out further administrative procedures, until the customers

  449
  have disappeared, is scandalous. If the House believed that that was happening, I hope that steps would be taken to withdraw those powers.
  It is not so much a question of ill-will among the radio regulatory authorities as sheer inefficiency. A case has recently been drawn to my attention in which a firm was requested to pay an incorrect amount for a licence. On 20 January 1984, 7 June 1984 and 18 February 1985 this firm applied for permission to use equipment that was additional to the equipment for which the licence was granted. Because of that application, the amount was wrong. The Department was undercharging the firm for the use of its equipment.
  I believe the Department got it wrong because its records had not caught up with the information that had been provided on the dates I have mentioned. Therefore, it sought to undercharge this firm. I believe that a different arm of the Department thought that the firm had not told it all that it ought to have done. That may be the reason why harsh action was taken against the firm. However, the Department had not caught up with its paperwork.
  If I may give another example, within a period of seven weeks a firm applied for 22 licences. A pre-paid acknowledgment card was supplied with each application. Only three have been returned, but no licences. Yet another firm wanted to change an existing licence to a different frequency. It applied on 27 February. No acknowledgment was received, so rather less than a month later, on 18 March, a telephone call was made to the Department. The Department denied having received the application. When the firm mentioned that it had sent the application by recorded delivery it took the Department just five minutes to change its mind. It then informed the firm that it could do nothing about it as the required files were on the other side of London. As the firm very reasonably points out, its customer required the equipment and it required the revenue but everything was held up to ransom by the arbitrary action of the Department.
  I am very concerned about my discoveries in recent weeks. I hark back to some of the early discussions during the first round of proceedings on the Telecommunications Act. Concern was expressed at that time about the way in which some people behaved towards the radio regulatory authorities. I condemn the taking out on servants of the Crown of the frustration that is felt because of the way in which the Crown exercises its powers. Concern has also been expressed about the effect that the Department can have upon businesses.
  If it can be shown, as I believe would be possible if we had more time in which to debate the problem, that the Department's efficiency of service is inadequate to meet the needs of today or that it is exercising its powers unreasonably, I hope that my hon. Friend will take the most urgent action to put things right. We are in business to help businesses, not to ruin them.
  8.54 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): This Government are in the business of helping business. We would not connive at practices which would be detrimental to business interests and wealth creation, and therefore, to job creation. I am familiar with the background to the
  450
  comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and I shall respond in general terms on the principle of radio regulation, but I shall not go into detail, as my hon. Friend did, on a constituency basis.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to explain the importance of radio regulation and to outline the Government's policy on the enforcement of wireless telegraphy legislation.
  Radio-borne services affect nearly every aspect of our lives. The absence or degradation of these services could undermine the economic viability of a wide range of important service industries ranging from taxi services to airline operations. The operations of defence, law and order and safety of life services are now virtually unthinkable without effective radio systems. Escalating demands for information, news, entertainment and telecommunications can also be met most readily by radio systems, and no space system is viable without effective radio communication.
  Regulation of the radio frequency spectrum is a necessary pre-requisite to the effectiveness in all radio operations and all manufacturing or service industries that depend on radio. This is first because of the growing variety, scale and importance of these services and their conflicting demands for a limited natural resource. Secondly, it is because of the characteristics of radio waves and the technologies available to handle them.
  The important characteristics are first that radio waves do not stop at national frontiers. A nation cannot draw up its plans unilaterally, or it will both suffer and cause harmful interference. The effective use of radio demands a very high degree of international co-operation. The more intensively the spectrum is used, the more important the international dimension becomes.
  Secondly, it is a resource that can be shared by a distinctive frequency assignment to each user; by users on the same frequency assignment on a geographical basis; by users of the same frequency on a time basis; or by invoking advanced technology to superimpose transmissions.
  Thirdly, it is susceptible to pollution. Harmful interference can be caused by other users of the radio spectrum and by spurious radiation produced by other electrical equipment. Without regulatory control, parts of the spectrum could be rendered useless by interference. Fourthly, it is in increasing demand.
  Responsibility for radio regulation in the United Kingdom rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for United Kingdom participation in the international negotiations in the International Telecommunications Union, for licensing and law enforcement on the use of the spectrum nationally, under the powers conferred by the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 and 1967, and the Telecommunications Act 1984.
  At international level, administrations co-operate to produce international radio regulations and international frequency allocation tables. These tables form the basis of the United Kingdom national frequency allocation tables which are the framework within which frequency assignment and licensing is carried out. Thus, the whole process from the international agreement to the licensing of an individual taxi firm is an unbroken continuum.
  The BBC, IBA, British Telecom and Mercury each have a single omnibus licence with schedules authorising the use of their various frequencies. Other users must

  451
  apply for one of about 70 types of standard licences, designed to meet a variety of needs. Users of radio are grouped in frequency bands within which individual assignments for similar radio services can make the best use of radio frequencies without causing or experiencing harmful interference.
  Frequency assignment processes are technically complex and are becoming more so with the growth of demand for radio services. They are distinctively different for various types of use and in different parts of the radio frequency spectrum. In order to make the best possible use of the spectrum most users of land mobile and fixed services do not have their own exclusive frequency. Frequencies can be re-used across the United Kingdom by exploiting geographical separation and terrain.
  This re-use means that every proposed frequency assignment has to be co-ordinated with other existing and proposed assignments for the same frequency, together with adjacent and related frequencies. Further coordination requirements are imposed where users of a service are required to share the same frequencies with other services. To make this system work, each authorised land mobile radio user receives a licence to which is attached a schedule—
  It being Nine o'clock on Wednesday morning, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Fleetwood (Grants)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
  9 am
  Sir Walter Clegg: I am pleased to be able to raise the Adjournment debate even at the end of a long, weary all night sitting, and I would not have contemplated raising the debate unless I thought it was of great importance to my constituents.
  I wish to bring to the attention of the House and of the Government the problems that confront the port of Fleetwood consequent upon the loss of its deep sea fishing fleet. Since the beginning of the century, Fleetwood has been the biggest deep sea fishing port on the west coast of England. During both world wars, its trawlers fed the country and its trawlermen manned many of the Royal Navy's minesweepers. The deep sea fleet was the heart of a thriving community. As a rough rule, it could be said that for every fisherman at sea there were five jobs ashore. The ancillary trades included merchants, dockers, filleters, fish processors, engineers, chandlers, transport workers, ice house workers, fish meal factory workers, ship's husbands and the clerical trades and employment that go with the administration of such an ancillary network.
  The deep sea fleet, therefore, was a staple industry of the port. It was like the pit to the mining village, the steelworks to the steel town and the textile mills to the cotton and woollen towns.
  It is crucial to my argument that the Government and the EEC should regard Fleetwood's loss of its deep sea fleet in the same way as they regard the rundown of the basic industries in coal, steel and textiles in particular.
  I should like to give the House some basic statistics which have already been provided by Wyre borough council to the Department of my hon. Friend the Minister.
  In 1963, the number of fishermen fishing out of Fleetwood was 1,583, a total which represented 11 per cent. of the employment in the Fleetwood exchange area. By 1981, that figure had fallen to 243, which represented nearly 2·8 per cent. of employment. Now there are virtually no deep sea fishermen sailing regularly from Fleetwood.
  In 1963, Wyre borough calculated that some 4,000 jobs, or 28 per cent. of the total employment in Fleetwood, were dependent on the industry. All that has changed. It is easy to understand why. In 1976, we had a distant water fleet of 29 vessels. By 1982, it had been reduced to 10 vessels, and now in 1985 there is none. The decline of the deep sea fleet was not confined to Fleetwood alone. Hull, Grimsby and Aberdeen suffered in the same way.
  The reason is not hard to identify. The decline was due not to the inefficiency of the industry or over-manning. It was due directly to the loss of the Icelandic fishing grounds, where for years the fleet had legally fished. There were no alternative grounds, either within our 200-mile limit or in EEC waters, that could make up the loss of the commercial fishing grounds off Iceland.
  The long and complex negotiations for a common fisheries policy added to the uncertainty, and there is nowhere in sight a fishery that could replace the Icelandic grounds. Thus, the rush out to 200-mile limits, internationally recognised, sounded the death-knell of our deep sea fleet.

  453
  The position in Fleetwood now is that we have an inshore fleet of 69 vessels, many of them old, and those vessels are incapable of making up for the loss of the deep sea landings. These inshore vessels lack the catching capacity of the old deep sea fleet, and its ability to stay at sea in bad weather to maintain year round supplies. Indeed, the inshore fleet is having great difficulty in surviving. Its fishing grounds in the Irish sea have been clobbered by the incursions of foreign beam trawlers and the costs of nets, fuel oil and other vital equipment are constantly rising. The inshore fleet is living from hand to mouth and is being sustained only by the grit and determination of its fishermen. The fishing port is now reliant on fish sent overland, largely from Scottish ports.
  We have seen in Fleetwood the loss of a staple industry. It is as though a pit, a steel works or a textile mill had closed in a community that depended on it. Nor were there redundancy payments from the EEC or employers for fishermen who lost their jobs. Because of the method of employment, the vast majority of Fleetwood's fishermen —as those in Hull, Grimsby and Aberdeen—got no redundancy, and certainly not the sums one hears mentioned for the steel industry, with over £20,000 being paid to some workers on being made redundant.
  The fishermen who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs, received no compensation. They have not been able, therefore, to start up the small businesses that have been started in some steel towns, where redundancy payments have been used to revivify industry in those places. The British Fishermen's Association is fighting the case for compensation to be paid, and I fully support it in that endeavour, but it will be a hard fight.
  What help is Fleetwood getting to cope with the rundown of this staple industry? Precious little, is the answer. There are de-commissioning grants for some vessels, but they are paid for taking them out of fishing, not for increasing their fishing capacity. We were an assisted area, but that status has now been taken from us. With the loss of that grant has gone our access to EEC funding, which was proving useful to the community in helping to overcome the rundown of its staple industry. In January 1985, Fleetwood had an unemployment rate of 28·5 per cent. among men and 16·2 per cent. among women—a total of 22 per cent., compared with 17 per cent. for total unemployment in the Blackpool travel-to-work area of which we form a part, 16·7 per cent. in the north-west region and 13·7 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  As a direct comparison, in the Hull and Grimsby travel-to-work areas, which have similar problems to ours, the unemployment rates are 17·1 per cent. and 17·3 per cent. respectively. Both Hull and Grimsby and the textile areas of Lancaster and east Lancashire get help from the EEC regional development non-quota fund which, I understand, has been established to deal with areas where there has been a deep decline in staple industries. I believe that Fleetwood should be given similar treatment to help it diversity its industries and deal with the problems that the loss of the deep sea fleet has created.
  It is not that the port is just sitting on its backside rattling a begging bowl. For example, the Wyre borough council has set up in the Fleetwood area the Wyre Development Agency, which was created with sponsors such as ICI and which, in its first year, created 186 new
  454
  jobs; and Wyre Community Services, acting as agent for the MSC, which provides up to 250 jobs a year on community programme and youth training projects.
  To present a fair picture, the non-fishing side of the port has developed a roll-on, roll-off ferry service to Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, operated by Pandoro and B and I. It has increased its imports of grain and timber and exports of scrap metal. A great deal is being done to keep the non-fishing side of the port very active.
  We need help to get more projects going which could increase the port's efficiency and the general structure of industry in the town. I could go on at great length about the other projects that are being undertaken and also mention many of the projects that have already been cited to the Department by Wyre borough council when its members came to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier).
  I am asking not for charity but for a fair deal from the Government and the EEC. I believe that Fleetwood's case has been fully made out. It is as powerful a case as that put forward by Hull, Grimsby or the textile towns. We have suffered from events far beyond our control. I plead with the Under-Secretary of State to ensure that Fleetwood gets a fair deal. That would only be justice.
  9.13 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) for taking this opportunity to raise an issue which is obviously dear to his heart. He mentioned a number of dilemmas and difficulties on behalf of his constituents who have been well served by him this morning in this, the dawn patrol of our all-night debate. Perhaps only an hon. Member who represents an erstwhile fishing industry has the stamina to endure the rigours of life in Parliament on such occasions and to come up with the first-watch speech on this issue.
  I think it is right that the House should therefore thank my hon. Friend for bringing these problems, and particularly the problems of Fleetwood, to its attention. He has shown diligence in pursuing the interests of his constituents; indeed, earlier this year, as he has said, he accompanied a delegation from the Wyre borough council to impress further on my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for small businesses the problems of the area.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that the situation in Fleetwood is not unknown to the Government, partly owing, as I said earlier, to the efforts of my hon. Friend in drawing them to our attention. The docks have suffered serious decline owing to the effects of the Icelandic fishing agreement, which excluded British vessels from Icelandic fishing waters. As my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, that was not the fault of those who were fishing and were based in Fleetwood. They were the victims of matters which were well and truely beyond their control.
  This has, of course, caused problems regarding the rate and the structure of employment in Fleetwood. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the rest of the docks are successful and —excluding Liverpool, which is Merseyside — they make up Lancashire's busiest port. Between 1975 and 1980, the volume of trade through Fleetwood doubled to around 2 million tonnes per annum. Facilities available include a roll-on roll-off freight terminal, a berth for car and passenger ferries and a 55-hectare dockside estate, which is quite successful.

  455
  It would be wrong to give the impression that all is gloom in Fleetwood. There are one or two notable success stories.
  With the decline of the fishing industry, Pandoro came on the scene in 1975 to provide a vital lifeline for the docks. Pandoro came in with a massive cash investment to establish a container shipping company linking Fleetwood with Ireland. Ten years on, Pandoro remains one of the biggest employers in North Fylde, with a work force of about 600 in England and Ireland. Services from Fleetwood have expanded and the company's investment in the venture has soared to near the £40 million mark. Today Pandoro's much-expanded services move 70,000 loads annually to and from Northern Ireland, in contrast to the 30,000 in the inaugural year.
  My hon. Friend did not mention the potential of the Morecambe bay gas field and perhaps future offshore developments, but he will know that there are several developments on the horizon. We would hope to see Fleetwood and my hon. Friend's constituents participating in the potential in this area.
  Britain is on the brink of the ninth oil round and tracts on the new frontier deep-water areas include blocks in the Irish Sea and areas to the north of the Isle of Man and off Cumbria, Lancashire and north Wales. Discretionary licences will be awarded by the Department of Energy probably towards the end of April or the beginning of May. The local central and west Lancashire chamber of commerce believes that there are oil and gas sources to be tapped which will be of benefit to the area. It is expected that Fleetwood will benefit as it had a strong involvement in the exploration programme leading up to the opening of the Morecambe bay gas field. I sincerely hope this will be the case.
  Before I talk about the EC grants to which my hon. Friend has referred, I welcome this opportunity to explain to the House the basis of the new assisted areas map. The opportunity is welcome, as misunderstanding has been and still is rife. Many seem to have come to believe that the new map is biased—though which way it is thought to be biased depends on the viewpoint of the commentator.
  That was not an assertion made by my hon. Friend, whose speech was founded in empiricism and was really a request for help on the basis that those unfortunate trends which have affected Fleetwood were not self-induced or indeed caused by those who work in not just the fishing industry but the subsidiary industries that supported that fleet in Fleetwood.
  As we made clear in our White Paper, "Regional Industrial Development", the aim of regional industrial policy is the reduction of regional imbalances in employment opportunities on a stable, long-term basis. I dwell on that matter for only a moment because it is the assisted area map which, as my hon. Friend knows, dictates so much of what we can achieve in the European context. Indeed, specific types of help are excluded from those areas that the United Kingdom itself does not identify as assisted areas.
  We invited views on the criteria for designating assisted areas, and over 300 submissions were received. Support for continuing to use unemployment as the main criterion in determining the policy was overwhelming. I shall refer to the figures that my hon. Friend mentioned. Those arguing that long-term unemployment was an appropriate
  456
  additional factor amounted to 18 per cent., fewer than those who argued in favour of industrial structure as the main factor or for peripherality.
  Taking account of those submissions, our decisions on the map were based solely on areas' relative need for current and future employment opportunities. The main criterion was relative annual average employment rates. Relative long-term unemployment was also taken into account. In making our decisions on the map, we also took account of such factors as the relative pressures for new job opportunities expected to result from the varying age structure of the population in differing parts of the country. We also recognised that this may be affected by changes in local economic activity rates. Other factors were involved such as areas' differing industrial structure, and the occupations and skills of the population as they reflect the quality of local employment opportunities and the pool of entrepreneurial talent. We also considered handicaps to economic recovery, such as great distances from main markets and the general trend of industry to move out of the densely populated inner cities.
  All those factors are objective criteria, but their relative importance is essentially subjective. We considered in great depth the scope for using a synthetic index. However, we concluded that no single index was capable of adequately reflecting the needs of areas, especially as account also needed to be taken of the relative positions of neighbouring areas.
  So we came to the much-discussed travel-to-work areas and whether they could or should be used as building blocks for assisted area status. For areas that fall well short of being self-contained, the relationship between unemployment and job opportunities is greatly affected by the situation in adjoining areas—too greatly for such areas to be useful as the basis for a cost-effective regional industrial policy aimed at reducing disparities in employment opportunities.
  Travel-to-work areas are the smallest units for which nationally comparable unemployment rates are available, and thus the best basis for a nationwide comparison of relative needs for employment opportunities. However, as colleagues and I have said before, their importance goes further than that, because new job opportunities are generally taken by people living in the whole local labour market rather than those solely in the immediate vicinity of the employment.
  My hon. Friend is no doubt familiar with the case put forward by chambers of commerce up and down the country, which they summarised under the unemployment black spot proposals. They wish to see a much more focused regional aid and assisted area policy, particularly in areas of severe blight in inner cities. We looked at that matter closely. There was much sympathy for that approach, but we found that there was one flaw in it that tended to work against the areas of very localised and high unemployment. It was that there was no way that a Government, least of all an employer, could guarantee that any factory or enhanced activity set up in a particular location could automatically be totally staffed by those who live in the immediate vicinity of that new or enhanced facility. That "Realökonomie" tended to drive us back to the use of TTWAs. It is, therefore, within the travel-to-work areas that we find that unemployment rates on that general basis had a quite dramatic effect on who qualified or did not qualify for the coverage under the new assisted area map.

  457
  I fully appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend over the loss of assisted area status for the Blackpool travel-to-work area, but I can assure the House that we looked most carefully at the case for assistance for all such areas to see whether or not they merited continued prefential treatment over the rest of the country. But even with the substantially wider coverage of the new map, we could not justify continuing to assist all the areas previously covered on the old map.
  It is for that reason that I have taken a little time this morning to explain the methodology which led to this decision. I am in no doubt that the decision was an unwelcome one, but I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend that it was an objective one in the impartial circumstances of national consideration.
  On the question of how the Commission can help, the situation is that in December last year the Commission made proposals, in the form of a draft regulation, for measures under the European regional development fund to help with the development of new economic activities in certain areas affected by the implementation of the Community's fisheries policy. In broad terms, the assistance would be for areas where fisheries activities have been concentrated and have declined; but only areas meeting the criteria proposed in the draft regulation would be eligible. The criteria relate to employment and job losses in the fisheries sector and to the social and economic situation of an area.
  Fleetwood is not one of the areas proposed by the Commission to be eligible for such aid. The Commission concluded that Fleetwood does not meet the criteria it has in mind. The Commission's proposals are that there should be nearly £7·5 million of assistance for the United Kingdom, the same amount for Denmark, and about £5 million for France. For the United Kingdom, the Commission has proposed that the aid should be available only to Hull and Grimsby. There is no doubt that Hull and Grimsby should be among the areas to benefit, but there are other ports in England, Scotland and Wales which also have a case to be accepted as eligible for aid on this kind of basis. Fleetwood has a case; and we shall press the case for Fleetwood — and other United Kingdom ports — to benefit as well as Grimsby and Hull.
  458
  As it is, we do not yet know when the Commission's proposals may come before the Council of Ministers for consideration, or what form the proposals will then take. The Commission's proposals were for the assistance to be made available under the non-quota section of the European regional development fund. However, the new ERDF Regulation which came into effect on 1 January this year made considerable changes in ERDF arrangements. Under the new regulation, there is no longer a non-quota section of the fund and the Commission has not yet said how its proposals will be related to the circumstances of the new regulation.
  The proposals are for measures very much like the existing ERDF non-quota section measures under the old regulation for assistance to certain shipbuilding, steel and textile areas. Following the usual pattern, the assistance would not be for the fishing sector itself, but rather for the encouragement of alternative activities.
  My hon. Friend has clearly demonstrated that Fleetwood is determined to help itself, but is looking for support to show solidarity with that self-help. The measures proposed include ERDF contributions to the cost of redeveloping and improving industrial sites where United Kingdom public expenditure is involved, measures for the promotion of tourism, and a range of assistance to help the development of small and medium-sized firms.
  I cannot forecast what progress will be made with the Commission's proposals, or what the outcome may be; it is not entirely up to us. But we should like to see early progress and, as I have said, progress that would make the proposed assistance available to a number of United Kingdom ports, including Fleetwood.
  The Department will again examine the comments that my hon. Friend has made on behalf of his constituents. We are grateful to him for keeping this issue to the fore. We appreciate the dilemma that the new map has caused him and a number of my hon. Friends from neighbouring parts of Lancashire and Scotland, who are in the Chamber.
  I once again thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue of importance to many of my hon. Friends, and one that his constituents feel is crucial.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Nine o'clock on Wednesday morning.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Social Security Commissioner (Appeals)
  Social Security Commissioner (Appeals)
ENERGY
  Energy Prices
  Energy Prices
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
TRANSPORT
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  Marine Pilotage
  Marine Pilotage
  In-Car Telephones
  In-Car Telephones
  MOT Testing Scheme (Examiners)
  MOT Testing Scheme (Examiners)
PRIME MINISTER
  Civil Service (Pay)
  Civil Service (Pay)
  Franks Committee
  Franks Committee
  Mr. Chernenko (Funeral)
  Mr. Chernenko (Funeral)
  Research (Code of Conduct)
  Research (Code of Conduct)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Mr. Peter Levene
  Mr. Peter Levene
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Students
  University Students
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Further and Higher Education (Science Facilities)
  Further and Higher Education (Science Facilities)
  Research Councils
  Research Councils
  A and O-level Passes
  A and O-level Passes
  Food Standards
  Food Standards
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Youth Service Policy
  Youth Service Policy
  Pupils (Statistics)
  Pupils (Statistics)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Philip Trusty and Alan Chard (Trial Evidence Review)
  Philip Trusty and Alan Chard (Trial Evidence Review)
  Prisoners (Razor Blades)
  Prisoners (Razor Blades)
  British Union of the Abolition of Vivisection
  British Union of the Abolition of Vivisection
  Drunkenness (Statistics)
  Drunkenness (Statistics)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Probation Centres
  Probation Centres
  Leeds Prison
  Leeds Prison
  After-care Grant Scheme
  After-care Grant Scheme
  Prisoners (Segregation)
  Prisoners (Segregation)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Immigration
  Immigration
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Roadworks (Carrickfergus)
  Roadworks (Carrickfergus)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Social Security Offices
  Social Security Offices
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Women Prisoners (Armagh)
  Women Prisoners (Armagh)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Industrial Activity (Merseyside)
  Industrial Activity (Merseyside)
  Redditch
  Redditch
  EC (Spain and Portugal)
  EC (Spain and Portugal)
  Laser Technology
  Laser Technology
  Mineral Exploration
  Mineral Exploration
  EC (Anti-dumping Procedures)
  EC (Anti-dumping Procedures)
  EC (Steel Industries)
  EC (Steel Industries)
WALES
  Household Statistics
  Household Statistics
  Council Houses (New Tenants)
  Council Houses (New Tenants)
  Health Authorities (Members' Overseas Trips)
  Health Authorities (Members' Overseas Trips)
  Roads (Construction Programmes)
  Roads (Construction Programmes)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Procurator Fiscal, Peterhead
  Procurator Fiscal, Peterhead
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Arms Talks
  Arms Talks
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  "Noise and the Worker"
  "Noise and the Worker"
  Hairdressing (Self-employment Grants)
  Hairdressing (Self-employment Grants)
  Budget Changes
  Budget Changes
  Secret Ballots
  Secret Ballots
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Funds
  Local Authority Funds
  Planning Zones
  Planning Zones
  Control of Pollution Order 1983
  Control of Pollution Order 1983
  Greater London Council (Mortgages)
  Greater London Council (Mortgages)
  London Housing (SHAC Report)
  London Housing (SHAC Report)
  Housing
  Housing
  Empty Premises
  Empty Premises
  Town and Country Planning Act
  Town and Country Planning Act
  Wideawake Air Base
  Wideawake Air Base
  Local Authorities (Employees)
  Local Authorities (Employees)
  Rate Capping
  Rate Capping
  Housing Defects (Assistance)
  Housing Defects (Assistance)
  Local Government Officers (Fraud)
  Local Government Officers (Fraud)
  GLC (Farms)
  GLC (Farms)
  Colne Valley Regional Park
  Colne Valley Regional Park
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  EC (VAT Base)
  EC (VAT Base)
  VAT
  VAT
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  MIRAS
  MIRAS
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
CIVIL SERVICE
  Senior Civil Servants
  Senior Civil Servants
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Management Information System
  Management Information System
  Contributory benefits
  Contributory benefits
  Supplementary benefits
  Supplementary benefits
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Neonatal Mortality
  Neonatal Mortality
  Children in Care (School Attendance)
  Children in Care (School Attendance)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Medicines Act (Infringements)
  Medicines Act (Infringements)
  NHS Computer Policy Committee
  NHS Computer Policy Committee
  High Rent Area Authorisation
  High Rent Area Authorisation
DEFENCE
  Northern Europe
  Northern Europe
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Anti-nuclear Protest Groups
  Anti-nuclear Protest Groups
  Trident Missile
  Trident Missile
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  American W82 Shell
  American W82 Shell
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  NATO Nuclear Planning Group
  NATO Nuclear Planning Group
  European Anti-ballistic Missile System
  European Anti-ballistic Missile System
  Defence Procurement Costs
  Defence Procurement Costs
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  United Kingdom Forces Overseas (Motor Vehicles)
  United Kingdom Forces Overseas (Motor Vehicles)
  Bomber Command (Medal)
  Bomber Command (Medal)
  P120 Aircraft
  P120 Aircraft
  RAF Molesworth
  RAF Molesworth
  Defence Establishments (Security)
  Defence Establishments (Security)
  Phantom and Jaguar Aircraft (Replacement)
  Phantom and Jaguar Aircraft (Replacement)
  Offshore Patrol Vessel II Programme
  Offshore Patrol Vessel II Programme
  Soviet Union (SS Missiles)
  Soviet Union (SS Missiles)
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Crown Proceedings Act
  Tornado Aircraft
  Tornado Aircraft
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Nuclear Artillery
  Nuclear Artillery
  Reserve Forces (Recruitment)
  Reserve Forces (Recruitment)
  Stockholm Conference
  Stockholm Conference
  Royal Irish Rangers
  Royal Irish Rangers
  Airframe Manufacture
  Airframe Manufacture
  European Fighter Aircraft
  European Fighter Aircraft
  Defence Equipment (Aish Company)
  Defence Equipment (Aish Company)
  Defence Procurement
  Defence Procurement
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Defence School of Music (Deal)
  Defence School of Music (Deal)
  Military and Defence Establishments
  Military and Defence Establishments
  Service Personnel (Regulations)
  Service Personnel (Regulations)
  Team Spirit 1985
  Team Spirit 1985
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Space Weapons
  Space Weapons
  Nuclear Testing Area (Wick)
  Nuclear Testing Area (Wick)
  United States Military Hospitals
  United States Military Hospitals
  United States Marine Corps (Materials and Supplies)
  United States Marine Corps (Materials and Supplies)
  Practice Bombing Runs
  Practice Bombing Runs
SCOTLAND
  Cormorants
  Cormorants
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Raptores
  Raptores
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Broadleaved Woodland
  Broadleaved Woodland
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Forestry (Felling Licences)
  Forestry (Felling Licences)
  Forest Estates (Sales)
  Forest Estates (Sales)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure

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

Corby: Job Creation
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the
Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many new jobs have been created in Corby since 1979.
The Minister without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, there are no definitive statistics on jobs created. However, according to Department of Trade and Industry estimates of the number of new jobs associated with projects attracting regional aid, some 6,000 jobs have been created in Corby since 1980 and a further 5,000 are in prospect.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that it is all the more impressive, bearing in mind that Corby has suffered from the loss of several thousand jobs as a result of the British Steel closure some years ago, as announced under the last Labour Government? May I ask my noble friend what Government measures have been and are being taken, and what other organisations and various bodies, such as the Corby Industrial Development Centre, are helping Corby with a considerable degree of success, particularly at a time when the national trend is adverse? Is my noble friend satisfied that the experience drawn at Corby is being applied with the same vigour in other areas which are suffering from economic hardship?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that supplementary question. In fact since 1979 some £43 million has been spent in regional aid in Corby and some 217 companies have received offers of aid. That is how 6,000 jobs have been created since 1980. Corby also has the benefit of having the most successful enterprise zone, is also a steel closure area and thus eligible for aid from the European Coal and Steel Community. What Corby demonstrates in microcosm is that employment is moving from manufacturing to the service sector. Many of the jobs created in Corby in the past three years have been in the service sector; and, against the national trend, unemployment in Corby has been dropping.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that in addition to regional aid some important factors at Corby have been as follows? First of all, the work of the British Steel Corporation; and,
866
secondly, the co-operation of the people of Corby themselves in putting some of their redundancy pay into local initiative. Will he assure the House that this example is, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, being followed elsewhere? Can he tell us what success the National Coal Board are having in depressed areas for which they have been largely responsible, and whether the miners are putting any of their redundancy pay into local initiative?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful for that question. What Corby demonstrates more than anything else is that if one is prepared to look forward rather than backwards and prepared to look for the creation of new types of jobs which are becoming available, then growth in employment will result. What we must not do is to continue to look backwards for the old days which will not return. I am afraid that there are insufficient statistics available to my knowledge at the moment on current progress made within the coal industry, but I shall certainly make inquiries on the matter.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Corby is an area that has employed a large percentage of male labour? Are the figures that he has given broken down into female and male labour or are the new industries in the main female orientated?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am afraid that I have to confess that I do not have the details; but I shall write to let the noble Baroness know the difference. My information is that the jobs are spread throughout. However, I shall make inquiries.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what Corby demonstrates even more than the two examples he gave is that where the Government intervene practically and constructively with the injection of capital then unemployment can be tackled? When is the example of Corby to be followed in other areas of high unemployment and acute difficulty in this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is an interpretation that could be construed. But I suspect the real reason is that Corby is much more willing to look forward than to look back. Corby represents the most successful of the first of the eleven enterprise zones that were established. It has demonstrated time and time again that it is willing to look towards new activities. If that example could be followed, then I think that all policies would be successful.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that while we are all extremely glad that Corby is doing so well—I am particularly glad because I remember visiting it with the unemployment committee when the city was receiving the first impact of the closure of the steel works—nevertheless, it cannot be used as an example to say that the same can be done everywhere else? Corby is surely in an exceptionally favourable geographical location and that does not apply in many other areas which have been so badly affected, but where a great deal more help is needed.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the question. Of course it is true that not all parts of the country are as amenable to the new world. But I can recall visiting Bradford not so many weeks ago and seeing the remarkable progress which it has made in attracting tourism. I can remember very clearly 25 or 30 years ago visiting Bradford. Without wishing to cast any aspersion on the citizens of that city, it was not a place to which I would have gone for my holidays at that time.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, since the noble Lord talks about looking forward, will he say, as one interested in industry, how far forward they can look if they are allocated £5 million, which was the figure allocated to the new developments by the National Coal Board? Can he say how they could have looked forward with imagination if they had been given something of the £600 million which was later spent on policing during the strike period?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, to my knowledge the amount of money which has been allocated towards the enterprise board for the National Coal Board is rather more than £5 million. But the point that I am trying to make this afternoon to your Lordships' House is that attitude is often equally as important as funds, if not more important.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, but the original amount allocated to the coal board enterprise was £5 million. It was later increased to £10 million. Does not the allocation of that small amount indicate the attitude that is bedevilling the present Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that demonstrated that at the time the original £5 million was allocated and the time when it was increased to £10 million the industry was in some disarray. Now that miners are back at work, I hope that the National Coal Board, together with the people who work with them, can start to plan positively for the future.

MOT Test
2.45 p.m.
Lord De Freyne: 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 there are reasons why the MOT test could not be incorporated into a normal major service at a licensed garage at no extra cost
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, to ensure that no part of the inspection is omitted the MOT test must be carried out as a separate activity and according to the detailed routine set out by the department. There is nothing to prevent an authorised garage carrying out an MOT test before or after normal servicing: indeed, this is often done. A testing station is not obliged to charge a fee for the MOT test.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will he not consider the idea of incorporating the MOT test as an attractive inducement to the already over-burdened motorist? Also, will he not agree that it be in the interests of safety?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the MOT test requires a number of checks which are often not included in normal servicing. To ensure that the test is carried out properly and completely it should be performed in a single prescribed sequence. I would remind my noble friend that, as I said in my original Answer, the prescribed fee is the maximum fee and garages can reduce it or charge nothing if they so wish.

Broadcasting in Wartime
2.46 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 have plans to improve arrangements for the continuation of broadcasting in wartime.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): Yes, my Lords. The main improvements involve the strengthening of installations at certain BBC transmitters and the extension of the Wartime Broadcasting Service to include its local radio stations.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether plans are in hand to have a very close liaison between regional and local authorities and their adjacent stations? Whereas it is good to hear that the BBC has been incorporated in the wartime emergency network, surely arrangements should be made for the independent stations as well—both independent radio and independent television stations—to play a part in such an emergency.
Lord Elton: My Lords, local authorities would have access to the wartime broadcasting service through the regional government headquarters. As to the involvement of the independent sector, I understand that the WTBS plans rely principally on the broadcasting corporation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that in the event of wartime envisaged by his noble friend, including nuclear war, it would still be possible to carry out broadcasting of any kind at all?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that would depend upon the success of our present plans and the vigour with which they are pursued.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us which war he is talking about?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that I am wrong in saying it is the next one, because I profoundly believe that we should be able to avoid it happening at all.

China: British Business Mission
2.48 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: 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 on what criteria the members of Lord Young of Graffham's mission to China were selected.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the proposal that I should lead a high level British business mission to China was put forward by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when she met the Chinese Premier in Peking in December. In choosing the members of the mission I had the benefit of advice from the Department of Trade and Industry and from the British Embassy in Peking. My intention was to put together a high level team reflecting a broad range of British advanced technology in the fields to which the Chinese attach economic priority, including energy, transport, communications and the modernisation of industry. I also wanted to include a representative of the service industries, reflecting the importance of invisible exports in Britain's overseas trade and the potential for increasing our trade with China in invisibles.
The 11 members of the mission were: the noble Lord, Lord King of Wartnaby, a Member of this House; the right honourable James Prior, chairman of GEC; Sir Duncan McDonald, chairman of Northern Engineering Industries; Sir Eric Sharp, chairman of Cable and Wireless; Mr. Harry Harrison, chairman of Simon Engineering; Mr. Dennis Jackson, a director of corporate stategy and international affairs of Rolls-Royce; Mr. Dick Giordano, chairman and chief executive of BOC; Mr. John Glasscock, deputy chief executive of British Aerospace; Mr. Roger Kingdon, chief executive of Davy McKee; and Mr. John Swinglehurst, director of the Sedgwick Group.
The high level nature of this mission was reflected in the level of our reception by the Chinese authorities. Our host was State Councillor Madame Chen Muhua, Minister of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade. We were also honoured to meet, in Peking, Premier Zhao Ziyang, Vice-Premier Li Peng, and a number of other Ministers and Vice-Ministers.
We were also received at the highest level by the municipal authorities in Shanghai and by the provincial and municipal authorities in Canton. A number of agreements were signed by members of the mission in China. In addition, every member of the mission entered into discussions in the areas in which they hope to do substantial business in the future. Overall, I believe that the mission has made an important contribution to the future development of trade and economic co-operation between Britain and China.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his very full reply to the Question and may I also congratulate him on a very successful mission?—because all the information I have received since the noble Lord the Minister returned has been on
870
his side. I should be very grateful if he would make everybody aware of all the opportunities that they have got in trading with China.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord for his comments. I believe it was considered by members of my mission that it was successful; but each and every member knew that he was acting not only as a representative of his own firm but also as a representative of British industry and commerce. We will give, and indeed we are at the present time giving, a great deal of thought to the best way of disseminating the lessons we have learnt, but I can assure your Lordships that two things will happen. First, we shall disseminate the information and, secondly, this will not be the only effort because we shall follow through and see whether we can at the very least bring up our level of trade with China to a level which is commensurate with the rest of the free world.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, however much the Chinese may wish to buy our goods and however much we may wish to sell them, we cannot conclude a good agreement because they have so little currency? Would my noble friend agree, therefore, that it is just as important to make certain that they have an outlet for their goods in our country so that they can gain the currency to buy our own goods? In particular, would he encourage the Chinese, from an agricultural point of view, to take a pavilion at the Royal Show so that their goods can be on show and can be sold?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, speaking from memory, last year China bought some 25 billion dollars worth of goods from overseas and at the same time exported 24 billion dollars worth. Their foreign debt, I believe, rose from five billion dollars to six billion. I should remind your Lordships that our trade with China last year was something like £300 million, so we have some way to go. There were suggestions when I was in China that we should consider some form of soft loans or the equivalent. Indeed, I read in today's paper that some soft loans have been granted by others of our EEC partners. My impression is, as was the impression of many members of my mission, that there is much business to be done on normal commercial terms. I will certainly pass on the recommendation about the Royal Show.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the principle of these visits can only do good in numerous ways? We should not only congratulate the noble Lord but indeed thank him as well. Would he also consider that in future there might be other visits, not purely based on the type of delegation which he led but visits that could involve cultural activities and exchanges between the two countries? When we do have visits similar to the one he has so ably led, could the base be just a little broader so as to involve all people in our country who contribute to the success of our nation and not merely the so-called leaders right at the top? That is a broad pyramid we can all be proud of.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that the best way in which we can encourage understanding between nations is to trade together. The purpose of my mission was to encourage trade in the interests of both our economies. I hope we shall succeed and, if we do, there will be plenty of room—as there already is—for cultural missions.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it would appear from the list of names that the Minister has given, from the people who were on this delegation and the interests they represented, that there was nobody specifically representing the building industry from this country. Bearing in mind that in the developing countries some of our biggest success stories have happened by way of the building industry, may I ask the Minister why the building industry was excluded, or would he ever consider it at any time?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was entertained yesterday by the export group of the British construction industry and they expressed great satisfaction with the mission and actually said they were happy, in these particular circumstances, not to be included. In deciding on those who were to come within the mission, the difficulty I had was in distinguishing between large numbers of firms when all were of interest. Within my mission I took many people who were interested directly in construction of power plant and transmission lines. I believe we have a considerable future in terms of management contracts and construction expertise, and I hope that we shall proceed as a result of my mission.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that at the time of his visit there was a Japanese mission similar to but 10 times larger than the British, and at a lower and more acceptable stage of industrial development than ours? Would he confirm that that mission was received at a higher level than ours and made a number of important contacts with that form of association which the Chinese are looking for—that is, joint ventures? Also, can the Minister say whether his mission looked into the possibility—which the Chinese are themselves looking for—of joint ventures with either state industry or private industry in China?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, for asking this question, because I must confess to your Lordships that when I returned from my mission and read some of the cuttings from the British press I did not recognise the descriptions. I travelled out with my delegation which, I should remind your Lordships, was possibly the most high-powered trade delegation we have yet sent in an official capacity to a foreign power, with a letter to Premier Zhao Ziyang. The same day that I met the Premier there happened to be in Peking a delegation of 100 members of local chambers of commerce, bringing with them a letter to the chairman. That was, to my mind, more of a political visit, but, even if it was not, I should remind your Lordships that Japan does possibly 16 times as much trade with China as we do, because today we do perhaps 1 per cent. of China's trade, whereas Japan's trade with China, I believe, is something approaching
872
60 per cent. of the OECD average. I can assure your Lordships that we were received as well as anyone could be received on a similar trade mission. As well as meeting the Premier, we met the Vice-Premier, Li Peng, who is one of four Vice-Premiers responsible for the heavy goods side that I dealt with. In addition, we met no less than 10 Ministers, Vice-Ministers or their equivalents.
In terms of joint ventures, the Premier said to me during our meeting that the Japanese were unwilling to share their technology. I assured him that each and every member of my mission was prepared not only to share his technology but to take China in as a full partner. It was in that spirit that our mission proceeded. I do not believe that our hosts made any distinction between private and public sector companies. They were quite happy with the members of my mission, some of whom, as I pointed out to the Chinese Premier, had been in business in China 100 years ago and all of whom hoped to be in business in China in a hundred years' time.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister mentioned communications but not information technology generally. Is it correct that the Chinese are particularly interested in developing their own information technology industry and that we might make a significant contribution to this end? Was anything said during the course of the discussions about the COCOM rules? Is there a possibility that, for the Chinese at any rate, we should be able to vary those rules so as to liberate trade with China from unnecessary political restrictions?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, one member of my mission was Sir Eric Sharp, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Cable and Wireless. While we were there, three memoranda were signed: one to establish as a joint venture a telecommunications technology development centre in Peking itself, with conference, office and hotel facilities; and, secondly, and more importantly, a memorandum of intent to establish a joint venture to develop a telecommunications system for the whole of the Yangtze delta region. That region has 110 million people living there—twice the size of the United Kingdom. This will involve capital expenditure of some 500 million dollars over the next five years.
The third joint project agreement was to provide modern telephone facilities in the Pearl River delta. These two deals were won in the face of intense international competition, and I think it is a matter of great pride to us, and of congratulations to Cable and Wireless, that they were in fact signed. So far as COCOM is concerned, we have partners and we are carrying forward discussions, and I am sure that whatever relaxation can properly be entered into will be.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough to give two examples of agreements that were reached. We wonder whether, without in any way breaching commercial confidentiality, he could give us some idea of the nature and extent of other agreements which he mentioned in the course of his reply to an earlier

873
supplementary question and which have in fact been concluded. Also, can he give the House an assurance that the efforts made by all those concerned in this extremely important conference will be followed up with the maximum of resolution?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. I think the details of all the memoranda that we signed were in fact published when we came back. But I am happy to be able to reassure your Lordships that conversations have carried on at a very encouraging rate since our return. Delegations are now arriving in the United Kingdom as a result, and, indeed, some of the members of our delegation already have teams back in China following through. I take it very much upon myself to ensure that a proper follow-up is maintained, and I hope that as the months pass—since by their nature the projects will reach their conclusion in a matter of many months, if not a year or so—we shall see the full fruits of our endeavours.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Swinton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the White Paper on Schools. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Caithness, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on medical and dental manpower.

