Sitting of 2 May 1985

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Monday 13 May at 7 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: As the other three Bills on the Order Paper are the subject of blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall deal with them together.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Immigration Clearance
    Mr. Torneyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to reduce the waiting times before first interview for application for entry clearance in the Indian subcontinent, particularly in Dhaka.
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the length of time an applicant for an entry permit to the United Kingdom has to wait for an interview in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Since the beginning of the year, I have received delegations from two organisations, and received one letter, specifically about delays in dealing with entry clearance applications in the Indian subcontinent, but the matter has been mentioned by a number of other organisations and individuals in discussions and correspondence about immigration control generally.
    We have increased the number of entry clearance officers at Dhaka and our immigration section there is already the largest of any of our posts overseas. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is taking steps to ensure that the most effective use is made of these resources.
    Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that the annual number of applications processed has declined considerably? Is he aware that the productivity of entry clearance officers in the subcontinent has decreased by 36 per cent. per officer? What will the hon. and learned Gentleman do about that? Is the decrease due to the complexity of the rules that have been made by this Government? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make a statement?
    Mr. Waddington: The present rules governing the admission of wives and children are exactly the same as the rules that obtained under the Labour Government. The point that I was seeking to make was that there are now more entry clearance officers in Dhaka than there were at the time of the Labour Government. We realise that this is a serious situation, and we are doing our best to relieve it. Two years ago we increased the number of entry clearance officers. As a result, there have been two extra entry clearance officers at Dhaka for the past two winters. Steps are being taken to keep staffing levels at full effective strength, with five additional postings for six months each being made to cover staff leave and so on. In addition, first-time applicants are to be given a measure of priority over those who have previously applies and been refused permission.
    Mr. Lamond: I am sure the Minister will agree that it is to no one's advantage to have such lengthy waiting times before interviews are conducted. In some cases, 22 months pass before the first interview is conducted to decide whether a man's wife and children can join him in this country. Cannot extra efforts be made, especially in Dhaka where the waiting time seems to be longest, to make a big clearance of the queue once and for all so that applicants may be dealt with more humanely?
    Mr. Waddington: It is important to give priority to first-time applicants. One of the difficulties in Dhaka is that many people, having had their applications refused and appeals turned down, apply repeatedly. That is very much to the disadvantage of people who, having been here for two or three years, decide to call for their wives and children. We must put this matter into perspective. A comparison of present waiting times with waiting times under the Labour Government shows that we certainly have nothing of which to be ashamed. The waiting time in Bombay was 12½ months in 1979; it is now only six months. The waiting time in Islamabad was 19½ months in 1979; it is now 10¾ months. The waiting time in Delhi is now precisely the same as in 1979. The waiting time in Dhaka was 22 months in 1979; it is now 23 months. Those are not grounds for indicting the Government.
    Sir John Farr: I listened with interest to what my hon. and learned Friend said. Is he aware that any reduction in the waiting list abroad would only mean an increase in the number of unemployed people in Britain, in particular in Leicester and Bradford? Will he reconsider his policy, which is negative and undesirable?
    Mr. Waddington: We must apply the rules. Our entry clearance officers have to ensure that there is no evasion, but equally that people receive their entitlement. I cannot go along with my hon. Friend if he is saying that we should now alter the approach which has been adopted by successive Governments over the years and deny to a man who has settled here the right to bring in his wife and children. But my hon. Friend is correct to draw to the

    399
    attention of the House the difficult social problems involved. I assure the House that if those queues were to be removed tomorrow, we should face enormous problems with regard to schools, social services and hospitals, for example, in Tower Hamlets. A high percentage of the people in those queues would go to our inner city areas. However, that does not mean that we shall alter the policy which gives to the people settled here the right to bring in their wives and children.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is not one of the significant causes of the delay the Government's excessive zeal in finding reasons not to admit people—in particular, the primary purposes regulations which prevent from entering people who otherwise would legitimately be able to join their families?
    Mr. Waddington: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that point. We are often told that we are now applying more oppressive control than was the case under Labour. That is a load of old nonsense. The highest refusal rate of families in Dhaka occured in 1977 under the Labour Government, when it was over 60 per cent. The refusal rate in Dhaka last year was only 50 per cent. I remind the hon. Gentleman that since the introduction of the 1983 rules, the failure rate for husbands and fiancés has decreased.
    Mr. Madden: Do not confidential papers, recently leaked, show that the Home Office is using administrative means deliberately to stop people with a clear legal right to enter this country from doing so? Will he take the opportunity of next Thursday's debate on the Commission for Racial Equality to apologise to the commission for his premature criticism of its immigration control policy, and announce that there will be a substantial increase in entry clearance officers on the Indian subcontinent so that the queues of people, predominantly families, can exercise their legal right to enter this country to join their husbands?
    Mr. Waddington: I was content that there should be a debate on immigration next Thursday, but I understand that the Opposition chose otherwise.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after Question Time.
    Mr. Waddington: If I am wrong, I withdraw the remark. I am entitled to make the point that on three separate days I and the Home Office have been happy to have a debate on immigration, but for some reason that has not been satisfactory to the Front Benches of the two—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am not having it said that we are ducking a debate.
    Mr. Kaufman rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question has gone on for a long time. I know that it is of great interest to the House, but we should have the answer without an argument about a debate.
    Mr. Waddington: My trouble, Mr. Speaker, is that I have forgotten what the question was.
    Mr. Speaker: In that case, we might move on.
    Mr. Spencer: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the figures that he has just quoted show that in no way are those entitled to come to this country being unjustly
    400
    inhibited? Does he also accept that the enterprise of the Asian community in Leicester contributes to employment, not unemployment?
    Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. No impartial and reasonable person looking at the figures that I have mentioned today could for a moment say that the Government are failing in their duty. The very important matter raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has a bearing on my hon. and learned Friend's point. The briefing paper that appeared in The Guardian was used by the journalist to suggest that queues were being used deliberately to limit immigration. Queues exist—and they existed under the Labour Government—because the number of people applying to come here exceeds the capacity of the resources available to deal with them. That was the case under the Labour Government and it remains the case today.
    Mr. Dubs: We want the debate on the Commission for Racial Equality report. It was certainly not at the request of the Opposition Front Bench that there should be a further delay in having that debate.
    The Minister's answers to the question at issue, today and on previous occasions, suggest a deficiency on his part as regards both statistics and humanity. There is serious doubt about the figures that he has quoted today. Last year, 1984, was the first year when the number of applications processed for entry were fewer than the numbers received. Is that not a sign that the Minister is using bureaucratic methods to increase the delays?
    Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman were right, we would not be sending an extra entry clearance officer to Dhaka and we would not have sent two extra officers for the past two winters, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary would not be making sure that extra staff go to Dhaka this year to see that there is no shortage of entry clearance officers as a result of leave or sickness. If the hon. Gentleman doubts my statistics, perhaps he will challenge me and say where I am wrong.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Later. We are well behind time.

    Drug Trafficking (Seizure of Assets)
    Mr. Greg Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide for the seizure and confiscation of assets acquired through drug trafficking.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I intend to seek an opportunity for legislation of this kind during the life of this Parliament.
    Mr. Knight: I welcome that brief reply. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the current law is unsatisfactory and that urgent action is needed? Is he aware that those who traffick in drugs are prepared to destroy the careers and lives of their fellow human beings in order to make vast fortunes? Is there not a case for doing something radical—for giving the police immediate powers of seizure before conviction, and for shifting the burden of proof so that, in order to avoid forfeiture, drug dealers have to prove that they obtained their assets by legitimate means?
    Mr. Brittan: There is a case for doing all those things. We are considering the matter urgently. It is necessary to take action in this area, and we shall do so. The existing powers are inadequate, but it is important that the courts should not feel that they should not be used so far as they go. Although they need to be supplemented, they are quite considerable.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement about the powers. Will he assure the House that any Bill will extend the powers to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brittan: I will certainly consider that point.
    Mr. Sackville: Are not the major drug traffickers perhaps the most evil and potentially dangerous of all criminals? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this legislation is perhaps the most important single action that his Department can take to combat them and that the sooner it is on the statute book the better?
    Mr. Brittan: I would agree with that. However, other action can be and is being taken. I congratuate my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) on successfully piloting through the House his Bill to enact the Government's pledge to increase the maximum penalty for trafficking in serious drugs to life imprisonment. The support given to that Bill shows how seriously we treat the matter.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Home Secretary might be aware that the Conservative candidate who opposed me at the 1979 general election was later locked up as a drug trafficker and was well known to have a great fortune in Switzerland, which then could not be touched. Is he aware that this is important legislation, but that it is scraping at the symptoms rather than the cause of the growth of drug use by young people, which is lack of opportunity and work?
    Mr. Brittan: The seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter is rendered suspect by his wholly unnecessary opening remarks.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that drug traffickers should be subject to criminal bankruptcy? Does he also agree that the figures of those who are not subject to criminal bankruptcy are far too high at the moment? Is he aware that many people who should properly be subject to criminal bankruptcy are escaping, and that their numbers should be halved?
    Mr. Brittan: The arrangements for criminal bankruptcy are not a satisfactory solution to the problem. We must act, and the suggestions in the Hodgson report must be considered. We are considering the matter urgently. I accept my hon. Friend's support for the urgency with which we are approaching legislation on this subject.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As drug addiction, especially heroin addiction, has risen by more than 400 per cent. since the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to office, when will he stop the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gallivanting all over the country and the world making gestures and tell him to start doing something effective? What will be the Government's response to the demand by the chief constable of Preston yesterday that he can deal with the problem only if he has more men, resources, and equipment?
    Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman is so insular as to think that a study of what is going on in other countries, such as the United States, which has had the problem longer and is experiencing it more seriously. will contribute nothing to our handling of the problem, his consideration of the subject is unworthy of him. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has engaged in a constructive visit to the United States, where he has seen the problems and the solutions to them. The problem must be tackled comprehensively. It is being tackled more comprehensively through legislation such as I mentioned earlier, by tackling the entry of drugs to Britain, by providing treatment and by publicity. Those approaches are more than anything that has been done by any previous Government, and my hon. Friend has spearheaded that comprehensive approach.

    Elections (Proportional Representation)
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to introduce proportional representation for local government elections.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): No, Sir.
    Mr. Carlile: Why, on this day of county council elections, are the Government afraid of facing local government elections by fair and democratic means? Does the Minister agree that the likely result of the elections is that yet more issues will be decided by caucus rather than by democratic debate?
    Mr. Mellor: As a non sequitur, the hon. and learned Gentleman's latter assertion takes a great deal of beating. The epitome of caucus politics is a hung council—politicians having to get together to sort out what policy will be, rather than electors doing so.
    Mr. Squire: Does my hon. and personal Friend agree none the less accept that there are already more than 30 local authorities with no overall control and a possibility that that number might increase in the next 24 hours? Does he further agree that it makes slightly more sense to have local authorities which are broadly proportionate to the votes cast rather than made up according to arithmetical accident?
    Mr. Mellor: The trouble with the approach that my hon. and personal Friend advances is that the Bill, which has been introduced in another place and which would do what he required, would provide electoral districts for local authorities of between four and nine members—hardly an additional ornament to local democracy—and give councils power to adjust their boundaries. That is an invitation to the sort of malpractice that might go on in other jurisdictions, but which has never been allowed to go on here.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we in Northern Ireland have experience of proportional representation and that we do not commend it? Will he accept our advice that the Government should persist in their view not to introduce it into Great Britain and that they should definitely reconsider its application to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Mellor: I shall not be tempted into folly and comment on the last question, not even today. However, I obviously welcome advice from the hon. Gentleman, and I shall consider it.
    Mr. Haynes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of proportional representation will in no way prevent ugly and loutish scenes such as those organised by the hard Left in Southwark town hall last night?
    Mr. Mellor: I thoroughly agree.

    Soccer Grounds (Policing)
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about policing methods inside London Football League club grounds.
    Mr. Britian: I have had no recent discussion personally with the Commissioner on this subject, but my Department keeps in close contact with the Metropolitan police about football violence, and ways of tackling it.
    Mr. Banks: Will the Home Secretary consider the proposal that I made in an Adjournment debate on 19 April about setting up football community policing teams, because clearly somewhat more specialised attention is required by the Metropolitan police to the problems of crowd violence inside London league clubs?
    Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity to discuss with the Commissioner the possibility of transferring the cost of policing from football clubs to the public purse? Chelsea, for example, has paid about £127,000 this year in policing charges. That money could have been more usefully spent on ground improvements for the benefit of the supporters, and, I hope, reducing football hooliganism.
    Mr. Brittan: It is best that football grounds are policed by local officers with reinforcements, if necessary, rather than by specialist squads.
    Regarding the hon. Gentleman's second point, if a football club organises a match and requires policing inside the ground, as opposed to outside, because of the risk of trouble, it is reasonable that it should pay for the cost of that policing.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the north of England video surveillance and recordings of visiting supporters have led to custodial sentences for those who have committed misdemeanours at football matches? Does he agree that people, such as Ken Bates of the Chelsea football club, should be supported, not discouraged by stupid planning regulations, in their desire to control hooliganism?
    Mr. Brittan: We all share the desire to control football hooliganism. My hon. Friend makes a good point about video pictures. The Home Office is experimenting with a van which can take good quality still and video pictures outside and inside grounds. That van is intended to assist in crowd control and to gather evidence for use in court proceedings. The use of such a facility is an important contribution to the problem.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is it not a fact that since the Prime Minister's headline hunting caused her to stick her meddling fingers into this issue, there has been nothing but
    404
    ill feeling and confusion? Now that she has suddenly taken an interest in football hooliganism and football, will she abandon her boycott of the Cup Final, attend it again, and take the opportunity to watch Manchester United win the cup?
    Mr. Brittan: There are not many matters about which I would take lessons from the right hon. Gentleman, but the pursuit of headline hunting may be one. His remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are singularly inapposite. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note with interest the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to her to attend the Cup Final.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received recently from animal welfare groups in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellor: I have received two letters from the Scottish Anti-Vivisection Society concerning the University of Glasgow's connection with brain-damage research performed at the University of Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety in the west of Scotland about the unbelievably cruel experiments on live monkeys which are carried out at the University of Pennsylvania, following which further research on their scrambled brains is undertaken at the University of Glasgow? Is he further aware that one of the professors engaged in that research has said that in eight years of research no use has been made of the experimental results for the benefits of humans? Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety about those experiments, and does he believe that it is an adequate response to say that those experiments would not be allowed in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Mellor: A distinction must be drawn between what is happening at the University of Pennsylvania and at the University of Glasgow. I saw the deeply distressing video of what has gone on at the University of Pennsylvania, and it appears that animals that may not have been anaesthetised at the time were subjected to brain damage. The conduct of those experiments by some of the researchers left a very great deal to be desired. That conduct would not be permitted in the United Kingdom, and nor would the imposition of those injuries, without an anaesthetic, be permitted in the United Kingdom. The work of the University of Glasgow is confined to research on tissues that have been removed from the dead monkeys. That work is not subject to control under the 1876 Act, because that Act deals with vivisection and experiments on live animals, and does not deal with the use of dead tissues.

    Metropolitan Police
    Mr. Squireasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with manpower levels within the Metropolitan police.
    Mr. Brittan: On 31 March the strength of the Metropolitan police was 26,751, and the strength of the civil staff was 12,939. These are increases of over 4,500 and 1,300 respectively since May 1979. It is the

    405
    Commissioner's objective, which I fully support, to ensure that the very considerable manpower at his disposal is used as effectively, efficiently and economically as possible.
    Mr. Squire: Although I greatly welcome those figures for increased manpower since 1979, does not my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the increased duties of the Metropolitan police and the continuing level of crime combine to require a substantially greater establishment? Will he devote some of his considerable energy to pressing for such an increase in due course?
    Mr. Brittan: There has been an increase in the Metropolitan police establishment from 1 April 1985. We shall need to keep the position under review as the reorganisation of the force proceeds. That reorganisation, of course, is of considerable importance, as I believe that it will lead to a more effective use of manpower.
    Mr. John Fraser: Is the Home Secretary aware that crime levels in London's inner city areas are running at more than twice the national average and that the deployment of police in London is not directly related to them? Will he ask the Commissioner to concentrate resources permanently—not temporarily, as with the special patrol group—on areas that have very high rates of crime, which could do with good permanent police officers on the streets?
    Mr. Brittan: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Commissioner will have that priority very much at the forefront of his mind.
    Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what effect there would be on the manpower requirements of the Metropolitan police if a fifth terminal were built at Heathrow, with the ensuing appalling traffic jams in west London?
    Mr. Brittan: Not without notice.

    Coalfield Communities (Policing)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with chief officers of police about policing problems since the ending of the coal miners' strike.
    Mr. Brittan: I continue to keep in touch with chief officers about the policing of areas which were affected by disorder during the miners' strike.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary intend to consider the lessons that can be drawn from the policing of the miners' strike and the great variety of operational practices found among the different police forces? Does he plan to give the House the benefit of his views on that subject before he publishes his paper on public order?
    Mr. Brittan: That will not be possible, because I hope to publish my paper on public order very soon. The examination of the operational lessons to be learnt from the strike is being continued by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and it will not be completed within that time scale.
    Mr. Eastham: When the Home Secretary discusses the miners' strike with chief constables, will he make it his business to hold in-depth talks on the mountainous cost of policing that strike? That cost is a terrific burden for
    406
    ratepayers, and rate-capped authorities consequently find themselves in great financial difficulty. What does the Home Secretary intend to do about that?
    Mr. Brittan: The Home Secretary is not going to do anything about it, because he has done something about it. He has announced enormous assistance to police authorities which have had to incur costs on an unprecedented scale. During the strike I announces a series of measures which have cumulatively led to enormous help being given to those authorities which have had to incur that burden.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why is it taking so long to investigate complaints against the police? I made a complaint in December 1984 and that investigation has still not been completed.
    Mr. Brittan: The length of time depends on the complexity of the issues that have to be looked into. However, if the hon. Lady feels that there has been an undue delay, I should be happy to look into her case.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Can the Home Secretary be more explicit about the date of publication of the White Paper? The Prime Minister said in November 1984 that it would be published before the end of the year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, I think, that it is to be published in the next few weeks. Does he mean that?
    Mr. Brittan: It will be published before the end of this month.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on Sunday trading.
    Mr. Mellor: The House will have the opportunity to debate the Auld report in the very near future and my right hon. and learned Friend will take that opportunity to make a statement on the Government's intentions.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that a strong case can be made for eliminating the anomalies of the present Sunday trading laws, but that a general relaxation would be disastrous for the cherished way of life of this country? A previous attempt to abolish restrictions was decisively rejected by the House on a free vote. The Government have no mandate for acting in the way that is apparently proposed. Should not Sunday be allowed to remain a day for rest, recreation and religion?
    Mr. Mellor: That depends upon one's definition of rest and recreation. For some people it might involve a little quiet shopping. My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to develop his views, as will other hon. Members, during the debate that is soon to take place.
    Mr. Torney: Before the Minister makes his statement, will he consider the fact that to abolish completely the Shops Act would cause very considerable hardship to shop workers? Is he aware that they would have no defence whatever against the unscrupulous employer, because of the abolition by the Government of the wages council? Will he also take into account the tremendous offence that abolition would cause to many hundreds of thousands of religious people throughout the country?
    Mr. Mellor: To hear the hon. Gentleman ask his question one would think that nothing had changed since

    407
    the days of Mr. Polly. In putting forward the views of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, the hon. Gentleman has revealed only too clearly why that union commands the support of only 15 per cent. of those who work in the retail sector.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Sunday trading were to be allowed, it would add to the employment prospects of very many people?
    Mr. Mellor: I have every reason to believe that that would be the case.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a sense of steamrollering about this issue and that opinions throughout the country vary from total apathy among chambers of commerce to downright opposition among the silent majority?
    Mr. Mellor: It is two and a half years since the matter was last debated on the Floor of the House. Every speaker, whether for or against Sunday trading, said that the Shops Acts were in need of amendment. The Government then set up a committee which took almost a year to reach its conclusions. The committee's report was published over six months ago and we are now moving towards a debate on the report. It is interesting that "steamrollering" should be thought to embrace all of that.
    Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister not recognise that when his Tory friends brush aside the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) about the conditions for shop workers being made worse should full Sunday trading be authorised, he ought also to recognise that for many shop workers Sunday is the only family day that they have together, since six-day trading already takes place in many of our major cities? If full Sunday trading were to be authorised, conditions for hundreds of thousands of shop workers, not least their wages, would be destroyed.
    Mr. Mellor: Again there is an air of unreality about the hon. Gentleman's question, but no doubt we shall have the pleasure of hearing from him at even greater length when the matter is fully debated.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that this matter must be decided on a free vote and that very strong views are held about it by many Conservative Members? They believe that all the advantages do not lie in the abolition of the Shops Acts and all their provisions, that Sunday is a day for the family and for corporate worship and that to abolish the Shops Acts would play into the hands of the large retailer, the supermarket and hypermarket, while small businesses—the butcher and the other traders who are a traditional part of this country—would suffer gravely.
    Mr. Mellor: I hear what my hon. Friend says. The terms on which any proposal might be put before the House is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is in his place.

    Violent Crime
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on offences of violence against the elderly.
    Mr. Mellor: Crimes of violence are particularly abhorrent when they are perpetrated against the most
    408
    vulnerable members of society. Though recent research has shown that elderly people are the least likely to be the victims of violent crime, attacks on the elderly quite rightly attract special concern and the courts have power to impose appropriately severe sentences in the most serious cases.
    Mr. Favell: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there have been a number of sickening attacks on the elderly in Stockport recently, often in furtherance of theft? Does he agree that such attacks cannot be tolerated and that, in order to deter others, courts should be encouraged to give long sentences of imprisonment to anybody engaging in that kind of crime, whether or not he is a first offender?
    Mr. Mellor: The courts have the power to do just that and there is a strong and compelling case for doing so.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that a narrow statement on crimes of violence against the elderly is insufficient for the House and that he should be pressing for a full debate on the whole spectrum of law and order, sentencing policy and everything else that goes with it?
    Mr. Mellor: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I would be only too pleased to participate in such a debate. We have a good story to tell on those matters.

    Juveniles (Reconviction Rates)
    Mr. Barronasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest reconviction rates for juveniles attending detention centres.
    Mr. Mellor: About 70 per cent. of juveniles discharged from detention centres in England and Wales in 1980 were reconvicted within two years.
    Mr. Barron: Does that not show that the philosophy behind the Government's thinking in relation to juveniles who do wrong is not working? Would it not be a lot better if the Government concentrated on giving juveniles real jobs in society so that they felt that they were playing a more valid role, instead of leaving them to roam the streets and end up in detention centres?
    Mr. Mellor: Those cheap and tendentious observations are somewhat undermined by the fact that in each of the years of the Labour Government the reconviction rates were higher than those I have just given.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Given the lack of success of the detention centres, does the Minister agree that it is time that statutory funding was provided for intermediate treatment for juveniles throughout Britain, bearing in mind the evidence of success of such schemes?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we are attracted to intermediate schemes and that the Department of Health and Social Security has recently put some £15 million into developing intermediate treatment facilities throughout Britain.

    Car Milometers
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available to the Metropolitan police as to the incidence of zeroing of car milometers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): It is Metropolitan police practice to refer members of the public who complain about misleading odometer readings on secondhand cars to the local trading standards officer and no central records on zeroing are therefore maintained by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend accept that the zeroing of car milometers is massive, widespread and the biggest rip-off in London and beyond, and is in need of Government attention? Will his Department initiate immediate research with a view to establishing tamperproof milometers that cannot be abused in that way?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will understand that that is a matter not for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary or myself but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will be aware that that matter was dealt with in reply to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who was told that there were no plans at present to introduce such legislation.

    Government Purchasing
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes following the conclusions of the recent report by the Management and Personnel Office on Government purchasing.
    Mr. Brittan: My Department has prepared a programme of action in response to the report with the aim of improving value for money in Home Office purchasing.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all in his power to encourage small firms to play their part in achieving the hoped-for savings of £400 million per annum?
    Mr. Brittan: I appreciate the need to do that. The report itself made no specific recommendation about small firms, but it mentioned the need to improve information and to simplify procedures for small firms. We shall have that in mind as we carry forward our response to the report.

    Long-term Prison System
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a conclusion on the managing of the long-term prison system.
    Mr. Mellor: My right hon. and learned Friend intends to make a statement within the next few months on our progress in implementing the report of the control review committee on the long-term prison system.
    Sir John Farr: Can my hon. Friend assure me that, when the Home Secretary makes that response, he will bear in mind the fact that the analysis which was drawn up by the working party was largely based on the American prison experience and that much of the report's conclusion is unsound because it is based on that system, which has armed warders?
    Mr. Mellor: I am afraid that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's assertion that the report is based, to anything like the degree that he suggested, on American experience. I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend, who has heard my hon. Friend's question, will bear in mind that point before announcing his conclusions.

    Immigration Officers (Unofficial Guidance)
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to ensure that unofficial guidance circulars to immigration officers are withdrawn.
    Mr. Waddington: Guidance circulars issued locally in respect to types of passenger likely to arrive at particular ports are being reviewed. Where such guidance is necessary in future it will be issued from immigration service headquarters.
    Mr. Pike: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give an assurance that when the guidelines are issued they will be made public so that everyone is aware of what guidelines exist and so that there is no doubt, ambiguity or false accusations?
    Mr. Waddington: My right hon. and learned Friend said in a speech recently that the question of publication of the instructions to immigration officers is under consideration.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Sumbergasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend this morning presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend is now in Bonn for the economic summit.
    Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports of the disgraceful scenes at Southwark council last night, when Labour councillors not only disrupted the meeting but attacked television cameramen and damaged their equipment? Will he join me in inviting his Opposition counterpart to condemn that behaviour? Does he not think that it is a salutatory example today of the dangers of voting for Labour councillors?
    Mr. Biffen: I assure my hon. Friend that I have seen the report in the evening newspapers of the scenes at Southwark council to which he referred. Such scenes are to be deprecated. They are as much a challenge to democratic Socialism as they are to other elements in political society. I am certain that Opposition Members will join me in condemning such behaviour.
    Dr. Owen: In view of the depressing and demoralisingly high levels of unemployment announced today, will the Leader of the House tell us when he confidently expects the rise in unemployment to be reversed, as he indicated in his letter to his constituency party chairman? Has he yet consulted the taproom wisdom in Llanyblodwel?
    Mr. Biffen: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who has such a good Welsh name, has such indifferent Welsh pronounciation. I assure him that I at once join him in expressing disappointment with the unemployment figures released today. I said in the letter to my constituency chairman that the rise in the number of people at work

    411
    "is still offset by the increase in the potential national work force as those leaving education substantially exceed those ageing into retirement."
    I then said:
    "I believe, however, that the underlying strength of the economy will, in time, reverse this situation. That will be the most decisive moment during this Parliament."
    [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Being tolerably shrewd as well as good-natured, I decline to give a specific date. But I stand by that remark, and all the more so in the light of the encouraging evidence supplied by the recent CBI survey.
    Mr. Terry Fieldsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fields: Does the Leader of the House not agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for this Government, egged on by their shadows in the alliance, to remove the political levy from the Labour party when it was revealed yesterday that the Liberal party had received £190,000 from the British School of Motoring and it is well known that the Tories receive millions of pounds from private industry? Is it not true that in both those cases the donors are elite groups and cliques—not the mass of the ordinary people in the country, but the rich stockholders and shareholders?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will know that contributions to party funds have been debated vigorously in the recent past. Of course, we can all make observations about the size of the contribution made by the British School of Motoring—[Interruption.] I am glad to have the assent of the leader of the Liberal party, because it would be improper for me to stand here and defend that contribution. The Tory party is sustained on voluntary contributions, and therein lies its strength.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: As my right hon. Friend is standing in for the Prime Minister, may I put a question to him on behalf of the Leader of the House? Will he continue to set his face against any curtailment of the powers of Select Committees to obtain the documents that they need to exercise thir parliamentary powers of supervision on behalf of the House?
    Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend makes a somewhat good-natured but misleading observation on partial information. I suggest that he tries to ask his question at the appropriate time, which will come after 3.30 pm.
    Mr. Shore: After today's Cabinet meeting, can the Leader of the House inform us whether the Government have decided to betray or to honour their general election pledge to maintain the earnings-related pension scheme? If it is the former and their pledge is betrayed, will that not injure not only the 11 million people in the state earnings-related scheme, but the 10 million people who are contracted out? Would not that, as Sir Terence Beckett informed a meeting in the House only a few days ago, impose additional costs of about £3 billion a year on employers or lead to the winding-up of contracted-out pension schemes?
    Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will know that there have recently been four major reviews of aspects of the social security system. They are currently being
    412
    considered by the Cabinet. When that consideration ends, the Cabinet's views will be reported to the House and they will form part of a wider political debate. If the right hon. Gentleman starts by using words such as "betrayal", when one of the central requirements, given our enormous commitment to social welfare, is to ensure that we have an updated arrangement that relates resources to those in need, he will undermine the way in which the debate should proceed.
    Mr. Shore: The House and the country will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's failure to answer the question about earnings-related pensions. Can he at least say whether, on the question of child benefit, the Government will also jettison the pledge given in a letter from the Prime Minister on 20 May 1983 to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), in which she categorically stated:
    "there are no plans to make any changes to the basis on which the benefit is paid or calculated."
    Mr. Biffen: The answer is simple. I will not betray, to use the right hon. Gentleman's language, any matters that are still before Cabinet. The proper course, when that discussion is concluded, will be for the appropriate Minister to come to this Dispatch Box and present the Government's proposals to the House.
    Mr. Spellerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Speller: Is my hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of retail shops on petrol station forecourts are applying for off-licences, which means that they can sell alcoholic refreshments when pubs and licensed restaurants may not? Does this not make a mockery of our drink-drive laws and our licensing laws?
    Mr. Biffen: I know that the position described by my hon. Friend is common in many parts of the country and that it gives rise to some anxiety. That is why it is being considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. John Fraser: Since the Prime Minister is in Bonn to observe the diplomatic skills of President Reagan at first hand, will she protest in the strongest possible way at the bully-boy tactics employed by the President of the United States towards Nicaragua in imposing a trade embargo? Will she remind him that when that was done in relation to Cuba, it gift-wrapped that island for Russia? Will she also tell him that, in the case of Nicaragua, he is subverting and sabotaging a country which is extremely poor, which is making the transition from dictatorship to democracy, and which should have the support of the land of the free, not its opposition?
    Mr. Biffen: If my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in her quest to seek to influence allies, were to use the rhetoric that has just been employed in this Chamber it would be totally counter-productive. What I do say is that it will be widely felt in the Chamber—I hope on both sides—and in many parts of the world that trade sanctions are not particularly effective.
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Forsyth: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the BBC television poll conducted in Scotland last night on alternatives to the rating system in which 30,000 viewers participated? Is he aware that 51 per cent. of viewers opted for a poll tax, 41 per cent. for local income tax and only 8 per cent. for the present system of property tax? Is that not a clear sign that a poll tax is not only feasible and desirable, but an acceptable alternative for the majority of domestic ratepayers?
    Mr. Biffen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the additional evidence which he now possesses to sustain his own well-argued pamphlet on the subject. Whilst I take account of the figures that he quoted, as the debate proceeds it will be seen that the matters involved are a little more complex than was realised by those who took part in the poll.
    Mr. Nellist: Today the highest unemployment levels in Britain this century were announced, despite attempts to sanitise the figures by the Tory Government. About 1,000 people a day have joined the dole queues in the last month. Is the Leader of the House surprised that because of that, and in view of leaks about the possible abolition of supplementary benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds, nearly 250,000 15 and 16-year olds took half a day's industrial action last Thursday against the Tory Government?
    Mr. Biffen: I do not think that that episode was favourable to those who were politically identified with it.