Petition: Fishermen's Lead Weights
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the Eton Town Council which prays that your Lordships will give consideration to the introduction of legislation to prohibit the sale and use of lead weights on fishermen's lines on freshwater rivers, lakes and reservoirs in the United Kingdom.
Petition presented.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the
Order Paper.
Moved, That, if the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill is brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be taken through all its stages this day.—(Viscount Whitelaw)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the
Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage he marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 4,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 5 to 34,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 35 to 86,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 87 to 89,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 90 to 145,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 146 to 183,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 184 to 201,

Schedules 7 to 9,

Clause 202.

—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, this Motion relates to the Report stage of the Bill, which at the present moment is scheduled to commence on Monday next, 1st April, and to continue the next day. The purpose of my rising is to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether in the circumstances I shall describe it would be possible to postpone the Report stage for a further adequate period of time.
The Bill on Report, as amended on recommittal, became available in the Printed Paper Office only today, and already there are some 295 Government amendments in relation to it. I am well aware that many of the amendments are consequential and that some of them reflect the Government's reactions to matters that were raised in various quarters of the Chamber during the Committee stage and, indeed, at the recommittal stage. Nevertheless, there are 295 amendments. These all have to be associated with this revised Bill, and there are only two-and-a-half working days left.
Not only does the paper and scissor work take hours and hours of labour, in order that these can he traced through; there also have to be considered the amendments of Members in all parts of your Lordships' House—and this was a non-partisan measure which attracted interest right throughout your Lordships' House. Then, there should be time for Members to consider, having taken account of the Government's amendments, what further amendments they themselves wish to table. Moreover, as is very often customary with Bills of this kind, which are highly technical and which have very considerable legal problems associated with the Bench and the Bar, it is necessary to obtain outside advice. Finally, only a limited time remains after taking all these matters into account to put down amendments from other quarters of the House.
I am well aware that not only has the noble Viscount caused a letter to be sent to myself—I received it 30

875
minutes ago—explaining some of the implications, but a copy went to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who I trust has received it, and to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. But so far as I can trace, no communication has been sent to the Cross-Benchers despite the fact that they took a very large part in the discussions that occurred.
It is my respectful submission that, if this House is to perform the functions which it is designed to perform, and for which it is getting an increasing reputation in the country at large, the time that has been allowed following the publication of this Bill—two-and-a-half working days—is inadequate. Therefore, I ask on behalf of this side of the House, and possibly, I hope, on behalf of Members sitting in other parts of the House, that the House should reconsider its order of business for Monday and Tuesday next.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it really is the normal practice in this House to discuss such matters through the usual channels, and I can assure the noble Lord that such discussions will take place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for that undertaking—that there will be discussions. But I think it is worth underlining the main point which my noble friend made; namely, that with a very large and complex Bill, as this is, it is desirable that an opportunity is given to the Opposition to consider very carefully all the implications which are involved. If I may say so—the noble Lord is fully aware of this, as indeed will be the Leader of the House—the Opposition is always at a disadvantage compared with the Government Front Bench. The Government Front Bench is, of course, fully briefed, and has all the resources of the Government behind it, whereas the Opposition, of all parties, is in a very different position. I should really like to make that point, while realising that the Government themselves have a task to perform.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Representation of the People Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 10,

Schedule 1,

Clause 11,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 12 to 23,

Schedule 3,

Clause 24,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 25 to 29,

Schedule 5.—(Lord Elton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Administration of Justice Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a
third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Probate work by legal executives and others.
.—(1) Section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (restriction on persons acting in probate matters when not qualified to act as a solicitor) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(3) Subsection (1) also does not apply to any act done by a person, including a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives, at the direction and under the supervision of another person if it could have been done by that other person for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under this section.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will recall that the same amendment was tabled by me at both Committee and Report stage. During Committee my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was good enough to suggest that he would have another look at this matter and come back at Report. At Report stage my noble and learned friend let us know that he was not quite ready to deliver his consideration upon the matter.
On that basis I re-tabled the amendment for two reasons: first, because I made something of a hash of arguing the point in Committee. But that reason alone is not good enough. However, the major reason why I wanted to air this matter was that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to write to me between the Report stage and the Third Reading with his reasons for feeling that this amendment was not necessary. I felt it very important that as this Bill will pass to another place the point should be aired just for a short while longer.
My noble and learned friend suggested that it might be unfortunate if a client in probate matters was not at least initially instructed by an admitted solicitor, and that this in part was the object of Section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974; and furthermore that he had heard of no complaints that had been received by himself or his department with regard to the operation of Section 23. It was these two grounds, if I have summarised my noble and learned friend's letter correctly, that persuaded my noble and learned friend that any amendment such as mine was in fact not necessary.
However, I am advised that it is by no means exceptional for experienced legal executives who have recognised written qualifications in probate, and indeed experience in probate, to handle probate work on behalf of their instructing clients—from the eggs to the apples, so to speak, from beginning to end. I venture to suggest that the reason why no problems have arised with regard to the operation of Section 23 is simply that the public are perfectly satisfied with the service that they receive from solicitors in this field, whether they be admitted or unadmitted.
It is my contention that Section 23 should reflect what happens in practice rather than reflect what some might like to happen in practice. Indeed, by practice rules made by the Law Society, Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives are permitted to manage solicitors' branch offices. This means that, while a solicitor is expected to be in attendance at some time for clients who wish to see him, the legal executive is essentially in control of the business of that office.
For such to happen must assume that legal executors will be available to see new clients and to take initial instructions, including of course instructions in probate matters. Furthermore, I suggest that your own experience tells you that one does not ask a member of a solicitor's staff to show his practising certificate or evidence of his qualifications. I think that the public generally assume that the person in the solicitor's office with whom one is dealing is an admitted solicitor although this is by no means necessary. All I ask is that my noble and learned friend hears me and that he be good enough to consider this matter a little further in the light of what has been said, particularly bearing in mind that this will, I am advised, be followed up when this measure reaches another place. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, modesty is always a very acceptable virtue in your Lordships' House; but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was too modest when he referred to his contribution at Committee stage as being a muddled one. It was not; but he has made the position abundantly clear today. Perhaps I may add an observation or two. There is a possibility of a problem arising in the future because of the difference between the terms of Section 22, as amended, and Section 23 if it remains unamended. However, I should not like anyone to think—certainly not the noble and learned Lord—that Section 23 was regarded by my profession as anything other than very worthwhile in its aim to protect the public. With the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I wonder whether, now that the Bill will undoubtedly be travelling on its voyage down the corridor, consideration could not be given to
878
this question without weakening the protection for the public but which might put this clause at risk if the amendment is not made in Section 23 to match that in Section 22.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I also add a word in support of the amendment? In my young days legal executives were all called managing clerks. There was the managing clerk of the litigation department; the managing clerk of the conveyancing department; and the managing clerk dealing with probate. They were first-rate people. They had been in the profession all their lives and had much more experience, and often much more knowledge, than the partner himself. At least I had the greatest confidence in them. It is right that these managing clerks, now legal executives, with their experience—and they have had to pass their examinations—should and could be entrusted to do it in the terms of this amendment at the direction and under the supervision of the partner. I support the amendment so as to clear up the position. There should be no doubt about the validity of what these managing clerks or legal executives do. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can see difficulties about this amendment. It is quite acceptable that unqualified persons, whether they are legal executives or not, shoud prepare probate papers under the supervision of a qualified person. That is quite acceptable, although I do not think that this amendment would be necessary in order to make it acceptable. I think it already is. However, it gets stuck in two respects: first, it will enable people to take the initial instructions. My present view is that the person who takes initial instructions ought to be a qualified person. It is not an easy thing to do. Nor am I satisfied with what my noble and learned friend has said about it; nor am I clear in my mind what is meant by taking instructions under supervision. I can well understand what is meant by preparing papers under supervision, but I cannot quite visualise what actually goes on on the ground if an unqualified person takes the instructions; how does he get the supervision? If he goes there with the qualified person, I should have thought that this amendment is unnecessary. If he goes without, I do not think he is getting supervision, and I think it is objectionable. So that is one difficulty that I have.
Now I come to the second point. Despite what my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches says, the amendment says:
"a person, including a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives, at the direction and under the supervision of another person".
It does not say anything about being confined to managing clerks or legal executives. It says:
"a person, including a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives"
So it seems to me in that form to be objectionable, except to the extent that papers can be prepared under supervision by an unqualified person. It seems to me to be inept. But I confirm one thing which I pointed out to my noble friend, and that is that the Government are not aware of any problems having actually arisen. Whether, as my noble friend suggested, that means that it has been going on all the time and that therefore it is perfectly all right, or whether it means nothing

879
which is objectionable has been going on and therefore it is absolutely all right, does not appear. I can only say that in the form in which it appears the amendment is not acceptable. If my noble friend wants me to consider what he has said over and above what he said in Committee and at Report stage, I shall certainly do so, and let him know what has emerged from that consideration.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for that response and, indeed, for the most distinguished support that I have received from both the Cross-Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. His point is a very valid one, and if I may respectfully say so, it would certainly cause an odd conflict between Sections 22 and 23.
I also take the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with regard to the word "including" which is a very real objection and which almost certainly will be considered by those who will be handling this interesting but by no means weighty matter in another place. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:—
("Grant of legal aid by High Court or Court of Appeal
.—(1) Where, at the hearing of any proceedings in the High Court or in the civil division of the Court of Appeal, it appears to the judge or that court to be desirable that a party appearing in person should receive legal aid for the further conduct of those proceedings, the judge or the court may, with the consent of that party, determine that he should be treated as if he were a person to whom an emergency certificate had been issued in accordance with regulations made under Part I of the Legal Aid Act 1974 subject to his complying with such conditions as to the furnishing of information and otherwise as may be required by such regulations.
(2) On making a determination under subsection (1) for the grant of legal aid to any party the judge or the Court of Appeal may adjourn the proceedings so far as may be necessary to enable that party to be represented by a solicitor and counsel and shall cause notice of the determination to he sent to The Law Society.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment that I now move proposes that in a civil case where a party is unrepresented and is appearing in person and it appears to the judge or the court that he should receive legal aid for one reason or another—perhaps the importance of the issues involved, such as public policy questions, etc.—the judge or the court should have power to enable legal aid and advice to be provided, with of course the consent of the party in question.
It is somewhat paradoxical that one lay justice can grant legal aid to an accused person committed for trial, even though there appears to be no real defence to the charge, while a High Court judge, or even three Lord Justices, have no such power in a civil case, even when it appears to them that the litigant's case has real merits and ought to be assisted in its furtherance. The full merits of a case may not emerge until well into the course of the proceedings in court. It is the case that some legal aid committees are less willing than others to grant legal aid, and the matters in issue, the merits
880
of the matters, as I have said, can appear during the currency of the proceedings.
For most people the refusal of a legal aid certificate means in effect the end of any hope for them of redress or, indeed, of defence against attack. There is a danger in this, in that it means trial not by courts, but by legal aid committees.
However, this is not an amendment which I should have thought would add greatly to the cost of legal aid administration. I respectfully invite the sympathetic attention of the noble and learned Lord to it. Owing to pressure of time during earlier stages of the Bill we have had no opportunity to discuss the amendment which I now move more in hope than in confidence. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to suggest that this is unnecessary. In the Court of Appeal I have had experience of litigants in person. A litigant would come on Monday morning and explain his case to us. Sometimes there would be nothing in it, but sometimes there would be something in it and we would feel that we needed help and that he needed help. So I would say to the litigant in person, "Have you asked for legal aid?". He would say, "No". I would then say. "You had better do so". But quite often it happened he would say, "Yes, I have applied for it, but I have been refused". Then I would say to him, "Well, we have heard enough about your case to realise it would be helpful to us that you should be legally aided. Will you please now go to the area committee and tell them that the Court of Appeal have recommended that you should get legal aid". So he would go along to the area committee. The area committee would take good notice of what the Court of Appeal had said and grant him his legal aid. So in point of practice every deserving case in that way does get legal aid. There is no need to go through the procedure stated in the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who proposed this amendment, and to my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches who made his comment on it. I tend broadly to accept the view of my noble and learned friend in preference to that of the noble and learned Lord, but I should like to add a comment of my own. I do not myself see the paradox in the difference in approach between criminal and civil legal aid. The whole of criminal legal aid is within the grant or refusal of the court trying the case, or committing it to the Crown Court. In the case of the first instance of a committal proceeding or of a summary jurisdiction case it would, of course, be a lay magistrate or lay magistrates. But as a matter of fact they have the fairly well known, so-called Widgery, criteria to go by, which involve that legal aid is granted if liberty or reputation is at stake—I am speaking from memory—or difficult points of law are involved; or perhaps the defendant does not understand English very well or does not seem to be able to hear very well, or something like that; and the lay justice grants legal aid. In fact, in the Crown Court and in the Court of Appeal I think that over 90 per cent. of the cases get legal aid and, of course, there is no very elaborate procedure there for the assessment of means. But when

881
it comes to civil legal aid, as my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches said, in the first place underpinning the whole system and responsible for it is the whole system of district and area committees of legal practitioners, barristers and solicitors upon whom grant and refusal actually depend. This would be a serious change of policy from the system which underpins civil legal aid to an application to or an originating motion from the court.
3.30 p.m.
When my noble and learned friend was hearing, with his usual courtesy and patience, litigants in person in the Court of Appeal, I have waited for my own proceedings to commence with much pleasure gathered from listening to his performance, which was a model of how to deal with litigants in person—courtesy combined with patience and a helpful suggestion where a suggestion might be helpful. As he has reminded us, he could say to the applicant or to the person seeking to conduct his own case, "Don't you think you had better obtain legal aid?". He has described in greater detail than that what then happened. The applicant was very often refused, but if a new point had emerged, my noble and learned friend told him to go back and repeat what the Court of Appeal had said.
Underpinning that, which my noble and learned friend did not mention but which is important for the working of the system, there is the whole emergency certificate procedure available, with or without a hint from the Court of Appeal. That can be invoked—it is in fact referred to in the amendment. I must point out that I cannot estimate the cost, and the noble and learned Lord said that it would not cost very much. I do not know whether it would or would not, but it would undermine the assessment of means which is vital to the whole proceedings in civil legal aid.
I am persuaded, for the same reasons as were given by my noble and learned friend, that in practice, although it would be a departure in principle from the organisation of the scheme, it would not add anything to it in the way of justice. I would not therefore accept this amendment although I quite realise that the noble and learned Lord who was deprived of an opportunity of airing this point at length at the two earlier stages of the Bill was perfectly entitled to bring it forward at Third Reading.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his courteous answer. I regret, however, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for once did not get the point—which is a dangerous thing to accuse him of failing to do. My concern in this amendment is to provide a fall-back position for the litigant in person who has been refused legal aid by the relevant committee but who decides nevertheless to have a go himself. The merits of the case may emerge during the currency of the proceedings. I am not concerned with how the matter would have been dealt with in the preliminary stages of a case in his angelic way by the noble and learned Lord when he was Master of the Rolls but when the case is in full swing at the trial itself. The litigant in person inevitably suffers disadvantages in court unless he is a very exceptional character indeed. We have already
882
advanced a good deal in easing the positions of the litigant in person by enabling him, for instance, to make claims for the expenses that he has incurred. It is felt by those who have represented their views to me that an additional fall-back position for the litigant in person would be a further useful addition to the provisions of legal aid and advice.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of Solicitors Act 1974]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 46, line 21, at end insert—
("(1) Section 28 (regulations) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Regulations about the keeping of the roll may—

(a) provide for the Society, at such intervals as may be specified in the regulations, to enquire of solicitors of any class so specified whether they wish to have their names retained on the roll;

(b) require solicitors of any such class, at such intervals as aforesaid, to pay to the Society a fee in respect of the retention of their names on the roll of such amount as may be prescribed by the regulations; and

(c) authorise the Society to remove from the roll the name of any solicitor who—

(i) fails to reply to any enquiry made in pursuance of paragraph (a) or to pay any fee payable by virtue of paragraph (b), or

(ii) replies to any such enquiry by indicating that he does not wish to have his name retained on the roll;

(d) authorise the Society to remove from the roll the name of any solicitor who has died.".

(3) In subsection (4), for "The regulations may" substitute "Regulations about the keeping of the roll may also".").
Page 47, line 25, at end insert—
("In section 87 (interpretation), in subsection (2)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (a) insert "or in pursuance of regulations under section 28(3A);"

(b) in paragraph (b), for "otherwise than at his own request" substitute "as a disciplinary sanction".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main amendment is to insert a new subsection, subsection (3A), into Section 28 of the 1974 Act. This covers similar ground to the amendment which I tabled at Committee stage. However, it is closer in form to the equivalent provisions in the Scottish legislation. In particular, instead of providing, as a previous amendment did, for solicitors or a class of solicitors to make annual application to the society for retention of their names on the roll, it puts the onus on the society to inquire of them whether they wish to retain their names on the roll. Frankly, this would not make any material difference since it was always the intention of the society, I am told, to take the first step by sending out the appropriate form to the solicitors concerned.
The amendment also meets the criticism of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in respect of the previous amendment, by making it clear that the amount of any fee will be prescribed by the regulations, which will of course be made by the Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. I believe I am at liberty to say that the Master of the Rolls has been shown the amendment and has no objection to it.
There is a minor amendment to subsection (4) of Section 28 purely for the purpose of clarification. Finally, there are amendments to the interpretation provisions in Section 87(2). The first is to ensure that a solicitor whose name has been removed from the roll

883
under the new regulations can apply to the society to be re-enrolled under subsection (2) in the same way as a solicitor whose name has been removed at his own request. The second part would amend in Section 87(2)(b) the words
"striking a solicitor's name off the roll … otherwise than at his own request",
which reads somewhat oddly, to striking it off
"as a disciplinary sanction"
which clarifies the distinction between removal and striking off, which professionally is indeed a difference. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to confirm that these amendments in their present form are acceptable to the Government, and are indeed the result of a considerable exchange of correspondence with my department. I am very happy to accept them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps I may be permitted to express what I know is the gratitude of the Law Society for the great courtesy extended by the noble and learned Lord's department in relation to this amendment, as they do generally.
The Lord Chancellor: I am much obliged, my Lords.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 65, line 31, leave out paragraph 7.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I suggest that this is a formal amendment. It is consequential upon the decision of the House on the new clause which I failed to get through at Report stage. It is therefore a consequential amendment. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the most important thing in the world: I beg to move the Privilege Amendment.
An amendment (privilege) made accordingly.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the said Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I have one or two points to raise.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps we should take the Statement first.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am at the disposal of the House.

Schools: White Paper
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the White Paper setting out the Government's policies for school education in England and Wales which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"1. I wish to make a Statement about the White Paper, published today, setting out the Government's policies for school education in England and Wales. Copies of the White Paper, and a summary, are available in the Vote Office.
"2. The Government have two principal aims—to raise the standards achieved by pupils of all abilities, and to secure the best possible return for the resources invested in school education.
"3. We have set these aims because education at school needs to develop to the full the capacities of every pupil, and to promote the nation's ability to seize the challenging opportunites of a technological and competitive world. The schools need to build on Britain's values and traditions—and on its ethnic diversity. They need to educate pupils to their own full potential and for the responsibilities of citizenship and for working life.
"4. Both what is taught and how it is taught need to serve these purposes better than is now the case in many schools. National standards would rise dramatically if all schools matched the present achievements of the best comparable schools. The Government have a duty in law to take a lead in securing that all our schools have an effective curriculum, effectively delivered by those responsible.
"5. Together with its partners in the education service, and with the customers of the service, the Government will take action in four broad areas of policy to raise achievement at all levels of ability.
"6. First, we shall continue to take the lead in promoting agreement about the objectives and content of the curriculum in primary, secondary and special schools. The curriculum should be broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated for variations in pupils' abilities and aptitudes. Agreed and explicit objectives will help to focus the efforts of LEAs and schools, and motivate pupils, towards aims shared also by parents and employers.
"7. Second, we are taking action on examinations. As the House will recall, we are establishing the General Certificate of Secondary Education (the GCSE). It will serve the curriculum better than the examinations it replaces. It will put a new emphasis on understanding, on the application of knowledge, and on oral and practical skills. Through the development of grade criteria it will award grades only to those who attain the required standard in defined aspects of each subject. We shall introduce a new examination, the AS level, to broaden the programme of students on A level courses. The new CPVE will offer a wide range of courses for other students over 16. We are working

885
towards the establishment by the end of the decade of a national system of records of achievement for all school-leavers which will record not only examination successes but also other achievements at school.
"8. Third, we shall promote teaching quality by improving the professional effectiveness of teachers and the management of the teaching force. Better initial training will result from the reform of courses the Government have already set in hand. We intend to make in-service training more effective by funding it through a specific grant to local education authorities. We will seek an early opportunity to legislate for that change, as I informed the House last week. We intend that it should be a condition of the grant that satisfactory arrangements are made for identifying and meeting the training needs of individuals and the service. Adequate arrangements for appraising the performance of each teacher are essential for the career development of individual teachers and for the good management of the teacher force; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will seek powers to allow us to require local education authorities to make such arrangements if we consider such action necessary.
"9. Fourth, we shall develop the contribution which governing bodies can make to good school education. In the light of the response to the Green Paper, Parental Influence at School, the Government have decided, as soon as the legislative programme permits, to propose two measures to the House. First, to entrench the powers of governing bodies of county, controlled and maintained special schools in relation to the functions of the LEA and the head teacher; second, to reform the composition of these governing bodies so that there can be an equal number of parent and LEA-appointed governors, and teachers and the local community will also be represented, with no single interest predominating.
"10. The programme of action will take time to accomplish in its entirety. It may be difficult to achieve it in full within existing real levels of expenditure per pupil. But much progress can be made if the education service gets the most out of what is available. The more it succeeds, the stronger its future claim on resources.
"11. Much of what needs to be done is neither a question of money, nor of action by the Government alone. The education service is a partnership. Each partner has important responsibilities which the Government intend to preserve. Each can do his job effectively only with the help of the others. Co-operation and professional commitment have secured notable achievements and built up many strengths in our schools. The Government believe that co-operation and professional commitment will continue to be the norm within the education service. We believe that local education authorities, the Churches and other voluntary bodies, governors, teachers, parents, employers, and all others will join in the common endeavour to make standards of achievement and behaviour at every school as good as they
886
can be, and need to be, in the interest of the pupils and our national future".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend. We on these Benches agree with most of the pious sentiments expressed in the Statement. We all want to raise the standards achieved by pupils of all abilities and to secure the best possible return for the resources invested in school education. We all want a broad, balanced, relevant curriculum.
As regards promoting the nation's ability to seize the challenging opportunities of a technological and competitive world, mentioned in the third paragraph, we all want that but, as was said over and over again in yesterday's debate on education and training for new technology, the Government and industry are deluding themselves if they think that the nation's economic problems can be solved without spending money. That is what we have to say about this Statement: we must have the resources if we are to do the job. That is at the heart of the matter.
Compliments were paid in yesterday's debate to the Secretary of State. I believe that he really cares about the education service and wants to improve it, but he has to prove that care by standing up to the Treasury and getting the resources that the service needs. The Statement says that the education service is a partnership and, of course, we all agree with that. But that partnership is under very severe strain at the moment, to which the present dispute with the teachers bears witness. We must work through their co-operation and at the moment I think that the teaching force feels itself undervalued and under attack.
The value that the Secretary of State puts upon the teachers is not clear. Criticism is more evident than support. However, all the evidence is that more children are doing better at school now—if one chooses to go by examination results, which I think this Government do—than they were 10 years ago. From what I know and see as I go around we have a very dedicated teaching force, but the teachers are fed up at the moment. Their salaries are too low and the continual deterioration of the service, the lack of books, the lack of equipment and the poor general maintenance of buidings, and so on, are getting them down. That should be recognised.
We certainly would be in favour of more in-service training and would not be averse to specific grants for the purpose to make sure that the money is spent in that way. Equally, we do not want central control of the curriculum altogether. The local authorities should have their proper rights.
As regards governing bodies, I am delighted that the Secretary of State has listened to the criticism of the Green Paper, Parental Influence at School, which has been out for some time now, and that parents and local authorities are to have equal say, equal numbers, on governing bodies. What I should like to ask, which is not clear from the Statement, is: what proportion of teachers and representatives of the community is the governing body to contain?

887
That is all I have to say, but I do emphasise, finally, that it is a matter of resources if we are to have the education service that we need.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In my now quite long experience, Secretaries of State for Education can be divided quite neatly into those who have a real interest in the subject and those for whom it is merely a department on their way through politics. The present Secretary of State falls into the former category, and it is no surprise that this White Paper is a rather elegant signpost forward, the directions on which most of us would welcome. I have only one question to ask in that connection. It is as to whether the money for in-service training, which we certainly welcome, is new money that we are getting into the service in this way. If so, it is doubly welcome.
But there appears to be a major hiatus. Looking at the White Paper, and certainly hearing the Statement, one would not think that our inner cities were full of depressed and declining slums with schools where, however hard the teachers try, nothing very much is happening, and with children who have no employment to look forward to, some of whom are in schools where, quite seriously, 80 per cent. of the children will probably not get employment in the foreseeable future. Are we really having a White Paper for education in this state of poverty in our inner cities and in this state of those schools? The White Paper does not appear to mention those subjects, nor put forward any suggestions whatsoever to deal with them. Surely the Minister has something more to offer us than this bland, middle-class prospectus. It is good as far as it goes, but it does not touch some of the very real problems of the education service at this present moment.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the way in which they have received this White Paper, and especially the noble Baroness, if I may say so? I was rather surprised that she started by commenting on last night's debate. I think there was a moment during that debate when she accused this Government of being shortsighted and complacent. The one thing I would have said about this White Paper is that it is neither shortsighted nor complacent.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: It is completely complacent, my Lords.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. I do not think it is complacent at all.
As far as resources are concerned, which was very much the point that the noble Baroness was making, I think that in pursuit of the objectives of the White Paper new resolve will be far more important immediately than new money. But if the education service can demonstrate the resolve, it can do its claims to future resources nothing but good. Education spending is now at record levels. Since 1979 real spending per pupil has increased by 10 per cent.
888
Pupil-teacher ratios are the best ever. Participation rates in nursery education are the highest ever. As overall school rolls continue to fall, the task is to apply the resources to the attainment of new objectives.
The noble Baroness made a number of comments about the state that teachers are in at the moment, and said that their morale is low. I should have thought that the White Paper would do a lot to raise their morale. It is pointing out to them what some of the best teachers and the best schools are achieving. It is pointing to their professionalism. I hope that the teachers will take that as confidence in their profession from the Government and look upon it as a morale booster and not as something that lowers their morale.
The noble Baroness asked a specific question about the numbers of governors and where they come from. I think there is a lovely table somewhere.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Page 65, my Lords.
The Earl of Swinton: It is page 65; I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I actually have it. It gives the numbers for the different sizes of school in detail.
I really cannot take the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I imagine that he has not had an opportunity to read the White Paper in full, but I think that it covers adequately all the problems encountered in our schools, or a great many of them, at the present time.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I cannot make any comment on the details of the White Paper because I have not had the opportunity to see it. In my maiden speech in your Lordships' House some 10 years ago I referred to the East, where central control and direction in education were effective and freedom was low, and to the West, where too much decentralisation gave maximum freedom but in fact made educational opportunity dependent on place of birth and the money that could be afforded. During these past 10 years I have watched with increasing concern the balance that we had at an earlier point of time in the distribution of power in education being steadily eroded towards central control and direction. From what has been quoted in relation to the White Paper, it would appear to be a major step towards central control and direction in education almost in its detail. In my opinion, the distribution of power in education is absolutely essential to freedom in a democratic society.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister—
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that one at a time is the normal procedure.
Baroness Phillips: It is not, actually, my Lords.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. I am a little surprised by what he said, because that was not exactly the line that he took when we were debating the ESG Bill in this House. He says that he has not had time to read the White Paper, so I shall

889
give him the benefit of the doubt, but he will find that it is a partnership which we are trying to achieve still, and not centralisation.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether his department has power to make the White Paper compulsory reading for everyone engaged in education? If teachers get their view from the jaundiced version that we have had from the Liberal Bench and the rather surprising one that we had from the Cross-Benches, they will not come to the conclusions that they ought to as the operators of the matters that flow from the White Paper.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. Unfortunately, we cannot make anything compulsory reading.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he has visited any schools recently? I speak as an ex-teacher, and I think that it is about time the profession told Governments to stop interfering with their professional skills and let them get on with the job. The constant reorganisation causes nothing but illiteracy of one kind or another. We are now having a new examination—the CPVE—which is unexplainable. It does not matter how many examinations we introduced or how we re-arrange the curriculum: we need to pay our teachers properly and provide the children with books. I was in a school the other day where the books were indescribable. They were books which I had not seen when I was at school. They were old and dog-eared.
It is significant that the private sector does not constantly re-organise its education. An old friend of mine, a head teacher in a tough school, once said this to me. I am sorry if the Whip does not like it. You cannot institute your new rules.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness actually asking a question? I believe that is the custom on a Statement.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I have been in the House a little longer than the noble Baroness, and, indeed, than the noble Earl who is sitting on the Front Bench, and the custom is question and comment. If it is wished that it be only questions, then I will put this question to the Government. Why are they not more concerned to look at resources than to try to re-arrange the curriculum?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the first point. No, apparently I cannot. As far as concerns when I was last in a school, it was not last Friday but the Friday before that. I hope that that is recent enough. Unfortunately, my time does not allow me to go into as many schools as I should like to go into.
I think the noble Baroness was making most of her points about books. In fact, spending on books and equipment rose between 1981–82 and 1982–83. Between 1982–83 and 1983–84 spending on equipment rose again, but spending on books fell back a little. It is for local education authorities to decide how to allocate the resources available to them. But
890
this year, as in previous years, the RSG settlement has reflected the importance which the Government attach to the adequate provision of books.
Again, I have given the noble Baroness the benefit of the doubt. We are consulting with teachers on the White Paper. We are trying to encourage them and to point out to them, through lessons learnt largely from the HMI, an impartial body, what are the better practices in schools. We are not trying to inflict anything upon them or saying, "You are a whole lot of naughty people who can do a lot better". Throughout the White Paper, there are examples of how well some teachers are doing in a great many schools. It is to try to encourage them that this White Paper has come out. I hope that it will be accepted in that manner.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Secretary of State is to he congratulated for having at last brought together in one wide-ranging study all the elements that go to make up the educational system, and has made proposals for improving all of them? Is he aware that the lesson surely is that we can now stop arguments about whether the bright children are getting a fair deal or whether the less intelligent ones are getting a fair deal, and agree at last on the obvious fact that the purpose of education is to develop the talents of every child, of whatever intelligence and aptitude, to the utmost?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for very much hitting the nail on the head.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I say—
Noble Lords: Ask a question!
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I ask—No, I can use the word "say"; it is a Statement. May I say that I welcome the Statement so far as it goes. The only part of the White Paper that I have read—I have read it, so I know what I am speaking about—is paragraph 65, to which I referred when the noble Earl the Minister made his comments on the proposal about governing bodies. I am glad that his right honourable friend has withdrawn most of the things that he advocated in the Green Paper. I am glad, too, that, after seven years of pioneering, along with many other people he has accepted the formula that my committee laid down, or near enough to it, at that time. I am grateful for that. I hope and look forward to early legislation on the governing bodies of schools and the powers of schools. I do not believe that I need say more at this stage. We shall have an opportunity later, I think, of going into matters in detail.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, and perhaps not altogether surprised at what he had to say, knowing his great knowledge of this subject. The noble Lord says that the Green Paper has gone out of the window, or that it has been dropped. I do not think that that is quite fair. Only one of the main proposals in the Green Paper last year—that for a parent majority on governing bodies—evoked a generally hostile reaction. The principle that parents in the

891
community should play a greater role in the work of schools was widely endorsed. The substantial and important proposals for a new approach to define the responsibilities of school governors were also generally well received.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Statement refers to England and Wales. I am aware that the provision of education in Scotland is jealously guarded by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but since this is a very comprehensive review of educational practice, is it intended that a similar or parallel Statement will be made in relation to changes in the Scottish education system?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not the faintest idea.
Baroness David: My Lords, as the Minister referred to resources and spending, may I ask whether it is not a fact that education spending by local authorities between 1984–85 and 1987–88 is expected to go down by 9 per cent.?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not sure by quite how much expenditure costs are going down, but, of course, the number of pupils in the schools is also going down at the same time. I would have to find out. I have it now. The figures for real term spending per pupil implied in Command 9428 are, for primary education for 1984–85, £769.6—I am not sure whether these figures are in thousands or millions, I am afraid.
Baroness David: My Lords, can I let the Minister off the hook and ask for a written reply?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I will gladly provide that.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in universities the changes in the sixth-form curriculum will be widely welcomed? I think it is high time that we had broader education in the sixth-form. The only comment I have to make is that in my personal view they do not go quite far enough. In my judgment it is necessary for everyone who is studying from the ages of 16 to 18 to continue to study the two most important languages of our time. One is mathematics and the other is English. These should be compulsory until the age of 18.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for the welcome that he gave to the AS level courses.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in order to clarify the procedural question, is it in order for a humble Back-Bencher to ask the noble Baroness whether she will confirm that Standing Orders broadly lay down that it is only the spokesmen for the main political parties who may make brief comments and then ask questions, and that all other Members of your Lordships' House, in response to a Statement, should merely ask questions?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I confirm what the noble Lord has just said.

Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, when we reached the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to suggest that it was good in some parts but bad in others. As a result of the House performing effectively and, it must be admitted, at some length, its duties as a revising Chamber, it is a far better Bill now than when it was introduced. Some of the most objected to elements have gone and some of the better elements have been improved. For all that we are grateful. We are grateful, too, for the generous participation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in our deliberations.
I shall not now submit to the temptation of remarking upon previous victories. There is still much to be done. I would, however, venture to mention one matter of which we were able to touch only the surface during our discussions. I refer to the arrangements in regard to legal aid and legal advice. Clauses 41 and 42 made useful but modest additions; but it is a fact that law centres are facing a crisis of survival in respect of funding. In view of the stage of the Bill that we have reached, I shall not dwell at length on this. It is, however, a sad fact that two law centres, the Stockwell and Clapham Law Centre and the North Lambeth Law Project, are facing closure. Their applications for renewal of urban aid have been turned down. They now face closure peremptorily and suddenly on 31st March. The abruptness of the closures will leave unresolved hundreds of cases of people who have consulted the centres and the individuals and the families concerned will be left without legal representation. Many of the cases with which the centres have been dealing and are dealing cannot receive legal aid and cannot be transferred to private solicitors.
What I would venture to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at this stage on this Bill is this. Can they and others in like position not at least be maintained until wider decisions about funding of law centres are made? We had an interesting preliminary talk and discussion about this between the noble and learned Lord and myself. I appreciate that it raises very important questions, constitutional and otherwise, and I think that it may well be that we can persuade the usual channels to have those matters generally discussed at some convenient point in time. In the meantime, I take advantage, I hope not excessively, of this opportunity to ask in respect of SOSs from these law centres whether something at least could not be done to maintain the present arrangements until wider discussions regarding the funding of law centres are dealt with. Having said that, we send the Bill to another place, thanks to the deliberations of your Lordships' House, in far better shape than it was when we first received it.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor opened the Second Reading debate on this Bill, he said that it was,
"intended … to carry out a number of relatively small but I trust, helpful and uncontroversial changes".
I am afraid that he must have been disappointed because the changes have turned out to be relatively large, unhelpful and controversial. Perhaps I may say a word on one or two of them. Part I dealt with solicitors' discipline because, as the Royal Commission had pointed out in 1979, we had evidence of a great feeling of unease about the Law Society's handling of complaints, a feeling that lawyers look after their own. This is damaging to the profession. That unease was accentuated by a case, now notorious, in which they themselves acquitted one of their own council. The Royal Commission recommended something very different: that the Law Society should not only look into allegations of professional misconduct but also should look into complaints of inefficiency, incompetence and negligent and bad work; and that this should be looked into by a quasi-judicial body with lay representatives upon it who could determine the matter fairly and well.
I am sorry to say that the recommendations of the Royal Commission have not been accepted and I am afraid that what have been accepted are the proposals of the Law Society themselves. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the proposals in this part of the Bill came from the Law Society. He said that part was demanded by the solicitors' profession through the Law Society, which is its accredited representative in his office.
My Lords, there it is. Instead of having a quasi-judicial body, the disciplinary matters in this very clause of the Bill are left to the Law Society themselves with a discretion if they think fit (in one place) or if they think appropriate. We sought to try to put some amendments to bring this part into line with the Royal Commission's recommendations. Those have not been accepted.
Then on Part II there appears the most important part of the Bill—namely, the setting up of a new profession of licensed conveyancers. That, no doubt, was done because of a Private Member's Bill in another place which urged that solicitors had a monopoly of conveyancing and were charging much too much for their work in conveyancing and that it should be done much more cheaply. The Government committed themselves to a reform of the position; but the Royal Commission had considered it and had been against the new profession, and what the Royal Commission said was:
"The effect of setting up a new profession would be to dilute the service available but without creating conditions in which competition was likely to be effective in holding down charges".
So the Royal Commission—and they were especially asked to deal with it—were against the new profession. There it is in Part II of the Bill.
It has brought in a new profession of licensed conveyancers with a constitution and structure almost identical with that of the Law Society itself, but, if I may say so, with the improvements suggested by the
894
Royal Commission. What is the effect of it? I am afraid that these new proposals will run into opposition in another place. On March 16th, The Times had a leading article, "Plan to end solicitors' monopoly will not cut conveyancing costs". And then perhaps the most instructive letter of all appeared a day or two ago in The Times newspaper from a member of Parliament, Mr. Weetch, who himself had been one of the private Members who were advocating the change. I am afraid that he is so disappointed with Part II as dealt with in this House that he said in that letter to The Times:
"The new body will, in fact, be a paler but otherwise faithful, copy of the Law Society … the Bill has all the hallmarks of having been shaped by the dead hand of the restrictive practitioners in Chancery Lane, fighting a successful rearguard action against change".
And his last paragraph says:
"I for one will speak and vote against the Bill. In doing so I shall reflect, sadly and with some irony, that I have been part of the reform movement that aided the Bill's creation".
There it is, my Lords. One of those private Members who urged that Bill through and got it through in another place, now, on seeing this Part II of the Bill, with all the elaboration and costs of the new profession, with all the training and all that sort of thing—seeing all that, he says, virtually, "It will not work. It will not do what I asked". "Now", he says, "I am going to vote against that Bill". Much better if the Government had gone by the Royal Commission as they recommended years ago: "Don't let us have a new profession: it won't do any good". That is Part II.
My Lords, Part III deals with legal aid. I mention legal aid with some regret. It deals with legal aid in some disciplinary matters, barristers and solicitors alike. But, oh, what a pity! What needed to be done in legal aid was such reforms as the judges had recommended in two cases five years ago, both on that troublesome matter of the statutory charge and the matrimonial home. The judges had said that these problems were most urgent to be remedied and only very recently in the Court of Appeal it was said that sensible settlements have got bogged down by this statutory charge. There it is, the statutory charge.
And then on the matter of the legal aid fund subsidising one person against another who is unassisted, reform was recommended by the judges five years ago. Nothing has been done to help the unassisted person who wins against the legal aid fund and cannot have his costs. That is why I suggested two amendments in regard to legal aid. There was a great opportunity for reform, but it has not been taken. That is in relation to Part III. I shall pass over Part IV. The proposal for taking away the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal has gone. There is nothing more I need say. This Bill must and will pass, but I am disappointed that it has not done more: so little done, so much to do.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there are only a few observations that I have to make, and frankly I would not have made them had not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—I know he will forgive me if I say this—intervened in the way that he did on certain parts of this Bill. We are used to the expression that the voice of the turtle has been heard in the land—and a

895
lovely biblical phrase it is. But this afternoon the voice of Jeremiah has been heard in this House, and I feel that in the circumstances I ought, if I may say so, to deal with some of the Jeremiads.
If I may make this comment on behalf of the profession to which I am privileged to belong and which I regard as a very great profession—a profession that deals in so many ways, and voluntarily, with the administration of justice in this land—I would answer the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on Part I of the Bill. I know of no reason for his remarks in criticism of what may be the Law Society's powers under Part I of the Bill. They have nothing to do with disciplinary action, which of course was the matter that covered the member of the Law Society Council to whom the noble and learned Lord referred—a most regrettable case, a case about which the Law Society has expressed its deep distress. But nobody has ever complained, other than in regard to that case, about disciplinary action by the Law Society.
Part I of the Bill deals with shoddy work. In those circumstances it is really the most sensible thing in the world not to have an outside tribunal or a specially created tribunal to deal with shoddy work within a profession; it obviously is for the profession itself to judge it. I can only say this: I know of no sterner treatment accorded to a doctor than that meted out by the General Medical Council, even though it is always, I am sure, justly administered.
If I may turn to the profession which the noble and learned Lord has graced all the years of his life except in his boyhood days, may I say that I know of no sterner treatment of the work of a barrister than that of the Bar Council. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that there will be, and has been, no sterner critic of bad work than the Law Society itself. I had to answer that in regard to Part I of the Bill.
In regard to Part II of the Bill—I am going to end my remarks after dealing with that part; I shall not follow the noble and learned Lord right the way through the Bill, in answer to any comments that he saw fit to make—the demand was made quite clearly for cheaper conveyancing and for the ending of what was deemed to be a monopoly. I am not going to carry this argument any further at this stage of the Bill. I am only going to say this. In view of the fact that it was decided, possibly as an experiment—I do not know; one has to see how it goes—to let people who had not got to the stage of qualifying for my profession deal with conveyancing, especially the conveyancing of residences (originally it was only residences), I should have thought it was appropriate to give them a welcome. I should have thought it was appropriate to wish them well, to wish their council well.
I say, as somebody who is supposed to be a little angry, possibly, at the breach of a monopoly—I think that there is a public duty here, and I readily follow that public duty, as does my profession and the society which represents it—that I think we ought to wish them well. We ought to tell their council from this House, as we tried to do through the wording of this legislation, to try to see to it that there are proper
896
training standards and proper professional standards. I think we ought then to see whether the experiment that we are trying achieves something.
Having said that, I hope the House will not have felt, having heard the noble and learned Lord's remarks, that the Law Society had imposed any influence on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, except helpfully, in regard to the provisions of this Bill. Anyone knowing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as I have learnt to know him over only a few years, will know that it is extremely difficult to exercise any influence whatsoever upon him.
4.26 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, after that unsolicited testimonial I hardly know what to say. In the first place, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lords and the noble Lord who have participated in this debate. I must make clear to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, something that I think he already knows, but I think perhaps I should make it clear for the benefit of those who are less well informed than he is. The law centres are not part of the Lord Chancellor's Department; they are part of the urban programme, and therefore come very clearly within another department. I do not know how he got round his colleagues, but when he was Lord Chancellor he saved the lives of several law centres but without any statutory authority at all for funding them, so far as I know. Well, good luck to him. I am a more law-abiding Lord Chancellor than that, but he will at least give me credit for having continued in the iniquity which he performed. I did not cut them off in their prime.
I have always believed in a certain degree of continuity between the tenants of this ancient and rather important office. I think he will give me credit for that. Apart from the difficulty that the Lord Chancellor's Department would be spending money without any statutory authority to do so, it is not at the moment equipped, whatever else can be said, to deal administratively with a chain of law centres which very soon would cover the whole country. Personally—this is a personal view, although I am supposed to be speaking for the Government—I have always thought that anything in the nature of a chain of advice bureaux, whether on the Citizens' Advice Bureaux level or on the more professional level, is inevitably a matter which has to be administered locally and certainly could not be administered from the centre by the Lord Chancellor's Department. At any rate at the moment, it is totally inadequate to deal with such a thing.
Moreover—I have said this before to the noble and learned Lord—I think that all of us who have held this office are concerned about maintaining its real nature as against a constant burden of administrative detail, which is acceptable in fields which are appropriate to it but not acceptable outside those fields. When my father was Lord Chancellor, from 1928 to 1935, he sat presiding judicially, either in the Privy Council or in the House of Lords, every day, every working day in time. That was possible of course because then the House of Lords did not meet until 4.15 in its fully parliamentary capacity; and so he sat in court every day and presided in the House of Lords. At about six

897
o'clock a noble Lord would get up and say, "My Lords, at this late hour …" and then they would all go home to dinner.
The character of the office has changed quite out of recognition between the days when I remember my father as Lord Chancellor and these latter days when I have held the office myself. I do not think the Lord Chancellor's office ought to be over-burdened with a great deal of administrative detail in addition to that which it has voluntarily taken over in the course of my own period of office, that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and that of the noble and learned Lord.
4.30 p.m.
My noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches made a most peculiar speech. He quoted me as having said that the Bill introduced a number of useful yet comparatively minor reforms; but he said that I would be disappointed because it had introduced many comparatively useless and very large ones. But when it came down to brass tacks in every case, except his remarks about Part II—which I shall come to briefly as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has dealt with that—his complaint was that I had not done enough. Therefore, there was an inherent contradiction in everything my noble and learned friend said. When he criticises Part I, I should tell him, with great respect, that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was perfectly right. The discipline of the profession belongs to the disciplinary tribunal, which is a quasi-judicial body. It is independent of the Law Society, in so far as discipline, as in every other profession, depends in the last resort on the courts. What is proposed here, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, is to deal with shoddy work. That was precisely where the feeling was that the previous situation was inadequate. Both branches of the legal profession felt that and so I did not feel my withers much wrung by that complaint.
In relation to Part II, my noble and learned friend has perhaps not followed what really happened. In another place Mr. Austin Mitchell brought in a Bill which was to deprive solicitors—who are probably one of the most competitive small businesses in the world, except the City firms who have large businesses—of what is wrongly called their "monopoly". There was an overwhelming opinion in another place, which is, after all, the elected Chamber, that a form of non-solicitor conveyancer should be introduced. I will not say that the Bill was bought off, but it was withdrawn precisely on the undertaking that we should attempt what we have tried in Part II. We attempted it by way of the Farrand Committee, which was a widely-based committee, the composition and terms of reference of which caused it to be generally accepted as representing a performance on behalf of the Government of the pledge under which Mr. Austin Mitchell's Bill was withdrawn.
The Farrand Committee reported. The only matter of importance in which we have deviated in Part II from the findings of the Farrand Committee was that we thought—and I think quite rightly—that we could not legislate this Session if we prescribed for the new profession all the qualifications which the Farrand Committee would have imposed. So we agreed that the council should be set up to undertake the work of
898
providing the qualifications and that we should keep our word and bond by carrying out the policy which we had undertaken to do.
Of course, my noble and learned friend may be right that this thing will not succeed. He said that licensed conveyancers will not succeed in competition with solicitors. I cannot say that they will; I only know that we have carried out our bargain. If they do not succeed, it will be because the solicitors' profession is so highly competitive. It may interest my noble and learned friend to know that since the Austin Mitchell Bill was withdrawn conveyancing costs imposed by solicitors have gone down by 30 per cent. At least we have achieved that. I noticed the other day that a constituent of one of my Cabinet colleagues complained. He was an unlicensed, and therefore I suppose illegal, conveyancer who complained that he could not compete with solicitors any more because solicitors are charging about ½ per cent. for conveyancing. It must be said that where a different, but still comparable, system obtains—namely, in the United States of America—I am told that the costs of conveyancing vary between 1.8 per cent. in one state and 6.8 per cent. in another. I do not think that I shall be very much shaken by the criticism of Part II by my noble and learned friend.
What was the most astonishing part of that speech was the quotation from Mr. Ken Weetch. Mr. Ken Weetch, as he said in his letter to The Times, was complaining that what he called the "dead hand of Chancery Lane struggling for its privileges" was prevailing. But my noble and learned friend's speech demanded that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who wanted Chancery Lane to reign supreme, should have been followed. Thus there is no logic whatever in what was said about Part II.
Then he came to Part III. It is true that civil legal aid is undergoing considerable revision at the hands of the Government. We are not legislating at this stage on a grand scale; when I was given a legislative slot for this programme I made it very clear indeed that I would not do so. I have sought to put into it a number of useful and, I think, comparatively modest changes, most of which did not come from me because I take the advice of the judiciary and others. My noble and learned friend is always writing books saying "Trust the judges". I usually take the advice of the judiciary and others as to what changes I recommend. My noble and learned friend said quite rightly at an earlier stage of the Bill that when he was a judge he always attempted to do justice. I never doubted it for a moment, and I have said that again and again in public and in private. He is one of the most remarkable judicial minds of our time and I hope that nothing I say will diminish or qualify anything I have said; but he has rather the reputation of being a law unto himself.
There was a time when Lord Chancellors administered a form of law called equity. It was said that equity was the size of the Lord Chancellor's foot. I think we have developed since then, but I will remind my noble and learned friend of what one of my predecessors said about this. He said that law reform is obtained either by consent or not at all. When consent is not forthcoming then this Lord Chancellor, remembering the wise remarks of Lord Campbell, his

899
predecessor, will not attempt to force it through, unless he feels that it is absolutely necessary to do so, and then he would appeal to the other place. Law reform is by consent or not at all. The extraordinary thing is how seldom consent is available from the legal profession, which is one of the greatest obstacles to law reform that I have ever seen. Ever since the 8th Report of my noble and learned friend Lord Edmund-Davies of the Criminal Law Revision Committee—which was a lucid, coherent and logical document—was howled down by the legal profession, I have noticed time and time again that they are the main obstacles to law reform.
The other thing which was said about law reform, I think by my predecessor Lord Haldane, was that it takes three Lord Chancellors to make any important reform of the law. Well, I am now two of them and there is still a third to come. I hope that the good work will go on despite the voice of Jeremiah being heard in the land, as the noble Lord, Lord
Mishcon, told us.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Medical and Dental Manpower
4.41 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement on medical and dental manpower being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about medical and dental manpower.
"Following the report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education in 1968 and the earlier McNair Report on dental manpower, a decision was taken to embark on a major programme of medical and dental school expansion. The purpose of that expansion programme was to achieve a position in which we are training, in this country, enough doctors and dentists to meet our own needs. The health service had already become heavily dependent upon doctors and dentists from other countries, to whom we owe a considerable debt. They have enabled us to make good the shortfall in supply which arose from the inadequate number of graduates from our own medical and dental schools.
"The expansion programme begun in the late 1960s is now largely complete. The Government therefore have a responsibility to re-examine the supply and demand position for doctors and dentists. A review of dental manpower was completed in 1983 and led us to conclude that the output from dental schools was in danger of leading to an over-supply. We accordingly agreed, following discussions with the profession, to reduce the intake to dental schools by 10 per cent.
"I am today publishing a report by the Advisory Committee for Medical Manpower Planning, which comprised officials from the Health Departments and representatives of the main professional bodies. The report contains different projections of the likely future pattern of supply of and demand for
900
doctors. There are many factors which will affect the future balance, including the level of output from medical schools, the extent to which women doctors remain in active practice and the number of overseas doctors coming here. I will want to discuss with the medical profession the implications of the report for the intake to medical schools, for the medical staffing of hospitals and for postgraduate training.
"The Government have, however, concluded that it is now necessary to prepare for the position which the expansion programme was intended to achieve: that is, where the United Kingdom is essentially self-sufficient in its supply of doctors and dentists. At present, overseas doctors and dentists have almost unrestricted access to this country. We have therefore decided to bring them more into line with the immigration rules applying to other groups. But we will wish to retain the important role which this country has traditionally fulfilled of providing postgraduate training to doctors and dentists from other countries who can come here for the period of specialist training before returning to put those specialist skills into practice.
"To give effect to this policy, my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of the necessary changes to the immigration rules. Briefly, these changes will have the following effects from 1st April: doctors and dentists from overseas who wish to become general medical or dental practitioners will need to comply with the relevant entry provisions for the self-employed. All other doctors and dentists, with the exception of those intending to undertake a period of postgraduate training, will be subject to normal work permit arrangements. Doctors and dentists seeking entry for the purpose of postgraduate training in hospitals will be admitted for a period of up to four years. After four years in this country they will be able to stay only if extensions of stay are granted under the normal immigration and employment provisions. A similar permit-free provision of postgraduate training will be available to overseas nationals graduating here. The changes will not apply to the doctors and dentists from the European Community, who have free entry to this country for employment.
"Mr. Speaker, the changes are, I believe, a sensible step for us to take at this stage. They do not in any way affect the position of overseas doctors and dentists currently working here. They will, however, make clear to those who come in the future the basis on which they are being admitted and they will ensure that we do not encourage doctors and dentists to come here with expectations that the health service cannot fulfil. They will also enable the health service to plan its use of medical and dental manpower more effectively".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement which was made in another place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I broadly welcome this Statement. I want to say that we owe a very great debt of gratitude to those doctors and dentists who came to

901
this country from overseas, perhaps for training, and who have stayed here, for all that they have done to sustain the National Health Service. There is no doubt that their contribution, particularly in the less popular specialties, has been of very great importance to the National Health Service. I think there have been times when, without them, we should have been hard pressed to provide the service which has been provided.
I am glad that the position of those already practising here has been in no way affected by the decisions that have been taken by the Government and the provisions of the Statement which is made today. I also agree with that part of the Statement which referred to the need to reduce the intake to dental schools. I know that was in conformity with the views of the British Dental Association and the working group which reported some two years ago.
Thirdly—and I hate to go on agreeing with the Government this much—I agree with the decision that we should not deprive developing countries of their supply of medical manpower. During the whole period when I was Secretary of State I was well aware that, while the National Health Service was benefiting from doctors from overseas, overseas countries were at a disadvantage because those doctors stayed here for an easier life when they were very much needed in the countries from which they came. I welcome also the decision to retain the facilities for postgraduate training for doctors and dentists from other countries.
My regrets concern what has not been said in the Statement, which is a Statement which I thought was going to go rather more broadly on medical and dental manpower. The first point about which I had hoped to hear—and about which I hope that the noble Earl will feel he can say some words—is the very important issue which was taken up by the Select Committee on Social Services in another place, of which I was a member, which dealt with the very serious shortage of consultants and the very serious bottleneck, because of the excess, of those in the training grades. The noble Earl will recall that the Select Committee suggested that over a period of years there should be a doubling of the number of consultants and thus an end to the bottleneck for those in the training grades. I hope that he will be able to say something on this issue.
If it is not too unseemly to do so, may I finally give a warning to the noble Earl and perhaps to his right honourable friend? Last year for the first time the Government themselves imposed manpower cuts in the National Health Service. There was one result: that there are now an increasing number of doctors who are unemployed. I know there is pressure to reduce the number of doctors and therefore to reduce the number of doctors who enter for training. In my view, this is misguided. I do not believe that there is in a general sense a surplus of doctors to meet the nation's need. Looking at the field of primary health care, which concerns us all, I believe that there are too few doctors and that the GPs we have are unable to give enough time to their patients, have too little opportunity for home visits and too little time for health education. This is very much a question of medical manpower. I hope that the noble Earl may care to make a comment on this second point.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. May I ask him, first, on average how many patients per GP list are the Government aiming at?—because, clearly, until you have decided that, you cannot decide how many doctors you need. I believe the average figure is about 2,100 and there is a view that a figure of 1,700 would be better. Can the noble Earl, when he replies, tell us whether the Government have a particular figure in mind?
Secondly, may I ask for an assurance that the Government do still recognise that training doctors for the third world is not just an act of altruism?—though, even if it were, that would not seem to me to render it necessarily undesirable. Surely, one of the best things that we can do for the third world is to improve the general level of health.
Finally, may I make a comment and put a question on the procedure of this Statement? Some of your Lordships may not realise that this Statement is quite meaningless without being read in conjunction with this document, which only appeared about half an hour ago. It is a statement of changes in the immigration rules and it makes, so far as I can see, 10 quite substantial amendments to the earlier statement of changes in immigration rules. It has been impossible for me, in the time available, to work out all the implications. Is this Statement by the Home Secretary of the changes in the rules an authoritarian fiat that we have got to accept, like it or not, or may we have an opportunity of debating it at the earliest possible moment?
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord McNair, for their reception of the Statement. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. On the last occasion or on the occasion before that when we discussed matters across the Floor of the House, I accused him of being too party-politically-orientated, but today I think that we share much more common ground than we did at that stage.
I am even more convinced now that what we are doing is the right thing. The noble Lord asked me about medical employment. I, too, am not convinced that there is substantial medical unemployment. In fact that is borne out by the Hospital Junior Staffs Committee's own survey, which showed that no more than 3 per cent. of junior doctors experienced transitional unemployment between short-term training posts. As the noble Lord is aware, there is to be a Green Paper on this matter later in the year and perhaps that would be a better time to discuss this aspect more fully.
The same would apply also to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, with regard to the numbers on the GP's list. I would say, from memory, yes it is about 2,100 but of course it does vary. Perhaps when we are discussing the Green Paper we ought to look into whether the figure should be a little lower, but at present the aim is about 2,000. The noble Lord asked for an assurance that training doctors from overseas countries was not just another form of altruism for this country. No, my Lords, we consider it to be an

903
extremely important part of helping them as much as we can by giving them a first-class training using the facilities of this country.
With regard to the immigration rules, I can inform the noble Lord that these are not statutory instruments but statements of the practice and administration of the Home Secretary. However, the Immigration Act requires changes to be laid before Parliament and I understand that they can be prayed against.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say a little more about doctors and dentists from Europe? He told us that of course they have free access, but my information (which is out of date) is that there has been very little movement of doctors from Europe to this country. However, perhaps Spain and Portugal will be in the Community one of these days. Will the noble Earl please tell us how many doctors have come from Europe in the last year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for his question. I understand that the figure is just under 100 and that most of these come from the Republic of Ireland. As regards dentists, the figure seems to be about 10 a year. It is not very many: but, equally, if they can come here without any restrictions, our people can also go to the EEC.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that in fact there were large numbers of doctors coming from Ireland before we entered Europe? There has been a very small flow of doctors coming from the main European countries since we joined. I think one should note that, for some reason, doctors have not come in large numbers to this country.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree that there is not a great influx from the EEC.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister think this is an adequate protection to meet the present under-employment of doctors and dentists or does he think, as I do, that this is only a small drop in the ocean? As an elected member of the General Dental Council, of course I welcome the restriction on free entry, because we are educating dentists who cannot get employment in this country. But does he not think that it is time we looked at the other end of the scale much more thoroughly and encouraged those doctors who are well over retiring age to retire and indeed to consider the early retirement of some general dental practitioners?
Is he aware that with the complete new type of structuring of dental fees from the 1st April the estimate of too many dentists may be well below what will really be the situation, as many more dentists may be unemployed due to an entirely different and much more expensive system of patient charges? Does he not think it is time to look at both ends? Also, when he says he is not aware of too much under-employment in medicine, is he aware that, as regards new young doctors at the moment applying to get on to a vocational training course as a general practitioner,
904
there are 200 applications for every two posts advertised, and that many of these young doctors are finding it very discouraging?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has put her finger on a very relevant matter. Successive Governments since the 1960s, including the Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was proud to be a member, have been aiming at self-sufficiency as regards dentists and doctors. This is not something that can be achieved overnight and it has taken a good 20 years so far, but we are getting there. The Statement is merely an indication of the Government's continuing policy in one area—perhaps not all the areas that my noble friend would like to see acted upon, but certainly in one very important area.
As regards dentists, I can confirm, as I confirmed only the other day in this House, that the number of people attending dentists has gone up regularly. The number went up again last year and, as she will be only too well aware, I think that about half the population hardly go to a dentist at all; so there is a huge market still left for her.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in answer to an earlier question, the noble Earl referred to the Green Paper on primary care which is still to come. In my more aggressive moods—and he will have noted I am not in such a mood today—I have been pressing the noble Earl to say when we are going to get this long-awaited Green Paper. Presumably he knows a little more than he did last time. Can he perhaps divulge some information to this House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the exact date, but I do not think it will be in the too-distant future. Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to wait just a little bit longer.

Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Bill
4.58 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Change in functions of Commission]:
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, after ("order") insert ("or by any direction made under a development order in relation to a National Park").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 3, which is also in my name:
Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("or the date on which the direction was confirmed." ").
I hasten to say straight away that I hope to be able to withdraw both amendments after we have had assurances from my noble friend on the Front Bench about the way in which Her Majesty's Government propose to deal with the matters we are discussing on this Bill in regard to the countryside.
My own belief is that the intention expressed by way of a letter from Mr. William Waldegrave to the Chairman of the Countryside Commission on 31st

905
January, in which he indicated that the Government had it in mind to introduce landscaped area special development orders, is much the best way forward and that it would not be appropriate to seek further amendments to this Bill or, at the moment, to contemplate the extension of full planning control to farm and forestry buildings and roads, as had originally been recommended by the Countryside Commission as one of the conclusions of its uplands debate.
5 p.m.
However, the assurances that I have received so far, both on Second Reading and at the Committee stage, about the Government's will and determination to introduce these landscaped area special development orders have been unsatisfactory. It has been 35 years since provision was made for these orders and I think the House deserves to have particularly strong assurances that we can rely on their introduction to deal with matters in the countryside which are very vexatious when it comes to the planning control of farm buildings.
I want to start the few remarks which I shall make about this amendment by paying tribute to the growing sensitivity of the farming community at large on all matters to do with conservation. I should also like to pay particular tribute to the farming and wildlife advisory groups which are now established in every county in England and Wales and in the regions of Scotland. It is good to be able to rely on the good sense and good taste of so many farmers to such a large extent, but total reliance on grace is impractical and unrealistic in this imperfect world.
On Second Reading, we heard a lot about the notorious mushroom grower near Lancaster spoiling an area of outstanding natural beauty there with five enormous sheds standing up on the landscape; and there are unsightly chicken houses, smelly pig rearing sheds, intrusive fish farming buildings and pseudo-farm buildings which are put up as agricultural buildings but which are being used for other purposes. All that can be controlled by legislation, but by the introduction of Article 4 directions which carry with them heavy liabilities to compensation from the planning authorities, and it is undesirable from all kinds of points of view that that system should be applied more extensively.
However, this Bill obliges the House to consider the code of compensation, and how it operates in the countryside, in connection with the planning constraints put on buildings and developments which are not normally subject to planning control; and work on this Bill has shown up a number of abuses of the system, some in the towns and some in the countryside. It has shown up the weakness of the planning authorities in contending with these abuses and, worst of all, it has revealed a number of loopholes that can be exploited, and a number of academic sureveyors and planners—and I have given my noble friend on the Front Bench details of these—who are contemplating seminars designed to help developers and farmers exploit those loopholes.
So the issue before the House is: which remedies can he incorporated in this Bill to deal with all these abuses in town and country, which can wait for further
906
legislation and which are better dealt with by other means? My view is that in the countryside they can nearly always be dealt with by other means, and that is largely by the application of landscaped area special development orders. I look forward with interest to hearing what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to give me by way of assurances that the Government agree with this view. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, when we were in Committee I explained at some length why I was worried about bringing into this Bill the question of compensation where Article 4 directions might be made affecting development in the countryside, and I should say in parenthesis that I am glad, therefore, that Amendment No. 4 has been drafted so as to refer to directions made solely in the urban context. But the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford, to take it at its face value, refers to possible directions in an agricultural context, albeit within the boundaries of a national park.
I do not propose to repeat what I said in Committee. For one thing, my noble friend is well aware of the agricultural worries about Article 4 directions, and, secondly, he has told us just now that the underlying purpose of his amendment is to raise again the question of development control in sensitive rural areas. He explained to us in Committee, and he has told us again just now, that he was not in sympathy with the idea advocated recently by the Countryside Commission in its uplands report that there should be further planning controls over agricultural development, and he has also explained to us that, in his view, a move by the Government towards an extension of the landscaped area special development order, LASDO, procedure is overdue and he would like to accelerate such a move.
As I understand it—and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Avon said so in Committee—the LASDO and its extension is under consideration and I presume that the Government's proposals will shortly appear for consultation. I understand my noble friend's wish that this should happen quickly, but I should have thought that the appropriate occasion for a detailed debate about procedures in national parks arises when we have had time to digest the Government's new proposals in their consultation paper. I think my noble friend accepts that altering a Bill dealing with compensation under the planning Acts is not the right way to improve these procedures, and with that I agree. Therefore, I do not support this amendment. But, having said that, I understand what my noble friend is trying to achieve and I support him in his broad purpose.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before my noble friend replies may I say something? I should first like to apologise to the House for not being present at the previous stage, but I have read every word that your Lordships have said. I have sympathy with my noble friend Lord Sandford for having to wait 35 years. I support my noble friend Lord Middleton and ask whether my noble friend Lord Sandford could perhaps wait another month or two until we get the consultation paper.
If we are to rely on landscaped area special development orders, there are one or two points that

907
worry me. One is that in the areas where they are in existence now—the Peak, Snowdon and the Lake District—there is no provision for compensation. I know that my noble friend will jump at me and say that there is provision, but it is discretionary, and in today's climate I fear that "discretionary" means that you do not get the grants. That certainly worries me and I hope that when this consultation paper comes out this matter will be made much clearer. That is really my main concern.
There are other anomalies, whereby the order appears to apply to farm buildings and farming operations but not to other operations, and we have to be very careful that we are not discriminating against the farmer and letting off the second home, freeing it of any restriction. That would be a dangerous path to go down. Those are the only two points that I wanted to make, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take them on board. Otherwise, I am grateful for my noble friend's kind remarks about the farming industry.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I very briefly support what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said. My view is that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is a little premature in pressing this matter quite so hard as he has done, because there is a promise by the Government to issue a consultation paper. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to discuss this kind of matter when the consultation paper has been issued and discussed.
I must declare an interest in that I am involved with property—partly agricultural and partly a large house which is open to the public in the Lake District in a national park. From what I gather, national park farmers would not be very pleased to have the rather rigid regulations, as adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, imposed upon them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to restrict compensation for an adverse planning decision following the making of an Article 4 direction in relation to land in a national park. The question of Article 4 directions was discussed very fully during Committee stage, and we heard a great deal about the fears of the farming community, and the risk that an amendment of this kind would simply provoke a flood of planning applications from landowners in the affected areas who were seeking to beat the 12 months deadline. The amendment would be likely to encourage the widespread use of Article 4 directions to control development in national parks, and this would be a major shift in the present balance between planning authorities, landowners and conservation interests. The Government do not consider that this is the right way to tackle my noble friend's problem, particularly when there has been no opportunity for consultation and public discussion on the very wide-ranging implications.
My noble friend was good enough to give advance notice of this amendment, and indicate, as he said in his speech, that his main purpose in putting it down was to seek clarification of the present position on the
908
Landscape Areas Special Development Order, which represents an alternative approach to the control of development in national parks and other sensitive areas. I can assure him that it is the Government's firm intention, as stated by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Waldegrave, in a letter to the chairman of the Countryside Commission on 31st January, to which my noble friend referred, to issue a consultation paper proposing to extend the scope of the existing Landscape Areas Special Development Order.
At present this order enables a local authority only to control the design and external appearance of agricultural and forestry buildings in the limited areas to which it applies. The proposal will be to extend these controls to cover the siting of those buildings; the siting and design of private roads on farm and forestry land; and to extend those controls to all national parks. Officials are actively working on the preparation of the consultation paper and we hope to issue it very shortly. I am sure that it will generate useful and lively responses which will enable us to evaluate the arguments for and against the extension and to consider whether we have the details of our proposals right.
If the House had any doubt on this need to consult it has only to contrast the speeches of my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Middleton, and take into account of course the views of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It may also be appropriate to refer to the arrangements for recompensing farmers for any additional costs that they might have to pay if the local authority imposes higher design standards on them under the order. I must stress that the order does not withdraw permitted development rights available to farmers under the general development order; it merely imposes an additional requirement upon them. Therefore, the compensation provisions of Section 165 of the 1971 Act, which we have been discussing, do not apply because there is no withdrawal of the permission in the development order.
However, the National Parks Policies Review Committee, which my noble friend chaired, recommended that in selected cases farmers should be assisted in meeting the extra costs incurred as a result of meeting the stringent design standards appropriate in the national parks. This is a concept rather different from that embodied in Section 165. It aims to give help with additional costs which arise because the national parks authority wishes the farmer to do something extra, as distinct from compensating a developer for expenditure which becomes abortive because he cannot do what he would previously have been permitted to do. This point was raised in the speech of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley.
I should tell my noble friend that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 set up the mechanism for meeting these additional costs. Section 44 of that Act gives county planning authorities powers to give grants or loans for purposes which they consider to be conducive to the conservation and enjoyment of the national parks comprised in their areas, and enables them to make such grants or loans subject to such conditions as they think fit. As an alternative, farm capital grant may also be available towards

909
modifications of proposals requested by national park authorities where such proposals are notified to them under administrative arrangements. I am satisfied that these provisions are adequate to ensure a flexible means of providing appropriate recompense for farmers for any additional costs they may incur.
I hope that what I have said will reassure my noble friend Lord Sandford about the Government's continued commitment to the protection of national parks. Our resolve to amend the Landscape Areas Special Development Order has not weakened in any way, and I trust that this statement of our intentions will enable my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for those assurances which certainly are comprehensive.
It is of course quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, that in a sense it is premature to discuss a proposal before we have the consultation paper on which to do so. Equally, it would have been wrong to allow a Bill dealing with compensation under the planning laws to go through this House without having considered and debated whether it ought to be amended in any shape or form to deal with both the problems which already exist and are conspicuous in the countryside by virtue of their unattractiveness, and with the abuses and weaknesses of the planners and the loopholes which all this publicity will open up. But having done so, I am still of the view that the Landscape Areas Special Development Order is the right way forward and further amendment of this Bill in order to deal with abuses in the countyside is not to be recommended.
However, I would not want to end these remarks and move on to the urban aspects of the Bill without saying to the farmers and landowners in the House that they really must not underestimate the weight of public disquiet and the sense of injustice. I am now recording the views of chairmen of district councils all over the country who find it very difficult to justify to their citizens at large some of the enormities that farmers and country landowners get away with in the countryside. This is a very privileged category of businessman and they really must learn to live in an environment that is a little less privileged and a little nearer the climate in which ordinary citizens who pay their rates and have to face the planners have to live and earn their living. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, after ("twelve months") insert ("or 24 months in respect of agricultural buildings, works and uses").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 2 is to give some relief to farmers and those concerned with agricultural buildings, works and uses, from the very necessary and essential draconian powers which this Bill proposes to exercise to deal with a very serious loophole in Section 165 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. At the Committee stage we heard in particular from the noble Viscount, Lord
910
Craigavon, of the serious difficulties for local authorities which arise because of that loophole where, for instance, penthouses are to be put on the top of buildings which were there in 1948; in other words, the loophole related to the adding of further flats to blocks of flats which were there in 1948.
This Bill went through very quickly in the other place, as might be expected in view of the urgency but, as is inevitable when a Government are trying to deal with one mischief and do not limit the powers in the Bill to that particular mischief, sometimes it has an effect which is broader than is necessary. I suggest a very small but significant and important amendment involving farmers, with regard to the limitations for compensation for unavoidable losses. There is a period of 12 months in the Bill at the present time; a period of 12 months from the date of changes in the permitted development rights. At present, as your Lordships will be aware, there are large numbers of rights which are permitted. The object of the Bill is to provide that a period of 12 months shall be given where planning consent is withheld; provided an application is made in 12 months, the question of compensation may be dealt with. Twelve months is too short in the case of farmers who, as so many of your Lordships will know, carry out sequential developments, often under the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme of the Ministry of Agriculture. This scheme encourages a planned approach through a sequence of related developments to be implemented over a six-year period. Naturally, such plans are conceived at the outset in the light of prevailing planning requirements, and, if these subsequently change, as is the purpose of this Bill, then the whole of the development plan could be rendered unviable. Therefore, in this amendment I am asking for a slightly longer timescale. Do not limit the farmers to 12 months. Let them have 24 months instead of 12, because of the special circumstances under which they carry on their very important industry.
As your Lordships know, and as I mentioned during Committee stage, in parts of Wales with which I am very familiar dairy farming is being given up and sheep farming is replacing it, for reasons I need not go into at present; and even sheep farming is being replaced by the breeding of horses. In those parts of Wales where I come from, for small farmers 100 acres is a large farm. If the period is limited to 12 months it means that farmers will be put at a great disadvantage. Twenty-four months is far more reasonable, therefore, for farmers in relation to their agricultural development. At the Committee stage the Government indicated that some delay might be possible from an administrative point of view in a way which I could not quite understand. What I propose is that the Bill shall include a statement that the period shall be,
"24 months in respect of agricultural buildings, works and uses"
I therefore beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in this amendment, except that I should prefer the limit to be even longer, but then I suspect that my noble friend Lord Sandford

911
will say that that is because I consider myself privileged.
I cannot follow the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Avon in Committee that 12 months gives farmers an adequate basis. As I know only too well, farmers have better things to do than wade through piles of paper. Indeed, even if they could understand the planning law—I think few of your Lordships understand it, let alone the average farmer—for these people in agriculture 12 months, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, is a minuscule time for them to understand it and put in their application.
Much more important is what will those farmers do who realise the urgency of the 12 months' period? I think they will be very much encouraged to put in detailed plans in advance. I am certainly not against advanced planning and, indeed, budgeting, but I know that I have yet to draw up a plan for a farm building that I have not radically changed later on, and it might even be changed while the bricks are going up.
Frankly, the proposal of the Government seems to me to lack pragmatism. At the Committee stage, I noted that my noble friend Lord Avon, in column 1229, said—and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred to it—that he would be prepared to enlarge the period of the timescale when it went through Parliament—I think he said the lead time between the laying of the order before Parliament and its coming into effect. I am asking my noble friend if he will expand on those remarks, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Can he give an assurance that maybe the period will be 24 months for this lead time, or, at the very least, 12 months? However, a much simpler answer would be to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I would like briefly to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I really think that for development and planning in farming terms 12 months is verging on the ridiculous. As my noble friend Lord Sandford said, 24 months is far too short a time. Both noble Lords covered the matter very well, so I would add only one thing, perhaps for the good name of the farming community.
I should hate your Lordships to feel that the whole matter was in any way linked to the giving of grants. I think this extra time is necessary in the farming world because of the general farming situation. As I see it, grants from the farming and horticultural side are there—it is a peripheral reason. The real reason is that farming just cannot be planned in this very, very short timescale. It is really totally unrealistic, and I strongly support the amendment.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, but I should also like to ask the noble Lord why has he not put down an equivalent amendment to the Scottish clause, Clause 2 of the Bill? It seemed to me unfair that in England one would have a period of 24 months, as a result of his amendment
912
being accepted while in Scotland it would be only 12 months.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, if I may just answer that, I would never dare to enter into Scottish legal matters!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps on that note I may respond. I recognise the concern of the noble Lord about whether 12 months is long enough to submit a planning application following the revocation or modification of a development order relating to agricultural development. I have also read and was listening to the debate on this point, or a similar one, on the Committee stage of the Bill. I observe that the noble Lord has reduced his level of demand since the Committee stage, when he asked for the period to be extended to 36 months, which I am sure was in the minds of many of my noble friends behind me.
The position of the Government on any extension is quite simple, in that we consider that such compensation should only be paid to a person who has in some way incurred expenditure on the basis of the permission granted by the development order before it was revoked or modified, and that compensation should not be paid simply because a landowner might have wished to exercise his rights under the order at some time in the future.
We believe that the most practical way to achieve this is by a time limit, and that a period of 12 months gives adequate time for those who have already begun to incur expenditure on a scheme to submit their planning applications. Any longer period will encourage landowners to work up artificial schemes which were not on the stocks when the development order was revoked or modified, and which are designed to obtain compensation rather than planning permission. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, argued during Committee stage that because of this risk there should be no period of grace at all.
There may be one or two types of development, and this I readily accept, for which 12 months is not long enough to work up and submit a planning application. But I cannot accept that all agricultural development comes into this category. Does it take more than 12 months to prepare a planning application for a barn or a glasshouse? In the latter case, I speak from practical experience when I ask this rhetorical question. If the problem is that the proposed development forms part of a five-year plan, it should be remembered that the only requirement is to make the planning application within 12 months and if permission is granted it need not be implemented for up to five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned sequential plans for agricultural development. If plans have already been made, we can see no reason why a planning application shall not be made within 12 months, whenever the development is actually implemented. As for the point made by my noble friend Lord Stanley, surely a farmer's advisers—his architects and so on—can be expected to know planning laws and to know when a change takes place. Also, very unusually, my noble friend has undervalued the expert role which the National Farmers' Union plays in advising the agricultural industry.

913
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is concerned about very large schemes. My answer is that if we are taking away development order rights, there is invariably a consultation period which puts on warning those who may be affected. If this is still insufficient—and I agree that this could be the case if the general development order were amended to tighten up control over types of develpment with a particularly long lead time—we can quite easily provide for the amendment order to come into operation three or six months, say, after it is laid, so effectively providing an additional period of grace.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked me to expand on what was said by my noble friend Lord Avon at Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Stanley asked also whether this provision would effectively give an extra 12 or 24 months, or whatever. I am unable to enter into a commitment on this, but, as I have said, there will be, in addition to delaying the order, extra time given because of the consultation period.
When my noble friend Lord Avon spoke in Committee about the three-month or six-month delay in the operation of the amendment order, I am not sure whether he pointed out to the Committee that this is precisely what we did when we amended the general development order to secure greater control over hazardous development. Whether or not he did so, I consider that it is a much better and more selective way of dealing with the noble Lord's problems and that a blanket increase for all agricultural development is not justified.
I am, however, prepared to give an undertaking that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have regard to the compensation implications when he is considering the appropriate operative date of any amendment to the general development order which will have the effect of restricting permitted developments. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this as a reasonable response to his amendment.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I have not spoken to this amendment so far because in contrast to some of my noble friends I accept that the basis of this Bill is that compensation should be paid only when the landowner has begun to incur expenditure on the basis of the development order permission before it is taken away. I accept that. What I do not accept as a reason for resisting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is that landowners are likely to submit claims for compensation for schemes that they have no intention whatever of carrying out. I do not accept that as a good reason for resisting the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in favour of my amendment. Indeed, everyone who has spoken, with the exception of the Minister, has been in favour of my amendment. I must say in passing that I regret very much that the Government should have adopted such an unsympathetic approach to this matter as that indicated in at least the first part of the Minister's reply. In view of the support I have received from everybody else who has spoken, I shall take the opinion of the House.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 150.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Amherst, E.

Mais, L.

Ampthill, L.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Mottistone, L.

Aylestone, L.

Munster, E.

Barnett, L.

Ogmore, L.

Beswick, L.

Radnor, E.

Blease, L.

Raglan, L.

Chitnis, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Roberthall, L.

Energlyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Shackleton, L.

Foot, L.

Shinwell, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hayter, L.

Stone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ilchester, E.

Willis, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Allerton, L.

Donegall, M.

Ardwick, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elton, L.

Beloff, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Belstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bernstein, L.

Falkender, B.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrier, L.

Birk, B.

Fortescue, E.

Blyton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boardman, L.

Gainford, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Galpern, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Glanusk, L.

Caccia, L.

Gowrie, E.

Caithness, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Greenway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Chelwood, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Henley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hughes, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Ironside, L.

David, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Davidson, V.

Kimberley, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kintore, E.

De La Warr, E.

Kitchener, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

915

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Renton, L.

Long, V.

Renwick, L.

Longford, E.

Rochdale, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rodney, L.

Lyell, L.

Romney, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Rugby, L.

McFadzean, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

St. Davids, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Mancroft, L.

Sandford, L.

Margadale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Marley, L.

Sharples, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Stamp, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mersey, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Middleton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Suffield, L.

Molloy, L.

Swansea, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mulley, L.

Terrington, L.

Nathan, L.

Teviot, L.

Newall, L.

Teynham, L.

Nicol, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Onslow, E.

Ullswater, V.

Oram, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Orkney, E.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vinson, L.

Pender, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Windlesham, L.

Portland, D.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Quinton, L.

Wynford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Yarborough, E.