    North Yorkshire
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to North Yorkshire.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Gregory: I understand that my right hon. Friend has no plans to visit North Yorkshire, but I hope that my right hon. Friend who is standing in for her will visit the area soon to praise the county for its singular skill in keeping rates down to £60 per head less than they are in neighbouring Socialist Humberside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this will result later today in a more substantial Conservative vote, as well as the creation of 4,000 jobs more per year?
    Mr. Biffen: Although my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no immediate plans to visit North Yorkshire I am sure that all Tories will look back with nostalgia to the days when Tory Ministers went there in the early days of August, year after year. The requirement today is to take account of the extraordinarily fine local government record of North Yorkshire, to contrast it with what has happened in Labour-held areas close by and to hope that virtue will be rewarded.

    Engagements
    Mr. Foxasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fox: In view of the 799 votes cast by one man in the Transport and General Workers Union elections last
    414
    year, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the current proposals are sufficient to deal with the malpractices that are so obvious to everyone?
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that there will be widespread satisfaction over the fact that the Transport and General Workers Union is holding a new ballot. The indications are that even present legislation is encouraging postal ballots in the trade unions. We shall have to see what happens before coming to any further judgments about whether additional legislation is required.
    Dr. Marekasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 May.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Marek: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the proposal by British Rail to single-track the railway line between Wrexham and Chester, but is he also aware that British Rail is apparently proposing, without consultation, to single-track the line from Wrexham to Shrewsbury, which runs through the right hon. Gentleman's constituency? Does he agree that there must be full consultation with local authorities and the local community before any such action is taken?
    Mr. Biffen: I am glad that Question Time is settling around matters of more tangible consequence. I have been happy to be identified with the hon. Gentleman in representations on that matter in the past and I shall be equally happy to be alongside him in the future.
    Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does it arise out of Question Time?
    Mr. Crouch: Yes, it arises out of questions to the Prime Minister, which have been answered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Had you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that two questions were put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about his views on something that he had said or thought in the past? While deputising for the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend replies for the Prime Minister. The questions put to him by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) both concerned decisions of the Leader of the House and not of the Prime Minister. It is important that when the Leader of the House deputises for the Prime Minister he should speak for her views and not have to answer for his own.
    Mr. Speaker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help. That very point was made by the Leader of the House himself.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions to the Home Secretary today. Is it appropriate that even hon. Members from the Opposition Front Bench, let alone those on the Opposition Back Benches, should refer to business for next week, while asking questions of the Home Secretary, when the House has not been notified of the business for next week?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that that is legitimate. None of us knows when there will be a debate on this important matter. I know that it is of great interest to the House and that is why I allowed a fairly long run on it during Question Time. As yet, I have no knowledge of what will happen next week.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 7 MAY and WEDNESDAY 8 MAY—Consideration in Committee on the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 9 MAY—There will be a debate on the multifibre arrangement, which will arise on a motion for the adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 10 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 13 MAY—Until Seven o'clock, private Members' motions. Remaining stages of the Surrogacy Arrangements Bill, of the Ports (Finance) Bill, and of the Prosecution of Offences Bill (Lords).
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
Mr. Shore: We welcome the debate on the important multi-fibre arrangement, particularly as discussions are still in a formative stage and the House has an opportunity to impose its views. We hope that the Government will listen to them carefully.
May I press the right hon. Gentleman for the earliest possible statement of the Government's decision on the reviews on the future of the welfare state? I press him all the more because of the undoubted anxiety throughout the country about their outcome.
When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to fulfil his promise, made many months ago, of a debate on the Green Paper on the long-term prospects for public expenditure? The relevance of that debate to the future of the welfare state is apparent, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must accept that such a debate has an early claim on time.
I hope that it is still in the right hon. Gentleman's mind to have a debate on the report of the Commission for Racial Equality on immigration and control procedures.
In view of today's disastrous unemployment figures—the highest ever April figures—does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should ask the Secretary of State for Employment to make an early statement in the House?
Mr. Biffen: I shall answer the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in the reverse order in which he asked them. I shall, of course, draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Employment to the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the report of the Commission for Racial Equality is that I have indicated my interest in seeing whether we could make arrangements for such a debate, and I am happy to continue discussions through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman may recall that when I was last questioned about the Green Paper on long-term public expenditure I explained that I was keen that there should be a debate but that I thought it appropriate that it should be related to the work being done on the subject by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
416
I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the House being informed of decisions on the studies that have been undertaken of the welfare services, and I underline the importance of the point that he made.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the debate that we are planning for Thursday on the multi-fibre arrangement, because it is important that the House should have a chance to make known its views when matters are still formative, rather than fixed.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is my right hon. Friend aware of proposals in certain European circles for fundamental changes to EEC institutions' financial arrangements and other matters? Will he give the House an early opportunity to debate these issues before Her Majesty's Government may be invited to commit themselves on them, possibly returning to the House with some sort of fait accompli?
Mr. Biffen: I accept at once the importance of the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am sure he will agree that we have the Scrutiny Committee as a means of helping to guide our judgment in these matters, and I shall, naturally, look to that Committee, but if the matter goes perhaps wider than that I shall, if my hon. Friend contacts me, see what can be done.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is widespread and continuing anxiety among commercial ratepayers north of the border about the imposts that have been put on them in the course of the rating revaluation that has just taken place. Has he noted that the ten-minute Bill which I introduced yesterday was unopposed? Will he have words with the Secretary of State for Scotland to see what chance there may be, if not for taking the measure in Government time, at least for considering the matter further, with the possibility of a debate in the future?
Mr. Biffen: There is a charming innocence about that request. The Secretary of State for Scotland is mindful of the problems which the hon. Gentleman identifies and will take action in his own way and in his own time.
Mr. John Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend arrange time, if possible next week, to debate the question of the proceedings of the House being televised, so that those of us who think that it would be an utter catastrophe may mobilise our forces? Will he take the opportunity to make it clear to everybody, inside and outside the House, that it is a matter which concerns the House as a whole and not the Government?
Mr. Biffen: I have no doubt that a decision on the matter will be undertaken by the House and in the spirit of a House of Commons decision. I am afraid that I must disappoint my hon. Friend, in that I cannot provide time for a debate that speedily. Probably the House would like to have some chance for a more measured assessment of the experiment in another place before coming to its own judgment.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the Prime Minister make a statement next week on her recommendations to the Government arising from the report of the review body on the pay of nurses and midwives, as she has had the information on her desk for quite a time?
Mr. Biffen: That is clearly an important matter, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to follow precedent.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in response to his kind invitation—readdressing and rephrasing my question—whether it is the intention of the Government to interfere with the time-honoured constitutional right of Select Committees to send for papers from public bodies? Does the pledge that I gave when I was Leader of the House—that every Minister, from the highest to the lowest, would co-operate with Select committees—still stand?
Mr. Biffen: I have been consulting the Chairman of the Liaison Committee on the powers of Select Committees to send for personal papers and records under Standing Order No 99. Those powers are governed by long-standing conventions with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St John-Stevas) will be familiar. The Government consider that certain changes to those conventions might be helpful. I understand that the Liaison Committee considered these changes at a meeting earlier this week. I shall be discussing its views with the Chairman of the Committee in the next few days. It is very much a relaxed and low-key exchange, and does not quite bear some of the drama with which it seems to be now invested.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement on her current visit to the summit at Bonn? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask the Prime Minister to explain why, since June 1983, she has spent more than 77 days, or part days, visiting abroad, and only 18 days, or part days, visiting different parts of the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to explain the reason for that to the House and the nation?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will find that there is on record in the press a comprehensive analysis which shows that the journeys of my right hon. Friend have been as active within the United Kingdom as without. I shall, of course, bear in mind his anxiety that my right hon. Friend should make a statement on the Bonn visit. Whether the hon. Gentleman approves or disapproves, there is no doubt that the House will feel that it is only appropriate that my right hon. Friend should report.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend, when casting around for matters to debate, consider the great interest in conservation matters shown not only by colleagues in the House but by many of our constituents? Will my right hon. Friend therefore find some time for a debate on this very important subject, which is close to the hearts of many of our constituents?
Mr. Biffen: I am afraid that there is no prospect of Government time being available for such a debate in the next few weeks. However, I thoroughly underline the importance of the topic that my hon. Friend raises. I believe that it will be of growing political significance.
Mr. Allen Adams: Bearing in mind that VE day falls next week, can the Leader of the House find time to initiate a debate on the disgraceful level of pensions paid to those who were widowed during the second world war? I understand that they are paid £47 a week. Perhaps the House would like to contrast that with the £97 paid to those widowed during the Falklands war and as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland. When we are marching up and down next week celebrating the
418
defeat of Fascism and Nazism, perhaps the House would like the chance to show how grateful we are to the people who gave their lives to make VE day possible.
Mr. Biffen: No Government time is set aside over the next week or thereabouts for the debate requested by the hon. Gentleman. However, I believe that it would be admirably suited to an Adjournment occasion.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I hope that my right hon. Friend has had time recently to read early-day motion 515, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and more than 70 hon. Members from both sides of the House, calling for an early debate on the recent report of the Select Committee on Social Services.
[That this House, noting the widespread interest in the issue of care for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped in the community following the publication of the report of the Social Services Committee on this matter, calls for an early debate on the recommendations and implications of this report.]
Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be an early debate on care in the community, particularly of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, because this issue is causing deep and increasing concern in all the constituencies in the land?
Mr. Biffen: The Government are considering their response to this most important report. When that response has been made known, we can see whether it would be most helpful to proceed by way of debate.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 645,
[That this House profoundly regrets the proposed visit of President Reagan to the German Military Cemetery at Bitburg, containing the remains of Nazi SS stormtroopers; regards the visit as an offence to the memories of Jews and so many others persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, and as insensitive and ill-advised; and calls on the President, in the name of good relations between our countries and between all the allies in the war against Nazism, to cancel that visit.]
which has been signed by a large number of Members, and early-day motion 658,
[That this House believes that there can never be any reconciliation with fascism; therefore condemns the British Broadcasting Corporation Newsnight programme of 30th April for its lengthy and uncritical coverage of the collection of Nazi memorabilia by wealthy people; in the United States of America and Britain; believes that such programmes can only serve to make Nazism respectable; and further believes that the memory of the Jewish people, gypsies, Communists, trade unionists and gay people who were murdered by the Nazis and the millions of Soviet, British, American and other peoples on every continent who died to defeat fascism should not be defiled by any attempted rehabilitation into respectability of fascism.]
both of which concern the memory of the people who died fighting Fascism and the disgraceful intention of President Reagan to visit Bitburg cemetery? Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to give the Government's view of the President's intention to visit that cemetery of SS memory?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for a special debate next week to consider the rise of Fascism and

419
racism now occurring in many European countries and the need to condemn utterly all that went on in Nazi Germany and ensure that such tyrany can never arise again, and the need to ensure that proper memory is accorded to all who died fighting Nazism, whether they were Russian, British, French or from any other country in the world?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already commented on President Reagan's proposed visit to Bitburg cemetery, and I have nothing to add on that. On the wider issue, no provisions have been made for the debate requested by the hon. Gentleman, but those who view totalitarianism with such great hostility would be more convincing if their attitude stretched across the whole spectrum.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: We seem to be getting a blow by blow account of Cabinet discussions about the earnings-related pension scheme. Can my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to revert to the tradition whereby Cabinet discussions are secret?
Mr. Biffen: Secrecy is something to which we all aspire, with more success on some occasions than on others. I should have thought, however, that things had gone rather well in the past few weeks. If my hon. Friend can contain his patience, I assure him that he will be more than rewarded.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye): Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the crucial role that he can play, both as Leader of the House and as a member of the Cabinet, in the discussions on the future of the state earnings-related pension scheme by maintaining the strong underpinning all-party support and consensus on which the scheme was originally based? Will the right hon. Gentleman use both those aspects of his responsibility to take the scheme out of the present welfare state review debate, not allow the Cabinet to make a decision on the matter and involve the Opposition, both Labour and Alliance, in discussing the future of the scheme sensibly, as was the case when it was set up? Does he agree that that is a far better way to make progress?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has sought with great skill to finesse an answer out of me with a bridge strategem worthy of the late Iain Macleod. He knows that I cannot answer that question, because I remain very much of the opinion that I expressed at the outset of this exchange about the review being undertaken in the Cabinet.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the deep revulsion of the millions of people in this country who contributed to food aid and other aid for Ethiopia at the action of the Marxist regime in driving 60,000 people, who were receiving treatment and being brought back to life with proper food, out of their beds and into the countryside to grow food? We accept that it is necessary to grow food in Ethiopia, but will my right hon. Friend arrange for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to make a statement to the House on this important matter?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, heard on the radio this morning the graphic and moving description by Father Finucane of the fate of people at the Ibnat camp. I understand that our ambassador is in close touch with the United Nations co-ordinator about ways in
420
which we can help, but I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to the point made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Max Madden: Despite the allegations of the Minister of State, Home Office, at Question Time today about the circumstancces in which it was decided that the debate on immigration policy expected next week would not take place, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government arrange the business, and will he give the heaviest of hints that that debate will take place the week after next?
Mr. Biffen: I effectively answered that point in replying to a question from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I do not think that it would help matters very much if I strayed beyond that original reply.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support the request by the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) for a debate on the financial position of those who lost their husbands during the second world war.
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on arranging a debate next week on the multi-fibre arrangement, which is of interest to the textile and clothing industry, which is the fourth largest employer in this country. Will my right hon. Friend consider extending that critical debate beyond 10 o'clock to enable every hon. Member with an interest in textiles snd clothing to participate? My right hon. Friend extended the foreign affairs debate. Will he now do the same with respect to a debate on industries which affect many parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, such matters are arranged through the usual channels. I cannot answer my hon. Friend now on that point, but I have heard what he said.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: Will the Leader of the House suggest to the Ministry of Defence that a statement should be made next week on the local overseas allowance for British forces? I ask this question because of the letters that I have received from members of the armed forces. I do not know whether other hon. Members have received such letters. These letters are unprecedented, because they seem to reflect a well-organised campaign which has the sanction of many high people within the armed forces. The Ministry of Defence should make a statement on the changes in local overseas allowance.
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman's point is highly topical. There is certainly a great deal of interest in it. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 663?
[That this House notes the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 29 April, listing the identification documents which will be required to enable electors to vote in the forthcoming local elections in Northern Ireland; notes that UB40 cards are not included on the list; condemns this omission as totally undemocratic in that it will effectively defranchise thousands of young people, for whom the UB40 cards are their sole means of identification; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to redress this omission

421
immediately, or, if time does not permit, to postpone the elections until a fully-democratic means of enfranchising all bona fide voters has been worked out.]
That motion was tabled yesterday by me in response to a statement on Monday in the Chamber by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. My early-day motion deals with a list of identification documents which will be required at the local elections in Northern Ireland, which are to be held shortly. The list does not include UB40 cards. Given the unemployment levels in the north, which have been exacerbated in the past four weeks, as we have seen in the figures published today, does the Leader of the House, not think that another statement should be made to the House to explain how the Government will prevent thousands of young people from being disfranchised because the UB card is their only identification document? If that is not possible, should not the elections be postponed until an equitable method has been devised so that everyone is entitled to vote in the Northern Ireland elections?
Mr. Biffen: I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise at once that I am in no sense competent to comment on the significance of UB40 cards. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Leader of the House is surely by now aware of the great disappointment felt by both sides of the House at the fact that he has not arranged for a more appropriate debate to be held on 8 May—VE day. War widows would have been a most appropriate subject for the House to consider, notwithstanding the important matters in the Finance Bill.
As the Prime Minister is in Bonn, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to ask the right hon. Lady to protest to the West German Government about the reunion which the Death's Head Tank Division of the Waffen SS will hold on VE day? That reunion will give rise to a good deal of deep feeling among many people in this country.
Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Such occasions give rise to unease and antagonism, but I hope that we sometimes reflect on the fact that many activities which we undertake in this country have such consequences among our neighbours. It might be in the spirit of 40 years on and reconciliation if we began to be a little easier in our judgment of each other.
Mr. David Crouch: I hope that my right hon. Friend will note the point made by my right hon. Friend the member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) about the opportunities given to the House to keep a check on the Executive by questioning through Select Committees and by the reporting of Select Committees. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not allow this check on the Executive to be weakened in any way.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a point which I understand. The last thing that I would want is for this matter to become a point of conflict. I should prefer there
422
to be a discussion to see whether we might find ways of interpreting the Standing Order to minimise friction, rather than focus upon it.