Reay, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Reigate, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1 line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Where planning permission granted by a development ordcr for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house, or for the erection or construction of gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure, is withdrawn by the issue of directions under powers in that behalf conferred by the order subsection (1) applies in relation to development in a conservation area only if the application referred to in paragraph (c) is made before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the directions came into operation." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must start by apologising to the House that I was not here during the Committee stage, but I have read Hansard and this new subsection (1B) seeks to put Article 4 directives on the same footing as a change in a development order. This is, in fact, directly linked with Amendment No. 8, which I shall be moving later, to remove the right of compensation in respect of all buildings in conservation areas.
However, in returning to Amendment No. 4, the situation is this. If a developer is lucky enough to own a building in an area subject to an Article 4 direction he can, if refused compensation under section 169, try an alternative route under Section 165. This secondary route to compensation is available only in areas so important and so evidently at risk that one of these Article 4 directions has been made by the local
916
authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State. Article 4 directions are designed to be a special protective device, removing the normal rights of permitted development; yet at present they carry the right of compensation in perpetuity.
My amendment to this seemingly absurd situation is deliberately drafted in very narrow terms. It seeks only to deal with dwelling houses in conservation areas and with associated fences and gates which can of course affect valuable forecourt parking areas. It is a limited amendment to prevent damage in conservation areas while a wider review is perhaps carried out. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment to be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigavon, which eliminates the one year's grace for withdrawal of this compensation right. I regret the one year's grace for hazardous substances as well as for conservation areas. If either a change in a development order, or an Article 4 direction, has already been in existence for over a year—and many Article 4 directions have been in force for over 20 years—I cannot see the need for a further year's grace after the passage of the Bill. But from the point of view of conservation areas the important thing is to end the right of compensation which could give developers in areas that by definition, are the most vulnerable two bites at the compensation cherry.
Unfortunately, the right to compensation distorts planning decisions and I fear that now publicity has lifted the lid of this Pandora's Box there will be a surge of planning applications of the spurious, blackmail variety; and conservation areas are too important to be left at risk in this way. Local authorities should be able to take sound decisions in these important areas without calculating what it will cost in compensation. Local authorities should be able to take those decisions for the benefit of the conservation areas, regardless of how the buildings are used.
On a previous occasion the noble Earl, Lord Avon, referred to this amendment as "tempting". I submit that it is more than that: it is essential. I hope that the Minister will accept it this evening. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, I now have to call Amendment No. 5, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 4.
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
Line 6 leave out from ("order") to the end and insert ("in relation to development in a conservation area subsection (1) of this section shall not apply." ")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of those supporting my amendment is to show that we agree to focus, with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, on the narrow issue of dwelling houses in conservation areas; and in the need for protection in those areas—as he has just shown—with which we are in full agreement.
Taking that common agreement as assumed, may I concentrate on where we disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu; and that is with his allowing a period of 12 months for compensation claims. The simple effect of my amendment is to remove the 12-month period and, hence, disallow claims for compensation altogether in this relatively limited area of planning procedure. I am glad that Amendment No. 8 of the

917
noble Lord, Lord Montagu, to which I have also put my name and which I fully support, excludes any 12-month period.
First, I would want to distinguish the nature of Article 4 directions in this small area of dwelling-houses in conservation areas from the use of directions in other fields which were mentioned at the previous stage of this Bill, particularly agricultural, industrial and commercial. In those latter cases we were told by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, (at col. 1223 of Hansard of 5th March):
"an Article 4 direction is normally made to control specific development, the planning of which is already under way. In such cases the landowner will have incurred expenditure in reliance on his GDO rights and he ought to be entitled to compensation if these rights are suddenly taken away in the middle of the process".
In those cases one accepts that such genuine compensation is reasonable. But that is not usually the purpose of Article 4 directions in conservation areas, where they are more often used to reinforce and protect, in advance of any work being done or action being taken by individuals, particular styles or features of whole areas or streets.
The directions would be known locally by architects and builders, if not by residents; and expenditure in advance of proposed development would usually be only in the normal drawing up of plans—expenditure such as is incurred in any planning application, and which is accepted as a reasonable overhead if planning permission is refused. In these circumstances, it would be unusual to incur major expenditure in advance of planning permission being refused which it would be just to compensate. I have so far been referring to genuine claims for compensation; but, unfortunately, hard on the heels of these, and not readily distinguishable in law, come the spurious claims. It is the threat of spurious claims that hangs like a sword over local planning authorities, distorting the planning process in a way that Parliament never intended.
At the Committee stage of the Bill I gave two examples of such potential distortions found in my local borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Since then, as my advisers, the borough wrote to many local authorities for further evidence of the problem. May I quote from a reply from the City of Chester, which is one of the leading authorities in the conservation of historic buildings? Part of the letter says:
"In formulating these [Article 4] directions, the council had to recognise the possibility that persons who were aware of the compensation loophole could submit 'spurious' applications, purely for financial gain".
The letter then gives two specific examples of potential problems affecting the houses of two named streets. It then says:
"It is estimated that up to 10,000 in each of these cases could be the limit of a possible claim, with the scope for a series of identical claims from adjacent properties if the opportunity for this became common knowledge".
It is for that latter reason that I do not spell out the exact location of the examples in the letter. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, was given a copy of it.
After mentioning further specific examples of possible expansion of buildings, particularly shops, onto forecourts, the letter ends with these words:
"I welcome [the] initiative in putting together a co-ordinated response because liability to pay significant compensation claims
918
could become a distinct possibility in Chester unless legislation is altered to deny 'spurious' claims. Perhaps more serious is the possibility that the planning committee could be over-cautious in refusing such planning applications because of the fear of meeting the compensation".
If, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, seemed to hint in his reply at the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government are content to allow potential liability for compensation to act as a restraint on local planning authorities, they are using a double-edged weapon, and a clumsy one. Once the way has been shown in this area, it almost necessarily leads to some spurious claims, and consequently to significant distortion of the planning process.
If the Government are worried that acceptance of this amendment would lead to a flood of Article 4 submissions by local planning authorities, they have the power to refuse to confirm them; or later, after they have given confirmation of a direction, the Secretary of State can, on appeal, reverse an unreasonable decision made locally in a particular area.
May I now deal briefly with what I believe is the effect of allowing the 12-month period for compensation claims to remain, and perhaps I may do that by quoting the words of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, (with which I fully agree) in a letter that he kindly wrote to me following the Committee stage of the Bill. I should say that the context of the 12 months is not exactly the same in the letter as the 12 months with which this amendment is concerned. In what I am about to read out it is referring to a wider application of Article 4, but, in my opinion, the effect would be the same relating just to conservation areas. I quote:
"If Article 4 directions are used in the way that it is intended, it seems likely that nearly all of the necessary planning applications are going to be made in the first 12 months. An extension of the provisions of the Bill to cover this would, I think, at best, be of little practical value: at worst, it would stir up a lot of applications which did not relate to immediate development proposals but which were being made solely to preserve compensation rights. If this were to happen, local planning authorities would finish up in a worse position than they are in now".
I certainly agree with that entirely.
I have been trying to show the scale and reality of the problem. Someone might now reasonably ask, as I did initially, why, if it is as bad as I am claiming, more people have not taken advantage of this loophole, particularly in submitting spurious claims. Part of the answer—in fact, I would say a large part—is ignorance. Fortunately, at the moment that is still generally the case, but once knowledge of all this is widely disseminated, awareness will quickly spread.
I am sure that noble Lords can see the paradox of this debate. We are having to raise the subject in some detail, genuinely to alert the Government, and at the same time we basically do not wish to draw more attention than necessary to specific loopholes. That is why just now in reading the letter from the City of Chester I had to omit some names of streets and areas.
If the Government cannot accept this amendment and put the lid on this particular compensation problem now, the same paradox will obtain if they feel that they should first raise this subject for more general debate by way of something like a consultation paper. The paradox then would be that they would be giving public notice of a loophole, and at the same time, at the very least by implication, hinting that it might

919
shortly be closed, giving plenty of time for those so minded and alerted to put in spurious applications.
I should like the Government to do it the other way round and accept this amendment, abolishing compensation in this very limited field of dwelling-houses in conservation areas, and say that the whole matter will be properly reviewed, with public consultation, during the rest of this year. They cannot leave this flank exposed while consultation is proceeding.
Finally, I should like to emphasise that this is not an elitist amendment about aesthetics, on which people might reasonably differ as to the importance that they give to it. It is fundamentally about compensation and—what seems to have all-party agreement—the fact that no one wants large sums of ratepayers' money (and we are talking about ratepayers from all levels of wealth) being paid out in spurious compensation claims. For all those reasons, I would ask that the Government and the House accept this amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and myself. At the Committee stage of the Bill the amendments that I moved proposed that the right to compensation should be removed where there was a national amendment to a development order or an Article 4 direction. The removal then was to be total, without any period of grace for the submission of claims. Today the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and now the amendment to the amendment, are concerned with a very much narrower area. I completely support the amendment referring to conservation areas proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, apart from the 12-month period of grace which, frankly, I do not like.
6 p.m.
I should like for a moment to concentrate on the reason, as I see it, for eliminating this particular period. Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage, while I proposed that it should be deleted altogether, other noble Lords suggested that it should be not only retained, but extended to three years or even, in some cases to five years. Now in these amendments we are talking solely about conservation areas and we have for the moment disposed of the question of agricultural areas.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, like the noble Viscount, had already referred to the fact that people incur professional fees; they enter into contracts and so on. Nevertheless, I believe that so far as a 12-months' limit is concerned the Government here would be offering a hostage to fortune. They are encouraging those who look to see where money grows on trees. The noble Viscount gave examples from Chester and also, during Committee stage, from London. One could look round many of the other historic towns and cities, and not only there but at the areas within cities. Some of the cities may not be very beautiful, but the conservation areas are of very great visual and qualitative importance. It is those with which we are concerned today.
920
There is no logical justification for the preservation of the right that we are suggesting should be removed. As we know, the wheels of Government grind slow, I am afraid to say. This, in itself, provides every opportunity for those who want to take advantage of provisions that currently exist to make their application and, if unsuccessful, to receive compensation. These sensitive areas to which we are referring in these amendments are now more vulnerable. The Bill will attract publicity, which will make it more likely that people will exploit their present rights and there is no doubt that local planning authorities, with all the goodwill in the world, are very nervous (and understandably so) of having to face the alternative of paying large amounts, which can run into thousands of pounds, of compensation rather than give planning permission—and, very often, against their better instincts. But, in view of their financial interests, they give planning permission, albeit reluctantly.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, at Committee stage referred to the proposals in relation to hazardous waste. This was the subject of a consultation paper put out by the Department of the Environment in September, 1982. The orders were made on 31st October, 1983, following the consultation. The orders were laid before Parliament on 10th November, 1983, and were debated in the Commons on 8th February, 1984. Eventually they came into operation on 1st May, 1984. On my arithmetic, that makes one year and eight months from the date on which the consultation paper was issued to the date on which the orders came into operation. The Government are proposing that, notwithstanding such an all-embracing and leisurely procedure, property owners should be granted yet another 12 months. It is really very difficult to justify this while at the same time one is aware that we may be losing half of our heritage all over the country which we can ill-afford to lose and which, in fact, is irreplaceable.
Now we come to the expenses incurred, which is another reason that has been put forward for keeping the 12 months' period when an order is made. I am sure that I do not have to remind the House that compensation codes provide for valuers, assessors, the Lands Tribunal, the courts and others to assess compensation in many situations by reference to the costs incurred, invariably the abortive costs. Indeed, I would suggest that in cases of disputed compensation the Lands Tribunal and other judicial bodies invariably find it much easier to make awards in relation to expenditure incurred rather than in relation to property values, which are often matters of opinion. It may be expert opinion, but it is opinion; whereas disturbance claims are invariably accompanied by schedules of invoices, accounts and other material relating to actual expenditure. It is far less likely that you will get spurious claims under this system than when there is an almost automatic right to compensation.
This has been part of the pattern of the law since 1845, but now, in 1985, the House is being advised that to sort out abortive expenditure in this type of situation would not be practical and that any test could be abused. I do not think that this is true. I believe it to be nonsense. I hope that when the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, speaks, as a lawyer, he will also be

921
supporting this view. I do not wish to delay the House any longer over this as feel that I have made my point on the 12-months' period.
Another point made by the Minister was that an Article 4 direction is made by the local planning authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State without any parliamentary procedure. In these cases I do not think that one can argue to the death that parliamentary procedure is really necessary. In fact, more harm can be done by not doing things because of lack of parliamentary procedure in this area than waiting for it, since after the local planning authority has reached a decision the order has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. This is a double check and therefore must act as some sort of safeguard.
It is also true that local authorities, by the sensitivity that many of them have put into their planning—and indeed, by a certain amount of expenditure that they have put in—have already enhanced the areas themselves. It would be wrong if the benefit of this enhancement is not felt by everybody living in the area but is taken advantage of by developers who in this way are using the planning laws as they are at the moment for their own benefit. What I am anxious to do is to stop the compensation tail wagging the planning dog.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I find it very surprising to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, having regard to the fact that at the Committee stage she was very concerned (as indicated in column 1225) with conservation matters. I agree that this is probably on a slightly different aspect, but it seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, as it stands, giving a grace period of 12 months in dealing with questions of conservation, is wholly consistent with the Bill as it stands. There is a grace period of 12 months in the amendment to Clause 1 and it seems to me very proper that that period should be maintained. Therefore, if necessary, I would vote against the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, is going to do about that amendment. I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for having apparently intruded before he was going to speak; but I have spoken very briefly and I hope that he will forgive me.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, of course, I would grant the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, whatever forgiveness he requires. I am not going to keep your Lordships for long. I support entirely the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I have perhaps one thing to say that they have not said and one other thing to augment what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said. In the event that amending legislation is forthcoming following the consultation paper, I would urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to state that compensation will not be payable for applications that are made after today until legislation is passed.
The consequence of failing to make such a provision will be to allow speculators, or rather to grant
922
speculators, a charter allowing them to design schemes to obtain compensation by spurious claims—to put up things which they know will not be likely in the normal event to get planning permission in the hope that they will get money instead. That is the design and purpose of what they are trying to do. As the Budget contained provisions to abolish development land tax, there will be, surely, no fetter discouraging speculators from exploiting this weakness in the existing legislation. It is this weakness that the Bill aims to prevent.
My noble friend the Minister, at the Committee stage, tried to tread a very taut tightrope between what I should like to call remedial and preventive medicine. My understanding of his policy then was that where there was sufficient evidence to show that this was being done and that people were exploting the situation, then remedies were taken, but that in some cases where the patient was infected—in particular, the pizza development in the Gloucester Road which was referred to—no such remedy was envisaged. So the patient remained infected.
I am trying to urge the Government to grant a moratorium, a stay, on the compensation until the legislation is passed. This, in a sense, does not go against anything said by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. There is no provision for this to be done, but it would be usual and has been practised in another place.
I should like to support every word of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about the compensation provisions and the lands tribunal particularly what she said about the ability to ascertain the costs in comparison with the skilled guesswork of two valuers following the British principle that you take the mean between the higher and the lower. You will not get spurious claims on that basis. What the noble Baroness said is absolutely right. I should like to support her remarks fully.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, the House is faced with a difficult decision when this amendment, and the amendment that it amends, are put to it. The question is how far to go in the Bill in dealing with the abuses, the weaknesses and the loopholes that have been revealed. All that I want to do at the moment is to leave the House under no illusion about the extent of these problems. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, quoted just one letter from the city of Chester, a member of the ADC and a distinguished one when it comes to conservation. On the files at the association, we have and could have many more similar letters from cities like Norwich, Durham, York, Bath, Chichester and all over the country, all faced with the same weakness on the part of planning authorities wishing to control these abuses and the very strong likelihood that the loopholes will be further exploited and the abuses further perpetrated.
My second point is that if we do not get the changes that seem to be necessary in this Bill, to what can we look forward? The impression that we have in the Association of District Councils is that having received a consultation paper in the course of the last few months on a whole range of planning matters, there is a strong likelihood that there will be a Planning (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the next Parliamentary Session. If my noble friend can assure

923
us of that, then we have some useful and, I should say, vital information by way of background in coming to our decision. If he cannot give that assurance and we have no certain prospect of any further legislation dealing with these matters, we shall have to consider carefully whether the amendments before us should not be incorporated in the Bill. I therefore ask my noble friend to deal with that second point.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for putting the dilemma squarely before the House. I shall, of course, respond to the last important point that he made a little later. My noble friend Lord Montagu has explained that his Amendment No. 4 would have the effect of adding a new provision to Section 165 of the 1971 Act and arises from his later Amendment No. 8 related to the provisions of Section 169 of that Act. He must, I am sure, be aware, especially after his recent meeting with my noble friend Lord Avon and his officials that, although his general concern to enhance the protection of conservation areas is a common thread between the two amendments, the application is quite different in each case. I am grateful to him for agreeing to treat both his amendments on their own merits.
As my noble friend has said, the primary purpose of this amendment is to remove compensation rights in respect of extensions to old commercial premises in conservation areas. Extensions to houses are permitted under the general development order, so that there is no planning application to refuse, and compensation under Section 169 will rarely arise. I accept that there could be a compensation liability under both Sections 165 and 169 where the GDO right relating to house extensions is withdrawn, and that a case can be made for amending both sections in the interests of consistency. But we need to remember five things. First, if a house is in a conservation area, the right to extend it is already much more severely limited than in other cases. Secondly, we made it clear in Circular 23/77 that Article 4 directions should not be made unless a special need can be clearly shown, such as a known or potential threat to the character of the area, and that the fact that an area is a conservation area is not in itself a justification for a direction.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, has referred to a letter that he has received from my noble friend Lord Avon which, in part anyway, amplifies this point. Paragraph 41 of the circular specifically states that:
"unless there are obvious and immediate reasons for it, a direction should not be made until it is clear that there will not be adequate public co-operation in the improvement of the area",
and that:
"a special need must be clearly shown such as a known or potential threat to the character of the area".
If Article 4 directions are used in the way that is intended, it seems likely that nearly all the necessary planning applications are going to be made in the first 12 months. I have not yet reached the matter of timing, but that is also a valid point in this connection. I wonder whether there are all that number of cases where the very limited right to extend a house in a conservation area needs to be withdrawn to protect the character of that area.
924
Thirdly, if the house is a listed building, listed building consent is required, and no compensation is payable under either Section 165 or 169 if it is refused. Fourthly, even if an Article 4 direction is made, and planning permission for the extension is subsequently refused, is compensation a serious problem? Surely the normal outcome will be a revised proposal which is acceptable on all sides. At worst, the amount of compensation payable for the refusal of a house extension, to say nothing of the refusal to allow the erection of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure, is surely going to be minimal and hardly likely to affect the planning authority's decision.
Finally, the difficulty with my noble friend's proposal is that it differentiates artificially between one kind of Article 4 direction and another. It does no more than cover a fairly minor anomaly that could arise on the interface between Sections 165 and 169 if his later proposal—that is, Amendment No. 8—were to be accepted. However, in so doing it simply creates other anomalous distinctions within Section 165 itself. So even if my noble friend were to be successful—and we shall have to await what he has to say on his later amendment—I would have to ask the House to reject this amendment.
In referring to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, to my noble friend Lord Montagu's amendment—that is, Amendment No. 5—may I say that whatever view is taken about the special needs of conservation areas, there is a fundamental objection to the amendment. It would have the effect of removing entirely in a particular class of case the right to compensation under Section 165, and I simply do not believe that any such blanket withdrawal of these particular rights can be justified. We have to consider the person who has begun, perfectly properly, to incur expenditure on the basis of a planning permission granted by a development order only to find that right taken away before the proposals can be implemented. If he then obtains planning permissions, well and good, but if his planning application is refused he has incurred abortive expenditure in good faith. Surely in these circumstances he ought to be compensated. I recognise that the 12-month period of grace is a rough and ready safeguard which could be abused. But no one has come up with a better solution, and we simply cannot leave a person in this situation totally in the lurch.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and my noble friend Lord Dilhorne, in speaking to this amendment, argued that the Lands Tribunal could easily assess compensation for abortive expenditure. We studied this point and we came to the conclusion that the definition of tests of abortive expenditure would be difficult and readily capable of circumnavigation. We think that a period of time is a better and fairer test of bona fides. I should be interested in any other suggestions as to how we might get over this point.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Dilhorne asked whether the Government would be able to have some sort of pre-emptive strike now in order to pave the way, as it were, for the results of the consultation we are about to have and which quite clearly the House is expecting. I think my noble friend Lord Sandford's point is relevant here. The Government have introduced this particular Bill as an emergency

925
measure, with the best of intentions: that is, to get rid of what is clearly seen on all sides of the House as a glaring and obvious abuse of the planning system. Any consideration of these wider issues will need to go well beyond Section 169 and will involve balancing the rights of landowners and conservation interests and the question of equity between one landowner and another.
It is our intention to issue by the summer a consultation paper to enable all the relevant issues to be fully debated. If, as a result of this review, the Government conclude that further amending legislation is indeed required, perhaps coupled with appropriate amendments to the general development order, the necessary Bill will then be introduced at the earliest opportunity. Regretfully, I am not able, with the best will in the world, to put a date on this, but the commitment is as I have just stated it.
Clearly, the Government will give prime consideration to the question of the operative date of any further legislation resulting from the consultation that I have just announced. But we cannot decide what the appropriate operative date will be until we have decided exactly what form the legislation will take; and of course we cannot do that until after we have had the consultations. So we are in a rather vicious circle.
My noble friend Lord Dilhorne asked me, in effect, about the blackmailer's charter. I would say at this stage that this is one view of the matter. However, until the consultation procedure is completed we shall not know whether this view is generally held, or, if it is, how we might best balance the legitimate interests of all those involved. As I have said, we shall press on as quickly as possible. My noble friend referred to the operation of the Budget. I am informed that this is quite different because of the operation of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, which gives immediate effect to Budget resolutions although the Finance Bill does not reach the statute book for some months.
As can be clearly seen, I do not like the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, any more than I like that of my noble friend Lord Montagu. I hope that my noble friend would agree with me that the noble Viscount's amendment would not be a reasonable approach to the problem he has outlined. In any event, as the House will realise by now, I am unable to accept my noble friend's amendment; but I hope that what I have been able to say and the announcement I have made tonight will go some way towards pacifying him.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him to clear the minds of some of us who are not fully au fait with what has been going on but are extremely disturbed, if I may speak for myself and, I should have thought, for some other Members of the House, as to what is really going to happen to this opportunity for speculative, pseudo-development applications that may be made over an even longer period if we have to wait for the consultation process and subsequent legislation. It seems to me to be an absolutely open invitation to those who have property in conservation areas. I understand that the Civic Trust is much concerned
926
about this. I wonder whether the Minister could be a little more convincing in making it clear that he is not leaving a wide-open door.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is exactly the point that I sought to answer when referring to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne. I shall not believe, until evidence is produced—it has not yet been produced—that this problem is as widespread as has been suggested today by the noble Viscount, for example. We do not have evidence from the local authorities that this is happening and is an abuse which needs to be corrected as a matter of the greatest urgency. I am perfectly prepared to accept that it is happening in a few cases which have been illustrated today. I think it is absolutely vital, before we have blanket approaches to any particular problem, to actually understand, and for Parliament to be advised on, exactly the strength of the evidence and the widespread need for legislation that that throws up.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, gives his opinion on the proceedings, perhaps I should deal with my amendment to his amendment. We should at least be grateful for the assurance, now on the record, about this process of consultation which is going to take place, though I am afraid I think that is a small comfort. Where I seem to disagree with the noble Lord the Minister is on the extent of the compensation which is due to people who have incurred expenditure on residential properties, as opposed to what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, was saying about agricultural properties. In my opinion the extent of that expenditure which needs to be compensated is very much smaller than the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was leading us to believe. With that, and with a slightly heavy heart, I should like to withdraw my
amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I now have to put the Question on the main amendment once more: That Amendment No. 4 shall be agreed to?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Minister said and though I am not entirely convinced I heard with considerable pleasure that there will be this inquiry. I hope that it can be done urgently.
I should like to take up the point about the evidence of compensation being paid. That is possibly true, but until the Peaktop case hit the headlines, the compensation provision had been on the statute book for about 30 years. Look at what has happened since. However, I shall be asking the House to support my Amendment No. 8 and for the goodwill of the House at that time I shall take this opportunity of withdrawing this
amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon moved Amendment No. 6.
Page 2, line 2 after ("day") insert ("—(i)")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with leave of the House I will also speak to Amendment No. 7:
Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("; or
(ii) the building is used in whole or in part for retail trading purposes or as a restaurant or as offices or any other commercial purposes." ")
This amendment is identical to one that I withdrew at Committee stage. It was put down at this stage to remind the Government that this is still and will continue to be a problem area for many local authorities. In view of the assurances which the Minister has just given about a review, I shall not pursue this amendment further except to quote a paragraph from a letter, to which I referred earlier, from the chief executive of the city of Chester.
It reads, relating to this problem:
"The more significant case for individual claims could flow from the 10 per cent. tolerance on use of forecourt areas, as identified in your letter. There are a number of situations in the City Centre of Chester where this situation could occur. Probably the most serious would be in … one of our prime trading positions, where such a situation accurs across a number of shop frontages between key multiple store positions. It could also be a possibility … in the heart of the historic city".
I have left out the names of the streets that he mentioned.
That would seem to be the locus classicus of the Section 169 problem that I was originally trying to address in using the example I gave at the Committee stage of the pizza establishment. Now I can only hope that not too much damage is done before this consultation process comes to fruition. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount has said and the fact that we went over this in Committee, I give him my support as I have my name to his amendment, but I do not think that there is any reason at this time in the evening for me to say anything more about it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as one unused from this Bench to giving assurances, I was rather surprised that the assurance I gave earlier was greeted so quietly, although obviously it goes some way to relieving certain concerns that have been expressed this evening.
This amendment is identical to one that my noble friend moved during the Committee stage. It is a very wide ranging extension to the provisions of the Bill relating to Section 169 of the 1971 Act, and would, in effect, remove compensation rights under that section in most of the cases where those rights are still of practical value.
The noble Viscount has made some important points about how the provisions of Section 169 of the 1971 Act are capable of abuse in relation to extensions to commercial buildings, and my noble friends Lord Montagu and Lord Sandford have made clear some equally important concerns about buildings in conservation areas, to which we will return. It has been very useful to open up these wider concerns. Nevertheless I have to say, as I did earlier, that we intended this to be a short and simple Bill to deal with
928
two specific problems. The first is the abuse of the provisions of Section 169 of the 1971 Act and its Scottish equivalent, in relation to compensation for extensions to blocks of flats in existence on 1st July 1948. The second is the open-ended nature of the compensation rights arising under Section 165 for adverse planning decisions following the revocation or modification of a development order.
The difficulty, of course, is that planning compensation is not a simple subject. For example, the concept of "development not constituting new development" which underlies Section 169, is one that can only be understood in historical terms. Nevertheless it has important practical implications. The compensation rights vested by this section can be regarded either as a substitute for development rights under the General Development Order, and therefore as an inherent part of property values, or as a wholly inappropriate constraint on the freedom of planning authorities to make proper planning decisions, depending on your point of view. Moreover, these provisions interrelate with others in the 1971 Act such as the basis for the service of a purchase notice set out in Section 180 or the basis on which compensation for compulsory purchase is calculated. Any consideration of the issues which these provisions raise involves balancing the rights of landowners and conservation interests, and questions of equity between one landowner and another. The Royal Insitution of Chartered Surveyors are known to be concerned about the implications, and so doubtless are many others.
We have opened what is clearly a very large box—to use the comment of my noble friend, Lord Montagu—rather like Pandora's, and I feel rather like Pandora in wondering how much more there is to come out of it and how to shut the lid before everything is blown away. It would be wholly wrong to allow ourselves to open up fundamental issues of this kind without prior consultation and public discussion. I feel bound to resist all attempts to extend the scope of the Bill, on the ground that, however minor they may appear, this is a process which, once started, has no logical finishing point.
This is exactly why the Government intend to have this consultation paper at the earliest opportunity, and further amending legislation, if necessary, based on it. I believe that the problem of abuse will be at the forefront of the minds of those undertaking the consultation and offering the evidence. If there is evidence of widespread abuse we shall look closely at the operative date of the amending legislation, as I have said before. I feel that, desirable as some members of your Lordships' House might feel this to be at this stage, the House is in danger of pre-empting a situation which it would not be in the House's interest so to pre-empt.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am grateful for those remarks. As I said at the beginning, I will not pursue this amendment, but it is useful to have had all those comments from the Minister on the record, as well as my example which I gave at the beginning. As well as other things escaping from Pandora's Box. I hope that a lot of compensation will not disappear between now and the time when the consultation

929
process reaches its fruition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("(6B) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 to this Act shall be construed as not extending to the enlargement of a building which was in existence on the appointed day if the building is in a conservation area." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, Amendment No. 8, is one to which I attach the greatest importance as I feel it is fundamental to the future of conservation areas. I was sorry to miss the Committee stage, but I was most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for carrying on the argument so persuasively. It was therefore disappointing that, after winning what appeared to be an offer from the Minister to look again at the proposed amendment—in fact, the same one as that which I am now proposing—nevertheless there appears to be this evening a refusal to give any concession to that argument which was then put forward and which I am now putting forward. Therefore, I must return somewhat to the charge.
First, I should like to say this. By introducing this very welcome Bill, which is appreciated by everybody concerned with the subject, the Government recognised that there was a problem; that having spotted the source of compensation, developers are bound to be very quick to exploit it. The Peaktop case showed that, and the result is this Bill.
The Government now say that they cannot introduce a major change in the balance between landowning and conservation matters without an opportunity for prior public debate—but why not? If conservation areas are worth anything—and I am sure we all agree that they are—why must they be left open for known abuse just because there has not been much abuse yet? This Bill, by drawing attention to the scope for abuse, actually increases the likelihood of harm. The Minister complained that we were not exactly jumping up and down in our seats when he announced the inquiry. But I warmly welcome that inquiry in this whole murky area of compensation. However, welcome though it is, it can only advertise that a lucrative loophole may soon be closed. Meanwhile, conservation areas are at risk because once an historic area has been changed the damage is irreversible. We cannot re-create history.
The really urgent problem is urban conservation areas. Their land values are high. Amounts of compensation at stake are also very high. The fear of compensation claims leads local authorities to grant consent, even though on planning grounds they would wish to refuse them. In towns there is the particular problem that if compensation is paid before refusal of an extension to one house or terrace, this could give rise to claims from all the others. Developers simply cannot lose: either they get permission for a valuable extension or compensation for not building it. It is the conservation area that is the loser. Under this Bill a
930
terraced house converted to flats will no longer give rise to claims for compensation; but its neighbours, used as hotels, offices, or even as single dwellings, will still be able to jump on a profitable bandwagon.
Local authorities are of course required by law to designate conservation areas. Legislation singles out conservation areas for certain forms of attention. Then why are the Government prepared to leave them wide open to known abuse? I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept my new subsection (6B). It certainly has the support of all the heritage interests and certainly of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, of which I am chairman, on the advice of their statutory committee, the Historic Buildings Advisory Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is with very great pleasure that I rise to support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. A few minutes ago the Minister mentioned that his assurances were received so quietly. I think the point is—certainly so far as we on these Benches are concerned—that assurances are all right up to a point, but meanwhile, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lady White and others, a tremendous amount of damage and loss can take place during that period. The amendment that we are now discussing is really a very narrow amendment. It is designed simply to remove the right to claim compensation if permission is refused for an extension to any building which existed in July 1948 and which is situated in a conservation area. That is all it does. It has really come down to a very narrow point indeed.
Frankly I would have thought, particularly when the amendment is moved by the distinguished chairman of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which has a very big stake in this whole area, that the consultation paper can still go ahead and be discussed; but at least one can stop part of the flood and deal with some area of it in this way, by this amendment, which is so far the narrowest of the amendments that have been moved.
In referring to the Department of the Environment Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, I hope the House will just bear with me if I correct an error that was reported on Committee stage. The correction was published but it came two days later and may not have been seen. I was reported as saying that,
"My feeling, as I had been concerned with this area as a Minister in the last Labour Government, was that the only raison d'être for this step was that it should remain a separate entity within the DoE".
In fact—as was pointed out in the correction and I should like it on record as a complete piece—what I said was that,
"My feeling, as I had been concerned with this area as a Minister in the last Labour Government, was that the only raison d'être for this step"—
that is, the setting up of the commission—
"was that it would operate better as a separate entity rather than remain within the DoE".
This is one amendment which I think the Government can accept without jeopardising the whole of the consultation period. It will be tragic to

931
waste this opportunity to protect the heritage. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I must say that if he has had assurances that there is not abuse taking place all over the areas and all over different districts in this country, then I am afraid he has been either badly informed or trouble has not been taken to find out exactly what is happening.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and indeed my noble friend Lord Montagu, said that this is a narrow amendment. I would support their principle of controlling speculative planning in such areas as Chester and indeed in the Little Boltons and other conservation areas. However, I think this amendment would also catch farms in conservation areas.
I was amused to note that during the Town and Country Amenities Bill that went through this House on 15th July 1974 I tried to tell your Lordships that there was a danger that these conservation areas could hamper agricultural operations. I was told that such designation would do no such thing. I now wonder if I was not right.
What I accept, however, is that paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act appears to except certain agricultural buildings and operations. As far as I am concerned, it does—and maybe it does not. I need clarification. As I understand it, the amendment of my noble friend would catch farmhouses, maybe farm cottages, certainly market gardens, horticulture, and indeed forestry and timber yards. I should like reassurance. Until I receive it, I do not think I can support the amendment of my noble friend, though I understand what he is trying to get at.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I certainly want to support this amendment. I think the House has been rather easily reassured by what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, and, in not pressing any of the previous amendments, it has shown a willingness to run quite large risks as to what might happen in our conservation areas and our countryside while these processes of consultation are going on. We know that there is a good deal amiss in the countryside, but it would seem that we are willing to wait until consultation on landscape area special development orders has gone on. We know there is tremendous potential for abuse and very considerable weakness in the local authorities in being able to deal with it. My noble friend on the Front Bench says, "It's all right. The stable door is open but nothing has bolted yet; so what are you worrying about?" We know more than enough about what is going on in these areas to be worried. The character of the conservation areas in our historic cities and towns has been built up and safeguarded painstakingly and gradually over the past 10 years or more. All this is now at risk. The least we could ask is for the Government to accept this absolutely minimal amendment, which has been introduced by the chairman of English Heritage, the very body which has been brought into existence to safeguard areas of this kind. I shall be very disappointed if my noble friend does not indicate that he is willing to accept it.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am also prepared to offer at least qualified support for the amendment at
932
this stage, on the basis that a little bread is better than none. I am not really sure that the amendment is a very good one in the way in which it differentiates between the conservation and the non-conservations areas. There are a number of indifferent buildings within conservation areas and there are good buildings outside them. I feel that if one is going to deal with this sort of thing, there must be a wide sweep covering the whole lot. Also, I think it is likely that doing it this way will give local authorities a financial interest to get off the present hook and to make conservation areas where none existed before, because that is the only way they can get out of the liability to compensate.
The difficulty, as has been said many times before this evening, is that the box is now open and whatever happens, there will be a number of ways leading to the golden egg. I was delighted to learn that there is going to be this consultative process, and my noble friend has said that he will look carefully at the operative date of amending legislation when the time comes. Until now he has resisted any blandishments to do more than that, but when the time comes I think we shall hear very much what we heard at the start of this Bill, that the retrospective element is paramount and the new provisions will operate from the appointed day under a new Act.
I should like once again to pursue the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dilhorne and taken up again by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he would say now that when the matter has been gone into and the consultation processes followed, if it is then found that there has been abuse, the door will close on that abuse as from the date of today's debate. It does not seem to me there is any reason why he should not say that. If he did say that, people who were going to buy properties with a view to cashing in on the golden egg would know from today, to a large extent at least, where they stood.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I get the impression that I have been accused of devaluing conservation areas. Nothing could be further from the truth, I assure you. I fully accept the importance of protecting buildings in conservation areas. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley was quite right: it is all buildings in conservation areas, and the amendment would affect compensation for the refusal of an extension to any building in a conservation area in existence on 1st July 1948.
I recognise that the provisions of Section 169 and Schedule 8 to the 1971 Act relating to compensation may have the effect of putting pressure on planning authorities to permit extensions which really ought to be refused on conservation grounds, although I am bound to add, again, that we have no evidence of the kind of shameless exploitation of these provisions that has occurred over extensions to blocks of flats. During the Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Avon therefore promised to give further consideration to the proposal. Since then, he has discussed the position very fully with my ministerial colleagues, as well as with my noble friend Lord Montagu, and there have also been discussions between officials. The outcome is that we are not persuaded that it would be right to make this amendment to the Bill. I know that the noble Lord is disappointed by the view we have taken,

933
and it is only right that I should explain our doubts in some detail.
There are some 5,000 conservation areas up and down the country. They are designated by local planning authorities under Section 277 of the 1971 Act without any requirement for approval by the Secretary of State, or any form of parliamentary control. All that is required is for the authority to determine that there is a part of their area which is,
"An area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve, or enhance"
That is a very wide provision. The effect of my noble friend's amendment would be to allow a local planning authority, without any further control, to use their very wide powers relating to conservation areas to take away what can arguably be regarded as vested property rights. The debate in Committee on Article 4 directions suggested that there were grave doubts about allowing the Secretary of State to take away compensation rights in a situation where there was no parliamentary control. By contrast, it is now proposed that Parliament should give precisely that right to a local planning authority, with no control whatsoever on the way authorities make use of the power. Can this really be regarded as fair to the landowners who would be affected?
We are not talking about minor rights which are of little practical importance. The amendment would take away the present right to compensation for the refusal of an extension to a building in existence on 1st July 1948, which is used, say, as offices, as a hotel, or as a shop. The only kind of building not affected would be a factory or a house, and even house extensions would be affected in a few cases. There is no right to extend offices or other commercial premises under the general development order, and we know that the owners of pre-1948 buildings regard the right to compensation under Section 169 as a protection against the unreasonable refusal of permission for such extensions. It is quite possible to argue that Section 169 ought not to be used in this way; I accept that. We have to face the fact that it is. In this situation would it really be fair to take away this protection from the owners of virtually all buildings in 5,000 existing conservation areas totally without warning? Would it really be fair to allow local authorities to remove these compensation rights from the owners of buildings in any other conservation area that they may wish to designate, and without any recourse to Parliament? It is argued that the property owner has nothing to fear because he can always appeal to the Secretary of State against a refusal of permission to extend. But appeals cost time and money and by delayng the carrying out of a project they also increase the cost, if permission is granted; so it is not unreasonable for property owners to regard Section 169 as an important protection.
I am by no means convinced that Section 169 ought to be used in this way. It is quite possible to argue that Section 169 rights are obsolete and ought to be replaced by appropriate extentions to the general development order. But, as I have said before this evening, the Government have put forward this Bill as an emergency measure with the best of intentions—to get rid of what is clearly seen to be a glaring and obvious abuse of the planning system. Any
934
consideration of wider issues will need to go well beyond Section 169 and will involve balancing the rights of landowners and conservation interests, and questions of equity as between one landowner and another.
I say again, because I feel it very strongly indeed, that it would be wholly wrong to allow ourselves to open up fundamental issues without prior consultation and public discussion. At the same time I fully recognise the strong feeling of a number of noble Lords that there are other compensation rights under the 1971 Act which are no longer appropriate to modern conditions and there are other anomalies which should be put right. I have given the categoric assurance that this whole area is ripe for review and that the Government are proposing to embark on just such a review as soon as this Bill has reached the statute book. I believe that that should meet the very understandable fear that if this opportunity to improve the planning compensation regime is missed, it will not return for many years.
I can assure my noble friend that I regard his speeches today as a forerunner of his response, whether on behalf of his commission or, indeed, individually, to the consultation paper, and I shall be most interested in his further thoughts on this matter. For the moment, however, I simply cannot advise the House to accept this amendment. We do not know at this moment how we will change compensation rights. We may well, for example, need to couple the change with amendments to the general development order. In these circumstances we cannot make the clear statement of intention that the House would dearly love to hear today. But I say again, and for the final time, that if there is clear evidence, we will act.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister has said, but I must confess that I remain unconvinced. Of course, I am very pleased that there will be an inquiry, and we shall certainly co-operate with it. But he has not persuaded me that it is sensible, in the meantime, to leave conservation areas at risk, especially when all the publicity attached to the inquiry, not to mention the subsequent legislation, will continually remind developers of better ways to exploit the compensation. The noble Lord has repeated that he feels there is little evidence of compensation actually having been paid, but, as I have already said, until Peaktop hit the headlines legislation had been on the statute book for nearly 30 years, and we have seen what has happened since. He has also suggested that the amendment might become a vehicle for the special, new-born landowners' rights, but this would not be a precedent, as legislation already provides that in conservation areas unlisted buildings cannot be demolished without listed building consent, and I submit that alterations can be just as damaging as demolitions.
I have withdrawn Amendment No. 4, but I feel bound to press my Amendment No. 8, which deals with the drawing of rights of compensation in respect of all buildings in conservation areas, however they are used. But I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, that my amendment is entirely restricted to paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 and most farm

935
buildings are excluded by paragraph 4. All I am seeking to do is to ensure that, whatever else is put at risk, conservation areas are not. Although we have been assured that the Government are still concerned about conservation areas, I am sure that they would not like to be seen as putting the first nail in their coffin. So I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will join me in seeking to protect them. I submit that this is not a political matter.
7.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 89.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Atholl, D.

Lawrence, L.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bernstein, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mar, C.

Brockway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Meston, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Collison, L.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Raglan, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Sandford, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Stamp, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jacques, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Caithness, E.

Auckland, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Bauer, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beloff, L.

Cathcart, E.

Belstead, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Birdwood, L.

Colwyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Davidson, V.

936

De La Warr, E.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Donegall, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Ferrier, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gisborough, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Radnor, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Greenway, L.

Reigate, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

Renwick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Henley, L.

Rodney, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Ironside, L.

Sharpies, B.

Kimberley, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kintore, E.

Somers, L.

Kitchener, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Suffield, L.

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Teynham, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ullswater, V.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Middleton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Morris, L,

Young of Graffham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Films Bill
7.13 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [Dissolution of National Film Finance Corporation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(c) that at least one independent director should be appointed to the board of the company to represent the film production industry.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of a substantial debate in Committee in which a whole series of amendments were put forward in the attempt to ensure some stability for the privatised British Screen Finance Consortium. In particular, it arises out of an exchange between my noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about the possibility of there being an independent director for the British Screen Finance Consortium and whether the Minister would consult with the members of the consortium to see if there was any possibility of their agreeing to an independent director.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was not particularly forthcoming to my noble friend, but he did say at column 1494 of the Official Report for 7th March 1985 that he would think about it and consider whether any action would be appropriate at Report stage. The purpose of our putting this amendment to the noble Lord now is to remind him of that remark.

937
It was in no sense, I think it is fair to say, a commitment; but we remind him of what he said then and remind him of the importance of this issue in the eyes of the British film industry and those engaged in it.
The British Screen Finance Consortium, which the noble Lord calls by the impossible acronym BSFC, is a very strange body. It is first of all to be a limited partnership under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 and the noble Lord will be as aware as will the House that this is an unusual corporate structure. It is one which has not been adopted with any significance over the past 78 years. The noble Lord will also be aware that changes in the tax position of limited partnerships were proposed by the Chancellor in his Budget last week, and there are limits about the ability of partners in a limited partnership to offset losses in the partnership against their profits elsewhere which require some study. There is also the consideration that the £1·5 million per year for five years which is to be provided by the Government to the BSFC is to be, as I understand from the heads of agreement, in the form of a loan in the first instance and therefore the interest of the Government is not all that secure and not all that strong in the form of commitment.
Above all, there is the fact that the four members of the consortium—I applaud them for their agreement to take part in this consortium—have themselves particular interests in the production of films. Channel 4 Television Company Limited has an interest in the production of films for television. It has used that interest to encourage films for the big screen, and all credit to it. Two of the partners in the consortium are concerned with the distribution industry, and the interests of the distribution industry, if I may put it at its lowest, are not necessarily the same interests as those of the film production industry which is referred to in the amendment.
Finally, the British Videogram Association—again, all credit to it for proposing to set up a company to take part in the consortium—has an interest of its own which is of course important to the film industry but is only part of the interests of the British Film production industry on which all of these industries in the end will depend. For that reason we are not pursuing some of the more wide-ranging amendments which were put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in Committee but are pursuing only one which we considered to be the most essential of all. That is why we put forward this amendment tonight.
We do so saying that it really cannot be denied that there ought to be a voice for the film production industry in this country in the British Screen Finance Consortium. It is inconceivable to me after reading very carefully the reports of the proceedings in another place and the report of our own Second Reading and Committee debates that the Government can put forward a coherent case against this very modest but still very important amendment to the Bill, an amendment designed to protect the interests of the film production industry in this country. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has
938
covered most of the important points here. The reservations that we have had through the Committee stage of this Bill on this new consortium have largely been directed towards the constituency of this new body; but of course it is a welcome fact that we have a new body which we sincerely hope will go forward into this new era of film making.
All the signs are good but there are, as my noble friend said, conflicts of interest that one can foresee among the four main parts of this new consortium and it seems to me absolutely essential that we should press for an independent director to sit on this company. Not only will that give us a safety valve, as it were, a safeguard against conflicts of interest which are detrimental to the general aim of this body which is to go forward to finance new British films, but also it will bring fresh ideas and a new approach to this new venture, which cannot do any harm, and it will conceivably bring more enthusiasm from all parts of the British film industry. This is a sensible measure that we all support, and it can do nothing but good.
Before I close on that, I would like briefly to say at this early stage from these Benches—and I am sure others will join with me—that we congratulate those well-known figures who have won Oscar awards in Hollywood. It is particularly pleasing that Dame Peggy Ashcroft has won this incredible accolade after an incomparable stage and television career. Now she has the crowning award as a film actress and this all combines to give us, as it were, a good send off.
Lord Willis: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that in Committee I asked the noble Lord the Minister a direct question as to whether he would consult the participants in the consortium to see if there was any objection on their part to an independent director. I look forward very much to hearing what he has to say in that respect, because I think he said he would go down that road.
The only other thing I have to say is that this is an important amendment. The points have been covered by other speakers. But I would say this. It really is not very vital from the point of view of the Government, because it will not upset the balance of the consortium in any way. The main shareholders will in the end still have a final financial voice, but it would enormously please the film production industry and the independent producers if they had such a voice. I cannot for the life of me see that there can be any objection to this.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I would like to agree with the general sentiments expressed by other noble Lords, but I do feel that the watch-word for tonight is brevity, so do not wish to add anything except my support.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, may I first echo the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in reminding the House this evening of the awards which the British film industry, the actors and those involved in the industry won yesterday. That merely suggests to me that the industry is in fine fettle, in good heart, and has the approbation of its peers.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, reminded your Lordships that I gave an undertaking during the

939
Committee stage to establish whether the British Screen Finance Corporation partners would be content to accept the appointment of an independent director to represent the film production industry. This I did. I confirm that, although they would very much welcome future entrants to the consortium on matching terms, they do not consider the appointment of an independent director as either appropriate or necessary.
I accept the view of the consortium partners. May I add also that I believe the amendment is founded on a misconception of the role that the British Screen Finance Consortium board will play in investment decisions. I would like to make clear it is not the intention that the consortium shall operate as the National Film Finance Corporation presently does, with the board having a close active involvement in individual investment decisions. It is made clear in paragraph 3 subsection (3) of the heads of agreement with the Secretary of State that the chief executive will be the ultimate decision-maker on whether or not to support particular applications within such broad parameters as may be laid down by the board. This commitment to the independence of the chief executive has been given by reputable and substantial organisations and it would be quite unjustified I believe to doubt either their good intentions or, indeed, the ability of the Secretary of State to ensure that the consortium will comply with the terms of their agreement.
In case there are any lingering doubts, may I remind your Lordships that the chairman of the consortium will himself be approved by the Secretary of State, and that among his other duties he will be charged with overseeing the terms of the contractual arrangements between the Government and consortium and reporting back to the Secretary of State if these commitments are not met.
Another reminder perhaps I might make is that there will be a Government-appointed director on the board. This director will be the watchdog of the Government in the sense of seeking to ensure that the terms on which the Government have agreed to fund the consortium, the heads of agreement, are observed. Furthermore, he will be expected to have regard to the interests of the film industry at large.
From the conversations and advice I have received since we last discussed this matter, I am not convinced—nor, indeed, am I by the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—of the need for an additional director specifically to represent the film production industry on the consortium board. I believe the assurances that the consortium members have provided are comprehensive. They more than adequately dispose of any fear that the partners will not have at heart the wellbeing of the film production industry. I invite the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I find that reply rather frightening. In my mind, it casts a shadow of gloom over the new consortium. What is frightening is that they themselves have said they would not welcome an independent director, and I find that rather strange. They would welcome an independent director
940
provided he put up a million-and-a-half a year, but there are not many independent directors who can do that.
I cannot see how the appointment of one additional director could change the shape or the policy as laid down in the Bill. On the contrary, it would give an additional channel of advice to the chairman, and an additional channel of advice to the chief executive. It would also help the Government representative, who has been mentioned. So I feel personally that I would want to press this matter strongly, because I think the consortium should be told that this amendment, if passed, will create great pleasure in the industry and will give a measure of confidence in the consortium, which at present I am afraid they do not have.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I believe my noble friend had it in mind, if he received any encouragement from the noble Lord the Minister, to withdraw this amendment in favour of that encouragement, but as he has received none whatever, it is my hope that my noble friend will press this matter to a Division. In my view, it is right that we should have the feeling of the House on this matter, and since my noble friend has received no help whatsoever. I hope he will decide that this is a matter on which the House ought to decide.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the observations of my noble friends. As they did, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister has said, and I have to agree with my noble friend Lord Willis that the situation as it has been put by the Minister is in fact worse than it was when we started.
If I had been wrong in thinking that the interests of the members of the consortium were only partial—not to be deplored in themselves but partial—in representing the views of the film industry as a whole; and if I had been wrong in thinking that the Government's interest, which is limited as I said to only £1·5 million a year for five years, and that, according to the heads of agreement, presently intended to be in the form of a loan, then it might have been possible to say that all was happy, that the consortium was funded with the maximum of goodwill, and that we ought to give it a fair wind for now. It might have been possible, subject to the amendment to be moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, to say that we ought to give it an opportunity to prove itself.
But everything the Minister has said has confirmed my conviction that all is not well and that the members of the consortium, despite their goodwill and despite their obvious concern for the public welfare, have not appreciated the need for the voice of the film production industry to be represented on the board of the company. In that, they are joined by the Government, who clearly have not appreciated in any sense the force of the arguments put forward both in Committee and at this stage. Under those circumstances, I believe it would be right for me to invite the House to take a view on this matter.
7.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kagan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Marley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mersey, V.

Collison, L.

Meston, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Raglan, L.

Falkender, B.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Allerton, L.

Kintore, E.

Atholl, D.

Kitchener, E.

Bauer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Molson, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Morris, L.

Cathcart, E.

Munster, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Norfolk, D.

Colwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Peel, E.

De La Warr, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gisborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Glanusk, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandford, L.

Greenway, L.

Shannon, E.

Gridley, L.

Sharples, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Somers, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stamp, L.

Ironside, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

942

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ullswater, V.

Suffield, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Whitelaw, V.

Teynham, L.

Wynford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Yarborough, E.

Trumpington, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.39 p.m.
Clause 5 [Financial assistance by Secretary of State in connection with the production of films]:
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead Lord Lloyd of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall use his best endeavours to secure annual payments from the film and the television industries to the National Film and Television School to assist it in pursuance of its objects.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which I shall endeavour to do as briefly as possible, it is necessary for me to sketch in the background in order to explain its purpose. As some of your Lordships will doubtless know, the National Film and Television School has been going for only a relatively brief 14 years, but during that period it has established a remarkably high reputation, both at home and abroad. Its value is acknowledged widely throughout the industry and, one may say, by the Government themselves. Indeed, the White Paper stated that the school has attracted universal praise for its excellence and its responsiveness to the needs of the industry. The White Paper also went out of its way to pay a very well-earned tribute to Colin Young, who has been director of the school since its inception, and who, shortly before, had been given one of the premier awards by BAFTA—the Michael Balcon Award—for the person who had made the most distinguished contribution to the cinema during that particular year. If I may venture to do so, I should like to repeat that tribute.
From the beginning of the school the principle was accepted that its finances should be a partnership between the Government and industry. Ideally, the notion was that eventually one would arrive at some kind of parity so that the Government and the industry would support the school on a 50–50 basis; although I am sorry to say that this ideal has not yet been fully attained. The Government contribution has of course come not from the department that the present noble Minister represents but from the Office of Arts and Libraries. As for the industry, we have been dependent upon a grant from the Eady money—the British film fund.
As regards television, although the school has only recently adopted the word "television" into its title, in fact it is universally recognised that from the beginning the school has made just as great a contribution to television as it has to films. Strangely, the television industry has been less than magnanimous in recognising that contribution, at any rate from the financial point of view. It has been very ready to accept the very great services that the school has performed in providing top flight people to work in television but at the same time it has been very miserly in making contributions. I am afraid that this applies to an even

943
greater extent to the BBC than to independent television.
As a result of all this and due of course to the fact that the school has had to look for its income from year to year to differing sources, its position has always been financially precarious. But one might have hoped, I should have thought, that with the introduction of this Bill some attempt would have been made to make this great school, whose merit is so widely recognised and by the Government themselves, less rather than more precarious. Unfortunately that has not happened.
7.45 p.m.
As regards Eady, the way the system works, and will be working until Eady is eventually abolished under this Bill, is that under the Films Act 1970 a provision was inserted which enabled a grant to be made, with the approval of the Secretary of State who has to consult the Cinematograph Films Council for the purpose, to support a film school. The National Film School was not mentioned by name in that provision. That may seem a little curious but the explanation is very simple. The reason was that the school was not actually in existence when the Bill was passed. It had not been incorporated, and the legal advice was that the Act could not refer to a non-existent body. Therefore, a formula was devised under which the grant was made to one school only which was to be approved and designated by the Secretary of State. Shortly after the Bill was passed the school was duly registered as a company, limited by guarantee, and the Secretary of State approved this as the one and only school which should be eligible to receive this grant.
The advantage of this formula from the point of view of the school's relation to the film industry, at least, was that it gave the school a kind of legislative reference which conferred a status upon the school and which, as has been proved over the years, has greatly increased its bargaining situation vis-à-vis the film industry. We do not quarrel with the removal of Eady. As I have indicated on several occasions in the course of these debates, we recognise that there is no case for retaining Eady in its present form since it imposes a major obligation on that part of the industry which is least able to bear it, and therefore makes no sense at the present time. However, the effect of abolishing Eady in this way, apart from the financial consideration, is to deprive the film school of its status. The importance of this is particularly emphasised by the experience of the school over the years in dealing with the independent television industry. The fact that it has no statutory standing vis-à-vis the television industry has undoubtedly weakened the bargaining position of the film school in seeking adequate and suitable financial support.
In the other place Mr. Trippier, speaking for the Government, sought to brush aside this question of the status of the school under the Films Act. That, I may say, was in relation to an amendment of a very different character from the one that I am moving. It was an amendment, it is fair to say, that the school was not altogether happy about and which has not been repeated in your Lordships' House. Be that as it may, Mr. Trippier sought to brush aside the importance of this provision by saying that all the Films Act did was
944
to recognise the school for the purpose of making it eligible for an Eady grant and that it in no way guaranteed the school. That is absolutely right and no one would quarrel with that. But this is something of a quibble, if I may say so, because what the provision has done is to confer, as I said, a statutory standing upon the school. This has reinforced the school's position to two ways: first, by reinforcing its bargaining position vis-à-vis the industry; and, secondly, in enabling it to establish its independence and making it very difficult for the industry to seek to impose conditions on the school or to interfere with its autonomy.
Now that Eady is going, what are we getting in return? We are getting a rather vague understanding which has been negotiated, not by the school but by the Minister, with three sections of the industry—Independent Television, the BBC and the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association on behalf of the cinema industry. But, as I say, there is no statutory status given to the school in that context.
What the amendment now before your Lordships does is to follow the pattern of the Films Act in the sense that it confers statutory recognition on the school and thereby imparts to it a modest leverage—I will put it no higher than that—for the future. It does not impose, and deliberately does not impose, a positive duty on the Secretary of State to carry out the task of securing annual payments from the industry for the film school. Advisedly it does not do that, because it was realised that that would be to impose an impossible burden on the Secretary of State. After all, he may come back and say, "They just will not pay anything, so I cannot secure anything for you". It was not part of the purpose of this amendment to try to achieve an impossible objective. Accordingly, what has been done is to impose on the Secretary of State the much more limited obligation simply to use his reasonable endeavours to obtain suitable finance to support the school.
The expression, "use reasonable endeavours", is not only a phrase that is familiar to lawyers generally, but is also consecrated in this very Bill. As your Lordships know, in Clause 3(4)(a) it is, in a different context, specifically provided that the Secretary of State in relation to the transfer of certain rights—and I need not go into that in detail—has to be satisfied that the new company or partnership,
"will use its best endeavours to encourage the production of relevant films",
and so on. It seems to me, if I may say so, that there is no reason at all why the Secretary of State should not accept this sort of obligation and thereby confer upon the school a statutory status and the ability to ask the Secretary of State or the Minister in the department to ensure, so far as he can, that adequate finance be derived from the industry.
Another argument which I believe has been raised in the context of this amendment is that it is unprecedented and therefore it cannot be countenanced. In fact I suggest that, far from being unprecedented, it represents the very practice that the Department of Trade has been adopting in regard to this matter. If one considers the situation, under the Films Act, with Eady operating, the position was that a grant could be made from the levy, and the ultimate decision rested

945
within the discretion of the Minister or the Secretary of State as to whether the grant should be made, he being under an obligation first to consult the CFC.
When it was proposed by this Government that Eady should be abolished the Minister obviously and reasonably accepted that there was some obligation upon him to find a financial substitute for this very substantial slice of income that the present Bill was to take away from the film school. What the then Minister—in fact it was Mr. Kenneth Baker who was the film Minister at that time—did was very properly to go around the industry to see whether he would negotiate some sort of arrangement, as it has been described. Eventually he arrived at the agreement of which we know whereby these three sections of the industry are making a contribution for the next few years.
All that we are seeking in the amendment is, in effect, for the Minister to continue this process in order to ensure some measure of financial security for the school, but to do it in the context of the statutory recognition of the National Film and Television School. That will make its future, at any rate to that degree, less precarious. After all, the school will obviously be in a very difficult position, especially without any statutory countenance. What it will be left to do is to go around with a begging bowl, asking these various gentlemen in various parts of the industry whether they can possibly scrape up a little finance to keep the school going. If it is given, as this amendment suggests, a statutory recognition, with the Minister under a duty to use his best endeavours to secure adequate finance, the school will have the sort of backing which will, at any rate to some considerable measure, reduce that precarious situation.
In those circumstances I would venture to submit that recognition of that kind is the very least that the Government can do to relieve the school of that precarious situation. After all, is it really the appropriate way to finance what is recognised, even by the Government themselves, as a great national institution—if I may say so, one of the jewels in the crown, if I may borrow that favourite phrase, of the arts ministry which presides over the school?
In those circumstances I would most strongly urge that the Government should not brush aside this amendment in the manner in which I venture to think they have tended to do on other issues, but that they should indicate that they are at least in sympathy with this amendment. If for some reason or other, which I cannot at the moment fathom, they find its form not quite to their liking, they could reintroduce a suitable amendment at a stage which still remains open to us in order to fill this very unhappy gap. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has spoken with unrivalled authority about an institution to which he has devoted a great deal of his energy. We must all be in debt to him for his speech tonight. I do not think that there is anything effective I can add to what he said. I believe that he has anticipated, as a good law professor should, all the possible arguments which might be put forward by Government and Opposition to his amendment. I believe that he has shown effectively that there are
946
good precedents for the action which he has proposed—good precedents from this Government themselves. I believe that we have a right to expect conciliatory statements from the Government in response to this amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, there is very little that I can say to follow the noble Lords in their remarks about the National Film and Television School. It is the cradle of talent in this country—not only the cradle of talent to supply the British film industry; indeed, it supplies all the creative and technical people in television and films who are at present used by the American film industry over here. They are people who are very keenly sought and at the moment it is very much to the financial advantage of American companies to use them. But that resource, which we hope will continue to serve not only our industry but also other industries, will not go on automatically and for ever unless this kind of unique institution is maintained at the very high level which is at present recognised the world over. It deserves to have its status enshrined in statute. The status gives it a better bargaining power and, hopefully, if we move forward into a more prosperous era of film making, it will not only serve television but the film industry equally and can do nothing but enhance our reputation abroad. I can add nothing further to the eloquent way in which the noble Lord has spoken.
8 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I have two brief points to make. First, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned the BBC's contribution as being miserly. In fairness to the BBC, since it seems a national hobby today to knock that magnificent institution, it has to be said that they have their own training facilities, and in fact had them long before the National Film School existed. Having made that minor negative point, I want strongly to support everything that he has said about the National Film School. The road to "Chariots of Fire" and to "The Killing Fields" and the other great and successful British films, alas!—and this was not mentioned earlier—was largely financed by American money although they were made by British producers. The road to those films stretches straight back to training in the National Film School; the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, said it was the cradle of our talent. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, that I have listened very carefully and I have no wish whatsoever to brush this issue aside. The Government are well aware of the excellence of the National Film and Television School as they are extremely well aware of the excellence of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who moved the amendment; because it is he who has brought the school into the very high esteem in which it is held. There is no doubt that its reputation for producing highly skilled film and television personnel is acknowledged across the film-making world. We said this in our White Paper on film policy.
However, the real strength of the school lies very much in the close links which it has developed with the

947
industries it serves. I do not believe that the school or anyone could be helped if those links were disrupted by the statutory intervention of the Secretary of State, whether it is permissive or otherwise. The funding of the school, as the noble Lord, suggested represents a partnership between Government and the particular industry. This is quite different from the arbitrary role that is envisaged for the Government by the amendment. I believe that it is very much in line with the wishes of the school itself since the dual funding enables it to preserve a measure of independence and freedom from undue influence; although, of course, the school equally prides itself on its reputation for being responsive to the needs of the industry it serves.
In round terms, the school's budget is approximately £1.5 million a year. The film and television industries, which benefit so much from the high quality graduate output of the school, contribute significantly towards costs; and I shall refer to that in a moment. But by far the largest contribution to the school's costs is made by the Government. My noble friend Lord Gowrie provides annual grants-in-aid for the school. His department is in constant touch with the school to assess its funding needs. Your Lordships will be aware—and will probably recall from a recent debate on the arts in your Lordships' House—that my noble friend's department has very great pressure upon its resources for support.
Nevertheless, my noble friend was able to announce an increase of no less than 13 per cent. this year in the Government's contribution to the school. Some £850,000 was granted in 1983–84; £990,000 for 1984–85, and £1.12 million for 1985–86. On top of this very significant support, the House will recall the commitment announced in the White Paper of a capital grant of a quarter of a million pounds that would be made available by my department to help refurbish the school's television facilities. In terms of the Government's commitment to the school, I suggest that these figures speak for themselves. If the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, wants somebody to push the cradle, then the Government are pushing that cradle to a considerable amount of money. I would not accept from your Lordships that the Government's commitment is anything other than extremely firm.
The industry's commitment comprises two main elements. The television companies provided £140,000 in 1983–84 and £225,000 in 1984–85. The bulk of the industry's funding was, however, made from the proceeds of the Eady levy. In the last levy year this source provided £500,000. For the current year it may well be £600,000. Finally, tuition and application fees have contributed over £70,000. I might add in parenthesis that if, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, suggested, the school has a worldwide acceptance and appeal, there is little doubt in my mind that it can attract considerably more revenue from its tuition and application fees in future.
We have to remember, I am sure, that funding from the Eady levy has never been a fixed amount. The existing legislation has merely made the school eligible for payments; but the level of payments has been a matter for determination year by year on the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council. Nevertheless, the school has plainly been dependent to a significant extent upon income from the Eady levy. Accordingly,
948
as the White Paper described, in making a decision to abolish the levy—and that decision has been accepted by all sides of the industry—the Government were at great pains to find an alternative new source of funding to replace the industry element which then would be lost.
I do not accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, suggested, that some vague arrangement in substitution for Eady was made. The Government, in discussion with the industry, in the course of the review of the policy, secured firm commitments from the BBC, the Independent Television Companies Association, and the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association to provide payments to the school totalling £600,000 a year for five years. That period seemed about as far ahead as it was reasonable to look. It was, of course, the same period for which the existing legislation provided in 1980. The new arrangement has the advantage now of giving the school greater advance information about its income than was ever possible with the cap-in-hand uncertainty that the school had to live with when seeking a share of an unreliable and declining Eady levy.
I would point out that the contributions from the television interest will be additional to their existing contributions, and in that respect alone I believe that the new arrangements will be a significant improvement in that television interests in the future will be providing a contribution which will more closely reflect the industry's reliance on the school's product.
In the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, said that the opportunity should now be taken to make the position of the school less precarious. He described the position of the school prior to this Bill. It is only necessary for me, I think, to remind the House that the existing films legislation does not mention the school by name at all. It would always have been possible, were the Secretary of State so minded, to approve a different film school. In that respect, neither the future nor the funding of the National Film and Television School was guaranteed by statute. The position will not change with the repeal of that legislation. Nor do I believe that the school itself would like to find itself in the position of becoming a statutory body or a body constrained by statute.
Where I part company with the noble Lord who proposed the amendment, and with other noble Lords who have given some support to it, is on the desirability or indeed the need for such an amendment. Frankly, does it not come down to this? The Government's support is given in tangible and substantial form by the grant made by my noble friend Lord Gowrie. The beneficiaries of the school's product are the film and television industries alone. These industries are committed to supporting the school for the next five years. So long as the school continues to give industries the service for which it exists, I really do not believe that those beneficiaries will deny it the means to provide the service. If the school ceased to perform its functions to the satisfaction of those industries, I do not think that it is realistic to expect them to continue their support. The continuance of the old legislation would not protect that position.

949
In other words, I believe that the relationship will prosper so long, but only so long, as both sides carry out their responsibilities each to the other. In the Government's view, it really does not make sense to seek to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to encourage the industries involved to support the institution which serves them. If the industries believe that their interests in terms of training and resource of skilled manpower are met by the school, they will support it; if not, they will not. The passing of an amendment of this nature, however it is phrased, will not alter that fact of life. Nor will the absence of such an amendment in any way weaken the Government's genuine interest in the school's future wellbeing. I cannot, with all—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Sympathy.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth—sympathy—thank you—for the way in which, accepting his great knowledge, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, has put forward this proposal, recommend your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I cannot but express a certain degree of sadness after listening to that reply to the arguments that I attempted to put before your Lordships. I wish to choose my words with a certain amount of care, but I am bound to say that I cannot see that the noble Lord the Minister with the greatest respect for him, has really attempted to address himself to my arguments at all. For example, he tells us, as if it is a point against the school, that the Films Act does not mention our school by name. In view of the history of the matter, which I hope that I put clearly before your Lordships, how can that possibly be an argument of any kind against the entitlement of the school to support from the industry?
Then the noble Lord tells us, in great detail, the contributions that the Government have made to the school: these I fully acknowledge, acknowledged in my speech and always have acknowledged. No complaint is being made. The noble Lord then couples that with the point that he takes the view, as I myself have indicated, that the school looks to a kind of partnership between the Government and the industry. The last thing that we wish is to ask the Government to take over this obligation of the industry. All that we wish to do is to put ourselves in an adequate bargaining position vis-à-vis the industry.
8.15 p.m.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that he has total confidence in the fact that the industry will recognise the great merit of the school and will be forthcoming with money. The whole history of its 14 years of existence shows that we have had a tremendous struggle from year to year trying to extract the smallest sums from those industries, while they are prepared to sit back and take advantage of the services being provided. The fact that an arrangement has been made for five years, which I still suggest is a vague arrangement—the school is not a party to this agreement—makes no provision as to how it is to be enforced. Even if one assumes that it will go on steadily for the five years, what is to happen afterwards? Here, we are to have our statutory status taken away from
950
us—incidentally, of course; not deliberately—by the removal of the Films Act. All that one is asking from the Government is a simple recognition of our statutory status and an obligation on the Secretary of State to do no more than use his best endeavours in the event of the industry proving difficult, as may happen. If, for example, television thinks that it has had rather a poor year and may have a poor year ahead from its point of view, although perhaps not in the judgment of other people, it may well say, "It is a very good and a useful school but we cannot find much money to help". The whole status of the school will thereby be substantially diminshed.
I was even more astonished to hear the Minister refer to the possibility of supporting this school by enlarged fees. I wonder whether he appreciates that the whole quality of the National Film and Television School has been due to the process of selection of candidates solely on the basis of outstanding creative quality. I know that some schools here and elsewhere may be run on the basis of charging vast fees which many people from countries like America might well be ready to pay. But where does the question of quality come in? This is a formula, really, for depriving the school of its essential quality. It would be the death knell of the school.
In all those circumstances, I am bound to express my profound disappointment at the reaction of the Minister on what I venture to think—I was happy to hear several of your Lordships concur—a very reasonable proposition. No reason has been adduced as to why the Government should not accede to it. It seems to me, in those circumstances, that I am duty bound to invite the House to express its view on
the matter.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Levy on feature films, pre-recorded video cassettes or blank video tapes.
The Secretary of State, after one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and after consultation with persons considered by him to be representative of the film production industry may by order made by statutory instrument, establish arrangements to supplement the financial assistance provided under section 5(1) of the Act by funds derived from any or all of the following schemes, that is to say—

(a) a levy from independent television contractors and the BBC of an appropriate sum of money to be determined by him in respect of the showing by them of feature films on television, or

(b) a levy at such rate as he may determine on pre-recorded video cassettes containing feature film material and sold in the United Kingdon, or

(c) the appropriate film proceeds of any levy scheme approved by him in respect of blank video tape sold in the United Kingdom.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I move here a composite amendment, greatly modified from the various levy amendments which were moved at Committee stage. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the history of amendments such as this. They were in fact recommended by a Select Committee in another place in the 1981–82 Session. They were, indeed, passed by a Select Committee in the other place in this Parliament, and then they were overturned by a whipped vote on Report. So I have high hopes that this modified, composite amendment, as it is, will find favour with your Lordships. It is truly

951
an all-party amendment and arises from the simple fact, which I keep on and on about; that is simply that 30 years ago I paid my 1s. 9d. or my 3s. 7d. to see excellent films such as "The Blue Lamp", so ably written by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and now I can see the modern equivalent for nothing, or next to nothing. That is the problem. I do not complain; I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth. But the inevitable consequence of this is that the British film industry is in dire financial straits.
I know that my noble friend Lord Lucas has already said that it is healthy. I know that people have, very rightly, praised Dame Peggy Ashcroft for her award last night. But with all due respect I must point out that the major awards last night went to an American film about an Australian and an Italian, called Mozart and Salieri. Noble Lords tend to quote "Chariots of Fire" as the great hope and sure sign of revival of the British film; that is the one they keep falling back on. Honestly, I think noble Lords have been quoting "Chariots of Fire" ever since I came into this Chamber. As a matter of interest, its maker, David Puttnam, thinks that we should not keep quoting it. It makes it stand out as an isolated pinnacle of excellence. It is three years old. If the British film industry were really healthy, claims Mr. Puttnam, we should not need to quote "Chariots" as something exceptional because we should be having a new "Chariots" once a month just as the norm, so to speak. It might perhaps get only a passing reference in the Sunday papers.
We could have that very high standard of film making if the Government took this amendment aboard, and we could have it for very little money indeed. What we are talking about is 10 new British features a year, if I may put this slightly into context; that is, we are talking about 20 hours of film. That is, indeed, a small David beside the Goliath of television, with its 11,000 hours of screen time each year. Similarly, the sum of money we ask for is very small—£ 10 million or perhaps £20 million. Compare that to the BBC's £700 million and ITV's £900 million. With due respect to my noble friend Lord Lucas, it is nickels and dimes compared to the sort of money we are talking about for television.
We suggest raising it by levy, as other methods are not possible in this House; but my noble friend Lord Lucas knows full well that were he to suggest another method, we should of course accept it very gratefully. There seems to me to be still a yawning gap in Government logic. The Eady levy, they say, is too complicated, too small—they are quite right—and it should be scrapped. How right they are. So far, so good. It brings in only £1,500,000. That is quite so; but what do they propose to put in its place? Surely it is the same sum of money: £1,500,000, with, it is true, a few hundred thousand coming from other sources; but it is nothing really very significant. It is a total of £3 million, and we need at least five times that amount to ensure a healthy British film industry; shall we say £15 million? Compared to television income, that is £15 million against £1·5 billion. I think it is 1 per cent.; it might be 0·1 per cent.; it is very small.
I have been speaking mainly of a levy on feature films transmitted on television; that is in fact in paragraph (a) in the new clause. My noble friend Lord
952
Auckland, who I see has had to leave us, spoke at Committee stage about paragraph (b)—the levy on pre-recorded tape. I am pleased to say that the principle in paragraph (c)—that is, the levy on blank tapes—seems to have been already enshrined in the Government's Green Paper. Thus this composite amendment gives the Secretary of State freedom to choose how best to raise that essential minimal £10 million. I hold that it is a very moderate amendment. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will be equally moderate and show us just a pinpoint of light at the end of the tunnel. My noble friend Lord Lucas may not be wearing his coronet, but I believe he has a kind heart. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this, again, is an amendment which has had some discussion at earlier stages of this Bill. I think it is necessary to draw attention to the differences between the amendment now proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and the amendments on the levy issue which were proposed at Committee stage. The most significant by far is the fact that the amendment says:
"The Secretary of State … may by order made by statutory instrument, establish arrangements to supplement the financial assistance provided under section 5 (1) of the Act".
That is significant in two ways. First of all, it says "may" rather than "shall". I believe that meets the objection which has been made by Government, both here and in another place, that the British Screen Finance Consortium ought to be given a chance to prove itself before any other machinery is put in place to supplement the financial provision for it.
What could be fairer than to do what the noble Viscount proposes, which is to say, "Yes, by all means let us give the British Screen Finance Consortium a fair run for its money. Let us give it perhaps five years; it may be less or it may be more—who knows? But let us see whether it can add to the amounts of money being found from the members of the consortium and from Government"? I repeat—not much attention has been paid to this—that the Government money is at this stage in the form of a loan and not in the form of fully-fledged financing. The amendment says that if the British Screen Finance Consortium succeeds in providing for the needs of the film production industry, there is no need for the Secretary of State to take the action proposed in the amendment. But if, on the other hand, as many of us fear, the argument is that the film industry is flourishing both at the top end, so to speak—the "Chariots of Fire" end—and, much more important, in its duty to provide opportunities for new film directors and new film production companies, then the Secretary of State has the power, without resorting to further legislation, to step in and use the means proposed in this new clause.
The amendment has the further virtue that it does not actually specify which of the forms of levy shall be given priority. It refers to:
"any or all of the following schemes".
It leaves it to the time when the Secretary of State wishes to implement the new clause. He can consider which is the most appropriate in the economic conditions prevailing at the time. I believe that in all those respects this is a very much better amendment than that which was moved at Committee stage. I believe it is a better amendment in that respect than

953
that which was passed in Committee in another place. I believe it deserves the serious consideration of the Government and that the House, again, has the right to expect that serious consideration, that sympathetic consideration which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, anticipates from the Minister.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I wish to add a brief word in support of this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, it is very much improved compared with the previous amendment. On the previous occasion I expressed some dislike for the exact form of the amendment. First of all, this amendment covers blanks and it does not limit the redistribution to individuals, which I think was the great defect of the previous amendment.
The one respect which I would have favoured would have been to concentrate solely on the tape levy, simply because I recognise that the Government have totally set their face against the possibility of a levy on television. Therefore I think that the powerful case which exists for a tape levy is, to that extent, somewhat weakened by being linked with the television levy.
The only other point I wish to add, because the arguments were effectively deployed on a previous occasion, is that I recall that the noble Minister, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said at the Committee stage that he found it extraordinary that all the industry could find to do would be to call for more taxpayers' money. This is quite a misconception because the essence of these levies is to avoid that recourse. What is intended is to provide a mechanism which would make those who now derive an illegal benefit by copying the products of the film industry contribute to the survival of the industry. Anybody who takes this threat lightly, in relation for example either to blank video tapes or to pre-recorded tapes, may have been stirred by an announcement that appeared in the press a week or so ago which indicated that a well-known Japanese manufacturer has produced for the market a two-video cassette machine which will enable the home user to copy a video cassette with the greatest facility. The cutting which I have from the newspaper refers to the fact that this machine,
"allows duplication of video tapes at home with a single machine. Previously two recorders connected by cables, were required to reproduce tapes. It has already been dubbed an outrage by Hollywood and the video cassette recording industry as a new, cheap way of pirating films and videotapes".
Far from imposing a further tax upon the unfortunate taxpayer (which I have no desire to see) the whole aim of this scheme is that those who are receiving undue benefit from the products of the film industry should be obliged to make some contribution. That is not being taken from them for nothing, because the object of the scheme is that they should then have conferred on them the considerable privilege of being enabled lawfully to make such copies for the future. It seems to me that that line of criticism is ill-founded.
I have no desire to take up an unnecessary amount of time at this late hour. I am appreciative of the fact that there is doubtless another lengthy debate still to take place in your Lordships' House. I conclude by
954
saying that one is saddened to see the present Minister taking a negative view on all these issues, and a more negative view, so far as one can judge, than is adumbrated in the Government's Green Paper. I hope therefore that in answering those who have spoken this evening on this matter, the Minister will show understanding of the objective of this amendment and indicate that the mind of the Government is not closed on a matter which, if I may say so, should, ex hypothesi, be open because they have published a Green Paper which is intended to be a consultation paper and not a pronouncement of definitive views.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I briefly support the amendment which I think is a reasonable one. In the Committee stage some noble Lords expressed misgivings, particularly about the negotiations with television. However, in my case I was more strongly in favour of getting some return from the video industry. This is a likeable amendment and I hope that the Minister will find it likeable. It gives some flexibility in the event of the new consortium needing to draw from these areas which benefit enormously from the production of films. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to a well thought out and reasoned amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mersey for the way in which he re-introduced his amendment that we discussed at some length during the Committee stage only a short while ago.
This is an amendment par excellence. If I may borrow a phrase; it floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee. If your Lordships recall the Bees Bill in 1979 that passed through the House when I was sitting a little further back in the Chamber, I have some experience about how a bee can sting. I want to spend some little time in describing how this modest amendment has a rather vicious sting in its tail. It is tempting and it is seductive, but the Government will not fall for it. I have to give notice now. I shall go to some lengths to explain why; even though it is slightly repetitious and even though there is important business yet to follow in your Lordships' House.
I shall deal with the levy principle. In this amendment three schemes are envisaged. I have to explain why the Government cannot accept any one of the three. The first is the suggestion of a levy in respect of films shown on television. We discussed this extensively during Committee, but the proposal that my noble friend has brought back again raises important issues of principle. The House will be aware that the case for a redistributive levy was reviewed at some length and the Government's response to the representations we received is summarised in the White Paper published last summer in paragraph 5. We explained then, and it remains our view now, that we do not believe that a redistributive levy is the right way of encouraging an economic activity that should have its feet planted firmly in the market place; a market place which is expanding through new outlets.
Furthermore, the argument that the system was efficient because it rewarded success cannot be used as a justification for taxing commercially successful productions so that films can be made which perhaps would otherwise not have found investors. We stated

955
in the White Paper that we did not believe that the Government should intervene by introducing a television film levy which would increase the costs both of the BBC—with consequent implications for the television licence and we have already read in the press what the viewing public feel about an increase in licence fees—and also for the independent television companies. Therefore, in line with our general approach away from statutory intervention and towards the creation of the right business environment, the White Paper rejected the idea of a statutory levy. My noble friend referred to nickels and dimes; but it is not as easy as that.
Let us look at another principle. I have to say that I do not base my entire argument on the view of the noble Lord, Lord Willis; but I acknowledge his experience in these matters. I agreed with him when he suggested that those advocating such a levy on television were mainly concerned to find from somewhere a pot of money for the film industry and they did so without perhaps reflecting on the merits of trying to obtain it from the television industry. He said that they look around and think, "Well, who can we best clobber here? Who can we get it from?", and television may seem an obvious target. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that the television companies are already poviding substantial support to the film industry and it would be quite, quite wrong were we to clobber the television industry again.
Channel 4, for example, has allocated £96 million to film and video. By 1987 it anticipates having funded about 100 full length feature films, low and modest budget films. I utterly reject the suggestion that I have heard advanced that they are produced solely for showing on television. Fifty per cent. of them are intended for exhibition in cinemas.
Noble Lords may point out that the amendment is carefully worded to exclude Channel 4; but frankly I question whether this is possible. It is the independent television contractors who provide the funding for the fourth channel. If they were subject to a levy for showing feature films, they might quite reasonably respond by seeking to reduce the amount of money they contribute towards Channel 4's involvement in film production now. After all, why should they pay both for Channel 4 to commission films and then for the TV companies to buy and show the films?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will permit me to say this? The levy paid by the independent television contractors to Channel 4 is not determined by the contractors themselves, it is determined by Government. Quite apart from that, the amount of the levy which they pay to Channel 4 affects, in turn, the amount of levy which they pay to Government. In other words, it is not open to independent television contractors to exercise the kind of choice which the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Channel 4 is funded by subscriptions levied by the IBA—it is certainly a levy—on the ITV companies. These are agreed annually, and the total fourth channel subscription in the financial year 1984–85 was £139 million. It is the IBA and the ITV who agree that. It is
956
not the Government who set it. We have to be absolutely and abundantly clear about this matter. If the IBA who, through the independent television, receive their funds primarily from advertising but also including overseas sales, and so on, do not provide sufficient money for those at that level which I have just described, then Channel 4, like others, has a reduced amount of money. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not correct in what he has said.
Additionally to that contribution which television makes, both the BBC and the ITV companies support the National Film and Television School, which I have described earlier. They, with the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association, are committed to providing £600,000 a year in addition to their existing contribution. Channel 4 is also a founding member of the British Screen Finance Consortium. That provides finance to help meet the costs of low and modest budget films. Increasingly, the television companies are providing work for independent film production companies or setting up their own production arms, all of which helps to sustain and promote the British film production industry. For these reasons I must say that I can see little merit or justice in the idea of a television film levy. It is plainly and simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Noble Lords have referred to a levy on pre-recorded video. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, made some mention of this. I have to say to him in particular that in this Bill we are not talking about pirated material; we are talking about the perfectly proper business of publishing video copies of a film, rather like publishing a book. The arguments that I have advanced against a redistributive television film levy are in many ways applicable in this case, too. Certainly the arguments of principle against a statutory recycling mechanism apply with equal force. In fact, a video levy would almost be a case of robbing Peter to pay Peter since the video companies, such as Virgin, not infrequently hold the rights in the films they produce and distribute. The film "1984" is an example. This idea would plainly not make good sense.
8.45 p.m.
I now turn to the question of video companies supporting the film industry. I understand that of the 65 video distribution companies listed in the BFI directory, no fewer than 21 have co-invested in film production, and nearly all of these have used British studios. Some, such as Palace, with their "Absolute Beginners" which is now in production at Shepperton, are even producing films themselves. Increasingly, the industry recognises that it is dependent upon a supply of good quality product, and that it is therefore in the industry's own interest to support the film production industry and sustain that supply. Furthermore, the video industry increasingly recognises the importance of a good cinema release in boosting demand for the video. Some companies—Polygram is another example—become actively involved in film distribution and promotion. That is again of benefit to the film industry.
Many films simply would not be made if they were dependent upon cinema exhibition alone. It seems to me quite clear that the video industry is helping to sustain the film industry, and this is reflected again in

957
the participation of members of the British Videogram Association in the British Screen Finance Consortium. Why, then, should they be subject to a levy? That is yet a further impost, almost a further tax, on what they are already doing for the industry.
What would be the practical consequence if such a levy were imposed? If noble Lords recall, I said during the Committee stage that this is a highly competitive industry. Margins are slim. Even a small levy could depress demand and force companies out of business. Since this matter was raised in Committee, I have had another look at those kind of companies. My understanding is that in the past 12 months more than 10 of the small independent companies have collapsed. Of 65 companies listed in the BFI directory, 20 per cent. have gone bankrupt, ceased trading or undergone major financial restructuring as a result of heavy losses. My information is that those closures have been not solely due to the crackdown on video nasties but simply to the highly competitive situation in this marketplace.
In short, a redistributive levy would not only be difficult to justify on grounds of principle, but would be quite counter-productive in terms of its effect on the film production industry. It could kill a number of geese which are, with some difficulty, laying their golden eggs.
Let me now turn to the last of these levies, the blank tape levy. I assume that noble Lords who support the amendment have in mind the Green Paper entitled, The Recording and Rental of Audio and Video Copyright Material, and in particular that part of paragraph 7 which states:
"One possibility might be for the film proceeds to be diverted to a central fund to be used in the film industry to support production".
The consultation period for the industry and the public to send in their comments on these proposals does not end until the end of April, and I think it would be quite wrong to pre judge the outcome of that consultative process, so I do not intend to comment on the desirability, or indeed the feasibility, of introducing a copyright levy.
However, there are two points that I want to make in this connection. Any levy introduced as a result of these consultations would have to be based on copyright criteria, and this evening we are not talking therefore in that context about a redistributive levy, as we are in the context of this amendment; we are talking of a compensatory levy. Secondly, any channelling of film proceeds into a central fund for the film production industry would have to be on a voluntary basis. Since the purpose of such a levy would be to recompense copyright holders for an existing injustice, there could be no question whatsoever of the Government's insisting that their compensation by way of levy should automatically be taken away and diverted into a central fund. If the copyright holders themselves wished to make a voluntary arrangement, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, that is a different matter and one which, if I may say so, I frankly would encourage.
I have spoken at some length because I attach, as indeed do your Lordships, considerable importance to the outcome of this discussion. I hope I have explained why each of the options outlined in the amendment
958
raises serious problems in terms both of issues of principle and of practical consequences, and why the Government therefore oppose the amendment. During Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, commented at one point on remarks that I made, and he said that the Government's response was totally uncompromising.
In this case I believe it would be quite wrong to compromise; and I turn to his latter remark tonight: his latter contribution to our debate was to argue that, if the proposed new levy powers are only permissive, they should be allowed to stand. I would say this to the noble Lord, and indeed to your Lordships. I have explained the Government's view on redistributive levies of this kind. I have described our objections in principle to economic interference of this kind. We have no intention of introducing such levies.
Let us then consider the effect were we to incorporate the amendment in the Bill and it was to go onto the statute book. It is quite simple: there is no question in my mind that it would lead to great uncertainty about the Government's intentions. It would be counter-productive to the interests of the industry and those participants in the BSFC who are concerned with the furtherance of the film industry. They would not know what the future held. They would be unsure of what might happen. We have no intention of allowing that. For the reasons which I have outlined at some great length, for which I apologise to your Lordships, I urge the House to reject this amendment.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I think he has spoken very thoroughly about the various forms of levy, and I will certainly read his remarks with interest. I also think he has very properly confined himself to the levy. What he has once again ignored, however, is my standard "let-out" sentence, which I put into both my speeches, which is, "O.K., we have to approach this problem by way of levy because we cannot approach it in other more direct financial ways, but if my noble friend Lord Lucas can think of a better way, my gosh! we are all going to be jolly pleased".
I am not altogether happy about this, as I said. The issue is very, very simple. As I keep saying, I am getting something for nothing; I am watching a lot of very expensive television. I will happily give way to my noble friend Lord Lucas if he wishes to intervene, but I cannot see how I am paying for this expensive product on television. I am watching something for nothing. The British industry tells me it is in bad financial trouble. I put two and two together and they make four to me.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not know how my noble friend thinks he is watching for nothing. I certainly hope he pays his television licence fee, and therefore he does not watch for nothing. He buys goods from the shops and the manufacturers of those goods advertise on television. He therefore buys that element—because he cannot tell me that he does not buy some goods that are advertised on television. He pays, and all of us who watch television pay.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I do indeed pay 6p per film: I have worked that out. In view of the lateness of