Unborn Children (Protection) Bill
3.54 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether it is appropriate for me to raise the point now, but it might be helpful to you if I do. It relates to the provisional selection of amendments for the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, which is to be considered tomorrow. May I ask you, respectfully, to reconsider the selection, on the basis that none of the amendments selected deal with genetic research and the effects that that has? It is a matter which has not been dealt with adequately in Committee and upon which many points have come to light since the Committee dealt with the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: I went through the selection carefully this morning. The hon. Member will understand that I must take account of what was discussed at length in Committee. I shall reconsider the matter, but I cannot give him any hope that I shall change the selection.

BILL PRESENTED
  OIL AND PIPELINES
  Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. David Hunt presented a Bill to provide for the establishment and functions of a body corporate to be called the Oil and Pipelines Agency, for the vesting in that Agency of the property, rights and liabilities of the British National Oil Corporation and for the subsequent dissolution of that Corporation: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 139.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
Ordered,
That the draft Scottish Special Housing Association (Limit of Advances) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY] (NO. 2)
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Secretary of State in paying fees or other amounts to the Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 taken from the extraparliamentary panel in respect of their duties under the said Act of 1936.—[Mr. Garel Jones.]

Orders of the Day
  Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
    New Clause 6

      AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENT RELATING TO SOLICITORS
      'The Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1949 and the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in Schedule [Amendment of enactments relating to solicitors] to this Act.'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.57 pm
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 53, 55 and 56.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause and the schedule propose amendments to the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1949 and the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 which were recommended by the council of the Law Society. The proposals were fully discussed in Committee and we undertook to bring forward on Report a revised schedule incorporating those items that we accepted as suitably adjusted. The terms of the new clause and the schedule have been agreed with the Law Society of Scotland. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: I am pleased to say that this is one of a number of occasions upon which I can fairly thank the Solicitor-General, or one of his colleagues, for useful amendments. As the Solicitor-General fairly says, new clause 6 and the fairly formidable schedule are the products of a good deal of consultation and discussion. They were originally tabled by me in Committee. I was then, in a sense, acting as an agent for the Law Society which had approached me and asked that the matter should be raised.
      The Minister was good enough to accept that there was good sense in most of the provisions, but he cavilled at one clause which dealt with the slightly more controversial matter of the need to tax solicitors' accounts before court action could be raised for recovery of fees due.
      I took the view, and I still do, that on balance that was probably sensible, if it is seen in the context of what will be a lengthy and continuing debate about the fairly traumatic shock of the arrival of advertising and competition in the staid and respectable world of Scottish solicitors. We shall probably want to return to that subject at leisure on another occasion. That matter has gone from the schedule and I understand the reason for that.
      A number of useful changes remain which deal with the right to levy a subscription and the right to have a special levy to fund a project, such as the new Scottish law publication with which the Law Society is involved. There are a number of other such matters—the recovery of expenses and the rather sad circumstances in which the Law Society has to take over a solicitor's business because of problems that have arisen.
      424
      The provisions bring some flexibility to the framework within which the Law Society operates. These matters underline the difficulties that can arise when one needs primary legislation to effect minor tunings and changes which experience has suggested would be useful. I welcome the fact that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has—as one would expect—honoured the undertaking that he gave in Committee. I welcome the new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 8

      POWER TO PAY EXTRAPARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONERS FOR SERVICE ON INQUIRIES UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1936
      'In section 5 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 (which provides amongst other things, as to the appointment of Commissioners for inquiries under the Act) there shall be added at the end the following subsection—
      "(9) The Secretary of State may pay Commissioners taken from the extraparliamentary panel such fees or other amounts in respect of the performance of their duties under this Act as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine". '.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 51.
      4 pm
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The new clause adds a new subsection, subsection (9), to section 5 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, to empower the Secretary of State to pay fees to commissioners appointed from an extra-parliamentary panel to serve on the inquiries into provisional orders submitted to him under that Act.
      Four commissioners are appointed, under section 5 of the 1936 Act, to serve on an inquiry. They are normally two hon. Members appointed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and two members of the House of Lords, appointed by the Chairman of Committees.
      If the Chairmen are unable to appoint four parliamentary commissioners, the Secretary of State appoints as many persons as are required from the extra-parliamentary panel. The panel consists of 20 persons qualified by their experience of affairs who are nominated by the chairmen, acting jointly with the Secretary of State.
      Recourse to the panel is very infrequent. Until last November, when two members were appointed to act as commissioners for the inquiry into the Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Order 1984 only three members from the extra-parliamentary panel had been called upon to serve in the last 20 years.
      Section 14 of the 1936 Act provides for the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances for all commissioners, but there is at present no provision for the commissioners from the extra-parliamentary panel to be paid a fee or to be reimbursed for loss of earnings through service as a commissioner. The absence of such a provision might create a difficulty when the Secretary of State next has to appoint a commissioner from the panel.

      425
      My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), who served on a recent provisional order inquiry, will well understand the need for this provision, which seeks to remove the possibility of difficulty.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise to the Solicitor-General in that, because I have only just entered the Chamber, I do not know whether he has already mentioned this point. Is it perfectly clear that such payment would not involve commissioners in a difficulty over the question of an office of profit under the Crown?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, the new clause would not create any difficulty, because commissioners who happen to be hon. Members will have no access to this opportunity. It is only in those infrequent cases where a commissioner is appointed from the extra-parliamentary panel that there might be a need for payment. The power to pay a fee—the level of which would be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury—will be additional to the provisions of section 14 for the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances. It will apply only to commissioners drawn from the extra-parliamentary panel. Hon. Members continue to receive their normal parliamentary salary when serving as commissioners, and Members of the House of Lords are entitled to allowances on the same basis as for attendance in their House.
      I commend the new clause to the House and trust that it will be seen as facilitating the private legislation procedure in Scotland.
      Mr. James Wallace: The amount is not limited; it is to be determined by the Secretary of State. It will be subject to Treasury approval, and that might lead us to believe that it is likely to be very modest, but should Parliament give an open-ended commitment? It is acceptable that people should be paid, but perhaps Parliament should have some control over the size of the payment.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The level of the fee is to be determined by the Secretary of State. If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) fears that the fee might be too high, he must be failing to take account of the fact that the approval of the Treasury will be required. It would be a unique experience, if the Secretary of State for Scotland were to find that the Treasury was prepared to agree to the payment of a sum, that the House might consider that excessive.
      Mr. Donald Stewart indicated assent.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I see that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), with his experience, accepts that proposition.
      Mr. Michael Hirst: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the new clause. I do so with enthusiasm because I recently served as a parliamentary commissioner on a lengthy inquiry. Because only two of the four commissioners were Members of Parliament, it was necessary on that occasion to bring in two people from the extra-parliamentary list. The inquiry was privileged by the appointment of Mrs. Morris and Mr. Lowson. Mr. Lowson was retired, but Mrs. Morris was a very active person who found it necessary to forgo, for nearly three and a half months, practising her profession as a psychologist. It is entirely appropriate that this power should be granted, so that, in
      426
      future, the private legislation procedure will be able to depend on the services of the talented and able people who are needed to serve in the onerous position of commissioner.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has pointed out that the amount to be paid would be unlimited. That must be right, because the appropriate reimbursement may vary in different circumstances. Given the Treasury's record, I cannot believe that it will be prepared to pay substantial amounts without justification. I welcome the new clause with enthusiasm.
      Mr. Dewar: I welcome—in a somewhat muted fashion—a minor change. There should be room for recompense for those who give such public service. No sum likely to get past the eagle eye of the Treasury would be likely to compensate for the sufferings of the commissioners on the Edinburgh relief road inquiry. The comments of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) resembled a cri de coeur.
      On another occasion, we could have a useful debate about the way in which the procedure operates, its effectivness as a method of dealing with the immensely complex issues that arise in such inquiries, and the extent to which it can be conclusive. However, while the procedure exists, and while we ask people—we may ask them with increasing frequency in future—to serve from the extra-parliamentary list, it is only right that there should be some provision to pay them for their services. The Opposition would not wish in any way to obstruct the proposal.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      PLACES FOR THE CARE OF DRUNKEN PERSONS
      'In Section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, at the end, there shall be added—
      "(2A) Where a constable has power to arrest a person without warrant for being drunk and disorderly, drunk and incapable drunk and in charge of a child, and drunk and attempting to enter licensed premises, then the constable shall take him to any place designated in Schedule (places designated as suitable for the care of drunken persons) to this Act, unless (a) the person refuses to go to such place, (b) the constable has reason to suspect that he has committed another offence or (c) there is no such designated place reasonably accessible. Where a constable does not take a person to a designated place and charges him with any of the above offences then he must enter on the charge his reasons for failing to take the person to a designated place.
      (2B) Where a constable has power to arrest a person without warrant for any other offence and the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person is drunk, the constable may if he thinks fit, take him to any place designated in Schedule (places designated as suitable for the care of drunken persons) to this Act.".'.—[Mr. Maxton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John Maxton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Places designated as suitable for the care of drunken persons—
      'The following Schedule shall be added to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980—
      PART I

      1. Within six months of the coming into force of this

      427
      Act each Regional authority in Scotland shall submit to the Secretary of State for Scotland a list of places within each region which they consider suitable for the care of drunken persons.

      2. Such places shall be those that having been inspected by the Social Work Department and the Local Health Board, are considered to have met the criteria listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 below.

      3. The Social Work Department and the Local Health Board shall be satisfied that the place, whomsoever it is run by, has suitable accommodation for the care of drunken persons and meets the statutory, fire, health and safety standards.

      4. The Social Work Department and the Local Health Board shall be satisfied that there is one person on the staff of such places who either is qualified to deal with drunken persons or has considerable experience in dealing with drunken persons.

      5. Where a regional authority is of the opinion that there are inadequate numbers of places in the region for the purposes of section 5 of this Act, then they may, if they so wish, establish such places under their own authority.

      PART II

      1. When the Secretary of State has received from each regional authority the list of places considered suitable for the care of drunken persons then he shall designate such places if he is satisfied that they are suitable, and accordingly inform the regional authorities.

      2. The Social Work Department and Local Health Board shall inspect the designated places every six months to ensure that the standards as laid down in Part I of this Schedule are maintained.

      3. If at any time the regional authority reports that a designated place is no longer suitable then the Secretary of State shall move that place from the list of designated plans.

      4. A regional authority may, if it so wishes, make grants to other bodies in order to maintain such places.

      PART III
      Purposes of places designated as suitable for the care of drunken persons

      1. Designated places shall take into care those persons brought to them by a constable and shall offer such treatment as the qualified or experienced person considers appropriate in order to resolve the problems the drunken person has.

      2. A drunken person shall be asked to stay for such time as the qualified or experienced person considers necessary for the treatment.".'.

      Mr. Maxton: Those who served on the Committee may well recognise the words of these new clauses. New clause 2 is, or course, a new schedule to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. The new clauses are exactly the same as amendments that I tabled in Committee.
      Part 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act gives constables certain powers when they arrest drunks for certain specific drunken offences. I believe that there are only three specific offences—drunk and disorderly, drunk and incapable, and drunk in charge of a child. In the case of those offences a constable may take the person in question to a designated place where he will receive treatment, rather than taking him to the police station, charging him with the offence and bringing him before the court. My new clauses require a constable to take a person to a designated place unless quite specific conditions have been met or the person refuses to go. It is not enough to say that constables may take people to a designated place, because the evidence of the past five years shows that they do not.
      New clause 2 provides what designated places are. In 1980, I wanted to ensure that the Secretary of State did not start designating unsuitable places where no treatment was available and which were essentially doss houses. The
      428
      designated places should be capable of treating offenders and of keeping them there for a specified time. Medical care should be available and health and safety regulations should be met. I thought it necessary to have control over designated places.
      My fears have been proved utterly unfounded because, with the exception of one place in Aberdeen, none have been designated. Ministers had enormously high hopes during the passage of the 1980 Act. Of course, with the exception of the Secretary of State, none of the Ministers involved with the Act are still on the Front Bench. We were told how the Act would decriminalise drunkenness in Scotland. It was a laudable effort. We all welcomed the principle and agreed that it was time that people with drink problems should stop being treated as criminals.
      Five years later, nothing has happened. Last Friday I spoke to the chief constable of Strathclyde—Sir Patrick Hamill—who, when he heard that I intended to raise the subject, asked me to push it as hard as I could because he wants to decriminalise drink. I can think of no section of the community that disagrees with that. Each year, about 15,000 to 20,000 people are charged with offences caused principally by a drink problem. On the clause 5 stand part debate, my hon. Friends said that unless the Government were prepared to provide resources, nothing would happen. With the honourable exception of Aberdeen, that is what has occurred.
      4.15 pm
      Matters are even worse in England as, far from detoxification units being opened, they are being closed for lack of resources. The Manchester unit is being closed for lack of resources, although I accept that it has problems because it is a little out of the city and not easy for the police to reach. In Glasgow we have an area that could be used as a designated place. It is doing a marvellous job treating people with serious drink problems. Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), I have visited it. I refer to the Department of Health and Social Security resettlement unit at Bishopbriggs. It is doing a tremendous job and treats people with the most serious drink problems—the people whom the voluntary organisations will not touch. Only when the resettlement unit has partially dried people out will the voluntary organisations take them on. In spite of its good work, the unit is being closed. That is not good enough.
      I hope that the House is grateful that I have tabled these new clauses. They give Ministers an opportunity to explain what they have done since 1980. After all, there is no point in enacting legislation, no matter how well intentioned, unless it is put into action. That is what has happened here.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: What will happen to the man who is simply drunk on the odd occasion and is clearly not an alcoholic? Would he be covered by these new clauses?
      Mr. Maxton: To some extent such a man would be benefited by the new clauses. If a man goes out on a blinder, he might be charged with being drunk and incapable and therefore have a criminal record, although he is an honourable man. However, if my new clauses were enacted, he would not be charged and he would therefore have no criminal record. He might be taken to a detoxification unit, but he would be there only one night as the staff would quickly be aware that he had no history of drinking.