959
the hour, what I should like to do is to take this away. I am certainly not altogether happy with what my noble friend has said, but I have not found him to be totally inflexible; and I certainly would not dream of withdrawing my remark about that, despite the lack of coronet, there remains a kind heart. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Certification for purposes of section 72 of Finance Act 1982 in case of British films]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 12, line 12, leave out ("a member State") and insert ("the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 4, I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Amendment No. 5: Page 12, line 15, leave out ("a member State") and insert ("the United Kingdom").
Amendment No. 6: Page 12, line 16, leave out ("a Commonwealth country") and insert ("the United Kingdom").
Amendment No. 7: Page 12, line 20, leave out from second ("or) to end of line 23 and insert ("any citizen of the United Kingdom.").
Amendment No. 8: Page 14, line 46, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
I am a supporter of the European Common Market, although I remember with some chagrin that when my son, then aged 11, learned that I had gone to vote, "Yes" in the referendum in 1975 he persuaded my wife to go down and vote, "No" in order to cancel out my vote. I am a supporter of the Common Market but I am not a supporter of lying down and waving my legs in the air whenever my interests or the interests of this country are ignored or flouted by the European Common Market.
The history of the definition of British films is that from the 1960s there was a perfectly good definition of British films, which did in fact ensure that the money which went from Government and from private investors into the British films industry was confined to the British film industry. My noble friend Lord Willis has referred on a number of occasions to the tendency for American interests to take advantage of British public subsidy, and that has been an element in the film industry right from the very beginning.
But the situation changed with the 1980 Films Act, which obeyed the judgment of the Commission and the European Parliament that the Eady levy was a para-fiscal tax and that this ought not to be permitted. We, the British Government, then amended the existing law in the 1980 Films Act to say that for the purposes of the Act, "a British film" meant a film made—I am generalising to save time—by any individual or company resident in a member state. There were still protections in the 1980 Films Act. It sought to secure that the preparation work for the film had to take place in the United Kingdom. It sought to provide that laboratory processing took place in the United Kingdom and that 50 per cent. by value of the technical equipment had to come from the United Kingdom.
Nevertheless, that Act ran rings around the protection which we were attempting to provide before that time for the British film industry, and made a huge dent in the commonsense identification of what
960
is meant by "British film", because I think noble Lords will agree that when you see in the Act itself the phrase "British film" and you see in the schedule the definition which says that this means a film made in a member state, and you have the position that a British film could mean a film financed in Italy, and made in Germany with virtually no British participation, that flies in the face of common sense.
Even that would be bearable if it were not for the fact that all the other members of the European Community have failed to adopt the same high-minded attitude which the British Government did in the 1980 Films Act. That situation has gone on for five years on the basis that the Eady levy, which is to be abolished, quite rightly, in this Bill, was considered to be a para-fiscal tax. That last shred of justification for the 1980 Act disappears with the Films Bill as it is now proposed, because in no sense of the phrase can it be thought that the provision which is to be found from the British Screen Finance Consortium, or from the loans from Government or from any of the other sources which are referred to in this Bill, can be described as a para-fiscal tax. I am at a loss to understand why the Government should be so determined on this question—which is perhaps not important in relation to other European Community matters, but is still important—to perpetuate in this legislation, in Schedule 1, the nonsense, the insult to common sense, the insult to British national interests, which arose out of the original concept of British films, as criticised by the Common Market in the late 1970s.
These amendments are now brought up for the first time. They may still be defective in wording, but I believe that they deserve a response which indicates on what basis the Government are prepared to defend British interests and to defend the British film industry as all of us would understand it in everyday language. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey for his very lucid explanation of the amendments standing in his name on the Marshalled List. I am also grateful to him for coupling Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 together, which I am sure is helpful.
May I say at once that I fully appreciate the sentiments that lie behind the spirit of the amendments, but I have to tell the noble Lord that that is about as far as I can go this evening and I shall explain why. I should begin by emphasising that, with regard to feature films, the definition in the schedule is virtually identical to that which at present applies to the registration of British films under the Films Acts 1960 to 1980. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would be directly in conflict with the provisions of European Community directives on the attainment of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the field of film production, and I suggest that they have to be rejected on that account.
Paragraph 5 of the schedule, which draws up very tight rules as to films which will not qualify as British, will still apply and it is the safeguard for the British film industry which I think those supporting the amendments are seeking. To them I would say that the safeguards are already there and that attacking the concession to Community labour, which the treaty

961
obliges us to make, and which in any case I am not convinced has a significant effect on the British film industry, will do no more than produce an embarrassing and quite unnecessary conflict between the United Kingdom and Community law. Obviously, British companies are entitled to corresponding benefits under these Community directives. Similar considerations have to apply to Amendment No. 7, certainly to the extent that it would exclude Community nationals or residents.
With regard to the concession to Commonwealth studios, which is the subject of Amendment No. 6, I should explain that we have traditionally made this concession to strengthen our economic and cultural ties with the Commonwealth by encouraging British film makers who particularly need overseas locations to use Commonwealth locations where possible. The Government, and for that matter the industry, are content for that position to continue and I think that the noble Lord is also content with that position.
In any event, I have to emphasise that the concession is not unlimited and one must take into account when considering the amendment the exclusion in paragraph 5 of the schedule. Paragraph 5 states that,
"if the playing time of so much of the film as consists of photographs taken or sound recordings made in any studio outside the United Kingdom exceeds 7½ per cent. of the total playing time of the film",
the film will be excluded as a British film. The concessions traditionally accorded to Commonwealth labour, which would be removed by Amendment No. 7, are also based upon our historical ties with the Commonwealth and, again, I should be most reluctant, as I think most of your Lordships would be, to see them broken.
So far as labour costs are concerned, the House will be aware that the current position is that, for a film to qualify as British, its labour costs must be either at least 75 per cent. British, which may exclude the labour costs of one person—for example, an American star—or at least 80 per cent. British if the labour costs of two people are excluded, provided that one is an actor or an actress. However, the Secretary of State has a discretion, which Amendment No. 8 seeks to remove, to lower those figures by 5 per cent., if he is satisfied that the maker of the film has taken all reasonable steps to achieve the appropriate percentage of British labour costs, but for reasons beyond his control marginally failed to do so.
This provision is of great value to the film industry. It will, I am assured, be badly missed if removed from the schedule. Film making is a risky business. We have heard that in all our discussions on the Bill. An over rigid system on such things as labour costs, where so many unforeseen problems can and do arise, could make it even worse.
I think I have directed my argument against the principle underlying the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has proposed. I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that these amendments are not appropriate and I trust therefore that the House will resist them if the noble Lord pursues them. However, I invite him, on the strength of what I have said, to withdraw.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have listened most carefully to what the noble Lord has said and I have listened even more carefully for what he has not said. The House will observe that the noble Lord did not deny that Britain is the only country which observes the direction from the European Commission and that other countries have not followed suit in this—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not say anything about that because I thought it was fairly obvious to those of common sense in your Lordships' House—the noble Lord himself referred to it—that two wrongs have never made a right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think the House will wish to make its own judgment on that statement. I adhere to my statement that Britain is the only country in the Community which is adhering to the direction from the European Commission. If it is true, as the noble Lord says, that to put us in the wrong as well is the wrong way to do it, then I invite him to bring forward concrete proposals for ensuring that within a finite period of time there is either agreement by the other members of the Community or an agreed amendment to this Bill—an agreed withdrawal from our isolated position.
The second thing for which I listened very carefuly in the noble Lord's speech but did not find was a denial of my statement that the original widening of the definition of "British film" was brought about because the Eady levy was thought to be a parafiscal tax and that in no sense could any present Government support be thought to be a parafiscal tax; and therefore all of his claims about the conflict within the British Government and their partners within the European Community fall to the ground. Instead, the noble Lord chose to make a quite fanciful point, a quite fanciful attack on my arguments, in which he appeared to be saying that I was arguing that British films should not be filmed in other parts of the country, that British filmgoers should be forced to watch films about Skegness rather than about Corfu or St. Tropez.
That of course was not what I was saying. That was no part of my argument whatsoever. It was no part of my argument that there should not be financial co-operation, production co-operation and a sharing in acting talent between different countries. One of the great features and one of the most welcome features of the film industry in recent years has been the ability of production companies to make use of talent from all parts of the world without discrimination. I have enjoyed most of the roles of Jeremy Irons in recent years; for example, his part in the French production, "Swann in Love", made by a German director, with an Italian co-star. There is no sense in which I would accept to be thought to be critical of that kind of production.
The point I was making was much more simple. In common sense terms, if we are providing support from a consortium or from the Government for British films, it ought to be what we all recognise to be British films, and what has previously been perfectly adequately defined in statute to be British films.
In the sense only of concern for the time of this debate and for the speakers who have to follow

963
afterwards, and in no sense in concession to the proclaimed strength of the arguments of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Water (Fluoridation) Bill
9.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Even if the speeches it led to in another place were not noted for their brevity, the Bill before us is a short one; it is simply an enabling measure, designed to put beyond doubt the legal powers under which water may be fluoridated in England and Wales, and to restore the option of fluoridation in Scotland. The need for it stems from the opinion of Lord Jauncey in the Strathclyde fluoridation court case. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I therefore summarise briefly the relevant facts of that case.
In October 1978 a citizen of Glasgow, Mrs. Catherine McColl, applied for an interdict to restrain Strathclyde Regional Council from implementing its decision to fluoridate the water supplies in order to reduce dental decay. The hearings, held in the court of Session, Edinburgh, commenced on 23rd September 1980 and continued until 26th July 1982. The court sat on 201 days, making it the longest and costliest case in Scottish legal history. The petitioner sought to establish that fluoridation would have a large number of adverse side effects, that it would be ineffective in reducing dental decay and that, in any event, Strathclyde Regional Council had no legal power to fluoridate. A large number of witnesses testified on the medical and dental issues, including the leading proponents of the anti-fluoridation case.
Lord Jauncey delivered his opinion on 29th June 1983. His judgment amounted to some 400 pages, of which over 350 were devoted to the medical and dental questions. Lord Jauncey rejected specifically and in detail all the petitioner's assertions that fluoridation was medically unsafe. His general conclusion was that,
"there is no evidence to suggest that fluoride at the proposed concentration would have an adverse effect upon health".
Lord Jauncey also upheld the effectiveness of water fluoridation, and found specifically that,
"fluoridation of water supplies in Strathclyde would be likely to reduce considerably the incidence of caries"—
that is, dental decay. On the legal questions, Lord Jauncey ruled against the petitioner's assertion that fluoridation constituted a nuisance and a breach of Section 8 of the Water Scotland Act, and of the Medicines Act 1968. Lord Jauncey did, however, find
964
against Strathclyde Regional Council on the sole ground that their statutory duty to provide "wholesome water" was insufficient to provide the legal powers for fluoridation.
Following the judgment, fluoridation ceased immediately in Scotland. As Lord Jauncey's judgment is not binding outside Scotland, fluoridation has continued in England and Wales. Nevertheless, since English water legislation is cast in essentially the same terms as the Scottish legislation, it is clear that Lord Jauncey's judgment calls into question the existing legal powers under which 5 million people receive fluoridated water in England and Wales. Hence this Bill seeks to restore the legal position in Scotland to what it is understood to have been prior to Lord Jauncey's judgment, and to clarify the law in England and Wales.
Before returning to the legal powers contained in the Bill, I should like to speak in more detail of the important health and efficacy issues which were raised in Lord Jauncey's judgment. Lord Jauncey's view that there was no evidence that fluoridation adversely effects health is in keeping with the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion. The safety of fluoridation has been repeatedly confirmed in reviews undertaken by national and international bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the Canadian Public Health Association, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the Australian Health and Medical Research Council and, in this country, the Royal College of Physicians. Fluoridation was introduced in this country only after a United Kingdom team of experts had extensively studied the position in the United States, and considered both the dental health and safety aspects. They found no scientific evidence that fluoridation constituted any danger to health, but prudently recommended that research in this area should be encouraged.
When fluoridation was introduced in this country on an experimental basis, a research committee was established to keep the evidence on safety under review. They did this by contact with general practitioners practising in the study areas, analysis of the relevant statistical data and by means of investigations carried out on sample sections of the public. Their conclusion, which is set out in detail in their published reports five and 11 years after the introduction of fluoridation, was that,
"there is no evidence of harmful effects from the fluoridation of water supplies at the recommended concentrations".
I should also like to stress that the health departments keep under regular review scientific studies which may be relevant to the safety of water fluoridation. The report of the Knox Committee established in 1980 to:
"reappraise the published and otherwise available data and conclusions on cancer incidence and mortality amongst populations whose drinking water is either artificially fluridated or contains high levels of fluoride from natural sources"
was published in January this year. Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office.
After detailed consideration of the many studies covering large populations, the committee have concluded that:
"We have found nothing in any of the major classes of epidemiological evidence which could lead us to conclude that either fluoride occurring naturally in water, or fluoride added to

965
water supplies, is capable of inducing cancer, or of increasing the mortality from cancer".
The committee go on to explain that:
"the only contrary conclusions are in our view attributable to errors in data, errors in analytical techniques, and errors in scientific logic".
Furthermore, the committee state that the evidence permitted them to comment positively on the safety of fluoridated water with regard to allegations of a link with cancer.
I should like also to put on record the work undertaken by the department in response to suggestions made last year that fluoridation could give rise to mutagenic hazard—that is to say, that it might have the ability to alter human cells in ways which might cause cancer or hereditary defects. Lord Jauncey rejected this theory on the basis of the evidence presented to him. However, last year a reputable Japanese scientist (Tsutsui) published several papers demonstrating mutagenesis under laboratory conditions from very high concentrations of fluoride. The authors of the work did not claim that their work proved that fluoride would give rise to mutagenic hazard at the much lower concentration of one milligram per litre which is standard to all British fluoridations schemes.
Nevertheless, the department set in hand a programme of studies intended to replicate the Japanese work and assess its relevance to fluoridation, The results of the work commissioned have been considered by the department's independent expert Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and in the Environment. They have concluded that there is no evidence from the available data that would lead them to expect, as a result of fluoridation at one part per million, a mutagenic hazard to man through the induction of heritable abnomalites in the germ cells.
I shall not detain the House with a detailed rebuttal of all the charges levelled against fluoridation, alleging that it causes ailments from AIDS to cot deaths, and backache to Down's syndrome, I should however like again to assure the House that the Department of Health and Social Security and its expert advisers examine all substantive evidence relating to the safety of fluoridation and that we shall continue to do this if the Bill is enacted. The present position is, however, that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows fluoridation to be safe, and that it is endorsed by the most reputable international and national health organisations.
Let me turn now from the negative to the positive aspects of water fluoridation and describe its benefits. There has been a general and welcome reduction in dental decay in recent years; but still it remains a serious health problem. For example, the 1983 Children's Dental Health Survey has shown that among 15 year-olds there was an average of 5·6 teeth that were decayed, filled or extracted due to past decay, among children in England. The figures were even higher in other parts of the United Kingdom, with the comparative statistics being 6·7 for Wales, 8·4 for Scotland and 9·2 for Northern Ireland.
Studies conducted in this country, as well as overseas have repeatedly shown that fluoridation
966
makes a significant additional reduction in dental decay over and above the general decline which has been experienced. A study published in 1981 comparing a population of 800 children from the fluoridated city of Birmingham with a similar group from the low-fluoride area in Wolverhampton showed that decayed, missing and filled rates in Wolverhampton are approximately two and a half times those in Birmingham.
There is also significant evidence that fluoridation is of particular benefit to the more socially deprived parts of the population. Thus, another study reported in 1980 contrasting the dental decay experience of 5 year-old children living in fluoridated and low fluoride areas of North-East England found that the difference in mean decayed, extracted and filled teeth between children living in the two areas was 26 per cent. of social classes I and II, 60 per cent. for social class III and 71 per cent. for social classes IV and V. In all cases this was to the advantage of the children living in the fluoridated areas.
I recognise that there are many who accept the efficacy of fluoride as a means of reducing dental decay but believe dental decay would be better reduced by means of other forms of fluoride supplementation rather than water fluoridation, and by increased dental health education. Fluoridated toothpaste is certainly considered to have contributed greatly to the general decline in tooth decay. Fluoride tablets are also very effective if used properly, but studies have shown that many parents find it difficult to maintain the necessary regime of daily administration throughout the whole period of tooth formation.
Dental health education on diet, which we encourage through the Health Education Council, is of course also very important, but there are limits to what can be achieved by this method alone. The evidence is, however, that in otherwise comparable fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, the fluoridated community will have levels of dental decay between as much as one-third and one-half lower than in the non-fluoridated areas. Against this background the Government believe it is right that the option of fluoridation—and I stress the word "option"—should continue to be available to health authorities under the law.
Turning to the detail of the Bill, I should like to repeat that this is an intentionally modest measure, designed solely to provide specific legal powers for the arrangements for fluoridation which have operated in this country for nearly 30 years. The Bill preserves the present arrangement whereby health authorities may request water fluoridation from a statutory water undertaker, which in turn has discretion as to whether to accede to this request. If both the health and water authorities agree to fluoridate, a contractual arrangement is negotiated by both parties. It is the Government's firm intention that fluoridation should continue, as at present, to be a financial charge on the health authority, subject to the detailed contractual arrangements. Similarly, to assist the water industry, the Government will continue, as at present, to indemnify statutory water undertakers against allegations of injury to health caused by fluoridation. The Government are happy to continue with this guarantee, not least as there has been no successful

967
claim on these grounds in the 30-year history of fluoridation in this country. We shall also consult with the water industry regarding the indemnity in respect of legal actions, although the present legislation should remove the likelihood of such actions in the future.
Returning to the detailed provisions of the Bill, Clause 1(4) provides for the addition of the compounds of fluorine currently used in water fluoridation schemes and, as a contingency measure, Clause 2 allows these to be varied by the Secretary of State subject to the negative statutory instrument procedure. I should like at this point to make the comment that fluoride is in no sense a substance which is normally foreign to the human diet. In fact, it is present to some degree in all our domestic water supplies and also in several foodstuffs—with fish being particularly rich in fluoride. Tea is also very rich in fluoride and, indeed, a heavy tea drinker will ingest more fluoride from tea than from fluoridation of his water supply.
Clause 1(5) provides for fluoridation to take place at the recognised tolerance levels of around one milligram per litre. This simply confirms existing practice, and I might add that fluoridation at this concentration does not, as is often suggested, give rise to any aesthetically significant degree of mottling. Studies conducted in this country have found little, if any, difference in levels of dental mottling between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.
Finally Clause 1(6) provides a statutory framework for the existing arrangements whereby statutory water undertakers may, in an emergency, provide fluoridated water to an area, which has not requested it, to maintain the water supply. We shall be moving an amendment at Committee stage to extend this arrangement, in accordance with existing arrangements, to cover routine maintenance.
While on the subject of the Government amendments which will be put before your Lordships at the Committee stage, I should like to make clear that it is our intention, as undertaken by my right honourable friend the Minister for Health in another place, to bring forward an amendment which will require health authorities to undertake general public consultation on proposals for new fluoridation schemes in advance of a decision being taken by the health authority. The amendment will give local bodies, such as local councils, and individuals the opportunity to make representations to the health authority. It is also our intention, again as undertaken in another place, to clarify the drafting of Clause 1 (1) which as a result of an amendment has now become rather complex. We shall also seek to provide specific legal vires for existing fluoridation schemes which will remove the need for health authorities to re-apply under Clause 1 (1).
Finally, I recognise that there are those who may feel that, irrespective of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation, it is wrong in principle to introduce what they regard as mass medication. I of course respect this view, but I have to say that personally I do not in any sense share it. The benefits of fluoridation were first discovered by observing communities which had a natural fluoride level in their water around the optimal concentration for dental health. Artificial fluoridation
968
seeks to do no more than replicate this natural phenomenon. Indeed, half a million people in this country receive water with a natural fluoride content at this level and I have not heard it suggested that they are subject to mass medication, any more than I have heard it suggested that they are mass medicated by the addition of other chemicals to water.
In my view, fluoridation in no way interferes with an individual's rights; he will neither be harmed by it, nor even be aware of it. Personal experience counts for something, and I have seen the enormous benefits which fluoride has provided for the health of my children's teeth. How I wish their advantage could have been mine. Without in any way wishing to do my noble friends Lord Colwyn and Lady Gardner of Parkes out of their professional careers, I am sure that as dentists they will agree that fluoridation is wholly beneficial and will benefit future generations of children by giving them markedly improved dental health, which is an advantage that they will retain throughout their lives. It therefore seems clear where the balance of advantage lies.
The Bill before us does not introduce compulsion. It is designed simply to give the responsible authorities specific legal powers to choose, if they wish, to provide the advantage I have described. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we should preserve this option on the basis which has existed for 30 years. I confidently commend the Bill to your Lordships as a thoroughly valuable measure to benefit the health of our children and grandchildren. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
9.32 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, a week ago today I said that I thought that it was scandalous that a debate on a very important issue such as limited list prescribing should begin shortly before eight o'clock and be voted on after midnight. May I repeat my complaint tonight?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ennals: This debate began at 9.15. I really think that that is grossly unfair to your Lordships' House and undermines our proper ability to give careful scrutiny to Bills which are passed to us from another place.
I shall be speaking entirely personally in this debate. There is in no sense a party line. Neither would I wish in any way—and I do not suppose that any of my noble friends will, either—to seek to divide the House. But I want to say that this is a very important Bill. It affects the whole of our population. It is also a very contentious Bill, as we all know from the correspondence that we have received, whichever view we may take.
The first question I want to ask—and I shall be very brief in several of my questions—is whether there is convincing evidence that fluoride in whatever form in the right quantity has a beneficial effect on dental health. I think that the evidence is overwhelming, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said. I shall not go through the list of organisations that take precisely that view. If one compares an area where there has been

969
fluoride in the water with one where there has not, whether one takes Birmingham and Wolverhampton, as was done by the noble Lord, or Northfield, as part of Birmingham, and Dudley, and considers the health of children's teeth, it is perfectly clear where there is an advantage. The number of supporting organisations is really most impressive. I am not going to take up your Lordships' time by going through those reports, because all they do is to confirm what the Minister has said. I think that it is overwhelming.
The second question is this. What about the suggestion that fluoride causes cancer? This also was dealt with by the noble Lord and I shall therefore be extremely brief. The Royal College of Physicians have examined this proposal very carefully and concluded that there was no scientific or statistical basis for the allegation. The noble Lord referred to the Knox report, which many of us will have read, and the comment made upon it by the chief medical officer. He said that it was absolutely clear that there was no evidence whatsoever. So, my Lords, I am perfectly satisfied that fluoride, taken in the appropriate quantities by one means or another, is both safe and beneficial. We know what is the attitude of the health authorities. I quote from the National Association of Health Authorities in a communication which I have just received. They said:
"This Association which has 93 per cent. of all health authorities in England and Wales in membership very much supports the fluoridation of water supplies since it is the single, most effective preventive measure against tooth decay.
"Although the great majority of health authorities are in favour of fluoridation, only 10 per cent. of the country's water supply is fluoridated at the moment because of the reluctance of a number of water authorities to agree to fluoridation schemes. This reluctance stems from uncertainty about the legal position which culminated in the Strathclyde court case.".
This was dealt with by the noble Lord and I shall not go into what was said then.
My third question, my Lords, is whether mass fluoridation is the best means of achieving the objective which I have said that I personally accept. It is very strongly argued by some that the only way to ensure that children—and they are the main beneficiaries—ingest the appropriate amount of fluoride is to fluoridate all tap water. I must say that I challenge this. It leaves no opportunity for personal choice. Although I am not here to make a 4½-hour speech and I do not go along with many of the arguments that have been used in the other place, I do not think that we can simply brush aside the question of personal choice which I know is held, up and down the country maybe wisely or maybe unwisely. But when there are strong feelings, we must recognise those strong feelings. I know that the Government are in the business, in one sense, of limiting the rights of locally-elected authorities—and I am not going to get into that—in terms of their own issues. I think that it is unsatisfactory that there is no opportunity for personal consultation or for expressions of views that can be taken and considered by elected authorities.
I think that the strength of this argument is emphasised by the views of the water authorities themselves. The Water Authorities' Association who, no doubt, have written to other Members of your
970
Lordships' House, have made it quite clear. They have said:
"the Bill as at present drafted gives water undertakers a discretionary power … It was argued strongly on behalf of the water undertakers when the Bill was discussed in the House of Commons that this is a quite unsatisfactory arrangement. We have no locus, in our view, in respect of the ethical and medical decisions whether or not to fluoridate in a particular area; this should be for the health authorities to take and the discretion available to water undertakers should relate solely to issues of technical and operational feasibility".
We are in a difficult situation because as our organisation now is, we have health authorities which are nominated and we have water authorities which are nominated. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory situation. I believe—and I give notice that an amendment will be tabled by me and by some of my colleagues on these Benches—that there should be a step in which the local authority, the elected local authority has to take its view. I believe that the general public are entitled to express their views through their local councillors and that those local councillors should then be obliged to take a decision before the matter is referred to what is, after all, and is seen to be, by the water authorities themselves, a technical body. Here we have a picture of health authorities knowing what they want, water authorities not wishing to take a decision and the public of two minds. The public, I believe, should have a right to be involved in the decision. This is not just my view. It is the view of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I have a letter from the association dated 22nd March in which it says:
"The Association is concerned that the Bill imposes upon the Health Authority the responsibility for requesting the Water Authority to fluoridate water, i.e. two non-elected bodies. The Association hopes you"—
that means me and other of your Lordships—
"will support local authorities as bodies directly accountable to the local electorate having an input into the process regarding fluoridation particularly in view of their responsibilities under the Water Act 1973".
The first point I want to make is that the locally elected authorities should be involved. There is, however, another way of achieving our objective. It is certainly not contained in the Bill. My personal view is that we can achieve the aim of providing fluoride for children aged five to 15 without in any way denying personal choice, through the supply of milk made available to children in schools. This has a double advantage. Many of our children are suffering from forms of malnutrition and under-nutrition. This proposal would return to our schools the milk that was formerly available. It would give to parents the right to decide whether the children should have milk with fluoride or milk without fluoride.
I am influenced in this view by the outstanding philanthropic work of Dr. Edgar Borrow, founder of the Borrow Dental Milk Foundation, a pioneer in the field. I have studied this carefully. Research carried out in a five-year study in Scotland and a three-year study in Hungary show extremely impressive results—the same decrease in dental caries among children as if there had been fluoride in water. The evidence of the nutritional value of milk, particularly skimmed or semi-skimmed, and the benefit of added fluoride has created a new situation.

971
The new situation is that the EEC Commission, in its regulation reported in the official journal of the European Communities of 30th January 1985, has now decided after long debate that the milk subsidy made available to our local authorities, and used by some but not by enough, should in future be available for milk that includes fluoride as well as for milk that does not include fluoride. This gives absolutely and totally the right of choice to parents which I believe your Lordships' House would wish to give.
This is a water fluoride Bill; it is not simply a fluoride Bill. I hope that the Minister in his reply to the debate will comment on both major points that I have made. One is the involvement of the local authorities and the other, this quite different alternative. If we were to go about it the right way, we could ensure that children would be fitter by having milk and that their teeth would be better by having fluoride, if that was the wish of their parents.
I was surprised to see in the financial memorandum to the Bill that no costs are involved. On the financial effects of the Bill, the memorandum states:
"The Bill involves no additional public expenditure".
The Minister has since answered this by saying that the financial responsibility would fall upon the health authority. At a time when health authorities are hard pressed enough, there is no point in saying that this is not additional public expenditure. Public expenditure carried out by the health authority is public expenditure. The same memorandum, on the front of the Bill, also states:
"The Bill has no effect on public sector manpower".
That is absolute nonsense. It is simply not possible to go through the technical operation of putting fluoride into water without manpower being involved.
I have done some study on this. Let us look at the cost of fluoridating all water or providing fluoride in milk for children; that is, on average, one litre of fluoridated milk per week per child, with a population
972
of 9.3 million children, and working on an average of 200 school days per year. We should look at the comparison. If we do it through milk, we need to have less than 2 tonnes—1.86 tonnes of calcium fluoride. If we do it through the method of fluoridating all water, whether it is drinking water, bath water, industrial water, sewage, or what have you, we should be using not just 1.86 tonnes but 11,176 tonnes per year for the total population. The estimate of the cost of doing it through milk is less than £1 million—£930,000—with capital costs which would be no more than £2 million. If we look at the operational costs if the health and water authorities were together to decide that they were going to fluoridate all water, they are estimated to be about £20.5 million per annum and the capital costs would be about £150 million, presumably to be borne, as the noble Lord the Minister said, by the health authorities.
How can we expect health authorities, with all the problems they are facing, to take on this additional burden at this time? Frankly, I think that, in spite of all the time that was taken in the debates in the other place—going through the night, with long speeches—the other place has not done its homework. That is what this House is for—to look carefully at what comes from the other place and make it think again. This is why I give notice that at Committee stage not only shall we seek to involve the local authorities—the elected local authorities—but we shall also put forward an amendment which will deal with the milk option, which I believe is quite the most attractive option.
I have rather rushed my speech. I should have liked to develop several of the points, but I know that many of your Lordships wish to speak and therefore I shall bring my remarks to a close. I want to say in my final sentence that it is quite wrong that this House should not have a proper opportunity of turning into real sense what comes from another place, in the interests of our people and their health, and bearing in mind theists.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, last week when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, protested about the fact that your Lordships were being asked to debate a matter of great importance at a very late hour I was wholly in support of the noble Lord. However, I am bound to say to him that on this particular issue I do not think that he is on such firm ground. This time we are not debating something that is exactly new. The case for fluoridation has been proved beyond all possible doubt for something like 30 years. Indeed, it has already been introduced. We are only having this debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, explained in his admirable and very clear speech, because an element of doubt has been brought into the law as a result of a somewhat ambiguous judgment in the Scottish courts. Previously there was no question about the legality of adding fluoride to water, but a new situation has arisen purely because of what has happened in the Scottish courts.
In addition, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I accept that this is a controversial matter, but experience of some 30 years' involvement in it has convinced me that it is not the kind of matter in which the controversy is likely to be resolved by debate. There is not a great deal of point in preaching to the converted. Thirty years of campaigning for fluoridation has told me that it is not very helpful either to preach to the unconvinced because they will not listen.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is absurd.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, perhaps I should make my position absolutely clear. I have the honour to be the present president of the British Fluoridation Society. Now that I have said that, noble Lords will know exactly where I stand on this issue. Perhaps I had better make it quite clear where the British fluoridation Society stems from. In the late 'sixties, when the late Mr. Richard Crossman was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services, he decided that fluoridation was first safe, and secondly very advantageous, and that we ought to go ahead with it. He was also aware that it was somehow rather unpopular and somewhat controversial. He was not actually going to do it. But he wanted the water authorities to do it and he wanted to change public opinion so that it actually happened. Mr. Richard Crossman gave a substantial grant to the Health Education Council to enable it to do what it could to change public opinion about the safety and desirability of fluoridation. The Health Education Council at that time set up the British Fluoridation Society, which was required to do this work. Its first president was my noble friend Lord Avebury who carried on doing that job for many years. I recently had the honour of succeeding him.
I should like to say—and I hope it will be accepted—that by nature, by temperament and by inclination I have always been extremely suspicious of additives of any kind. I am on record in many fields as having protested about food additives, particularly when they
974
are not used for the benefit of the consumer but for the benefit of the manufacturer, the person selling the food or someone else. I have written widely on the subject of pollutants, and I have campaigned widely on the subject of pollutants of one kind or another. I was vice-president for many years of the Conservation Society and have done a great deal of work in that regard. When I had the honour to be the chairman of the Countryside Commission, I sometimes had occasion to fight against the introduction of unnatural elements into our diet or into our environment. However, I say that in the hope that your Lordships will accept that I would only have taken up the stand that I have taken on this issue had I been convinced and totally convinced that it was the right thing to do. I approached all this years ago with great suspicion. I looked at all the allegations, I heard about all the dangers and searched in vain for these cases of people who were alleged to have been harmed by fluoride. I spent years searching for them all over the world and found none. My assumption is that they do not exist. I also believe that they never did exist. I think that most of them were invented. My Lords, why? I do not know. Nor do I know why the anti-fluoride campaign, which has been so vigorous in the United States, has been financed—as reported in the journal of the American Dental Association—for many years by the Ku-Klux-Klan and the John Birch Society. But it rather convinces me that I am in the right camp. I hope perhaps it may persuade one or two others that they have possibly been getting into bed with the wrong bedfellows.
As a doctor, and as a person who has looked into this issue with very great care, I can say that I am wholly convinced that no public health measure has ever been subjected to such exhaustive and close scrutiny and ever been found to be so totally free of dangerous side effects or risks of any kind. Nor do I believe that any public health measure has been demonstrated so clearly to be wholly effective in achieving its aims; namely, a massive reduction in the incidence of dental caries, which is quite an important condition both medically and dentally. Those who doubt its efficacy need only consider what has happened in Birmingham. I shall not go into that case because I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, who has had personal contact with what has happened in Birmingham, will refer to that. I believe noble Lords who have studied what has happened in Birmingham will be wholly satisfied that there can be no doubt whatsoever of the effectiveness of fluoridation. I repeat that I am satisfied that it is wholly safe and effective and I do not believe that anybody has ever been harmed by fluoride in the concentrations recommended. That is my considered view, and understandably I therefore believe that we should go ahead.
It is not necessary for me to go over all the arguments, as president of the British Fluoridation Society. Noble Lords who have shown a close interest in medical, dental and health matters will have received the literature that the society has sent out including a detailed copy and analysis of the Knox report, to which both the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made reference, and all the other evidence which has been

975
produced. The massive number of learned and scientific bodies all over the world to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred, have come to precisely the same conclusion. Therefore, it is unnecessary for me to go over all those matters. There will be detailed points which no doubt we shall investigate, discuss and possibly consider at greater length during later stages in the Bill.
I should like briefly to turn to one or two of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made, and to one on particular. He said that he doubted whether the adding of fluoride—one part per million—to water was the best means. I think those were the words he used. In my view it is the only means. The noble Lord suggested that we should add it to milk. I am not against milk. I am all in favour of milk. It is true that I had in practice a medical partner who believed that every bottle of milk should carry a Government health warning. That is not my view. I drink lots of milk, and I was very distressed when school milk disappeared.
However, I wish to make this point. Leaving this action until school age is too late. All the evidence clearly shows that in order to prevent dental caries to the extent to which we hope to prevent it, the necessity is that the ingestion of fluoride should take place at a very early age and certainly before school age.
I am not against other means, but I think that this is the best means. I also think that if we rely on tablets, or even on children swallowing fluoridated toothpaste and all sorts of other methods, the fact remains that the most vulnerable children are in the social groups which the report of Sir Douglas Black showed were so disadvantaged from the health point of view. If we rely on other steps being taken by parents, I believe that the children in those groups will suffer. The only way to ensure that the benefits of fluoridation are enjoyed by the population as a whole is to put it into the drinking water. I believe it is the safest way and also the most effective way.
I have said that I believe it is wholly safe and it is effective. I am bound to say that I think many of the opponents of fluoridation—and I accept that there are many—have accepted that. Having accepted that, they then turn to what they call the moral argument and talk about mass medication. This is not medication. It is not treatment. Nobody has for a moment suggested that fluoride causes dental caries. It prevents it. It is not medication; it is prevention, which is a very different matter indeed.
There is nothing very new about optimising the concentration of a normal constituent of a dietary substance and, if it is deficient, restoring it to its proper level. That is all that is proposed. Natural water contains fluoride. The intention is merely to make sure that those who are deprived of natural fluoride in their water supplies do not continue to be so deprived. There are many precedents. There are the bread and flour regulations which require certain substances to be present in flour. I do not think that the ordinary individual has the right to stipulate the precise chemical composition of the public water supply any more than he has the right to stipulate the voltage of the public electricity supply or the caloric value of the gas supply. There are plenty of precedents. I do not
976
accept the so-called moral argument that it is mass medication. It is not medication; it is prevention.
I now come to one other point. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in his excellent speech, made quite clear that this is a limited measure, that it is essentially an enabling measure. The noble Lord stressed that it is giving the option. In a sense, I think that this is perhaps a little unfortunate. I go back to the early days when the water authorities had a somewhat small democratic element—at least appointed by local authorities. I was frequently consulted by them in those days when they had the opportunity themselves to consider this question. They said that they were getting hoards of papers and scientific documents from all over the world. They said that as local councillors, or whatever, they were not equipped to decide matters of this kind. They said that this was something which the Government themselves should decide and that they should come out quite clearly and say that it was a good thing and therefore we should put it in the water, rather than leave it entirely to the water authorities.
I accept that there are advantages in leaving a matter of this kind to local or regional decision. However, that would rather depend on the bodies upon which we are relying having some kind of regionally or locally elected element, and while we have water authorities which are wholly appointed and while we have area health authorities which are wholly appointed, one could not say that we are actually being given much local choice in the matter. The choice is not of a democratic nature because the bodies themselves are not democratic. I merely make the point. It has nothing to do with this particular Bill, but I should like to hope that some day we will move to a period when the water authorities do have a genuinely elected, accountable element—that is, accountable regionally or locally.
I should also like to move to a period when the area health authorities have some kind of regionally or locally accountable element; but we have not got that at the moment and therefore, in a sense, I am a little disappointed that this is merely enabling legislation, because I am afraid that what will happen is that the arguments will go on and on and on. We shall hear the same arguments over and over again from different people who will each produce the same examples, and when we pursue them we find that they do not exist. Why they have been invented, I do not know.
I sometimes think, if I may say this, that there is some curious psychological element in this paranoia about fluoridation. I think it is not unrelated to the unfortunate coincidence of the similarity between the suffix "ide" at the end of thalidomide, and the suffix "ide" at the end of "fluoride". Somehow, subconsciously, in the public mind the two have been connected and the public have thought "this is nasty, artificial and dangerous." My view, as a doctor, is that it is not dangerous; my view, as a doctor, is that it is extremely beneficial. My view, as a doctor and as a politician, is that we go ahead and do it.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him, as chairman of the society, who

977
actually determined the level of concentration of one part per million? Why was it not two parts, three parts, four parts or ten parts? Who determined this level of concentration?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I was not privy to the discussions which were going on at that time. It dates right back to the 1940s, as the noble Lord will know; but it was decided by the various authorities, by the dentists and the other scientists together with people in various Government departments at the time. They decided that was the optimum level. All one wants is an adequate level and there is no point in having a level which is higher than "adequate." I think that is why it was decided, but I was not party to the decision-taking at that time.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down for a second time, is he not perhaps overstating the case when he says that there is no case known of anyone who has been made ill?—because the Lady Mayor of Andover, round about 1954, I understand, was ill, as were other people. They recovered when they went on to water taken from a dug well. I cannot substantiate this in any detail, but it is widely believed in Andover and people there obtained an injunction which I thinks stands to this day. Would the noble Lord care to comment on that?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I will indeed comment on it. The noble Lord has said that "it is widely believed." It may well be widely believed and the noble Lord has asked me to comment on this particular case. Certainly I will. Many such cases have been put to me over very many years. On every occasion I have followed them up with the greatest possible care and I have never been able to confirm any of them. I could not say with certainty that what the noble Lord has said is not true—it may be true. Maybe he has stumbled on a case that I have never found. All I say is that when cases of that kind have been put to me in the past over the last 30 years, I have done everything I can to investigate them and all those investigations have proved fruitless. But, the noble Lord having mentioned this case, I will most certainly look into it: I promise him that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, again, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not possible that that water could have had some other harmful product in it, equally well?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it is possible.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, if I may get an oar in edgeways, this Bill had a jolly rough passage in another place. Indeed, so long drawn out were the debates that they were described as a filibuster. I think that is unfair and unfortunate. It is unfair because if your Lordships read the reports you will find that, generally speaking, they are not the stuff that filibusters are made on, and it is unfortunate because it may make the uninformed believe that those who oppose fluoridation of the water supply are a crazy bunch of cranks and fanatics. This is by no means the case. Of
978
course, I would be the first to admit that a great number of honourable and dedicated cranks are indeed anti-fluoriders, if that is the proper term. But it is also true that there are a great number of sober, sensible people who are against fluoridation and who are not cranks.
As your Lordships know, the case against fluoridation rests on two considerations. The first is simply that it is unethical to treat us without our consent by putting medicine into the water supply. The second is that it is at least possible that fluoride artificially added to the water supply may not be as innocuous as the Department of Health and Social Security, and admittedly a very large body of medical and dental opinion, would have us believe. I should like first to say something about the second consideration.
Can we be absolutely sure that the DHSS has got it right? Here I find myself in a difficulty which I suspect is shared by many noble Lords. Though very free with advice to my family and friends on how to treat their ailments, I have no medical training, and though I thoroughly enjoyed fooling about with test tubes and Bunsen burners in the laboratories of Eton in my youth—incidentally, they are very different now from what they were in those days—I am quite untrained in science. I lack therefore the intellectual equipment to judge the scientific and medical evidence about fluoride and its potential effects.
But I know two things, the first of which is that official medical opinion is not infallible. What is held to be safe today can turn out to be dangerous tomorrow. We have only to remember the confidence with which Thalidomide and Debendox were, in all good faith, declared safe to recognise the force of this argument. The second is that there seems to be a growing body of sober, unhysterical medical opinion, based on the work of scientists engaged in pure research and physicians dealing with patients, which holds that we would be better off without fluoride being put artificially into tap water.
We are told that fluoride poisons certain enzymes. Four Nobel Prize winners—Professor Hugo Theorell, Eyler, Otto Warburg and Dr James B. Sumner of Cornell University—have all independently shown that a number of important enzymes are seriously disturbed by fluoride of concentrations of between 0.2 and one part per million; that is to say, a lower concentration than will be permitted if this Bill becomes law. I do not know how much this matters, but I do not like the sound of it.
Nor do I like the sound of what Dr Robert S. Harris, Director of the National Biochemistry Laboratories, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had to say on the subject. This is what he said:
"There is plenty of evidence to indicate that fluoride in the amount of 1 part per million or slightly more interferes with enzyme systems and these enzymes are involved with the growth of bones and the functioning of nerve tissue and so forth. It is clear that fluoridation is a calculated risk".
There is another factor which ought to be weighed when the risk is calculated. Fluoride is a cumulative poison, and presumably this means that its ill-effects could be a long time showing. Artificial fluoridation has been practised for only 30 years and in many places for much less time. Only 5 million people in this

979
country drink artificially fluoridated water and in the areas where the natural level is high, which serve about half-a-million, there are also high levels of calcium and manganese which mitigate the toxic effects of fluoride. I do most earnestly hope that if this Bill comes to be made law the risks involved in making it legal to fluoridate the water artificially will prove to have been wisely calculated.
Many other countries have decided that the risk is not worth taking. Fluoridation of the water supply was stopped by West Germany after 18 years. It was abandoned in Holland after 23 years. It was abandoned in Sweden after 10 years' trial because the World Health Organisation was unable to substantiate the claim to the satisfaction of the Swedes that fluoridation was safe. It was abandoned in Chile after 25 years' trial. Japan has no fluoridation; nor has any country in Western Europe except Southern Ireland and ourselves. Are we absolutely sure that we know better and there is no risk involved in the artificial fluoridation of the water supply?
So far as I am concerned, the evidence of doctors who deal with patients is perhaps easier for ignoramuses like me to understand than is the work of scientists with their microscopes and test-tubes. Those in favour of fluoridation say that there are no observable ill effects from drinking fluoridated water. Perhaps it would be not unreasonable to rephrase that and to say, "There are no ill effects which are easily observed, particularly if you are not looking for them".
I understand that doctors in the United States, here and elsewhere are discovering that, if you look, you find. They are seeing patients who exhibit, in varying degrees, some or all of the wide-ranging signs of low grade fluoride poisoning when consuming fluoridated water, and sometimes even as a result of using fluoride toothpaste. These include, I understand, pains and stiffness in the joints and bones, muscle weakness, stomach cramps, nausea, diarrhoea and all sorts of disagreeable complaints which could easily be confused with other illnesses such as arthritis and gastro enteritis. But the interesting point is that blind and double blind tests show that, when the patient stops drinking fluoridated water, the symptoms disappear, and that they reappear when he starts drinking it again.
Nobody, I believe, denies that fluoride is a poison. Nobody denies that it is dangerous to take it in excess. I remain unimpressed by the argument that everything is toxic if taken in excess, including even good, sound claret. The point about fluoride is that, although no one is prepared to say what the "safe" dose is, it is clear that you have to be extremely careful not to overdo the amount you take on board. It is illegal to add it to food and the fluoride tablets you can buy over the counter at any chemist are covered with red warnings not to overdo the prescribed dose.
My understanding is that anyone can buy these tablets even in areas where the amount of fluoride in the water would make it unwise to take them. What seems certain is that it is important not to overdo the dose. I wonder how accurately the amount added artificially to water can be controlled. Perhaps the
980
noble Earl, when he comes to speak at the end of the debate, will enlighten us on that point,
And of course mistakes can happen even in the best run organisations. I am not implying by this remark that any British water authority is likely to repeat the tragic mistake made in Annapolis in 1979, when the fluoridating machinery went wrong and much too much fluoride was added to the drinking water, with the result that two people died and many others were taken ill. But perhaps even a less serious error might have disagreeable effects. It is a great pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, cannot be with us tonight to deploy the medical arguments against fluoridation, which she can do a great deal better than I. I am assured, however, that she will make her contribution when the Bill reaches Committee stage.
I simply want to make the point that I do not believe it can be said with certainty that there is no risk in artificially fluoridating the water, and that if there is any risk, it must be balanced against the gain. Here we must be careful not to be too bemused by those glossy pamphlets which claim that fluoridation halves tooth decay. It is true that tooth decay has diminished dramatically, as we have heard, in areas where the water is artificially fluoridated, but it has also done so in other areas where there is no artificial fluoridation. Perhaps greater awareness of how to avoid tooth decay, and the withdrawal of sweetened orange juice in 1971 from the national health clinics has had as much to do with the improvement as fluoride added to the water.
It seems to me that with those delightful fluoride tablets so readily available on the market and the fluoride toothpaste which is equally available the health of our children's teeth could be achieved without putting the stuff in our water whether we want it there or not. If there is even a suspicion of risk, it seems to me quite improper to take it and make it possible, even likely, that everyone in the country will be subjected to it.
I was glad that the noble Lord the Minister forecast there would be an amendment in Committee so as to bring in something that looks like a democratic process in deciding whether the water is laced with this fluoride stuff, but I must say that it must be a positive decision on the part of the people, and it must not just be a case of the authorities listening politely to complaints and doing it just the same. It must not be a matter of their knowing what is best for us and doing it whether we like it or not.
Moreover, what is proposed in the Bill for deciding which areas should be subjected to artificial fluoridation really borders on the ridiculous. As the Bill is drafted, water undertakers have discretionary powers to add fluoride to water supplies at the request of the appropriate health authorities. This is an arrangement which the Water Authorities Association considers wholly unsatisfactory and, indeed, I have a letter from the secretary of the association on that subject. If the artificial fluoridation of water is made lawful, it surely cannot be left to the discretion of water authorities whether or not to put in the stuff. To draft the Bill in this way indicates to me that the Government are treating the matter in a very offhand

981
way, as something which we should just allow to go through on the nod—not even worth a mention in the Queen's Speech.
I believe this to be an error of judgment. It is not a small matter; it is a matter which many people feel very strongly about. It is really quite unacceptable that not a hint of the democratic process is built into the arrangements for deciding whether or not any area's water should be artificially fluoridated. We shall look for proper amendments during the Committee stage. It seems to me that anything other than allowing the people to decide whether or not they want their water to be laced with fluoride would be ethically indefensible; and that is exactly what the Bill is as it is now written. As I say, it is ethically indefensible, and in being so it breaks new ground, and very dangerous new ground at that.
It really does break new ground. The argument that all sorts of chemicals are put into the water anyway, so why not add a touch of fluoride as well simply will not wash. All other chemicals are put in to make the water safe to drink; they are put in to treat the water. Fluoride is put in as a medicine to treat us, and has nothing to do with making the water safe to drink. This is a real difference, made plain in Lord Jauncey's judgment in 1983, when he ruled that fluoride was a medicine and putting it into the water had nothing to do with making water potable and wholesome.
It is also a difference in a practical way. If the water out of the tap is fluoridated, the very great majority simply cannot avoid ingesting it. If a person objects to vitamin B in margarine, he has alternatives in dripping or butter. If he objects to the calcium added to white bread, he can eat wholemeal bread. But he cannot avoid drinking water out of the tap.
Any noble Lord who spends as much time as I do in the kitchen will know you have to cook with the stuff. One cannot boil fluoride away as one can chlorine. On the contrary, the more one boils fluoridated water, the stronger becomes the concentration. So the next time any noble Lord finds himself making stock in a fluoridated area, he should watch out.
This is a Bill straight out of "Yes, Minister", and it is easy to see how it came to be drafted; drafted in good faith and on the altar of good government. Sir Humphrey Appleby would have said, "Minister, it is just a matter of making legal what we always thought was legal and have anyway been doing for years". And if the Minister had questioned the moral issues, then Sir Humphrey would have said, "Minister, government isn't about morality".
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Not this one, my Lords.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, Sir Humphrey would have said, "Government is about stability, about keeping things going, about preventing anarchy, about stopping society from falling to bits and still being here tomorrow". And perhaps Sir Humphrey would have added, "Minister, I advise that the Second Reading should be late at night because that will help to bamboozle their Lordships".
Although it is late at night and although the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has spoken elequently, as far as I am concerned I am not going to pile Pelion on Ossa
982
and divide the House on this issue, because I do not believe that would be proper in the circumstances.
Anybody who has spent as much time as I have on the edge of Whitehall, and who has the same genuine admiration and affection for the mandarins as I have, can understand exactly how this Bill came to be drafted; drafted in good faith and on the altar of good government. But it is a rotten, bad Bill because the real issues it raises have not been considered as they should have been. Lord Jauncey's judgment and what has flowed from it provides us with a rare opportunity to consider the ethical values which are at stake. So let us be bold and ignore Sir Humphrey Appleby and pay some attention to morality.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Absolute rubbish, my Lords!
10.22 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, after that very powerful speech, which set out to destroy the health arguments, I think that I should say immediately that I have read the Knox Report and quite a bit of the extracts from the Jauncey judgment and I would hesitate to dismiss that massive Knox Report as easily as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has done. The Knox Committee sat for three or four years and studied the scientific and epidemiological evidence—not only from this country but from all over the world. They reached their conclusions on that basis. My word!—I must as a layman pay some attention to what they have said. They were very clear that the health risks which the noble Lord sees are simply not there.
However, I do not propose to go into a long argument of that kind at this time of night. I would just make the point that there are some 260 million people in the world who are consuming fluoridated water—including our 5 million here—and so there is an immense amount of evidence about what happens to consumers. I believe that the noble Lord hardly did justice to what has been put before us in that report.
Turning to the Bill itself, the noble Lords says that this is a thoroughly bad Bill and not in any way justified. It is exactly the opposite; it is an entirely practical Bill. The Jauncey judgment has precipitated the situation which many of us knew was hanging over us. I knew it for many years and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knew it, too; that one day the vires of fluoridation would be challenged.
I can remember, when I was chairman of the National Water Council, consulting with Ministers in the Labour Government of the day and telling them that I reckoned we were sitting on a time bomb and that sooner or later someone would take the case to court, when the vires which were in doubt might be found to be ultra vires. On the other hand, we, as the water authorities throughout the country, were being pressed to add fluorine to untreated waters where the local health authority would have liked to see the addition made for the benefit of the children concerned. I consulted with the Ministers of the day and they were sympathetic but they observed that this was a very difficult matter to handle and although the health arguments were convincing to most people—not the noble Lord, Lord Charteris—the liberty of the subject argument was very difficult to deal with. That was something which all of us well

983
understood. I simply had to bow my head and say to the Ministers, "Well, I understand and so we will carry on and do the best we can with areas which are having fluoridated water and others will just have to wait."
What has not happened with this Bill is that it simply sets out to confirm the status quo which everyone has believed to exist for the past 20 or 30 years and which underlies the 5 million people—or 4.5 million people without the naturally fluoridated areas—who are receiving treated water today. To do that seems to me no more than common sense. As to whether there will be any other areas which want to have it, that is something which, to a large extent, is to be a local option. As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said, he intends to move an amendment, which I very much welcome, which will ensure that the elected local authorities are brought into consultation by the health authority when proposing to introduce these measures. I should also like to see the request to the water authorities to be mandatory rather than optional because I think that that is no more than logical. The water authorities have various technical problems to cope with but the ethical problem and the health problem is certainly one which the health authority, in consultation with the local authority, should decide. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic to such an amendment, which will evidently come from several quarters by the time we reach the Committee stage.
I turn briefly to the other arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said that flouride was the only additive which was added for the good of consumers. That is simply not so. A number of additives are made to water, not just to make it safe, like chlorine, but additives such as calcium, aluminium and even copper sulphate. Copper sulphate is not added for purposes of palatability, but aluminium certainly is. Quite a lot of treatment that people are not generally aware of is given to water in order to make it as palatable as possible. Therefore, it seems somewhat selective to pitch into this substance because of this terrific campaign which has been mounted, particularly in America I am sure the noble Lord took note of this point in the Knox report. The Knox Committee examined the leading American protagonist, Dr. Burk, and the gentleman with the unpronounceable Japanese name, in order to ensure that it had the full weight of the American evidence. So there is no doubt that these aspects were carefully examined.
Finally, in the very few minutes I wish to take—I still want to go to a very important meeting in my village, where we are threatened with losing our rector and having a priest in charge instead, which is almost as serious as fluoridation of our water—I feel that on health grounds and for the benefit of the teeth of our children, and certainly for the most disadvantaged sector of the community, which would receive the most benefit, if you put fluoride in the water, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, you will make sure that children get it from the start and there is no doubt whatever that it will be of the greatest possible benefit to their teeth. Therefore, I hope that, both on health grounds and on the general grounds, the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that we shall have a harmonious Committee stage when we reach it.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I should like to associate myself mildly with the protests about the lateness of the hour. Having flown back from Europe yesterday to take part in this debate, and having cheerfully missed a first-class dinner this evening, I am afraid that I cannot miss my last train home and shall have to leave before the final throes of the debate. I promise in return not to detain your Lordships for the full four hours that I had in mind.
I want to tell your Lordships perfectly candidly that until a month or so ago I was blissfully innocent of the strange passions that stir the breasts of the rival parties on this issue of fluoridation. I was like the proverbial vegetarian in a butchers' convention: I knew something was going on but I did not really know quite what. This happy state was shattered when I received an unsolicited pack of glossy pamphlets from the Fluoridation Society. Out of the blue it came, and I foolishly made the mistake of opening it. I should not have done, because inside I came across an article written by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It was entitled, "Fluoridation and Individual Freedom". I told the noble Lord that I proposed to raise this matter. When I saw that title and that author, my suspicions were alerted since I must say candidly that I have not always found the noble Lord, even as much as other members of the nominally liberal party, a very sure guide on issues of personal freedom.
His article confirmed my worst fears. He offered two proofs that fluoridation could not be opposed on grounds of freedom—just two proofs, my Lords. His first was what I thought was a prime example of tortured prose and tortured logic. It amounted to saying that if the water authorities are empowered by law to add fluoride, then no question of individual liberty can possibly arise. The noble Lord went on:
"The decision is one for the majority of the members of the water authority, and is binding upon both the objectors and the non-objectors, like any other decision lawfully made".
It does not require a great deal of argument to prove that such a legalistic view of freedom is quite untenable. Of course governments have to impose coercive measures on minorities to achieve overriding purposes of public policy, like national defence and the taxation necessary to pay for it. But a law imposing some change in personal conduct or consumption, like the compulsory brushing of teeth, would be an unwarranted invasion of individual freedom.
That in simple terms is the distinction that economists make between a public good and a private good. Governments have to concern themselves with public goods that individuals cannot manage for themselves but not with private goods. Even if a minority or the majority of the population were passionately daily craving for fluoride, they could help themselves by going to the chemist and getting a little bottle of fluoride pills, without requiring a single one of their fellow countrymen to take a mouthful of fluoride involuntarily. I may say that if people buy this bottle at the chemist, they had better read carefully, as the noble Lord said earlier, what the health warning is on the label.
The second proof of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was even more splendid. I must quote it in full;

985
otherwise, I shall be accused of invention. He said:
"The individual liberty arguments against fluoridation are invalid, as can be judged from the fact that the issue has never been taken up"—
my Lords, wait for it—
"by the National Council for Civil Liberties".
That is a demonstration of what I mean. When I read this light-hearted pleading from the president, as he then was, of the Fluoridation Society, I thought it worth just a little bit of investigation into what was being said by the anti-fluoridation lobby. I must say that I almost wish I had not; because I was at once overwhelmed by this recital of the conditions and allergies that would be caused or aggravated by fluoride.
Quoting these authorities with unpronounceable names which the noble Lord has just mentioned, there was a catalogue of possible afflictions which included damage to (to me) such mysteries as enzyme systems, hormones, thyroid functions, DNA molecules, cancer and toxicity. There were more modest symptoms that appealed to me such as nausea, lassitude and excessive thirst. A little bit of observation in the Peers' guest room made me wonder whether the water supplies in the Palace of Westminster had been fluoridated as an experiment. I must say that, on the whole, I began to feel like Jerome K. Jerome in Three Men in a Boat—that I had everything in the pharmocology except housemaid's knee; except that the opponents of fluoride suggest that the stuff is also rather bad for arthritis.
I am prepared to allow that the contra-indications of fluoride have been or may have been—and I must be careful about that: it is "may have been"—exaggerated by some of its rather more sensitive opponents. At least, I certainly hope so. But I find impossible to dismiss them to the point of saying that there is nothing in such fears, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said at the beginning. We have learned in recent years that even the most beneficial drugs prescribed by Lord Winstanley's profession can have the most vicious and malignant side effects which often rule them out for individuals with particular conditions and allergies. They are often discovered a little later when they have been, as they say, "ingested" by patients.
There is the truth that opinions change over time. That, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, might understand, is what is called progress. People do go on learning and learning new things. Indeed, a spectacular example is that scientific opinion (which we would all revere at the time) thought that there was little danger from exploding an atomic device at Wick. They changed their minds a little later. Then we may recall rather more significant examples from recent history. We have forgotten the final stages of vaccination against smallpox, which the Government stopped compelling in 1984 but went on recommending until 1971, when it was found that deaths and injuries from vaccination were more than from the disease itself. What about immunisation against whooping cough, which Governments, in the best of faith, have admitted can cause brain damage, and indeed have compensated several hundred victims to the extent of £10,000 each for 80 per cent. disabilities under the 1979 Vaccine Damage Payments Act.
986
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, promised that the effects of fluoridation would continue to be monitored after we had been ingesting the stuff for some years. I think that that would be little comfort to many people who may fear that that will be late in the day. I would go on to quote the most impressive authority that my noble leader Lord Charteris quoted. How could one resist the authority of a man who is director of the Nutritional Biochemistry Laboratories at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology when you discover his name is Dr. Robert Harris? How can he possibly be denied when he says that the stuff may have these effects on enzymes but it is clear that fluoridation is a calculated risk.
My doubts were not removed when I read more carefully the pack of literature from the Fluoridation Society. There are admissions there that fluoridation is indeed mass medication. That comes from Professor Lenihan. There are admissions that it could increase dental mottling, however slightly. That comes from Lord Jauncey, the judge in the Strathclyde case. Among the supportive statements that they quote I find that the Board of the Faculty of Dental Surgery of the Royal College of Surgeons support fluoridation at 1 part per million but express concern that (I quote):
"excessive intake of fluoride could possibly result from its additional and uncontrolled use in other vehicles".
I take "other vehicles" to refer to other sources of fluoride which are known to exist in both the natural and the polluted environment.
At this stage, I looked again more closely at the bottle of fluoride pills which I bought for £1.39. I find that it consists of several months' supply if any of your Lordships wish to absorb them. The label states, "Do not exceed the stated dose. Half a tablet daily for children up to two years of age. One tablet daily at two years and over until teeth develop at about 12." The label goes on, "These doses are usually recommended in places where the water contains not more than 0.3 parts per million of fluoride," In capital letters, it states, "Consult doctor, dentist or pharmacist." And, finally, there appears the injunction, "Keep out of reach of children."
Leaving aside the difference between natural and artificial fluoride, about which I think we shall hear more, two arguments bring me down against the Bill. The first is that all authorities mercifully agree that dental decay among children has fallen dramatically in recent years, equally in areas with and areas without fluoridation, although the Fluoridation Society engagingly admits that it does not know the reason why this has happened.
The Fluoridation Society sends me a further missive today—ready for the debate, presumably—with the stamp, "Fluoridation halves tooth decay." This is not wholly spectacular when one looks closely at the figures. The difference about which it quibbles is the difference, in the case of children up to the age of five, between the possibility of 1.2 teeth on average being decayed in fluoridated areas or 2.5 teeth decayed in other areas. We are arguing about 1.3 teeth in children up to the age of five.
The second argument on the side of caution is that some reputable scientific authorities persist in pointing to a wide variety of serious dangers from fluoridation. However lightly these testimonies are dismissed by the

987
lobbies which we detect behind the Bill, they are taken sufficiently seriously in European countries which have either prohibited fluoridation or reversed earlier decisions in its favour.
The choice is between the large possibility, even the probability, of a small gain from fluoridation and the small, even remote, possibility of a very large mischief from the side effects for at least some people. I propose that we do not gnash whatever teeth we may have left debating how large the risks may be, but that we seek the first opportunity to vote out the Bill in the Lobbies.
10.42 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, before going into the details of why I support the Bill, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who listed examples of campaigns, to the fact that there have been some successful campaigns. The polio campaign, the noble Lord I believe would agree, is a successful campaign. The rubella campaign is another that is successful. All of us can point to campaigns that have not been successful to satisfy our arguments. We should also consider the very successful campaigns that have been run by the Government and by local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned rival groups. These groups are not divided on party political lines. Fluoridation has never been a party political issue. The late Mr. Crossman has been mentioned. One also recalls that when Mr. Enoch Powell was at the Ministry of Health, he urged all local authorities to proceed with water fluoridation. So it has never been a party political issue in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, worried me with his description of all the people who were consuming fluoride in the water. I come from Birmingham. When I heard that description I thought that when I walk round the city centre I do not see any of those people the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, was talking about—jittery people and people mumbling. I see more people behaving like that when they have drunk a lot of claret.
Birmingham was one of the first major cities in Great Britain to get a fluoridation scheme. That was in 1965. I well remember the avalanche of propaganda. Some of it was quite wild, like some of the remarks we have heard tonight, attributing every disease to fluoride. I can remember the highly emotional debates; they were just like the debate we are having tonight. People were trying to be funny and humorous, thinking that in that way they would get people on their side. My experience sitting here tonight has been exactly the same as my experience when I sat on the city council in Birmingham in 1964, except that there were 158 people listening to the debate instead of the small number present in your Lordships' House.
It was an important matter and members of the city council—elected members; in a moment I shall come back to this—had to decide to sort the wheat from the chaff, if I can use that expression. It was an important decision we had to take. This was the result of prolonged meetings held by various committees of Birmingham City Council. Let us remember that when local authorities were making these decisions
988
they were guided by their medical officers of health. They made their decisions with all the guidance they received from a very important person in medical terms. The decisions were made democratically by elected representatives. It was after listening to the debates and getting all this information that I gave my support to adding fluoride to the water in Birmingham. We added it to the super water we get from Wales.
I should like to mention the figures for dental decay. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is not present tonight. The area the noble Lord used to represent—Northfield—is one of the largest districts in the Birmingham local authority area. There are statistics which were compiled in the Northfield area, a new development which took place during the time the noble Lord was the Member of Parliament for that area. I should like to compare these statistics with those for Dudley, a local authority in the West Midlands which does not add fluoride. The figures are compiled year after year and they are showing quite clearly that the Northfield children are far ahead of the Dudley children in not having to have dental treatment.
Adding anything to water has always been a contentious issue. I refer again to Birmingham when it was first being decided that we should have water from Wales. This was at the beginning of the century. Because there was a lot of concern about having water from Wales instead of water from wells, an inquiry was set up. I should like to quote from a book by Thomas Barcley; it was published at the beginning of this century. He was reporting on this inquiry, which was concerned with having water from Wales instead of the well water. Under the heading "Objection" he said:
"The drinking of soft moorland water, such as it is proposed to bring from Wales, through its deficiency in lime salts, produces rickets in children; and the well water, which contains lime, is much superior to it".
The person conducting the inquiry said that this was a physician's question, and so Sir James Sawyer was asked to answer. He replied:
"The question is a very wide one; but it may be stated generally that drinking water is better without lime salts, as their presence in it does not prevent rickets or any other disease. These salts may produce special morbid effects"—
and the book goes into great detail on some of the diseases already mentioned, such as,
"goitre and its attendant evils, calculi, and probably also some other diseased conditions in the human subject".
Somebody complained about that wonderful water that we were to get from Wales, which is perhaps the envy of many local authorities in this country, because there was not enough lime in those days.
I return to what other noble Lords have said about democracy. The medical officers of health used to advise local authorities. If that practice had continued, fluoride in water would now have been almost universal in Great Britain. However, in 1974 there was a change in administration which meant that medical officers of health were no longer required by local authorities. There was a reorganisation of the health service and the power of the medical officer was transferred to the area health authorities. We had to start all over again in trying to convince area health

989
authorities. We thought we were doing well, but there was another reorganisation of the health service and in 1982 the area health authorities were transformed into district health authorities. So another group of people had to be convinced of the arguments and none of them involved a democratic organisation. This is the important thing. When people talk about democracy let us ensure that they have it at all levels and not only at levels which suit their convenience.
I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and by my noble friend on the Front Bench, that under Section 11 of the Water Act 1973 it is still the duty of the local authority to ascertain the sufficiency and the wholesomeness of water supplies in its area. In view of this statutory responsibility and the direct accountability to the local electorate I believe that there is a need for an input from local authorities. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, this possibly might merit support for an amendment at the Committee stage. We must remember, too, that privatisation might take place and there would then need to be a more democratic look at the provision of water.
Nobody has this evening mentioned the surveys which were recently conducted in the North-West Regional Health Authority area. They covered Wigan, Manchester and Lancaster and proved quite conclusive. Replies to the question "Do you think that fluoride should be added to water if it can reduce tooth decay?" showed, in various surveys, that 80 per cent., 79 per cent. and 76 per cent. of those people interviewed were in favour of adding fluoride to the water. The surveys covered both sexes and all the various social classes. I think that shows that, contrary to what is said in some quarters, the majority of people still believe that if it can reduce tooth decay, fluoride should be added to water.
I go along with the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches that the experimental period has, in my view, now passed and water fluoridation is universally accepted as a powerful method of preventing dental decay. We need to understand the benefits that this has for children. Fluoride has been proved to be completely safe. It has been proved that it saves teeth. If it saves tooth decay, it prevents suffering of children. Quite obviously—and this must appeal to all noble Lords—it is cost effective. If you do not have to keep on having dental treatment, quite obviously you are saving money when so much money is going into the National Health Service. If we want to reduce dental decay for the nation's children, we should in my view support this Bill this evening.
10.56 p.m.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, I, too, object to being asked to get up so late at night, and there are more unfortunate people to speak after me. It is bad management, and it is easier to say so from these Benches rather than from any others, I suppose.
I must declare that I have always been against additions to water. I came with that in mind. That view has been confirmed much more tonight by two speeches. One is that of the noble Baroness who has just spoken, who posed a loaded question, that if fluoride helps your teeth, would you not like it in your water? For heaven's sake, if somebody said "No" to
990
that, he ought really to be put up against a wall! From the noble Lord, the president of the society, the one question to which I wanted to know the answer tonight is: What is the danger figure? Is it two milligrammes, or three or four? What is the minimum necessary? He did not know. That worries me. Perhaps when the noble Earl comes to answer, he can give us an indication on that point.
I am against it not only as a human being but also as a farmer who studied a bit of animal nutrition at university before going into the Army. I am worried about the effect of fluoride on my cows. If it comes, I am lucky to be in a position, having paid for the right, to extract water from my own sources. I, like most of your Lordships, am rich enough to be able to buy bottled water from whatever source I think is best. I get mine from Belgium at the moment, from the very place called Spa where it all started.
I still go back to the fact that this is forced medication, forced treatment. The next thing will be something put in the water to prevent AIDS. Who knows what can be put in later on? Some argue that it is all right because it is totally natural, it appears everywhere. So does deadly nightshade. It appears at the bottom of your garden. When Socrates took hemlock he knew it was natural and he knew what was going to happen to him when he drank it. Who would drink a glass of fluorine?—nobody here. We have not yet learnt what are the long-term effects. That is what worries me. I absolutely accept all the expertise from doctors and dentists who say that this helps prevent tooth decay in children. I must accept that from all the evidence I have read. What I cannot accept is that we know fully what other effects to the human system might come later on, in 10 or 20 years.
Certainly when it is mixed with calcium I am much more worried about its effects on an animal. It could even have the very reverse effects on a cow's teeth. We can only see that from the studies which are done in the areas which are using it. I hope that that will be done. But I cannot think that other countries who have banned it, changed it or altered it have done so for the wrong reasons. Surely we are not necessarily the only ones who know best.
I take a point also made about the cost. I cannot remember at this time of night where I have heard that. I should have thought that there must be much over-manning if there will be no cost and no extra labour: something is over-manned at the moment in that case.
I am an old man and not many of my teeth are my own. I do not need fluoride in my water, and I hope therefore that I can somehow avoid it without having to pay and to buy myself out of it. I want the choice. If there is some way of giving it to children for only the period they need it, which with the calcium will make that extra enamel, the extra bit going over the teeth to make them proper, good, healthy teeth, then we should do it somehow. But I do not think it should be done by putting fluoride in the water for everybody.
For those of us who are farmers, one of the chief uses of the poison fluorine is the poisoning of rats. It is one of the best poisons there are. If you put it in a little glass phial and watch it go down with the food, you will pick up the dead rats very shortly, a few days afterwards. I

991
would have thought, therefore, as an amateur, that this is a war between experts who have not yet come to a common agreement; and when amateurs—the ordinary people—hear that, then we should start to worry and say, "Wait, wait a bit, before you know". When in doubt, let us insist that we wait for a bit longer.
Secondly and lastly, why not further research into the deeper boring for pure water? I take the point made by the noble Baroness about the excellent water that came from Wales, and which could come from other places if it were looked for. It is not. There is an enormous range of waters at various depths in this country and most other countries, including the desert. Your Lordships will see that I remain against the Bill.
11.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, all natural supplies of drinking water in this country contain fluoride to a greater or lesser extent. In some areas the water contains one part of fluoride per million, that is the optimum from the point of view of preventing decay of the teeth. People who live in those areas are fortunate communities, because they have for centuries experienced less decay in their teeth than people in other areas.
This Bill allows, as it is an enabling measure, additions to be made in other areas of the country in order to adjust to the optimum amount of fluoride. It clarifies the state of the law, restoring it to what had been thought to be the position until the Strathclyde test case. I fully support this Bill, leaving the decisions to be taken locally for different areas.
One reason why I am concerned with this subject is that I was for four years a Minister for Health, and I think I am the only speaker in this debate, other than from the Government or Opposition Front Benches, who has been a Health Minister. As noble Lords will know, I was not under the influence of the DHSS, which has been regarded by previous speakers as a prime mover towards fluoridation. But during that time in the early 1970s, I was able to investigate for myself in full, with all the information and statistics available on a worldwide basis, whether fluoride was as beneficial as some had indicated and whether there were dangers in applying it to water.
Five years ago I initiated the last debate here in your Lordships' House on the subject, on the 15th November 1979. The question which I raised then was on the position of those communities who had enjoyed natural water supplies containing the optimum quantity of fluoride but whose historic benefit was being reduced by amalgamations of supplies, causing dilution of the fluoride, so that those who were enjoying one part per million in their drinking water from natural sources were finding it being reduced to something less. After all, the opponents of interfering with water supplies cannot have it both ways. If they object to fluoride being added, they should object also to it being taken away, in this case the optimum amount being diluted to something less, to the disadvantage of the local resident population. That was a matter that was raised in that debate, which I am glad to say started shortly after five o'clock, in 1979.
992
Here are some facts. It is no longer seriously contested that the optimum amount of fluoride in water leads to great benefits in reducing decay in teeth. It is especially effective if taken from very early childhood, but it is also effective and continues in a valuable and significant way in adult life, too. Let us consider also the fact that for children a great deal of pain from toothache and suffering from visits to dentists, mental as well as physical, can be eliminated.
My debate in 1979 was during the International Year of the Child. If I had then launched a charitable organisation, perhaps called Spare the Children Pain Campaign, money would undoubtedly have come rolling in for it. The paradox is that children can be spared a great deal of pain by this simple measure, at no expense at all. The modest costs of fluoridation are far outweighed by the money saved by the health services, because of the reduction in dental services needed.
The time of the dental profession would be saved. Instead of carrying out many of the fillings and extractions which they do today following decay in teeth, they could concentrate on other useful and positive work and would be more available for appointments. The NHS would be saved millions of pounds if fluoridation were adopted widely. The money saved would be available for other parts of the health services; for example, more hospital facilities and more kidney machines.
The opponents of fluoridation—that is, where fluoridation is necessary because the optimum amount does not already exist naturally—have put forward objections under two headings. The first is safety, though a number of them do not necessarily raise that particular matter; and the second is dislike of what is called mass medication. If I may deal with the first, safety, there is no evidence of ill effects where fluoride exists naturally; for example, in parts of Essex, the Hartlepools and South Shields. It has existed in some of those areas as more than one part per million.
Over the past 30 years there has been intense research into the possibility of dangers, and I am satisfied that everything that has been raised has been dealt with. Our own Royal Commission unanimously recommended, when it reported in the summer of 1979, that fluoridation should be adopted in this country. The judge in the Strathclyde case said he was quite satisfied on the matter of safety. Incidentally, Mrs. McColl who was involved in that case was photographed immediately afterwards drinking a cup of tea, and tea contains a far greater concentration of fluoride than any fluoridation would have produced. The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, asked us who would drink a glass of fluoride. I tell him that every time he drinks a cup of tea he drinks a large quantity of fluoride, compared with what would be in water—
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, I am talking about fluorine.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am talking about fluoride, which is what we are dealing with in this Bill. I did not interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, on this, though I was tempted to do so, because he was talking about his work in the kitchen and gave us an example of boiling water and making stock. But, again, if he

993
had been boiling water to make a pot of tea he would have been producing considerably more fluoride to drink—
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Can he tell us more precisely what he means by "more fluoride"? Is it in excess of one part per million?
Lord Campbell of Croy: Yes, my Lords, in a pot or a cup of tea—more than is suggested in this Bill as being the optimum.
Lord Energlyn: How much more?
Lord Campbell of Croy: That probably depends on the strength of the tea. But certainly I can provide the noble Lord with information about this. As I said, it was commented upon in the newspapers, after Mrs. McColl was seen drinking her tea, that certainly she was not worried about safety.
An article in the Economist in January sums this up. It said that there will always be a few people who will not be convinced about safety. I am sure of that and I agree with it. The article went on to say:
"Some people would disbelieve God if he told them fluoride was safe".
Areas where fluoridation has been carried out and where fluoride has been introduced such as New Zealand and Birmingham have shown nothing to cast doubts on safety.
Then I come to the question of mass medication. Various substances are added to drinking water by water authorities. This has happened for years. Chlorine has already been mentioned but there are other substances as well. It is said by the opponents, "Well, that is to purify the water, not to medicate the drinkers". But no drinking water is pure. It has substances dissolved in it. What the health authorities and the water authorities are required to do is to produce wholesome water for that reason.
The difference between adding chlorine or adding fluoride seems to me to be a matter of sophistry. If a substance such as chlorine is added to obviate tummy troubles, is that very different from adding fluoride in order to prevent and reduce tooth decay? Another objection is to mass nannying. It is suggested that it should be left to parents and perhaps schools to provide a ŕegime of tablets or other means of absorbing fluoride. It should be taken from a very early age. Is it really suggested that children of two or three years of age or even younger should have to be treated by mothers in this way for several years? The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested milk in school, but that is too late. Much of the benefit is absorbed earlier, before school age.
But the suggestion that already harassed mothers today, some doing part-time jobs, should have yet another task with their small children is one that I think does not really make sense. Whether they are living in inner cities, in suburbs or rural areas, whether they are badly off or well to do, it would be an almost impossible task. I am not suggesting that this is a new paradise for children where they will never have to brush their teeth. It is that a remarkable improvement can be made with no extra work and little expense.
994
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, in an entertaining speech, produced a bottle of tablets and pointed out the difficulties of carrying out the directions and the problems which this raised; but I think that he completely supported my view that if it has to be left to individuals and mothers to administer to very small children, it really is creating difficulties and complications. As for the programme, "Yes, Minister", to which the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, referred, my version would be a different one. A Minister as he does, or should do, will be consulting his team at meetings on general subjects and saying, "How can we really make an improvement in health in the area for which we are responsible? How can we really make forward steps?" He would be told, "One thing you could do, a very straightforward, simple and effective method would be fluoridation, but I don't recommend it, Minister. A huge amount of parliamentary time will be wasted on this subject, not by cranks but by people who have been got at by a fanatical international opposition who have created an industry for themselves, an anti-fluoride industry". Well, I congratulate the Ministers in the present Government for rejecting Sir Humphrey's advice and going ahead.
With fluoridation we have an opportunity to make life less painful and more healthy for future generations. While they are small children, those generations will get the most benefit. Should we deny them those benefits? A noble Lord asked earlier: Do all of us have to drink the stuff? I say, yes, and it is a small price to pay for the generations still to be born. At our ages we should be prepared to accept that; it would be selfish not to. I know that all the speakers who have so far spoken against this Bill are kind to children, and would not want to inflict unnecessary pain upon them.
Where local authorities, health or local government authorities decide to adjust the fluoride content as allowed by this Bill, in one decision they will probably do more to improve health in their areas than by any other single action they have ever taken.
11.16 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Government are trying to convince us that this Bill merely restores the position to what it was always imagined to be; in other words, it makes an illegality legal. This reminds me of that old and not terribly funny joke about the Irishman who was asked some complicated directions and replied, "If I were you, I would not be starting from here in the first place", or words to that effect.
Ever since World War II Conservatives have talked about setting the people free; they have told us that Conservative freedom works; they have promised to citizens greater power to make decisions concerning their own future and the future of their families, and so on. Unfortunately, most of the time their actions have contradicted their slogans. The most recent example is the disgraceful volte face on seat belt compulsion. Alan Watkins of the Observer wrote last year that the only freedom granted to us by the Conservatives since May 1979 was the freedom to take or send money abroad, and even this freedom is only provisional, and was never accorded for libertarian reasons anyway. Since then, of course, we have had some minor relaxations governing the sale of spectacles; but that is about all

995
When we saw the distinguished name of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on the list—and I am sorry he is not in his place—there was no need for any of us to wonder what side he would be on, because if you believe that people must jolly well be protected from themselves whether they like it or not in one sphere of human activity, then logically you must take the same view of other areas of human activity. But for many of us the slogan "people must be protected from themselves", in so far as it applies to adults of sound mind, is one of the most insulting phrases in the English language. Almost as insulting is the unspoken corollary that children must be protected from their parents, which seems to be the leitmotiv of this Bill, with its implication that we parents are a lazy and irresponsible lot who stuff our children full of sweets and ice cream and never, never make them brush their teeth.
As my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross pointed out, curiously enough parents do have the right to say "No" to the nanny state over the much more serious matter, if the claims of officialdom are correct, of vaccination against chickenpox. But if this Bill goes through unamended I daresay even that freedom will be on the hit list. One wonders, too, if this measure may not open the door in the future in the event of a serious epidemic of rape, indecent assault and other sexual crimes in, say, Liverpool, to the addition of bromide to the water supply in the area, to be consumed not only by lusty and vigorous males in that area, but by the women and babes in arms. The difficulty for the proponents of fluoridation is that very countries most closely associated with compulsory dogoodery and the nanny state—that is to say, the social democracies of Scandinavia—have, unlike the British, really done their homework on fluoride and have come to the conclusion that it is far too dangerous to add to the water supply.
It happens that nearly every single one of our EEC partners has come to the same conclusion.
I do not go for the "chemical waste disposal conspiracy" theory. I am quite prepared to believe that the proponents of fluoridation are entirely sincere in their paternalism, which is doubtless directed at those socio-economic groups who are fairly infrequent purchasers of toothpaste, even less frequent purchasers of toothbrushes, and who stuff their children with boiled sweets to prevent them crying or moaning. It was the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who hinted that this was in fact the case.
The trouble is that it is this socio-economic group which in adult life tends to drink 9 or 10 cups of tea a day which, as we have already heard, contains a great deal of fluoride already; tea which is often made with water poured from kettles which have been simmering on the hob all day so as to concentrate the fluoride therein. It is this group which tends to eat more tinned, as opposed to frozen, convenience foods—for example, tinned sardines which, again, contain an extremely high proportion of fluoride.
So what this particular socio-economic group gains, or may gain if the claims made for the beneficial effects of fluoride are correct, on the swings in the form of a two-year delay in dental decay it will subsequently lose
996
on the roundabouts in the form of a cumulative build-up of fluoride in various organs of the body—particularly the kidneys and thyroid—possible dental fluorosis, possible skeletal fluorosis, and an increased risk of contracting various allergies.
There is also—and we cannot dismiss this—just a possibility that there may be an increased risk of contracting cancer: there is some correlation between fluoridation of the water supply and increased risk of cancer. In the Royal College of Physicians' report published in 1976 it was shown that deaths from cancer were 9.72 per cent. higher in artificially-fluoridated areas than in other areas. Research in the United States seems to bear out that increase. In the United States, 10 fluoridated areas were compared with 10 areas where no fluoride was added and the death rate in the former was 10 per cent. higher.
That is purely circumstantial evidence and it could be merely a coincidence; there could be other factors which would explain the increase. But nobody knows for certain either way. It is a possibility.
As I understand it, old people of every socioeconomic group will be more at risk in so far as ingestion of fluoride in any quantity makes bones more brittle. Anything one hardens—be it steel, bones in the body or teeth in the head—inevitably becomes more brittle at the same time; there is no escaping this. So elderly people who slip and fall on icy pavements in winter, as they tend to do, will be just that little bit more vunerable.
I said earlier, that opposition to compulsory fluoridation was originally strongest in Scandinavia and among our EEC partners. Indeed it was the thorough researches of Dutch GPs, biologists, neurologists, pharmacologists and dermatologists in 1972 which led to the banning of fluoridation of the water supply in the Netherlands in 1976. Evidence of the danger of fluoridation—that is, up-to-date evidence, because I do not mean stale evidence—also comes from North America, most recently from the University of California, and from the South American continent where, as my noble friend Lord Charteris mentioned, research by the co-discoverer of streptomycin, Dr. Albert Schatz, resulted in the banning of fluoridation in Chile.
My noble friend also reminded your Lordships of the four Nobel prizewinners who have independently come to the conclusion that fluoride presents a danger. Increasingly there is opposition, too, from medical quarters in Britain. Articles in medical and scientific journals demonstrate a growing scepticism. The British Cancer Centre—opened by Prince Charles, incidentally—has banned fluoride in any form. A former professor of pharmacology at Trinity College in Dublin who is now practising in Scotland has established another link between fluoride and allergies.
A number of prominent academics, scientists and medical men connected with Reading University have come out in total opposition to fluoridation. They include the Professor of Food Science at Reading University, the Professor of Organic Chemistry at Reading University, a consultant bacteriologist, a consultant surgeon at the Royal Berkshire hospital, a physician, a dental surgeon and a visiting professor at

997
Reading University. They help me, incidentally, to counter the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that there is no harm in fluoride in recommended concentrations. They point out that some people, drink up to 25 times more water than others, particularly those suffering from chronic ailments such as diabetes and kidney disease.
What is more, an increasing number of dentists are now opposing fluoridation, not only on non-dental grounds, such as I have already mentioned, but on dental grounds, too. Fluoride certainly hardens teeth but it also makes them more brittle, and therefore liable to break or splinter. As someone who over the years has had more than my fair share of both caries and broken teeth, may I assure your Lordships that having a broken tooth repaired is a damned sight more painful and indeed more costly than having a cavity filled.
So we come back to the basic moral issue. It is bad enough to compulsorily medicate those who might benefit from such medication without their consent, but far worse to medicate those who cannot possibly benefit from the medication, and indeed may in many instances—not all, but many—be harmed by it.
Most of us have assumed that only 17 per cent. of the population could benefit from fluoridation: in other words, those of 12 years of age or less. However, a prominent dental surgeon practising in the West End writes to say that fluoride is absolutely no use after the age of six, by which time a child's teeth are fully formed in the gum. He says that,
"after this time the ingestion of fluoride can have no beneficial effects whatsoever."
From this letter one can deduce that only 9 per cent. of the population can conceivably benefit from fluoridation at the time of ingestion, with the remaining 91 per cent. being at risk from side effects to a greater or lesser degree. Therefore, fluoridation of the water supply, as opposed for example to the fluoridation of school milk, is not only immoral in that it almost certainly endangers a minority of individuals who will suffer from one or other of the adverse conditions I have mentioned, but also grossly wasteful.
As my noble friend said, it is a bad Bill, but I hope that we shall be able to make it somewhat less bad in Committee.
11.28 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should begin by declaring a non-interest in the Bill. As a dentist this is going to do me out of business and, therefore, I of all people should be opposing it. Indeed, I suspect that those dentists to whom the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred as an increasing number who are opposing the Bill might be connected with the fall-off in demand for dentistry generally, and particularly with the new charges now coming in. I am, therefore, sorry to hear that my colleagues are losing their great care for the public because of their worry about their own pockets if there is not enough dental business. So I definitely declare a non-interest in that the Bill is opposed to my financial interests. Nevertheless, I think it is the right thing to do and for that reason I strongly support the Government on this Bill.
998
We have heard very interesting speeches, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I was interested in what he said about the Borrow dental milk because that is well known, but it is true that because it comes at school age it not so beneficial and it is very much harder to distribute to people. Therefore, I do not think that that is the answer. But, of course, through his means he would keep more dentists employed filling teeth.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, regretted that this was only an enabling Bill, and I agree with him on that. I am sorry that it is only an enabling Bill. I should much prefer it to be mandatory on all water suppliers everywhere. When one sees the opposition that we are getting now on what is simply a formality, think of the opposition that we should have then!
Questions have been asked by many speakers about the quantity—one part per million—and what level is satisfactory and what is not. The very first sign of any change at all in the human frame begins at something like twice that level and is indicated by a degree of white mottling on the front teeth. At about, I think, four times that there is brown mottling on the teeth. That is how the beneficial effect of fluoride was first discovered. There were areas in the United States where the people all had brown mottled teeth. They had no other illnesses or ill effects of any sort, but they had unattractive brown mottled teeth, and they were completely free of dental decay. It is an important point for the public to realise. Long before there is even the remotest suggestion that the level is such as to cause any harmful effect whatever, there are aesthetic effects on the appearance of the teeth.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, is not here, so it is rather bad luck. When he talks about putting fluoride in the water, I would ask him, what about all the chlorine that occurs naturally in water, and what about those areas with naturally high fluoride levels and high levels of other elements? The level of elements occurring in the water supply varies tremendously.
It is very important of course that fluoridation should be under the control of water authorities which are able accurately to monitor the level. There is no doubt that in some areas of naturally fluoridated supply, as well as provided supply, the level could be too high and some should be taken out. That point has been referred to by other speakers.
A number of noble Lords have suggested that people should take fluoride tablets. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, produced a bottle. I have had a lot of experience of fluoride tablets over many years. I have been in practice in this country as a dentist for about 30 years. Originally the tablets were the only thing that we could offer people. I took them ante-natally for the sake of my unborn children. My eldest child had white mottled teeth because it is difficult to control the precise dosage by those tablets. A lot depends on what age the child's enamel is formed. That child got her teeth early, so the dosage was higher than if she had got her teeth a bit later.
I have given the tablets to many, many patients over the years. This is where the arguments brought forward on the socio-economic groups are so important. The less intelligent patient believes that if