      429
      I hope that the Minister will say what the Government have done in the past five years and what they intend to do. Do they realise that passing legislation is not enough on its own, and that they must give local authorities, health boards and voluntary organisations money to ensure that there are places to which police constables can take people who have committed a drink offence?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, these new clauses are identical to amendments that he tabled to the original clause 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and which were discussed in the Scottish Standing Committee on 5 June 1980. I appreciate his reasons for retabling them—principally to enable further discussion of a subject that is still worrying. Although we do not think that provision such as this would be helpful, I should like to outline developments since the 1980 Act which have overtaken parts of the new clauses.
      Following the passage of the 1980 Act, the Scottish Office undertook consultation with many bodies and organisations, including the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Work. In April 1982 we produced two sets of guidelines for designated places, covering the caring aspect of setting up and running premises suitable for designation and advice to the police on those who might be suitable for taking to such a place.
      The guidelines represented the detail that we thought it reasonable to lay down. They included the standard of premises, care and supervision in the premises, links with other types of facilities and co-operation with social work, medical and nursing services.
      While the guidelines for the police explain the purpose and scope of section 5 procedures and the degree of discretion which the police might want to exercise, for example, when a person has committed more than one offence, they also cover—I mention this in the context of the new clauses—the action to be taken if a person refuses to go to a designated place or if staff decline to accept him and he may be taken to a police station and charged.
      A specific part of the provisions of the new clauses, regarding the standards of premises and supervision, and the action to be taken by the police, need not and possibly should not be included in primary legislation. Some provisions—for example, specifying that a designated place must take into care all those brought in by the police, or that such persons would be asked to stay as long as the person in charge of the designated place thinks fit—would encroach on the proper use of discretion by those concerned and, possibly, on the liberty of the citizen.
      New clause 2 would require local authorities, within a limited period, to submit to the Secretary of State lists of premises which are suitable for designation to receive drunken offenders with suitable staff to run them, with the implication that, following designation, they should be operated either by the local authority or by other bodies with a local authority grant.
      I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's aim of making such a provision to accelerate the provision of designated places, of which, as he said, only one operates at present. Apparently, that one operates with considerable success. There are, however, two points that I should like to make. First, several parts of the new clause are unnecessary. For
      430
      example, local authorities already have the power under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to provide funds to voluntary bodies for the purposes of the Act, and to inspect and register residential and other establishments, taking into account the suitability of staff, premises and conduct of the establishment.
      More important, while we welcome the implicit suggestion in the new clauses that the responsibility for providing facilities and services for people with an alcohol problem is primarily for local authorities and health boards, the Secretary of State would not think it appropriate to impose a duty on local authorities, which have many other demands to meet, to devote their resources to a single programme in this way against a specific time limit. It is open to local authorities to take an active role in the provision and promotion of designated places.
      I commend in particular the example of Grampian authority, which bought the premises at Albyn house for the Albyn House Association, and which is taking a share in the running costs together with the Scottish Office. That shows that local authorities can give assistance and support as necessary. However, we do not believe that the Secretary of State should impose a duty on local authorities to provide such facilities or to take away the discretion of local authorities as the new clause would.
      As I have made clear on more than one occasion, I remain ready to examine any project which comes to me, and to fund it in exactly the same way as the Albyn house project. Anyone who doubts whether projects in his local area may be successful, should look at the success of that project in Aberdeen. I stressed that in a visit to Aberdeen only a fortnight ago. I made it clear in some interviews that other voluntary organisations and local authorities should look at the good example in Aberdeen and be prepared to come to me with projects. I would be extremely sympathetic about funding such projects.
      Mr. Gerald Malone: I wish to emphasise my hon. Friend's point. I remind him that, as a result of the project in Aberdeen, the number of offences of drunkenness in the city last year dropped to five. The project decriminalised the offence of drunkenness. More important, it saves substantial money and police time, and allows Grampian police to devote themselves to other activities. I hope that my hon. Friend will always bear that cost-effective argument in mind.
      Mr. MacKay: It may put the figure of five drunkenness offences in an even more dramatic context, if I say that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland pointed out that there were 235 offences of drunkenness in 1983 in Aberdeen. Therefore, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of cases of drunkenness in Aberdeen.
      If the new clauses have done nothing else, they have allowed us to stress to local authorities and voluntary organisations how successful Albyn house has been, and allowed me to say if projects come before me, I shall certainly look at them as sympathetically as possible with a view to funding them.
      Mr. William McKelvey: I welcome the fact that the Minister will be sympathetic to cash funding such projects. However, he should go further. Does he agree that if he applied the same pressure and propaganda as he did when he tried to privatise certain

      431
      elements in the National Health Service, and if he brought it to the attention of authorities that money was available, some authorities may accept his offer?
      Mr. MacKay: I shall not go down the highways of the National Health Service, but use the opportunity to say that I hope that if authorities have not considered the matter—I believe that they will have considered it—they should look at the example of Albyn house in Aberdeen and be prepared, either themselves or with voluntary organisations, to devise projects to undertake the same sort of work in other parts of Scotland.
      Although I am extremely sympathetic to the aims of the hon. Member for Cathcart, I consider that the prescriptions in the new clauses would not be helpful. I ask the House to reject the new clauses. However, I stress that we stand ready to help with projects that come to us from the voluntary sector and local government.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for tabling the two new clauses and for giving the Under-Secretary of State the opportunity to tell the House and, through it, the people of Scotland, that no Scottish local authority, apart from Grampian region, has submitted a scheme and had it considered. I take it that the only scheme to be submitted was the Aberdeen one, which was approved, and that no other scheme has been submitted and turned down by the Minister. It is important that we have that on the record.
      It is equally important that we have on the record the Minister's commitment that if local authorities submit schemes, whether joint-funded schemes through the health boards and the social work departments of regional councils or otherwise, he will agree to part-fund those schemes. I am fairly certain that one of the inhibitions on the regional authorities during the past four years has been the distinct suggestion from New St. Andrew's house that, no matter what is suggested, no money will be made available for it. That position has been slightly changed today by the Minister's commitment to fund such schemes.
      I shall do my best to encourage the regional social work departments and the area health boards because they also have a part to play. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) pointed out that there were savings to be made in police and court time. I am absolutely certain that there will also be savings to be made in the Health Service. They may be more long-term, but there will be savings. I shall certainly want to do all that I can to encourage Scottish local authorities and health boards to submit schemes on the understanding that the Minister gave today, that the schemes will be part-funded by the Scottish Office.
      Mr. McKelvey: They should be 100 per cent funded.
      Mr. MacKay indicated dissent.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) may say that, but the Minister is shaking his head in disagreement. I am disappointed that no other schemes have been submitted. The Minister said that we were talking about a local problem. I was interested in the intervention of the right
      432
      hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and in his reference to occasional drunks. That reminded me of one of the great stories about the Western Isles. A boy said that he got drunk once a year—from February until October. I suppose that that is just occasionally drunk.
      However, it is important that we should have the Minister's commitments on the record.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Western Isles, but is he aware that, judging by the new clause, the Isles authorities are not expected to assume the statutory responsibility that would be imposed on the other areas? Was that a drafting error, or does the hon. Gentleman think that drunkenness does not exist in the Isles?
      Mr. Ewing: I should prefer my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart to answer for his own drafting. However, I do not want to delay the House, so I shall be brief. It is important to emphasise the points that the Minister has made and to put them on the record. We can then go ahead and encourage local authorities and health boards to submit joint-funded schemes. We are discussing a major and growing problem in Scotland. It is a problem all over western Europe and I do not single out Scotland for special attention. Nevertheless, today we are dealing with Scotland, and the problem is becoming more serious. We should try to do something about it.
      Mr. Hirst: Because of my duties in Edinburgh in connection with the Parliamentary Commission, I was denied the opportunity to speak very often in Committee. Accordingly, I welcome this opportunity to make a short speech today and, in particular, to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, (Mr. Maxton) about the DHSS resettlement unit at Bishopbriggs, in my constituency. That unit is under threat of closure.
      I welcome the perhaps accidental presence of the Minister responsible for health and social work, as I have made urgent and vigorous representations to him on this issue. I hope that he will be able to deal with my remarks. It must be right that special centres are made available to those who suffer from chronic alcoholism. It cannot be a sensible use of police resources to have policemen locking up drunks and taking them to court in the morning, or to have justices having to send them to gaol for 14 days or imposing a small fine.
      The decriminalisation of alcoholism must surely be one of the social advances that the 1980s will see, and detoxification centres along the lines of the successful experiment at Albyn house in Aberdeen are clearly the answer. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, (Mr. Malone) has already mentioned that. But what distinguishes Conservative Members from Opposition Members is that we recognise that resources are limited. Given that that is so, I make a powerful plea in support of the principle of detoxification centres. But until they can be put into place, I should like to see the facility at Bishopbriggs retained. Its premature closure would undoubtedly be folly, and it would deny the west of Scotland an essential safety net for those who suffer from chronic alcoholism.
      That facility fulfils a vital role. Not all of those who use it are alcoholics, although many have alcohol-related problems. On my first visit to the resettlement unit, the staff were engaged in nursing one of the inmates through

      433
      an alcoholic stupor. It is a tribute to their skills that the inmate did not need to be taken to hospital for that rather specialised medical treatment.
      Although the resettlement unit does not have as its basic purpose the role of a detoxification centre, it provides a facility in the community where the chronic alcoholic can be given a chance to try to beat the problem. At present, it is highly questionable whether alternative facilities exist within the community in west central Scotland, and it would be a retrograde step if that important facility at Bishopbriggs in my constituency—whose work was greatly praised during a recent visit by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—closed.
      I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that he would do his best to try to make facilities and resources available to provide detoxification centres. Perhaps he will turn his attention next to west central Scotland where we traditionally have a serious alcohol problem. The community's resources might be best employed in providing a detoxification centre.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has served a very useful purpose in raising this important issue again. The Minister did not dispose of his argument by saying that the Government had issued circulars since amendments were first moved in 1980. Whatever circulars may have been issued, we do not have the sort of institutions that the hon. Member for Cathcart wants, and which are supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      It is quite plain that it is not enough for central Government to exhort local authorities to do something. Local authorities and social work departmens are hard pressed to meet existing commitments, and they will not feel able to embark upon expenditure on new institutions, regardless of whether they are backing the initiatives of private organisations or trusts or backing their own projects, unless the Government can go much further than the Minister went today. He said only that he would look sympathetically at applications for assistance.
      Can the Minister be more specific and precise? He shook his head negatively when the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) suggested that the Government should meet 100 per cent. of the expenditure of such institutions. However, the Minister has not clarified what he means by looking sympathetically. Can he go further than that? If he is genuinely trying to signal to local authorities a change of direction, and if he is saying that the Government are prepared to give higher priority to expenditure on such centres, we welcome that and will do our best to persuade our local authorities about the importance of the issue. However, it is not good enough for the Minister to say that he will look at the matter sympathetically and will wait for these initiatives to be taken. We have waited too long.
      Mr. Maxton: I must say that I found the Minister's reply disappointing. In the past five years, what has happened about the decriminalisation of drunkenness? Everybody admits that the experiment in Aberdeen has been a great success and has worked marvellously. Only five people have been charged with drunkenness in the past 12 months. That is a marvellous record and shows that such facilities work. But why do we not have them in the rest of Scotland? It is not good enough for the Minister to
      434
      say that he is encouraging local authorities. Does that mean that he has not been encouraging them during the past five years and that he has not made it clear to them that he is prepared to give them resources? On the other hand, if he has been encouraging local authorities, what response has he had from them?
      I know that Fred Edwards, the social work director for Strathclyde region, is as committed to this idea as the chief constable of Strathclyde, Sir Patrick Hamill. If both they and Strathclyde regional council are committed to the idea, why has nothing been done? The answer is, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has said, that local authorities are already so strapped for money that they are having to cut existing facilities. Therefore, unless the Minister is prepared to finance such schemes 100 per cent., and to place a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide them, they will not be provided. Local authorities simply do not have the resources.
      We all know that this issue does not necessarily arouse great sympathy among the general public. Many people do not have much sympathy for those who have serious drinking problems or for the down-and-outs of our society. Consequently, it is not always easy for local authorities to switch resources from one area—such as children's homes, old folks' homes or sheltered housing—into another. A new commitment and 100 per cent. funding by the Government are needed.
      Mr. Malone: Despite the fact that it is difficult to provide funds for this purpose, Grampian regional council has managed to do it, yet it has one of the lowest regional rates in Scotland. Might the fact that this council has been able to provide such funds have something to do with the fact that it is Conservative-controlled?
      Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
      Mr. Maxton: Before giving way to my hon. Friend, I shall give a simple answer to that question: no.
      Mr. Hughes: I very much regret that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) has introduced a purely partisan political note into the debate. I pay tribute to what is being done by the Grampian regional council, but there are many other things that the council ought to be doing. The fact that it has set a low rate does not excuse it, just because on this occasion it has done something good, from doing other things.
      Mr. Maxton: Grampian regional council is to be congratulated, but I do not believe that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South can deny that Strathclyde regional council has to deal with far greater problems, caused by multiple deprivation, than those which have to be dealt with by the Grampian regional council. Owing to limited and declining Government grants, Strathclyde regional council faces great difficulties. New resources must be provided by the Government. If they genuinely believe in the decriminalisation of cases involving people who are drunk and disorderly, there must be a much greater Government commitment to dealing with the problem.
      I accept that, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, (Mr. Wallace), the new clause is faulty. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      Police Complaints Panel
      (a) There shall be established a body known as the Police Complaints Panel for Scotland which shall consist of not less than 3 members appointed by the Secretary of State.

      (b) It shall be the duty of each Chief Constable in Scotland to report all complaints against the police by members of the public to the Panel.

      (c) Each complaint in the first instance, shall be investigated by the Deputy Chief Constable, although the complainant shall be informed that he may exercise his right to complain directly to the Panel.

      (d) In cases where the matter is not referred to the Procurator Fiscal or is not subject to internal disciplinary action, the case shall be reported in detail to the Panel.

      (e) If on investigation it considers that action should have been taken it may advise and if necessary direct, the Deputy Chief Constable to take whatever actions it considers necessary.

      (f) The Deputy Chief Constable must comply with such a direction.'.—[Mr. Maxton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I have to make it clear from the outset that this new clause was put down to allow the House to debate again, in Scottish terms, the need for a police complaints procedure. When I went to the Clerk of the House to put down an amendment to the police complaints procedure, I took with me a copy of the Bill which my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) introduced when he was Secretary of State for Scotland but for which he could not obtain the support of the Liberal party and the House. Therefore, it was withdrawn. The Clerk of the House said, probably quite rightly, that to put down a Bill as a new clause was not within the rules. He therefore asked me to truncate it, and that is exactly what I have done. The new clause lays down the principles which were contained in the Bill. I accept that on its own it is insufficient to become law. A commitment would be needed that the Government accept the principle, and they would then have to introduce a new clause at a later stage.
      4.45 pm
      It is important that the principle of a police complaints procedure in Scotland should be established. This matter was raised during the passage of what is now the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. Many hon. Members said that they did not like the new clauses relating to detention or the new powers of stop and search. We still do not like those powers. However, they would be less abhorrent if there were some means by which the matter could be considered by a body other than the police. If a policeman steps out of line and a complaint is made about his actions by a member of the public, there ought to be some means by which the complaint can be looked at independently of the police.
      Complaints of this nature now go to the deputy chief constable, and when it is alleged that a criminal offence has been committed the normal practice is for the complaint to be sent to the procurator fiscal. However, those who make complaints are interviewed by the police before the matter is sent to the procurator fiscal, and in some cases the complaint is withdrawn. In other cases there is need for a disciplinary procedure because
      436
      policemen have not acted within police rules. Therefore, it is essential for those cases to be investigated by a body that is independent of the police.
      This is not, as is so often alleged, meant to be an attack upon the police, but the police are unbelievably touchy about it. I believe that 99·9 per cent. of Scotland's policemen do their job well, obey the rules and often have to carry out their work in very difficult circumstances. However, there are those who do not operate within the rules, and it is in the interests not only of the public but of the police that the investigation of those cases should be handled by a body that is independent of the police.
      I have never understood why chief constables and the Police Federation are so opposed to the setting up of an independent body. The members of the inquiry would be appointed, not by the National Council of Civil Liberties or by the Scottish Council of Civil Liberties, but by the Secretary of State. They would not necessarily take the side of the complainant. As sensible people, they would take an objective view of the matter, which would be in the interests of the police. The argument that has always been advanced against having a police complaints procedure in Scotland is that Scotland has an independent prosecution system, whereas prosecution in England and Wales is a matter for the police. It is argued that because the procurator fiscal is the prosecutor there is no need for a police complaints procedure in Scotland. However, an independent prosecution procedure is to be introduced in England and Wales, but the police complaints procedure will not be abolished. On the contrary, it is to be strengthened. The Home Office believes that an independent prosecution system and a police complaints procedure should go hand in hand in England and Wales. If that is so in England and Wales, why on earth is it not so in Scotland, so that when complaints were made by the public about the police they would feel that their complaints had been properly investigated? It would also mean that the public would have greater respect for the police. Because of the few "bad eggs", that is not always the case now. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on the new clause. I remember vividly our debate on what is now the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. Indeed, it was the passing of that Act that makes this measure more necessary then ever. I am sorry to hear that an attempt to introduce it in a properly structured piece of legislation was prevented because of the Liberal party's cold feet.
      We now have an opportunity to do two things: first, we can look back on that Act, which considerably increased police powers; secondly, we can look back at the events of the past year and a half in Britain. It would be wrong to ignore the nature of the disputes on the picket line over that period and the behaviour of some police.
      It is fortunate that England and Wales have a police procedure which prevented some of the community anger. Anyone who has been to the coalfields of England will be aware of not just the picket line and miners' anger but the community anger about some of the events that took place. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know how many complaints were proceeded with. It would be interesting to know how many complaints were made in Scotland over

      437
      the past year and a half. I recognise that the aggro in Scotland was less than it was in England and Wales, but how many complaints were dealt with successfully?
      That is part of the background that has worried some of us. I never believed that I would switch on a television set and see some of the events that we saw at Orgreave. The veneer in which we have taken pride in the past is not so deep as we might have hoped.
      I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I speak as a former Minister in charge of law and order, and therefore the police, in Scotland. The best security for the police against unjustified complaints is a police procedure which is above question to deal with complaints.
      We have been told that Scotland does not need such a procedure because of the existence of the procurator fiscal structure. We were told in 1980 that there was insufficient money, but now we are told that the legal structure makes it unnecessary. That is not the case. The only way in which we can be sure that the community will be satisfied is by a structure, independent of the police force, in the form of a panel to which people can have recourse when necessary. Without that, even the procurator fiscal does not provide the necessary knowledge that complaints have been fully investigated.
      We all know from letters that we receive that people make complaints about police behaviour, or indeed, about matters which do not effect the police, which the procurator fiscal does not take up. The suggestion is that a secret organisation has kept things below the counter. The only way to solve that problem is to ensure that there is open discussion in which people can have some faith.
      Moving away from the events of the past year and a half and the anxieties to which they have given rise, one must look at the 1980 Act, which considerably extended police powers of search, investigation and arrest. Complaints often arise from aggro at the time of arrest, holding or search. It is often difficult to establish the truth. It is often easy to make undisciplined and sometimes unfounded accusations. Such accusations cannot satisfactorily be dealt with if the people who make them are informed that there will be an investigation through the same police force that gave rise to the complaints in the first place. There is no comfort in the fact that a deputy chief constable, or someone at whatever level, will come from another area to investigate. To the people the police are the police, and that is all there is to it.
      I want to underline strongly my hon. Friend's points. Not least of the aspects with which we are concerned is to ensure that, like Caesar's wife, the police are above suspicion if an accusation is rejected.
      There is no doubt that there has been a decline in mutual trust, particularly between young people and the police, such as has occurred so bitterly in the mining communities. I should never have believed that those to whom I have spoken in, for example, Yorkshire would have spoken about the police in the way in which they have done. Clearly, trust has broken down, yet we do not even have the comfort of a separate complaints procedure to deal with matters.
      Even if the Minister were to reject the argument that there is a major case, in the sense of a mass of accusations, and even if he were satisfied with the present procedures, although I do not see how he can be, there is a case for re-establishing the mutual trust that once existed. That can come only with an independent police complaints panel, as outlined by my hon. Friend.
      438
      My hon. Friend has been apologetic about the nature of the new clause. It is simplified but it is not too bad a structure, and it is one upon which we can build. I hope that the Minister will accept it in principle and give us the comfort of knowing that the Government intend to treat the matter seriously and come forward with legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friends will give him every support to get such a measure through quickly.
      Sir Hector Monro: It is extremely valuable that the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) have given us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I speak not from any practical knowledge of events of the past year, nor, indeed, would I want to do so, because that would introduce a different issue from that of complaints generally with which we want to deal.
      I have been chairman of a joint police committee in Scotland. Therefore, I am entirely supportive of the outstanding work that the police do day by day, week by week, year by year throughout Britain. But I must accept that every now and again constituents come to one's surgery with what, in their view, are complaints against the police, whether the result of a specific action or just general harassment of their lives. One may be able to deal with their case, perhaps by asking them to think again, but at the end of the day their only redress is the present procedure. The procedure is carried out effectively and fairly by the chief of police, or whoever he may depute, but when the result of the inquiry is known the constituent concerned almost inevitably feels aggrieved that his case has been tried by the police. The nub of the argument is whether that is fair justice. Should a complainant go away with a feeling that he has had hard justice?
      I know that we have the satisfactory procurator fiscal system, and I am glad that England is falling into line with that procedure, but it is worth making the point, so fairly made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South, that it might well be in the best interests of the police if an inquiry were carried out by an independent body. Ninety times out of 100—perhaps 99 times out of 100—police officers will be cleared if they have carried out their duties within the regulations. If that is so, the inquiry will exonerate them; but, more importantly, the independence of the inquiry, clear of a police officer as "judge", will mean that those who complain are much more satisfied. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will say that he intends to give this matter more detailed consideration. If his consultations produce a view similar to mine, I hope that it will be thought worth introducing the necessary legislation.
      This is not in any way a criticism of the police, for whom I have the highest regard. It would be in their interest to be clear of criticism from the public. Any subsequent inquiry would be seen to be independent, so the complainant would have no reason to continue to feel aggrieved.
      5 pm
      Mr. Wallace: I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to debate this important issue. He said that when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) was Secretary of State he introduced a Bill that could not proceed because it was blocked by the Lib-Lab agreement. I was not a Member of the House at that time, so I do not know why that happened. I assure the hon. Gentleman that

      439
      it has always been the policy of the Liberal party, both in Scotland and in England, that there should be an independent police complaints procedure. I can only assume that the Bill fell on questions of detail.
      As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, all hon. Members receive complaints from constituents about police handling of certain cases. Such complaints often relate to cases in which people feel the police should have intervened, but did not. Although hon. Members discuss these cases with chief constables in great detail, and are subsequently satisfied that the police have acted properly, nevertheless our constituents are unhappy that the matter has been investigated by the police—even though the investigators are independent of the police officers involved in the original incident. They believe that, to some extent, the police protect their own. Therefore, it is important for the sake of the police to have an independent body to investigate complaints.
      If there is to be an independent police complaints panel, there should also be an independent force to investigate the complaints. I do not think that the hon. Member for Cathcart is suggesting that the three members of the panel should carry out the investigation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) put forward that view during the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and I understand that that view was supported by the Police Federation. The Government said that it was not possible because of lack of manpower.
      If we apply our minds to the problem, we will find that it is not as great as might initially have been perceived. Such an independent force could comprise ex-policemen and others who have the necessary skills and qualities for investigative work—for example, former Customs and Excise officers. If we accept the proposal in principle, I am sure that there will be no difficulty in finding people for the investigatory force. That will supplement the important independent nature of the panel.
      It is useful to have such a debate and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I hope that he will be positive. If the new clause is not an acceptable way to proceed, I hope that he will outline the positive steps that the Government will take to provide for a more independent investigation of police complaints in Scotland. We must remember that England and Wales have made significant advances during the past two years.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the new clause tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I am especially pleased that it has attracted a great deal of support from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). It also received a cautious welcome in principle—although there was some criticism of the detail—from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Indeed, there appears to be an all-party consensus that we need some form of independent investigation of the police.
      Like other hon. Members, I wish to state clearly that I have a great deal of respect for the police. Leaving aside the special tension of the past 12 months, it is nevertheless true that there are now greater tensions in society than for many a long day. The police are often at the sharp end when trying to deal with social tensions. It is in the general interest that there should be confidence between the public and the police. When I was a boy, policemen were
      440
      represented not, perhaps, as PC Plods but as nice, couthy characters, very friendly, who could be approached on all sorts of matters. If one sometimes got into difficulty, the policement might administer a clip on the ear and say, "Go home."
      The relationship between the police and the public today is quite different from when I was a boy. I have experience of the police force both as a former member of Aberdeen city council and as a Member of the House. Successive chief constables have always said, "We do not want any bad eggs in the police force because that is not in our interests. We want to root them out. If that person is so bad that he should not be in the police force, we will get rid of him. If it is someone who has difficulty relating to the public, we will deal with it by training, discussion and identifying particular problems." Chief constables certainly believe that for the good of both the police and the public no member of the police force should be antisocial, in the widest definition.
      During my 15 years in the House I have not had many complaints about police misbehaviour or malpractice, although I expect I get my fair share. I am not anxious to encourage that. Some of the complaints have been justified. I shall not today, as I have done previously, go into detail because I do not want to identify policemen who have been disciplined. There is no point in raking up matters to their discredit. The worst case that I have had to take up with the chief constable—an allegation that neither he nor I could believe could possibly be true—was found to hold some truth following an investigation. Three policemen had to leave the force, and they were shown the door with great resolution. That happened more than 10 years ago, but it shows that the police will take action when serious cases are proved.
      This debate is not an exercise in police bashing—it is an attempt to restore the previous tradition of good relationships between the police and the public. All hon. Members who have spoken have said that it would benefit the police to have an independent investigation. I have had discussions and disagreements with trade union representatives of the police. I know that when a letter from me arrives on the desk of the chief constable and is fed through the system, some members of the police force are not exactly pleased. Some of the things that I understand have been said about me would not bear repeating in the House. The police should understand that we are putting forward this proposal not only because of the awkward squad—people who make frivolous or malicious allegations—but because we believe it will be of as much benefit to the police as to the public.
      When a complaint has been substantiated and disciplinary action has been taken, or if a case goes to the procurator fiscal and a policeman is prosecuted and found guilty, people are not dissatisfied with the way in which it has been handled. The problem arises when someone makes a complaint, which is investigated by the police, who say that there is no substance in it, that there was a misunderstanding, or that it was the fault of the complainant for being aggressive either verbally or physically. In such cases people say, "We are not satisfied that the matter has been given a proper hearing."
      Many of us who have been concerned for a long time with the complexities of society and the different ways in which authority, in its broadest definition, impinges on the lives of ordinary people, have been arguing for a wider complaints procedure. Largely as a result of such debates,

      441
      we now have a Parliamentary Commissioner who can independently investigate complaints against the state. I know that there are limitations on his powers, but there is at least a procedure whereby someone aggrieved about a decision of public administration can have his complaint investigated thoroughly.
      The same is true of the National Health Service, although its commissioner is also limited in the sense that he cannot investigate matters of clinical judgment. Some of us may argue about that, but I realise that this is not the place to do it. Nevertheless, in general, the Health Service Commissioner system works, and people understand that it is another attempt to protect the ordinary citizen from big bureaucracy. There is also a Local Government Commissioner. Many of us know from experience how local government has grown in size and complexity. It deals with so many matters that impinge on ordinary people's lives that we decided—it was generally accepted—that we needed an independent complaints procedure so that an individual might have his grievances considered carefully. The Local Government Commissioner system also works extremely well.
      In some cases, the same person may do the job of Parliamentary Commissioner, Health Service Commissioner and Local Government Commissioner, but they are three separate offices. Their one failing is that they have no power to compel an offending authority to accept their recommendations and remedy the grievances. In the vast majority of cases, when a complaint is investigated, the commissioner recommends a course of action and the authorities carry out those recommendations. But if they decide to be obdurate and say, "We will not accept this," nothing can be done about it.
      One of the special attractions of new clause 3 is paragraph (f), which states that the decision of the panel must be complied with by the deputy chief constable. That must be right. I have always believed that if an authority is investigated and found to be at fault, not necessarily because it acted deliberately but because of maladministration or error, the recommendations of the panel should be binding. Therefore, if it is found that a complaint against the police is justified and the panel recommends some action, the police should comply with it.
      Public confidence in the police would be greatly enhanced if we had an independent complaints procedure. It is is long overdue. Others in the House may have a better memory of events than I, but I recollect that when the idea of a police complaints panel or an independent investigating system was first discussed in the House, it caused great controversy inside and among parties. The idea was welcomed by no one. Now there is agreement in almost all parties and, although I have no authority for saying this, I believe that we have gone through this argument so often and examined its merits with such care that even the chief constables would not bitterly oppose it. I am still not sure whether representatives of police officers would accept it, but gradually even they are beginning to understand that it is in their best interests. They are there to serve the public, not the state, and the public will be best served by a good police-public relationship and by enhancing public confidence in the police.
      I hope that the Minister will show his approval of the principle and accept it, or ensure that amendments are introduced in the other place. The Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan has probably
      442
      stood the test of time and would be a good way of going about it. The Minister will have the full support of the House if he does so. I commend the new clause to the House.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The principle that any grievance should be independently investigated is increasingly accepted in society. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was right to refer to the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Health Service Commissioner and the Local Government Commissioner, but the principle has been extended beyond that. In Scotland, it has been accepted in relation to complaints against the legal profession, and Mrs. Joan MacIntosh's role as an independent ombudsman to whom the public can refer complaints is a recognition that the principle is constantly being extended. In the private sector, it has been extended to insurance, so that we now have the independent investigation of complaints against insurance companies. The principle is almost beyond party controversy. The only defence against extending it to the police that has been mounted by the Government is that, to some extent, Scotland already has it with the independent procurator fiscal system.
      However, in my constituency experience, the procurator fiscal system has not been wholly satisfactory in meeting the perceived need for an independent investigatory power. First, several complaints do not raise issues of criminal behaviour and are therefore not appropriate to be referred by the chief constable to the procurator fiscal. Many relatively nit-picking grievances against the police, and certainly issues of discipline, can give rise to the greatest sense of unfairness. That is not new.
      Indeed, the most celebrated case of a complaint against the police not being satisfied by the existing system occurred in my constituency. My predecessor, the late Sir David Robertson, raised in the House the famous Waters case, which led eventually to the setting up of a public inquiry. The fact that it was treated in such an inflated manner caused considerable damage to the police force. It was a serious complaint, but not so serious as to require such a massive response. I was told subsequently that it had even affected police recruiting.
      That is why I believe, with others who have spoken, that it is in the interests of the police to accept the desirability of an independent element in the investigation of complaints against them. I favour an independent element, not a wholly independent system of investigation and judgment, because I believe that if the police complaints system is to command the confidence of the public, it must be effective. To be effective, it will require the complete and wholehearted co-operation of the police in conducting the investigations. It is not wholly practical to establish a force to police the police.
      Although I concur with the view that there must be an independent element in the investigation, as well as in the panel to which the new clause refers, we must recognise that if investigations are to be carried out in depth and effectively, and if a wall of silence is not to surround the complaint, the investigating body must command the confidence and support of the police and be recognised as performing a function which the police, in their professional interests, would wish to be properly discharged.

      443
      Like others, I believe that the police do a remarkably good job in Scotland. Few complaints are made, considering the number of times that the police are in contact with the public. The police are the last defence for the citizen against the breakdown of the rule of law and sometimes they have to use force or make a measured response to unruly behaviour. That is bound to lead to complaints on some occasions.
      The consensus on the subject has moved considerably since we last debated it in the House when we considered the Criminal Justice Bill. This week, a new police complaints body has been set up in England and Parliament is considering the introduction of an independent prosecution service for England.
      In England the Police Federation is calling for a totally independent system of investigating complaints against the police. That call has not yet been echoed in Scotland, but thoughtful policemen increasingly are of the view that there is much to be said for involving outsiders in examining complaints against the police. The new clause provides us with a valuable opportunity to raise the issues and for the Government to make a positive response.
      The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has direct experience as chairman of a police authority and the Government cannot ignore his contribution. All political parties are clearly of the view that the time has come for the Government to make a move. We seek, not a rush into uncharted territory, but a considered and careful response from the Government.
      Mr. Ewing: After what has been said today it will do the Minister no good if he merely digs in his heels and says that he is satisfied with the present position which has prevailed for some time. After the contribution by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Minister must now appreciate the widespread agreement that there must be an independent element in judging complaints against the police.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) talked about respect for the police, but this issue is not about respect or disrespect for the police; it is about the public being confident that their complaints against the police will be fairly investigated and that the outcome of that investigation will be satisfactory to the complainant. The outcome might be different from that which is expected, but the complainant must be satisfied that his complaint has been properly and impartially investigated.
      It is important to emphasise that chief constables should take no part in such investigations, because at the end of an investigation the chief constable is responsible for disposing of the case and determining any punishment.
      I wish to set the record straight about what happened in 1978–79 when the Labour Government sought to introduce a Bill to deal with the problem. The Bill was never introduced. It was drafted and discussed across the parties, but that was under a minority Government and it was made clear that there was no majority in the House for enacting such legislation.
      It is important that the Minister should understand the events which led to the drafting of that legislation. In Scotland the Police Advisory Board meets regularly and the Minister probably chairs it, as I did, from time to time. I took the matter to the Police Advisory Board and with the exception of the Police Federation and the Police
      444
      Superintendents' Association, both of which are represented by statute on the board, a substantial majority was in favour of introducing such legislation. The board comprises people from all walks of life, such as James Scotland, the principal of Aberdeen college of education and a playwright.
      Once the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents' Association realised that a majority of the board was in favour of such legislation and that the then Government were anxious to go ahead, they helped with the drafting. Whether they were reluctant to help is beside the point. The Police Federation represents officers up to the rank of inspector and the Police Superintendents' Association represents all ranks except assistant deputy chief constables and chief constables. It cannot be said that the police have always dug in their heels against independent investigations.
      Talk about what happens in England clouds the Scottish issue. Comparing the English and Scottish systems does not help. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned the element of independent prosecution to be introduced in England, but in the past the police have prosecuted in their own cases.
      Complaints against the police, which currently go to the procurator fiscal in Scotland, will continue to be referred to him even if we set up an independent element for investigating complaints against the police. It is important to emphasise that. The new clause is not an attempt to take away the reference to the procurator fiscal. I should not be in favour of it if it were. Cases that presently go to the procurator fiscal properly go to him.
      We must consider the danger of double jeopardy. I would be the last person to approve a system that put police officers at risk of double jeopardy. No hon. Member who has contributed to the debate would favour such a system.
      5.30 pm
      The Labour Government's proposals, which were never put into a Bill, were that when a person was visited by a police officer after making a complaint he should not be asked whether he wanted to go ahead with the complaint but should merely choose whether he wanted the complaint investigated by the assistant chief constable—the existing arrangement—or by an independent panel. When the panel had investigated a matter, the complainant could not say that he was dissatisfied with the panel's decision and wanted the matter investigated by the assistant chief constable. We want to avoid that possibility and the new clause would avoid it.
      The existing system of investigating complaints against the police could continue in parallel with an independent system. We should not dismiss that possibility. I hope that the Minister will not simply say that the Government are satisfied with the existing position.
      I am sure that all hon. Members know of cases of constituents telling us that they want to make a complaint against the police. When we write to the deputy chief constable, he sends a chief superintendent—never anyone below that rank—who is always in uniform, to interview the person concerned, not about the complaint, but about whether he wants to pursue it. On many occasions I have had phone calls from desperate people—usually women—complaining about the police, and within two or three days they come back and tell me that they do not want to pursue the case. Subsequently, I have

      445
      received a letter from the assitant chief constable or a deputy chief constable telling me that the woman has been interviewed, has changed her mind and is satisfied.
      Will the Minister give us a commitment to take this matter to the Police Advisory Board and bring forward proposals for an independent element in the investigation of complaints against the police? The independent element in investigations of complaints has spread far and wide. It already exists in the insurance industry, the legal profession, local government and the National Health Service.
      We cannot be like ostriches and stick our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing has changed. Events have moved on, and there has never been a better time for Ministers to encourage the people of Scotland by assuring them that there will be a thorough examination of the matter, with the possibility of introducing a Bill. I should prefer a Bill, rather than the new clause, so that we could set up a detailed and properly thought out system to give the Scottish people confidence that their complaints will be properly examined.
      The police could avoid much ill will if, now and again, chief constables admitted that their officers were wrong and sent letters of apology. In 14 years of representing constituencies throughout the central region, I have yet to receive a letter of apology from the police, even in cases where it was obvious to the blind that the police were in the wrong. Part of the problem is that chief constables always seem to think that their officers can do no wrong. That is not true in any walk of life.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: My experience is different from that of my hon. Friend. When the police have found that a complaint was justified, the chief constable has written to me and often written personally to the complainant. I should not like it to be thought that the position described by my hon. Friend is universal.
      Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because, if his experience is different, I should not like it to be thought that what I have said about chief constables applies throughout Scotland. However, my experience makes me wish that, just now and again, chief constables would admit that their officers were wrong and would apologise. I leave it at that.
      I hope that the Minister does not give us a head-in-the-sand reply, but will assure the people of Scotland that this matter will be dealt with in a way that its importance deserves.
      Mr. George Foulkes: I apologise for arriving at such a late stage in the debate. I shall be brief and raise only one point. I should have preferred to be able to give the Minister notice, but the matter relates to confidence in the police and to the independent investigation of complaints.
      I know that the Minister is aware of the circumstances surrounding the matter that concerns me, because he and the Secretary of State were courteous enough to arrange a meeting with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to discuss the matter.
      As a preamble, I stress that public confidence in the police is extremely important. I go out of my way not to encourage casual or easy criticism of the police or unnecessary complaints. However, I pass on genuine complaints and pursue them as vigorously as I can within
      446
      the existing structure, though I feel strongly that an independent element in the investigation of complaints is necessary.
      Hon. Members will recall the controversy and delay that surrounded the publication two years ago of the Scottish Office report on sexual assaults. It appears—my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart can confirm this—that part of the problem was that, following a heated meeting at the end of March 1983, it appears that an attempt was made by senior officers of Strathclyde police, including the deputy chief constable, to discredit the Scottish Office research unit that had produced the report.
      That serious allegation was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and me by senior officials of the Scottish Office. The conclusions reached by the research officers in their report—about the treatment of victims and about other aspects—were challenged by the police. At the end of the day, when it became increasingly clear that the points ut forward by the deputy chief constable and senior police officers could not be substantiated, an internal inquiry was carried out by the chief constable. There was no independent inquiry and no opportunity for an investigation outwith the context of the police.
      The result of that internal inquiry was simply a letter of apology—admittedly, it was a clear admission that there was nothing to substantiate the allegations against the researchers—and internal discipline by the chief constable, which amounted to a personal reprimand of the senior police officers concerned, although we are not sure whether that included the deputy chief constable. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and I were assured by the chief constable that none of the detail of that internal discipline will appear on the records of the police officers concerned.
      Is it not strange that an internal inquiry resulted in such a mild reprimand, when a serious allegation had been made, challenging the integrity of reputable Scottish Office researchers and attempting to stop the publication of a Scottish Office report?
      That must undermine confidence in the police. Accordingly, I have today tabled a question for written answer urging that a person be appointed to carry out an independent inquiry into the allegations. There clearly was a heated dispute between senior Scottish Office officials and the Strathclyde police.
      Continued co-operation between the police and the Scottish Office is important. Research projects are taking place now, and there will be future research projects, and co-operation is necessary in those undertakings. The Scottish Office and Members of Parliament must feel sure that there will not be a repetition of that type of case, with the police, on the flimsiest of evidence—because they do not like the conclusion of a report—challenging the integrity of researchers.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that the least that should be done is to appoint an independent person—someone who has the confidence of the police and the Scottish Office—to carry out an inquiry, to report to the Secretary of State and to ensure that that report is published.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having represented Bo'ness for the time when it was in Central region, I appreciate the significance of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) in relation to his constituency.

      447
      Having listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, I wish to put on record my thanks to the West Lothian police for their endeavours in cases raised by me. In fact, I have no need to contact the chief constable other than in exceptional circumstances. I approach the chief superintendent, David Scott, who—because there is an understanding between us—sends an appropriate policeman, depending on the case, to find out what the trouble is and to get at the truth of the matter. My experience has been that the Lothian police have looked sensitively and sensibly into any point that I have raised. I may be naive about that, but I do not think so.
      5.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I appreciated the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), as will the police, because while in this debate hon. Members have not sought to diminish confidence in the police, they will appreciate that the police often feel that a number of hon. Members are sometimes less than fair to them. That is why the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow will be appreciated not only in his area but more widely.
      The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said that he had not managed to give me notice of the point that he raised. Perhaps I should congratulate him on managing to raise this issue because, as he is aware, it was not the subject of a complaint made against the police at that stage. As he said, it related to a number of discrepancies between material seen by researchers and material available in the police office, and that was the matter under investigation. It was an internal investigation relating to three minor discrepancies only.
      The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the reasons for the discrepancies were patent on looking at the various documents. They related—certainly in one instance, if I recall correctly—to the difference between what was effectively, on the one hand, a statement that had been taken down and recorded and, on the other, a precognition. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman suggested that those discrepancies were anything other than that.
      The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that had the matter been dealt with in a different way, a different conclusion would have been reached. Having looked into the matter, having satisfied myself that the discrepancies were explainable, and the Scottish Office having received an apology from the chief constable, I believe that that is the end of the matter.
      It was perhaps unfortunate that the matter arose at the same time as the police, as they legitimately can, were expressing their views on the substance of the report. Their views in that respect were not a matter for investigation, nor should they have been. They were reactions which the police were entitled to give us at that time.
      In raising the matter, the hon. Gentleman has not provided any evidence or information to suggest that any further action requires to be taken. Indeed, I suspect that on reconsidering what he said, he will see that he has, in a sense, blown up a matter that has been dealt with effectively and to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned.
      Mr. Foulkes: If the truth is as the Minister says—that there were only minor discrepancies in three reports,
      448
      and he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and me an opportunity of reading those reports—how does he explain the fact that such a heated meeting took place at the end of March 1983—and both sides described it to us as heated—that there was then an attempt to substantiate the criticisms of Strathclyde police to the effect that the report should not be published; that there was then an internal inquiry by the chief constable, who told us that he put other things aside to carry out that inquiry; and that there followed a letter of apology and disciplinary action against senior police officers? Will the Minister explain the matter further, as the two issues do not seem to equate?
      Mr. Ancram: I do not see in what way the hon. Gentleman says that they do not equate. Obviously, when there was a difference of opinion which had led to certain views being expressed, it was important for that difference to be sorted out. Under the procedures which were adopted, the differences were investigated, the discrepancies were discovered—as I said, they were patently explicable—and a letter of apology was then sent. I believe that that was the correct way to go about it, and the apology was accepted by the Scottish Office as a conclusion to the matter.
      Hon. Members will recognise that we are going over well-trodden ground. As they have pointed out, the issues with which the new clause is concerned have been debated on a number of occasions over the years.
      I appreciate what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, that he himself appreciated that his new clause, as drafted, was not capable of being sustained by the House, but that he saw this as an opportunity to debate the principles behind it. I concede the sincerity of the views that are held on both sides of the House on this matter. I do not think that I need to go into the details of the procedures in Scotland, because they have been gone over on many occasions, and were referred to by several hon. Members who spoke in the debate. However, let me say that there are two distinct strands. First, complaints from which a criminal offence may be inferred must, by law, be referred to the regional procurator fiscal for investigation. At present they amount to about 55 per cent. of all complaints dealt with, so that on average more than half and arguably the most serious complaints are already subject to independent scrutiny. I do not think that that will be disputed.
      I was a little puzzled by the comments of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), because I could not gather whether he was suggesting—I trust that he was not—that the system of procurator fiscal investigation was anything other than independent.
      Mr. Buchan: The point that I was making was much more simple, but crucial. It is not enough for the law to be right. It has also to be seen to be right. I regret to say that most people would tend to regard even a reference to the procurator fiscal as no substitute for a known public panel such as is suggested in the new clause. People regard the procurator fiscal as in some way a part of the great mystery of the legal process. That is what I was dealing with, and that is the important matter to which the Minister should address his mind.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is raising far wider issues about the independence of the prosecution system in Scotland. If he wishes to suggest that the system is not

      449
      independent, he should establish his grounds more clearly. It is not only a matter of those particular complaints being investigated by the procurator fiscal. Where there is an inference of any criminal offence, it is required that the matter is considered by a Law Officer as well. Complaints can even go to the top of the Crown Office. I find it hard to accept from the hon. Gentleman that there is anything in this part of the system that he could regard as anything less than equitable and independent.
      Mr. Buchan: I do not see how the Minister fails to understand this. Because he is part of the system, he thinks that the entire population of Scotland are part of the system. They are not. They do not know how it works. They know that there is a mystery and that there is a man called the procurator fiscal to whom the matter is sent and then discarded. That is all that they know. We are dealing with people who get into difficulties and who do not understand the mysteries of the legal trade. I know that the Consevative party is full of advocates and so on, but that is not very much to our comfort.
      The Government must not hold that mystery to themselves. Why can they not establish an outside body or panel, with lay people of some intelligence, who are not involved in the mysterious apparatus of the procurator fiscal? That is what we are saying. Law and justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and be understood in the process of being done. That is not the case when the matter is referred to the procurator fiscal and, with respect to the Solicitor-General, even to a Law Officer, and then discarded. The system must be opened up, be seen, be understood and thereby be accepted.
      Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is not enough understanding or information on how the system works, I shall deal with that in a moment. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General informs me that in all those cases a full letter of explanation of how the system works is sent to each person.
      Dame Judith Hart: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ancram: I shall give way in a moment, but hon. Members must allow me to develop my arguments a little.
      Dame Judith Hart: It is a very important matter.
      Mr. Ancram: Very well. I give way to the right hon. Lady.
      Dame Judith Hart: This is a rather small but crucial point. If a Member of Parliament writes to the procurator fiscal raising some questions of doubt about particular cases, a letter comes back from a Law Officer saying that the Law Officer replies to all letters written to the procurator fiscal. There is no way that an individual can get a reply from a procurator fiscal. Even a Member of Parliament cannot get such a reply.
      Mr. Ancram: It is important that we establish the basis of the complaint. I understood the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) to say that it was his understanding of the new clause that it was in no way supposed either to duplicate or to replace the present procurator fiscal system because it was regarded as independent. If the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) is saying that the difficulty is not whether it is independent, but that it is insufficiently understood, giving rise to a feeling that it is a part of the establishment
      450
      so that people are suspicious of it, that is different from saying that as a system it is wrong because it is not acting independently.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Paisley, South takes the same view as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East and, indeed, as the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), to judge from the nods that he has been giving me. I understand that the new clause is not critical of that part of the complaints procedure.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: We know that 55 per cent. of all complaints go to the procurator fiscal anyway, which is good. However, there is a difficulty. I know of a case that was raised well over 12 months ago. I shall not give the details of it, but each time I write to the chief constable to ask what is happening he says that the case is before the procurator fiscal and he is awaiting his reply. I do not know what the outcome will be, but I guarantee that if the procurator fiscal decides that it is not a case for prosecution, my constituent will feel that there has been a conspiracy, during which 12 months have elapsed. We are anxious to make it absolutely clear that the procurator fiscal is independent. How do we deal with the question that I have raised?
      Mr. Ancram: I understand that the outcome is eventually made known, and the complaint may relate to the time that that might take. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General reminds me that in many of these cases there is a requirement to wait, for instance, for the outcome of another trial that might be taking place. Therefore, there are circumstances in which delays are inevitable. The hon. Gentleman was trying to make my speech for me. I shall not be drawn into that, except to say that I hope there is a general acceptance that the independent scrutiny is correct.
      I referred to two strands. The second is complaints which imply that a disciplinary offence may have been committed, and which are investigated under the direction of the deputy chief constable of the force. Such investigations are undertaken by an investigating officer who is at least of the rank of inspector and wholly unconnected with the matter under investigation. Such complaints could cover matters such as discreditable conduct, neglect of duty and so on. In a sense, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) strengthened that side of the system by suggesting that the police themselves are keen to root out what he called bad eggs. That is right. There is no incentive for them to maintain in the police force officers who, at the end of the day, will bring the police force into disrepute. Therefore, there is generally an impetus in that direction.
      The hon. Member for Paisley, South asked particularly about complaints arising out of the miners' dispute last year. In reply to a written parliamentary question on 14 December 1984 I informed the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown):
      "I understand that 23 such complaints have been received by the police."—[Official Report, 14 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 621.]
      I do not have any more recent figures, but, given the date of that answer, it is unlikely that they are very much higher than that.
      Mr. Buchan: Can the Minister tell us the outcome of the complaints?
      Mr. Ancram: Without notice, I would not be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about numbers. I hope that I have managed to answer that.
      The real issue facing the House is whether the existing procedures are inadequate. Listening to the debate, it has been my impression that there are strong feelings—there have been in all the previous debates—but that there are no substantive facts to show that the system is working inadequately. The hon. Gentleman knows the view that has been taken by the Government on several occasions, not only in debate, but in written answers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 15 December 1983 that we had looked carefully at the matter, and
      "concluded that no case has been made out for introducing radical changes to the present arrangements."—[Official Report, 15 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 530.]
      I remind the House that the Home Affairs Committee report, House of Commons No. 98-I of 1982–83, did not point to any shortcomings in the Scottish system. Although the Committee concentrated on arrangements in England and Wales, it took evidence from Scottish witnesses and had something to say about Scottish procedures. Paragraph 42 states:
      "A system of local Crown Prosecutors modelled on the Procurators Fiscal would provide the most promising framework for the investigation of complaints against the police, and we would favour this solution from among the various options we have considered."
      6 pm
      Paragraph 43 continues:
      "If we could be certain of the establishment of a Crown Prosecutor system in England and Wales within say, the next five years, we would not find it necessary to suggest major alterations in police complaints procedures in the meanwhile."
      I think that that is a fair commendation of the present system in Scotland which we cannot afford to ignore today.
      Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that those comments related to matters currently referred to the procurator fiscal? The hon. Gentleman has understandably made considerable play of the fact that the new clause refers to the important but more limited area of potential disciplinary offences by policemen. The Home Affairs Committee considered the Scottish scene and drew parallels in a very different context. A lawyer might argue that the Law Society of Scotland is fairly ruthless and efficient in dealing with complaints against solicitors, but I am sure the Minister will agree that that is no argument for saying that there is no point in having a lay observer.
      Mr. Ancram: I accept that. To justify the hon. Gentleman's case, however, we need substantive facts to show that the present system is not working. I appreciate that hon. Members have strong feelings about this, as the debate has shown, but no substantive facts different from those put forward in previous debates have been brought forward today to suggest that the Government should change their attitude.
      Mr. Maclennan: What does the Minister regard as a substantive fact? He has heard the opinions of Members from four different political parties, including a former Minister of his own party, who was chairman of a police committee. If opinion does not weigh with the Minister, what kind of fact does he regard as persuasive? Do we have to bring to his notice all the dissatisfactions that we have experienced and on which we drew in making our case? We did not think it appropriate to drag all those
      452
      instances into the debate, because of the potential embarrassment to the individuals involved. What does the Minister mean by facts? Has he an open mind? Will he accept the view of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that the matter should be referred to the Police Advisory Board?
      Mr. Ancram: The Government have taken the view, which I am arguing again today, that the present system works. I came to the debate to hear whether there were any specific instances in which the system had not been working, especially since 1983.
      After the Select Committee reported, we issued a consultation document seeking comments on recommendations which had implications for Scotland. Although it did not specifically canvass views on changes in the basic complaints structure, the evidence suggested overwhelmingly that the present procedures were operating satisfactorily. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his written answer, we therefore concluded that the case for radical change had not been made. My right hon. Friend went on to say, however, that specific areas had been identified in which improvements could be made and in which guidance was desirable.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made the valid point that the system required some rectification in terms of the information provided about the way in which the system worked because there was a good deal of misunderstanding and in some cases, as I know from my constituency experience, no understanding at all of what the system actually entailed. For that reason, we issued a circular to chief constables and police authorities last summer.
      Mr. Ewing: The Minister has been most generous in giving way. Does he accept that the consultation document specifically ruled out changes of the kind proposed in the new clause? If the Government send a consultation paper to any group of people making it clear that matters A, B and C are not for consideration, the responses will reflect that preconceived attitude on the part of the Government.
      As for evidence that the system is not working, why did the vast majority of the lay people on the Police Advisory Board, who are closer than we are to general public opinion, take the view in 1978 that there should be an independent element?
      Mr. Ancram: I cannot answer questions about what happened in 1978 because I was not there and the hon. Gentleman was doing my job. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said, it is important to appreciate that there is uncertainty about the system in the public mind due to lack of understanding. That is why we issued the circular to chief constables and police authorities in the summer. That circular gave guidance on the appointment of investigating officers and the circumstances in which they might be drawn from another force. It also emphasised the need to give complainants as full an account as possible of the outcome of the investigation. That is important in the light of what has been said by many hon. Members today.
      We also prepared a leaflet, in consultation with the police associations, explaining the complaints procedure for the benefit of members of the public who wished to lodge a complaint. The circular recommended that that leaflet be used by all forces so that anyone wishing to

      453
      lodge a complaint would be given sufficient information about the procedure at that stage so that there would be no question of people not understanding it. In other words, since the last debate we have taken steps, albeit within the existing framework, to make certain necessary refinements.
      In my view, there is no point in making major changes of the kind suggested in the new clause purely for the sake of making them. The need for such changes must be shown, and I do not believe that such a need has been shown in this debate. I have certainly not been persuaded of the need for an independent panel. I do not believe that there is evidence of a widespread lack of public confidence in the present system or any reason to believe that public confidence would be significantly increased by the establishment of an independent panel. I believe that the public at large still repose a great deal of faith in the integrity and impartiality of the police service. That applies to the whole range of police activities.
      I have no doubt that the present procedure, with the independent procurator fiscal involvement in criminal complaints, serves the purpose well. For that reason, I cannot accept the new clause.
      Mr. Maxton: I have heard some long, dreary speeches saying no, but the contribution from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland today must have been the longest and dreariest.
      Mr. Foulkes: It was all written out for him.
      Mr. Maxton: Yes, it was all written long before the debate took place, so the Minister could not have paid much attention to what was said in the debate. Members in all parts of the House—including Conservative Back Benchers and, indeed, the chairman of the Conservative group of Scottish Members—made the case strongly and clearly, but the Minister was still not prepared to change his mind.
      Specific details were not given in the debate, but if the Minister believes that the public at large—especially the large sections of society who are disadvantaged or unemployed—have enormous confidence in the police, he must be living in cloud-cuckoo-land. He should come and see the alienation in parts of Glasgow not just from the police but from authority generally. It is not good enough to say that there is enormous confidence in the police. That is not the case.
      The reply by the Under-Secretary of State is typical of the general secrecy in which the police and the Government like to operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was right to raise those aspects of the sexual offences report. This shows the way in which the police are prepared to bring pressure to bear to ensure that no criticism of them is published.
      The Under-Secretary of State made great play of the fact that the differences were minor. If the differences had been major, there could have been a genuine difference of opinion between the two sides. Two different reports could have been examined, mistakes could have been made and the differences would have been evident. But the differences were so minor that they appear to have been used deliberately by the Strathclyde police to discredit the whole report. The fact that the discrepancies were so small worries me. Minor differences appear to have been used
      454
      to discredit the research. It is all right to say that one disagrees with the report, but it is disreputable to try to discredit those who researched the report.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will intervene and confirm what has happened in the following case. I have been told that researchers have investigated the way in which the provisions of the detention clauses of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 have been carried out during the past five years. I have been told that an interim report was prepared by researchers in the Scottish Office and that it has gone to the chief constables. I have been told also that, at meetings during the past few weeks, the chief constables have said that they do not wish that report to be published. They have asked the Scottish Office not to publish it and to cease monitoring the detention clauses. That interim report was not overly critical of the police. It did not say that they were misusing their powers. Because the report contains some criticisms of the police, the chief constables have said that it should not be published. Is that the case?
      Mr. Ancram: The decisions on whether to publish these reports and the last report are not matters for the police. They are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me.
      Mr. Maxton: I did not suggest anything else. I used the word "asked", as the hon. Gentleman will see if he checks the Official Report tomorrow.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman said "said".
      Mr. Maxton: I said that the police are asking and saying that the report should not be published. I have been informed that, at a meeting last Thursday between officials and chief constables, an agreement was reached that the report would not be published and that monitoring would cease. Will the Under-Secretary of State say whether that is the case? Will the report be published, or will it not be published? Will the monitoring continue? If so, will hon. Members be able to table questions about the number of detainees and the numbers who have been charged, and so on? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to answer my questions?
      Mr. Ancram: I understand that the first draft has been prepared, that it has been seen by the chief constables and that they have commented on it. As I said before, decisions on whether these reports are to be published are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on my advice. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt those decisions before I have seen the draft report.
      Mr. Maxton: We shall be interested to note whether this report ever sees the light of day and whether monitoring continues.
      The reply by the Under-Secretary of State and the reaction of the police to research and reports show that they are so super-sensitive to any criticism that they create the type of problems about which we have talked. These actions make the public suspicious and make them feel that there is no proper way of getting at the truth. The police put up a wall of secrecy between themselves and the public. If they operate in that way, there will be further problems with public relations.
      Having said that, I accept that the clause is faulty. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      RESTRICTION ON SALE OF ALCOHOL IN VICINITY OF SPORTING EVENTS
      'After section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be inserted the following—
      "74A. Where the Secretary of State has designated a sporting event under this Act, he may instruct the closure of premises which sell alcohol for consumption otherwise than on those premises, within a radius of 1 mile from the designated sporting event.".'.—[Mr. Maxton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Oh, no.
      Mr. Maxton: I hasten to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have only one more motion. I promise that I shall then be quiet for the rest of the evening.
      Mr. Bruce Millan: This could affect my constituency.
      Mr. Maxton: I do not think that is the case. I think that my right hon. Friend's constituency is not within a one-mile radius from Hampden park.
      Mr. Millan: Ibrox park is.
      Mr. Maxton: Ibrox might be, I agree.
      Those of my constituents who live in the Hampden park area have asked: Is it logical, having said that there should be no drink within the grounds or on buses and trains going to the ground, that drink should be allowed near the ground? My constituents suffer from this problem. This is a recent phenomenon in the Hampden area, because the Mount Florida area used to be one of the dry areas of Glasgow. There were no pubs or off-licences. A change in the licensing laws has meant that there are off-licences.
      People purchase cans of beer and bottles of whisky from the off-licences and drink them in the street before going into the ground. They do not get drunk, but the empty cans and bottles finish up in the gardens and closes of the people living in the area. Those people are entitled to some protection.
      There is some evidence that crowd behaviour improves if the authorities make it difficult for people to drink outside the ground. I went to one of the two league cup finals in Hampden on a Sunday afternoon. Of course, off-licences are not permitted to be open on Sundays. There is no question but that crowd behaviour on the two occasions on which matches have been held on Sunday afternoons was much better than it had been on other occasions, despite improvements in other areas. I think that it is logical to extend the drinking limitations.
      I am not saying that, on every sporting occasion taking place on a designated sports ground——
      Mr. McKelvey: Yes, my hon. Friend is.
      Mr. Maxton: If my hon. Friend listens, he will know that I am not saying that these limitations should apply to every sporting event at every sports ground. The legislation makes it clear that all drink is banned at two specific areas—near a designated sports ground and at designated sporting events. I am referring to the latter. The Secretary of State might designate a game at Hampden, Ibrox or Parkhead.
      Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Murrayfield.
      Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend said, "Murrayfield." It could have problems. There could be a crowd, and therefore it might be better to ban drink. The drink would be banned only for specified games. The Act defines the duration of a sporting event. It is two hours before the sporting event and one hour after. A limited period is affected. I hope that the Minister will consider an extension of the present powers. Everyone in Scotland agrees that the powers have had an effect on crowd behaviour at footbal matches, and possibly rugby matches at Murrayfield, over the past two years. We can only hope that the Government will introduce similar legislation south of the border rather than the piecemeal action that they are taking. The provisions of the new clause are a logical extension of the present powers.
      Sir Hector Monro: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on his ingenuity in raising all kinds of topics. We have relatively few opportunities to discuss matters such as football hooliganism, and we should not therefore miss this one. The hon. Gentleman was correct to raise the subject.
      In England, the Football Association, the Football League and the clubs have been criticised for failing to act, but ideas are shot down before being fully discussed.
      The hon. Gentleman's proposal is worth considering although we can see all kinds of practical difficulties—for example, whether one mile from the ground is the correct radius. If there were a one-mile radius in Dumfries no one would obtain a drink at all. The geography of a place and the layout of the streets might make it impractical to have such a limit. Thee might be a frontier. People would be able to obtain a drink on one side of the frontier but not on the other. The matter must be considered carefully.
      There has been a successful change in attitude in Scotland since the legislation, following the McElhone report, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was the responsible Minister.
      Everyone within the United Kingdom now points to Scotland and says, "You have taken steps and set an example. The situation is infinitely better." People are saying to England and Wales, "Come on. Let us take practical steps also to show that crowd behaviour can be improved by controlling the consumption of alcohol." Scotland has dealt with drink on buses and trains.
      As we did when discussing the last matter, we commend highly the work of the police in assisting the stewards and clubs to make crowd behaviour more manageable. We shall never get rid of all crowd trouble. We must not be complacent. We must think of ways of improving the legislation for Scotland. The success that has been achieved in recent years is a splendid base on which to build. Other countries are jealous of the reputation of Scottish fans at home and abroad. I hope that in their interests other countries will follow Scotland's actions with regard to drink. I am perturbed to see that England may only be bringing in a ban at selected grounds. England must go the whole hog and ban drink at all grounds if there is to be an impact on behaviour. Trouble could arise if a small ground which has had no drink ban suddenly meets Arsenal or Chelsea or any first division club. The legislation must be all or nothing.

      457
      I want to pay a warm tribute to the Football Trust and to the Football Ground Improvement Trust. They are funded by a percentage of football pools income. We should be grateful to the football pools promoters for providing that money. The trusts have enabled improvements to be made to terraces and fences. Television cameras have been installed to keep an eye on awkward corners. They can provide valuable evidence as to who starts hooliganism in a ground.
      It is now recognised, although it took a long time, that the behaviour of players on the field has a bearing on the behaviour of the crowds on the terraces and in the stands.
      The hon. Member for Cathcart has included the word "may" in the new clause. The hon. Gentleman's intention, were the Minister to pursue the matter, would be not to have a universal ban on one mile, or any specified distance, around a ground, but to provide the flexibility to cater for any type of sporting event where there may be difficulties. We should sometimes look a little further into the future and hope—it may take rather longer than we would wish—that in five or 10 years we shall wonder what on earth we were doing in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s having all this hooliganism at football matches and other major sporting events. Discipline at home, in school and in the country may work itself through, and the standard of living and of behaviour may be much better than it sometimes is at some football grounds.
      I welcome the fact that we have had a chance to discuss the subject. It is right to air successes as well as disappointments over football hooliganism.
      Mr. McKelvey: I see some deficiencies in the new clause, not in its drafting but in the practicalities of its application. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is trying to protect those who live around Hampden park. The problem with a one-mile ban around Hampden park is that the trouble would merely be extended to those who live one mile and one yard from the ground. There would be pandemonium. Busloads of people would arrive with drink. If the drink is not allowed on the buses they might come by bicycle or other means of transport. They would bring the drink closer to the ground. Under the present legislation, such people would be stopped. They would not be allowed to take the drink into the ground.
      If there were a cycle race from John O'Groats to Wick, the Secretary of State would have to designate areas of a mile all along the route. That would not close the public houses, because my hon. Friend is prepared to allow public houses to remain open within the vicinity of Hampden park, but it would close the licensed grocers and the off-licences. I do not believe that his proposal is practical. On this occasion, my sympathies lie with the Minister, who will probably say much the same as I have.
      We have all seen a marked improvement in crowd misbehaviour since the introduction of the legislation. We welcome that, but to extend the legislation in the way suggested is not practical or welcome. There are sufficient powers now to enable the police to ensure that no one can enter a football ground under the influence of alcohol. People may not carry drink into the football park or premises, or consume it within the grounds. I implore my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart to withdraw yet another of his new clauses.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on using his gimlet-like and razor-sharp mind to identify the deficiencies in his hon. Friend's clause, not least with regard the selectivity of the restriction. One can imagine the representations that would have been made to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) if he had made the provision any more wide-ranging.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that this is a good opportunity for us to reflect upon our successes in dealing with problems at football grounds and other sporting occasions in Scotland. The matter is causing concern across the United Kingdom. The provisions of part 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 have in the four years of their operation proved to be a success. Indeed, they are now proving to be a model for the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland has set an example that we hope will, over time, be reflected further afield.
      In line with the instructions given to me by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon, I must say that I am not convinced of the necessity for the new clause.
      The 1980 Act already creates offences of being drunk at a sporting event, or attempting to enter while drunk or in possession of alcohol or of a controlled container—for example, a bottle or can. At the ground, anyone who had been imbibing or who was carrying alcohol could be charged with the commission of an offence. That provision is better than a restriction in terms of mileage. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun identified the weakness in that idea. Carry-outs could be bought a yard outside the mile limit, but shops a yard inside the limit would not be allowed to open. I am satisfied that the range of offences within the legislative framework, and the associated powers, are entirely sufficient to reduce the dangers of disorder at sporting events in Scotland. No one can claim that hooliganism and drunkenness have been entirely eradicated, but there has undoubtedly been—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said—a marked improvement in football crowd behaviour since the new provisions came into effect. I therefore