999
half a tablet is good, a whole tablet is better, and two even better still. They all run the risk either of totally forgetting to give the tablets to the children or giving them far too many. That would never be a danger with a correctly regulated amount in the water supply. I cannot accept that tablets are a satisfactory solution.
I think that the question of civil liberties has been brought up so many times because all other arguments seem to have run thin. All the health scares have really been disproved and I do not think we can attach any importance to them. In areas such as Birmingham, for example, there is no higher incidence of cancer than in any surrounding area, yet there is such a difference in the amount of dental decay that the dental schools in the area have to bus children in to find enough holes in teeth to have the teaching material for their students. That is very significant.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that by putting fluoride into the water supply the most disadvantaged get the benefit. That is a very important point. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that caries had decreased equally in fluoride and non-fluoride areas. That is not so at all, and the facts make that clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, mentioned that the polio and rubella prevention campaigns have been very successful, as has the diphtheria campaign. If immunising against diphtheria were stopped tomorrow, it would be as great a killer as it ever was. She said that in Birmingham it was the elected members who made the fluoride decision in 1965. None of us could say that there was any lack of free choice there. It was the elected representatives who made that decision and have continued that situation.
When children come to the dentist on their first visit with dental caries—and I have seen plenty of them with their teeth pretty well flat to the gum—they are bad patients for life; and they really get off to such a bad start when they come in in pain, their teeth having kept them awake all night in agony. They are nervous when they arrive and they are never better afterwards.
The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, asked about the danger level. I have dealt with that point. But he also mentioned that he uses bottled water. Of course, that is a free choice available to him. If he does not want to consume from the ordinary water supply, he is quite free to use bottled water. But what about the other effects? He said, "What about cost?" Compare the cost of fluoridating the water with the cost of supplying all the fillings that have been needed in the past for children. He wanted the children to have fluoride in some other way and, of course, used his greatest siren voice when he said, "Let's wait a little longer". We have been doing that for far too long already.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, told us about the optimum of 1 part per million. That is correct. It is the optimum. It is by no means a maximum. It is by no means a safe level, or the amount you can have without intoxicity. It is the optimum. It is aesthetically the best; it gives you the best-looking appearance as well as being totally harmless. He said—and I think that he is right—that we at our age should be prepared to accept fluoride in water for the sake of children.
I would not agree with him if we were putting ourselves at risk. That would be a different situation.
1000
But when we ourselves have nothing to lose, and the safety of this procedure is clearly established, then it is only right that we should think of the children.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned seat belts. I must say that the great success of the seat-belt legislation has confirmed the very solid medical opinion supporting the introduction of seat belts. In fact, he gave us alarmist talk about bromide. I thought that his talk was the most alarmist of all. And not only bromide, but cancer. After all, if we got as far as the 11th speaker without having mentioned the cancer scare, then we have done pretty well on this. But the facts again in Birmingham show that this is all an unnecessary worry.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Baroness say how she is so sure that we are right and the other EEC countries and Scandinavia are wrong?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I will reply to that by saying that I believe those decisions to reverse fluoridation there were not based on dental or health grounds, but simply on that same element of freedom of choice. I would mention also that there was an earlier experiment in Scotland where fluoride was introduced in a certain local authority area by the free choice of the elected members. Dental decay fell by 60 per cent. There was a change in control of that council and they removed it from the water. Caries went up by 60 per cent. Few people would accept that they could have their lives played around with to that extent: to be given something beneficial and good and then see it taken away. But that proves conclusively that it did have this beneficial effect dentally. It also makes the point that, for various political reasons such as the civil liberties arguments advanced tonight, people do make decisions to take the fluoride out.
I did not understand at all, and perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord's point, when he said that those who were slimming were more at risk. Perhaps I misheard his words. I am pleased to see him shaking his head to indicate that that is not right. Then he said that fluoride had no effect whatever after the age of six. That is not correct. It is true that most of the enamel on the permanent teeth, excluding the wisdom teeth, is formed by about the age of six. But your wisdom teeth are formed after that period and the fluoride does go on having an effect in the production of the dentine which is the inner layer of the teeth and it continues to be beneficial.
Another thing that the ladies might like to hear is that it has a beneficial effect in preventing "dowagers' hump"—when you become a bit stooped and develop a bulge at the back of your neck. I think that if that were publicised more widely, a lot of women would be demanding it as a beauty treatment. However, I really must deplore the scare tactics that are being used. I must point out that every standing dental advisory committee and every standing medical advisory committee since the war has supported the introduction of fluoride in the water; and I must support this Bill, which is only an enabling Bill, to allow those authorities who are already using fluoride in their water to continue to do so without any legal worry or concern. Any future fluoridation will, as has

1001
been said, be carefully debated and considered by other authorities before its introduction. I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill.
11.40 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I am not going to argue the scientific case against the safety and efficacy of fluoridating water supplies. There is evidence both for and against doing so. It seems to me that the case is non-proven. There is no consensus. In spite of that, the Government are pushing this Bill through Parliament. But not long ago, on the occasion of the Second Reading of Lord Thurso's District Salmon Fishery Boards (Scotland) Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, who has, alas, vanished like a wraith from the Chamber again, said à propos the problems of legislating:
"I believe that we must seek a consensus".—
[Official Report, 19/2/85; cols. 548–549.]
Yet this Bill is being pushed through Parliament with no consensus, although it is scarcely a matter of the preservation of the species, as it was with the salmon.
But that is not all. The Government have no mandate for flogging this Bill through Parliament with a Whip. Had there been no payroll Whip on in another place at Third Reading, the outcome might have been rather different. As the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said in a most brilliant and entertaining speech, it was not part of the Government's election manifesto. Nor was it mentioned in the Queen's Speech either at the beginning of this Session or at the beginning of last Session. Yet it is a Bill to make it legal for water authorities, described in it as statutory water undertakers—which gives me visions of watery graves—at the request of health authorities, to add fluoride to water supplies, not to make the water safe to drink or even to make it taste less nasty, but to have a specific physical effect on a minority of the population. It is to allow two non-elected bodies, who are not answerable to the electorate, compulsorily to medicate that electorate who, as the Bill stands, will have neither the means nor the opportunity of refusing that medication. It is both totally undemocratic and the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge.
I hope that there will not be a Division. But, in the event that there is a Division tonight, I shall abstain because I simply cannot support the Bill.
11.42 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, many people outside this House, and occasionally even some noble Lords, regard fluoridation as tedious and trivial. Their eyes become glazed at the mention of the subject. In reality, the debate highlights profound issues of politics, even morality. It recalls a memorable phrase by Sir Lewis Namier, the great historian of Parliament:
"In a drop of dew can be seen the colours of the sun".
I know little about medicine or dentistry. But I know enough about academic and scientific debate to recognise whether dissenters from an official, widely articulated viewpoint are mere obscurantists or cranks, or whether there are grounds for legitimate disagreement. The case for fluoridation may not be conclusive even on medical or dental grounds. The opponents may be right that it can be damaging. We
1002
must also remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, has reminded us, that fluoridation ultimately treats people, not water. However, the central issue is not medical at all, but political and moral.
Dental decay is not infectious or contagious. It cannot be passed on to others. The sole cost to other people is treatment under the NHS of those whose teeth have decayed, a matter to which I shall return. Dental decay can be checked by simple oral hygiene, by regular cleaning of teeth, and by self-control and family control in the consumption of sugar and sugary substances. It can be checked also by using readily available inexpensive fluoride tablets.
Advocates of fluoridation regard it as a manifestation of the caring society. They assume, or expect, that people cannot, will not, or perhaps should not, look after their own well-being and that of their children. Fluoridation by local authorities is an unequivocal instance of the redistribution of responsibility. It subtracts from the responsiblity of individuals and families to look after their own health and welfare, and it adds to the coercive power of the state. There is not even the pretence or semblance of help for the needy or the unfortunate. Nor does fluoridation protect public health, as dental decay is neither infectious nor contagious.
But is not fluoridation justified because many people with preventable dental decay are being treated under the NHS and thus impose costs on their fellow citizens? This has been mentioned by several noble Lords. Does not fluoridation reduce this burden? The net saving under this heading is uncertain because the total effects of fluoridation are still disputed and also because its administration involves costs in money and time additional to those of its immediate application. This was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley. But preoccupation with debatable costs diverts attention from the central issue.
People's use of the NHS is much affected by how they live, what they eat and drink, what sports they pursue, and many other aspects of their conduct. The number of children they have affects the costs that they impose on tax-financed education, health and recreational services. The sinister truth is that the claim for fluoridation—that it saves money for the NHS—could be extended to justify close state control of virtually all aspects of people's lives, including eating, drinking and procreation.
Reallocation of responsibility between private citizens and agents of the state is a major component of the welfare state, notably of the NHS. But this is often not immediately clear because redistribution of responsibility is commonly intertwined with redistribution of income and care for the needy. Fluoridation is an unambiguous and unadulterated case of redistribution of responsibility unleavened by redistribution of income or help to the unfortunate. It thus throws into the sharpest relief the true nature of the claims of those who wish persistently to extend the scope of what they call the caring society. What they envisage is a society very different from that of compassionate persons, who are ready to assist those in need, but who respect the right of their fellow men to arrange their own lives whenever possible.

1003
"Big Brother loves you", or at any rate he embraces you; and you have to submit, like it or not. Or perhaps we should talk of the nanny state rather than the big brother state, as one noble Lord has suggested. I am not sure which is more appropriate, but the nanny state is more topical, since the establishment of a Minister for Children is now proposed, and apparently not in jest.
The nanny state treats all private citizens as children who cannot be held responsible for their conduct and who are deemed incapable of looking after their own welfare and that of their families. They must accept the ministrations of their nannies. They must be protected from themselves. They are diminished, dwarfed, shrunken to the status of useful pets—so long as their conduct pleases their self-appointed masters.
11.50 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I can hardly say how much I disagree both with the philosophy and with the facts of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. There is one matter that I should like to raise and that is that he seems to feel that public health should only deal with infectious disease. More and more public health has to deal with other forms of human suffering, whether these be environmental, nutritional or due to an ageing, degenerating population. Less and less do we have to deal with the problems of infectious diseases.
The positive benefits of fluoride in drinking water in the optimum proportion are now accepted almost universally by all reputable scientific authorities. I do not think there is an argument here, just as Lord Jauncey was clear about this in his judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has pointed out that there are many parts of the world where this optimum proportion, that is one part per million of fluoride, is equalled or exceeded in the natural water supply. There are several such areas in Britain, notably Hartlepool, as the noble Lord mentioned, where 100,000 people live, which has a level of 1.4 parts per million. No harmful effects have been noted among people there and their teeth are much freer from decay than in most other parts of the country.
I regard fluoridation to one part per million as a correction of a relative deficiency, rather than as an addition of an unnatural substance or drug. A close parallel exists with the addition of iodine in areas where there is a deficiency and where goitre is common, such as Derbyshire and several areas in Switzerland and other parts of the world. For maximum benefit fluoride needs to be given very early in childhood, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, while the teeth are being formed.
In this aspect there is a parallel with a much more serious scourge—that of coronary heart disease. With teeth, once dental caries have developed, there is only marginal gain from administering fluoride. Similarly with arterial disease, once the atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease can be detected, changes in lifestyle, such as diet or exercise, have a marginal effect on the progress of the arterial disease. I will make one exception to that and that is smoking: stopping smoking really does help to stop the progression of the disease. All the evidence is that, to be beneficial, all the
1004
proper dietary habits in regard to heart disease—that is fewer saturated fats, more polyunsaturated fats, more fibre, less salt, less sugar or other refined carbohydrates—must start early in childhood in order to be effective. It is interesting that the last three aspects of diet that I have mentioned are also beneficial in preventing dental caries.
This is one of the arguments, as the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Campbell of Croy, have pointed out, why putting fluoride in milk will not be adequate. For instance, some babies—one needs to give it in very early childhood—are breastfed, some drink much more milk than others, and some hate milk and will not touch it. But everyone has to drink water in approximately the same quantities, at least a much less variable quantity. Of course, water can be in various forms but any liquid, anything that we drink, is basically composed of water. The variation in water intake is much less than the variation in milk intake. If you rely on fluoride in milk you will range from a position of giving too much fluoride to a position of not giving enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, mentioned that high levels of calcium and magnesium are present in parallel with high fluoride in the districts concerned and that they are protective. But Birmingham has soft water and no ill effects from fluoride have been noted, as my noble friend Lady Fisher has clearly pointed out. I could go on, my Lords. A number of other points could be taken up. But it is becoming late. I should like to say that I have no hesitation at all in supporting this very modest Bill.
11.56 p.m.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, I think it is only right to declare that I established the first laboratory in the world to study biogeochemistry. This is the subject about which we are talking tonight: the function of mineral matter in the body cells of animals and plants. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, will agree with that. If we look at this process, what is the magical effect of this element fluorine upon the formation or destruction of bone tissue in the bodies of animals and plants?
I pressed the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, to explain why this level of toxicity—because that is what it is—is assessed to be one part in one million. I asked him why it was not two parts, three parts, four parts or 10 parts. From where did this figure come? It came from people such as myself who have for four years been using hydrofluoric acid in substantial quantities, and we know from bitter experience—and I emphasise bitter experience—that if flourine is present in the atmosphere of our fume chambers, we are facing disaster. The most noticeable effect is that the fume chamber collapses. The next effect is that we find our skin becoming subject to scurvy; our hair becomes brittle. There have been some very tragic cases of young scientists who have died of leukaemia. This is a dangerous halogen. It is the most dangerous of all the halogens. It will dissolve everything. This is why we use it for the analysis of rocks.
This fluorine is put in the water. The compounds that are chosen have been chosen deliberately to be compounds which will not dissociate in the water but which will distribute themselves uniformly through

1005
the water. That is the claim—that it can therefore be controlled in one part per million.
People talk—rather nonsensically, if I may say so—about large quantities of fluorine in water, far in excess of one part in a million. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned tea. He is talking about fluorine connected with caffeine. He is not talking about free fluorine. When one looks at the analysis of the water that people refer to as rich in fluorine, one is looking at calcium fluoride. It should follow that if calcium fluoride was a very beneficial substance to have in your water, the finest teeth in Britain should be in Derbyshire and the Pennines, where the greatest deposits of calcium fluoride exist.
Part of the Bill says that it will cost us nothing to add fluorine to the water; that is what the Bill tells us. When you talk about the cost of fluorspar, which is the source of hydrofluoric acid from which these chemicals are to be made, you are talking about a substance which is worth between £20 and £50 a tonne; and we produce only about 130,000 tonnes of it in this country. We import just as much from America, because it is all used up in the smelting of iron and steel and ceramics.
Calcium fluoride is not a substance that will enter the bloodstream and it has got to enter the bloodstream before it can have any effect upon our teeth. The closest we have got to an understanding of this process, as we would expect, was from the noble Baroness, a dentist. She explained how this whole idea began, by the development of brown teeth. What are brown teeth? Brown teeth are not calcium phosphate; they are calcium fluorophosphate, and the more fluorine you have in the molecules, the browner the molecule becomes.
Secondly, you then have to have this fluorine entering the bloodstream. Are you going to accept the naïve fact that the blood will then convey all this fluorine to your teeth and nowhere else? That would be far too naïve an observation. Of course it will go elsewhere. And where will it go? It will go in search of calcium, where it can be again crystallised into calcium fluorophospate. And where does that happen? That happens in the elastic layer of our arteries; and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, this is where you get the real side-effect—that the more fluorine we drink the greater is the potentiality of the fluoridation of our arteries.
If your Lordships do not believe me, let us take the statistics behind which the "fluoridisers" take great comfort. The West Midlands, they say, is now practically under control so far as caries is concerned. But let us look at the mortality statistics, which one can never deny. This is what the Ministry says:
"On the SMR basis, deaths in the West Midlands (RHA area) caused by diseases of pulmonary circulation and other heart diseases exceed the national average by 10 per cent.".
That was in 1980. In 1982 it had increased by 3 per cent. for females and by 2 per cent. for males. In 1983 it was a 5 per cent. increase for males and a 6 per cent. increase for females. So here we have statistics which are as vivid as the ones for caries, which indicate that if you have excess fluorine in your bloodstream, your chances of developing heart disease are increased. So what is the choice? The choice, my Lords, seems to me
1006
to be that you go along with the "fluoridisers", with flashing teeth and a weak heart, or you go along with people such as myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, who drink bottled water; and we will go through life with sound hearts and false teeth.
12.4 a.m.
The Earl of Yarborough: My Lords, I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour, but I want to take part in this debate, even for a short time, as I have for some 20 years now been an opponent of fluoride in water supplies and this seems too good an opportunity to miss. Fortunately, most of the arguments I wanted to put have already been placed before your Lordships and I have no wish to repeat them all; nor, indeed, would your Lordships wish me to do so.
I base my objections to this Bill on the moral or ethical grounds that it is mass medication. I am afraid that I cannot accept the argument that fluoride is only one chemical among many that are put into the water supply. It is the only one that is put in with the intent—I think that the lawyers call it mens rea — of bringing about a physiological change in the recipient; that is, the consumer. I call it mass medication. It is also compulsory, because when you live in a fluoridated area you have no means of avoiding drinking the water from the taps. It is very unselective. The target may be young children from 5 to 15 or so, but it hits everybody up to old age pensioners with no teeth and everybody in between.
Secondly, I wish to invite your Lordships to accept that there is considerable doubt about the safety of this process. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, because I was going to suggest that it was evident that experts differ. We have had assurances this evening that it has been tested time and time again and nobody has ever discovered any ill effects. But the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, raises doubts anew in my heart. When experts disagree, then it is reasonable to say that there is a doubt. I think that the question mark is a fairly large one. But, be that as it may, doubt there must surely be.
That is emphasised by what we have been told by several noble Lords already, that other countries have had doubts, particularly Holland and, even more so, Sweden, where they threw it out on pharmacological and medical grounds and not just on moral grounds and on the issue of mass medication. As I said, I do not think there is any doubt about the mass medication. It came up in Lord Jauncey's judgment. He called it mass medication and he said:
"To use the water supply for mass medication is without precedent or legal authority and is illegal",
and this Bill has been brought in, as I understand it, as a result of that judgment.
There is just one area which I do not think has been touched upon and that is the effect of fluoride on the environment as a whole. Your Lordships have heard that it is produced by fertiliser factory emissions, aluminium processing and so on, and there is a lot of it around. Reference was made to its effect on cows, for which I can vouch. It is very damaging when it comes through the air and onto the ground and the cows eat the herbage. It is a very toxic, long-term poison, the effects of which are not apparent at once.

1007
I have never understood why anyone should suppose that if you put fluoride into the water the recipients receive it into their bodies and it goes straight to their teeth. The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, has now explained what happens and it is as I always suspected. It must have an effect on the whole person. The other point about the environment is that it seems to me that there is almost a sea change nowadays in people's concern about everything to do with their environment. They are concerned about air pollution, about pollution in rivers and about pollution from pesticides, spray drifts and so on. That concern extends to what they eat and, presumably, to what they drink and ingest. I think that this accounts for a great deal of the very strong feeling against fluoridation.
I know that this Bill was presented as more or less a fairly innocuous enabling Bill—nothing much to make a fuss about; just a little tidying up to be done to put things back to where they were supposed to be or were thought to have been. The proceedings in another place must surely have indicated that the feeling against it is very strong indeed and is not something that is likely to go away. I prophesy that it will continue and even grow stronger as time goes by, whatever the ultimate fate of this Bill may be. Personally, I think that the Government were unwise to bring the Bill forward at this time. I detect a tide flowing, and I think that that tide is on the make; and I am very much afraid that the Government are swimming against it.
12.11 a.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, as you can imagine, I would have much to say on this subject, but owing to the lateness of the hour I have rejected many of my notes and I have put aside the arguments about cancer; the cumulative poisoning effects of fluoride; the inhibitive effects on the enzymes; about kidney disease; the risk to the elderly, the under-nourished and the unborn; and the problems of hydrogen bonding. However, before I go on, I must declare an interest as a dental surgeon and also as a vice-president of the Fluoridation Society.
In fact of course it is not in my interests to speak in favour of this legislation this evening as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has mentioned, for it will ultimately put my profession out of work. We are discussing a preventive measure which has been more carefully researched, more widely examined, and more comprehensively tested than any other aspect of public health. We know that it works and we know it is harmless.
At a time when the dental profession is suffering from an unfavourable public image, with horror stories in the press and on TV about mythical high earners and over-prescribing within the NHS—and now the continued persecution by the Government by the introduction of new charges—we have a measure to benefit our patients which is virtually 100 per cent. accepted within the profession and yet will considerably affect their ability to practise dentistry by cutting down on the amount of work that will be needed to repair decayed teeth.
1008
Dentistry has changed. When I first qualified in the mid-1960s most of my time was spent repairing the ravages of dental decay in patients between four and 24 years old. This frequently necessitated the removal of teeth from children often as young as three years old—not a pleasant experience for the child or for the operator. Now it is possible, I suppose, that I am cushioned from the harsh realities of dental life in my Wimpole Street practice; but there is no doubt that this sort of dentistry no longer exists in most parts of the country. This is partly due to the fluoridation of some areas, but also to the improvement of preventive techniques in and out of the surgery.
Of course we can apply topical fluorides and suggest the use of fluoridised toothpastes, but these measures will not be available to the 50 per cent. of the population who do not regularly see a dentist or the 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the population who do not even own a tooth brush. I have no wish to repeat all the arguments and statistics, some of which have been discussed this evening and on other occasions in your Lordships' House, because our argument has been clearly documented.
With the addition of one part per million of fluoride to water, we have the safest, most widely available method of bringing prevention to patients who do not seek first-hand advice from the dental surgery as well as the regular attenders. I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments now as I feel it would be an insult to the intelligence of all noble Lords who are able to examine and discuss this issue in a logical and unemotional manner, I should, however, like to answer one or two points that have come up during the evening.
The noble Lords, Lord Charteris and Lord Harris of High Cross, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the problem of mass medication. Fluoridation is not mass protection, but an adjustment of the normal constituents of natural water to its optimum content from the standpoint of public health. It is not medication, and hence it is not compulsory. "Medication" means to cure. Fluoridation does not cure dental decay, just as chlorine does not cure cholera. Both chlorine and fluoride prevent disease; both are forms of community prevention.
The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, and the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, asked why 1 ppm has been selected as the optimum dose. The answer is that it is the level at which the optimum benefits occur. Normal use involves the ingestion of about 1 to 1.25 milligrams of fluoride. Death occurs after the ingestion of 2,500 milligrams, severe symptoms after about 125 milligrams and some chronic symptons after about 20 milligrams.
Lord Energlyn also talked about the distribution of fluoride. It does go to bone, and it does go to areas in the arteries where there is calcium, but the figures that he mentioned are isolated and showed no comparison with figures in other areas. I do feel it is of little relevance, and should not be considered when we are only talking about 1ppm.
At this late stage to bring a little light-heartedness into our debate, I should like to quote a few words

1009
from an article in the Sunday Times of as long ago as May 1971, when Norman Mischler quoted the discovery of a new substance and said:
"The discovery is announced of a new firefighting agent, to add to the existing range; it is known as W-A-T-E-R, a Wonderful and Totally Extinguishing Resource. It makes rather than replaces existing agents such as dry powder and BCF—bromine/ chlorine/fluorine, which have been in use from time immemorial. It is particularly suitable for dealing with fires in buildings, timber yards and warehouses. Though required in large quantities, it is fairly cheap to produce and it is intended that quantities of about a million gallons should be stored in urban areas and other installations of high risk ready for immediate use. BCF and dry powder are usually stored under pressure. But water will be stored in open ponds or reservoirs and conveyed to the scene of the fire by hoses and portable pumps.
The new proposals are already encountering strong opposition, from safety and environmental groups. It has been pointed out that if anyone immersed their heads in a bucket of water it would prove fatal in as little as three minutes. Each of the proposed reservoirs will contain enough water to fill 500,000 2-gallon buckets, each could be used a hundred times so there is enough water in one reservoir to kill the entire population of the United Kingdom.
Risks of this size, it is said, should not be allowed, whatever the gain. If the water were to get out of control, the results of Flixborough or Seveso would pale into insignificance by comparison. What use is a firefighting agent that can kill men as well as fire? A spokesman for the fire brigades said he did not see the need for a new agent. Dry powder and BCF could cope with most fires. The new agent would bring with it risks, particularly with firemen, greater than any possible gain. Did we know what would happen to this new medium when it was exposed to intense heat? It had been reported that water was a constituent of beer. Did this mean that firemen would be intoxicated by the fumes? The Friends of the World said they claimed a sample of water and found that it caused clothes to shrink. If it did this to cotton, what would it do to men?"
I should like to say a few words about the ethics of fluoridation and try to explain why I do not consider fluoridation of water supplies to be an interference with individual freedom. The question of how far the rights of individuals in the society should be controlled in the general public interest is one that cannot be assessed by any scientific inquiry. Fundamental rights are not absolute rights. Individual liberty should never be allowed to supersede the necessary limitations which must be imposed in the general interest of a viable society.
The conflict between the individual's right to live life as he pleases and the necessary demands of an orderly, civilised and healthy society is the essential basis of individual liberty as we know it. Fluoridation of the water supplies does not cause any harmful effect to health or to comfort, other than the injury to a personal sense of liberty.
This may be a serious matter to those who, having been persuaded, wrongly, that water fluoridated with one part per million will injure their health, will be distressed by the difficulty of avoiding it. The fact that some consider that fluoridation is mainly intended to benefit children introduces a difficulty for those who object on the ground of personal freedom.
There are some who claim that the principle involves the right of parents to determine what was, or was not, good for their children. The fact is that, in the interests of children as a class, society has long recognised—and accepts without reservation as right and proper—a considerable limitation on the rights of parents to do what they like in regard of their children's health, education and welfare.
In fact, the very evidence of the prevalence of dental decay in some groups of children makes it clear that
1010
reliance on parental responsibility is not an answer to the problem. However, some opponents of fluoridation do not see it in such terms. To them, fluoridation of the communal water supplies is an invasion of liberty; a moral objection and an infringement of personal rights.
I cannot understand what motivates individuals to object in this way. It would be a perfectly reasonable objection if, by adding fluoride to drinking water, the water became unpalatable or constituted a risk to health. But fluoridated water, unlike chlorinated water, does not affect the taste; neither does it constitute a health hazard. If water fluoridation is safe and effective, the freedom to drink fluoridated water is totally inconsequential. One might expect a person with no teeth at all, for example, to display magnanimity by admitting that even if fluoridated water did not benefit him, it would benefit his children, grandchildren and future generations.
Denial of this benefit is a denial of their human rights. Looked at in this way, the ethical argument of the anti-fluoride lobby is utterly self-defeating. This pseudo-high moral rectitude just when it suits them hardly benefits the anti-fluoride lobby. They have no ethical consideration when they persistently put out false rumours—for example, about cancer and cot deaths—and they have no ethical scruples about denying the right of others to benefit.
Fluoride is a natural constituent of water supplies and other foods. The adjustment of its content to an optimum level cannot be compared with the addition to water of a substance not normally found in water. We have heard this evening about all the other substances that are added to our foods to make them wholesome. Although I have sympathy with the objectors on moral grounds, I am unable to follow their arguments in a logical, unemotional manner.
I regret the Government's delay in introducing this legislation, which has cost the taxpayer thousands of pounds in recent years—but better late than never. I warmly welcome this Bill and look forward to the end of the controversy that has been associated with this measure, at the expense of our health, for 25 or more wasted years.
12.23 a.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had today the first opportunity for several years to debate the subject of water fluoridation. The debate has been lively and well informed, and I hope it will be agreed that all aspects of the subject have been well aired.
As might have been anticipated, the debate focused on the major issues of the benefit to dental health, the very important question of safety, and the no less important consideration of the ethics of water fluoridation. I should like, if I may, to reply to the debate under these main headings as well as tackling some of the very significant points which have been raised.
After the excellent speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Winstanley, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes, Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Campbell of Croy, I hope that your

1011
Lordships will be prepared to accept that all the evidence collected in this country shows clearly that fluoridation of the water supplies is an effective means of reducing dental decay and in the right proportions is beneficial. I do not believe that it could have been put more clearly than in the speech of my noble friend Lord Colwyn.
With regard to alternative methods, the Government, of course, accept the importance of dental health education, but we regard this as complementary to the provision of fluoride supplementation. Other forms of fluoride supplementation exist, and, in particular, the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste in recent years is considered to have contributed markedly to the general reduction in dental decay. We have also heard about milk from the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who, I understand, is a consultant of the Borrow Dental Milk Foundation, and from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who made a very useful contribution on this point. Although I freely admit that fluoridated milk does help, nevertheless it is only water fluoridation that has all the advantages of reaching the whole of a given community, of not requiring conscious effort on the part of the recipient nor administration by skilled, and expensive, dental staff, and of being highly cost-effective. For these reasons we believe the option of water fluoridation should continue to be available to health authorities.
With regard to safety, and, in particular, the allegation that fluoridation induces cancer—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, although he agreed that it did not—I should like, if I may, to refer to the remarks of the chief medical officer in the preface to the report of the Knox Committee which was published at the beginning of the year. He said:
"The present Report of the Working Party on the Fluoridation of Water and Cancer draws together the many relevant epidemiological studies, including several analyses commissioned by the Working Party itself. The Report concludes that there is nothing in this extensive range of studies, covering altogether very large populations, to suggest that fluoride or fluoridation, 'is capable of inducing cancer or of increasing the mortality from cancer.' Indeed, the Report goes further and states that in view of the very large human populations which have been observed it can be concluded that 'in this respect the fluoridation of drinking water is safe'. The opposite opinion is still voiced in some quarters but the Report demonstrates that elementary misinterpretations of the facts are responsible for that conclusion".
I believe that with this level of assurance we may with confidence recommend the Water (Fluoridation) Bill to the House in so far as the safety of water fluoridation is concerned.
I am somewhat disappointed by my noble friend Lord Yarborough who, if I may say so, made a very good, almost second maiden speech on fluoridation. He made his first on 15th November 1979 and at that time asked for a judicial review. We had one under Lord Jauncey—201 days. The very best of the anti-fluoridation lobby were presented to Lord Jauncey. In particular, there was a Dr. Burk from America who was supposed to be an expert on cancer. This is what Lord Jauncey had to say about him:
"Indeed Dr. Burk's evidence on the subject of cancer notwithstanding his professed experience in the field tended to be unprecise and did not impress me".
1012
He went on to say:
"Dr. Burk on the other hand did not appear willing on all occasions to answer directly or even indirectly questions which were put to him and on occasion when he did so his answers were rambling and evasive."
There was a Dr. Yiamouyiannis. This doctor, says Lord Jauncey,
"who played so important a part in this case, is undoubtedly a propagandist as well as a scientist … He went so far as to accuse persons serving in the Public Health Service and members of the American Dental Association of knowingly making fraudulent statements concerning the safety and effectiveness of fluoride … Dr. Yiamouyiannis displayed great ingenuity".
I have known the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, for many years and he has always based his opinions on sound evidence. I suggest to him that today his evidence is not sound.
When we are talking of safety we must also bear in mind that any scientist worth his salt, if he thinks there is something wrong with fluoride, will, of course, say so. We must also bear in mind that any health Minister who thinks that there is positive proof that fluoride at one part per million does cause any damage should stop it; and the powers to do so exist under the 1977 health act. I think that it is important that with all the studies conducted here and abroad so many countries have come to the conclusion that fluoridation should continue.
I turn to a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and that is the safety of the fluoridation procedures. The equipment that is installed is designed to halt the supply of fluoride if the concentration in the water supply begins to exceed the tolerance level, and that is from 0.8 to 1.2. Even if there were a malfunction in the monitoring equipment, the amount of fluoride compound which could enter the supply at any one time is severely limited. The Department of the Environment monitors new plants to ensure that they are operating satisfactorily.
The noble Lord, together with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who, alas, is not here, I see—and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has gone too, which is a pity—raised some of the points brought up by a Dr. Waldbott in his studies. He says that fluoridation causes disorders, including nausea, diarrhoea, constipation, headache, backache, skin rashes, brittle nails, convulsions, personality change, mental deterioration and exhaustion. But every investigation of individual cases of supposed intolerance to fluoridated water has failed to confirm fluoride as a cause, and there is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluoride as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.
I turn to the question of enzymes, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. It is well known that fluoride in high non-physiological concentrations can inhibit or enhance the action of many enzymes. For this reason it is often used as a tool in the investigation of enzyme functions. There is, however, no concrete evidence in humans of enzyme inhibition resulting from the consumption of fluoridated water at one part per million and still less suggestion of any scientific or harmful effect which could be attributed to such enzyme inhibition. Again the noble Lord, Lord Jauncey, commenting on Dr. Yiamouyiannis, said when he was referring to

1013
enzymes: "Thus again like Willy at the wet review in 1881, Dr. Yiamouyiannis marches as the only man in step".
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, who blinded us all with science. He spoke at length about the harmful effects of fluorine, including the collapsing of fume chambers. No one can doubt that fluorine is a very noxious and corrosive gas. But we are concerned tonight with the fluoride ion in solution. The fluoride ion is a fluorine atom which has gained an electron. Its chemistry is completely different from that of the gaseous fluorine. When hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium hydrofluorosilicate are added to water, they dissociate to produce free fluoride ions. These chemicals in the concentrations used for fluoridation of water have no other significant effects, including any on heart disease.
I turn now to ethics. In this context, I think it is also very important to understand that in artificially adding fluoride to the water supply we are in no way introducing a substance which is otherwise alien to us. As has been said, fluoride is in fact widely present in the human diet and is present in particularly high levels in tea. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and other noble Lords have said, a heavy tea drinker in a fluoridated area will ingest more fluoride from his tea than from the water supply. In addition, it has to be remembered that around 95 per cent. of toothpaste now contains fluoride, although the use of fluoridated toothpaste in a fluoridated, as opposed to a non-fluoridated, area in fact confers additional dental health benefit.
It is also the case, as has been said in the debate, that fluoride occurs natually in all water. Thus, I believe that it is not mass-medication. It is a rectification of the water supply, as so well pointed out by my noble friend Lord Colwyn and by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I would like to make the point that we must be wary of assuming that if water is not fluoridated it is free from chemical additives. As Lord Jauncey pointed out in his opinion, there are some 18 different chemicals which are added to different supplies in Strathclyde and whose purpose is to achieve purity. This, I believe, helps to put the addition of fluoride into perspective.
I recognise that there will always be those who genuinely feel that water fluoridation constitutes mass medication and, as such, should not be permitted. To this view, I think I can only make the point that Nature herself has arranged mass medication—if that is the word to describe it—to the extent that there are 100 million people worldwide who receive water with a natural fluoride content around the optimum level of dental health. That excludes all the other 100 million who receive it artificially fluoridated. I will repeat: 100 million already receive it at about 1 ppm in a natural way.
In the Government's view, it is for the responsible bodies who take decisions locally to weigh any alleged interference with the liberty of the individual against the undoubted benefits which future generations will gain with respect to their dental health as a result of water fluoridation. As with any decision which has to be taken on a community basis, there will inevitably be those who are disappointed whichever way the decision goes.
1014
I turn now to the actual implemention of fluoride into the system. The Government are aware that the procedure whereby decisions on fluoridation are made dissatisfies some Members of this House, and this point has been raised during this debate on a number of occasions. Although it has been suggested that the decision-making on fluoridation is undemocratic, I feel that I must make the point that Parliament has vested responsibility for preventive health measures and the supply of domestic water in, respectively, the health and water authorities. As these are the two functions inherent in fluoridation, it must be right that these bodies should take the final decisions.
Nevertheless, the Government attach great importance to local public opinion having a voice in the decision-making process of fluoridation. Health authorities are already obliged to consult on fluoridation. Their community health councils already have statutory responsibility to represent the views of local people. In addition, we have already undertaken to bring forward an amendment at Committee which will place a duty on health authorities to undertake more general public consultation. This will give local bodies, including locally elected councils and also individual citizens, the opportunity if they wish to make representations to the health authority before any decision is taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that the local authorities must take part in the decision. I think that is what he said. Of course, he said that he might bring forward an amendment. I might just remind him that I hope he drafts it properly because they already have that power in Scotland as the water authorities are the councils that are already elected. Talking of that, there was a point raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes when considering the areas in England and Wales which are presently artificially fluoridated. All but one of the areas that are artificially fluoridated were fluoridated before the 1970s reorganisation, and therefore all the proposals for this went through the democratically-elected councils of the day.
May I turn now to specific points? The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the question of costs and manpower. It is entirely correct to say that the Bill will result in no additional public expenditure as the money will be found by health authorities from their cash-limited expenditure. It is equally right to say that the Bill has no effect on public sector manpower as it does not compel the introduction of any new schemes and therefore requires no consequential additional manpower. Even if schemes are expanded manpower numbers will be very low, and in Gateshead four to five man-years annually carries out the fluoridation for three-quarters of a million people.
A number of noble Lords, raised the question of the optimum level of fluoride. We say it is one part per million. This concentration was established by extensive epidemiological investigations of populations consuming fluoride naturally present in the drinking water. At one milligram per litre there was considerable benefit with no harm from dental mottling. Much of the evidence was accumulated in the United States, but further investigations in the United Kingdom and by the World Health Organisation confirmed the American findings. This was explained in detail in the report, Conduct of the

1015
Fluoridation Studies in the United Kingdom and the Results Achieved After Five Years. Subsequent studies have continued to confirm the safety and efficacy of the fluoridation of water to one milligram per litre.
The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, asked when fluoride would be poisonous. I can tell him that serious acute fluoride poisoning would require, for an average adult, a single ingestion of over 1 gram of fluoride. To obtain this from optimum fluoridated water supply, the noble Lord would need to consume very rapidly over 1,000 litres of water. I suggest that he would come to more serious consequences—
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, the Minister surely—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, can I please not give way? I have some more material to get through and although the time is early, it is running on. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, referred to Japan as an area that is not fluoridated. I cannot agree with him. Our information is that 56 million people in Japan receive naturally fluoridated water. He referred to Chile, which had stopped fluoridating. It is often alleged that fluoridation in Chile ceased as a result of Prof. Schatz's work. This is not the case. The latest information we have is that 4.5 million people in Chile receive artificially fluoridated water.
The noble Lord asked why we should believe the medical profession's view that fluoridation is safe when it was so wrong about thalidomide. It is entirely wrong to have any analogy between fluoride and thalidomide. Thalidomide was a new drug but fluoride has been ingested by mankind for all ages.
My noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Yarborough, in his maiden speech in 1979, raised the point of delays in dental decay. It is not merely delay that is due to fluoride. Studies carried out over the past 10 years in areas with a satisfactory level of fluoride in the water supply have shown that fluoridation confers a measure of protection against dental decay which persists thoughout adult life. I would specifically ask my noble friend Lord Monckton to reconsider his views towards our children and indeed towards myself because I can still benefit from fluoride. My noble friend says that it is too late for him to benefit. I do not believe that. But it would be wrong, I believe, for my noble friend to dictate to the rest of us on that.
My noble friend also raised the question of fluoride affecting livestock, fluoridation of water supplies at one part per million does not affect livestock. Fluorosis has, however, been a problem in cattleherds where pastures have been polluted with fluoride from neighbouring factories. Such emissions are now strictly controlled and levels of fluoride in pasture are monitored where significant emissions used to take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised one of the many hypothetical points—that fluoride affected thyroids, fluoride is not concentrated by the thyroid. It does not influence its uptake of iodine. After reviewing all the relevant studies, the Royal College of Physicians concluded that there is no evidence that fluoride is responsible for any disorder of the thyroid.
1016
The noble Lord also raised the question that fluoride makes teeth brittle and that it is therefore opposed by an increasing number of dentists. I would only tell him that the British Dental Association has always supported fluoridation and there is no evidence that an increasing number of dentists are opposed to it. fluoridation does not make tooth enamel brittle. It makes the enamel harder, stronger and more resistant to acid dissolution.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that we should have consensus. That is exactly what we are allowing for. By putting this Bill before Parliament we are saying to the water authorities and the health authorities, "It is up to you. You get the consensus in your area. The Government are not doing it."
In conclusion, I should like again to stress that the House is being asked to agree neither to a radical new innovation in public health nor to the compulsory nationwide introduction of fluoridation. Fluoridation schemes have been operating in this country for 30 years and five million people are now benefiting from the resulting improvements in dental health. Fluoridation has a proven record of safety in operation in this country and despite specific monitoring has never been demonstrated to be in any way injurious to general health. The Bill will allow decisions on water fluoridation to continue to be taken locally by health and water authorities after consulting public opinion. We are providing no more than the statutory framework for the operation of a public health measure which has been applied in this country on the basis set out in the Bill, safely and efficaciously, for three decades. I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, and in the welcome presence of the Government Chief Whip, will he comment on the complaints made by several noble Lords about the disturbing organisation of Government business which leads to an extremely important and very controversial debate taking place in your Lordships' House at this time of night?
Lord Denham: My Lords, this time of night is indeed quite late. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will realise that in this House we have no guillotine, we have no selection of amendments. Any noble Lord is entitled to raise a subject when he wishes to do so. This is a freedom for which we must pay. We must pay for it by being prepared to sit perhaps a little later than we should do otherwise. This programme was agreed through the usual channels, and it is not usual to question on the Floor of the House the agreement of the usual channels. If the noble Lord wishes to raise it with his business managers, and they approach me in the morning, I shall certainly take it up with them and discuss it in the future. But this is something that does happen. For an active and professional House of Parliament, a quarter to one in the morning on a rare occasion is not unduly late.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we are not a professional Parliament. I am not paid.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Valerie Mary Hill and Alan Monk (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before one o'clock.

  STERLING EXCHANGE RATE INDEX
  STERLING EXCHANGE RATE INDEX
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  WAGES AND SALARIES AND LABOUR COSTS
  WAGES AND SALARIES AND LABOUR COSTS
  INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
  INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION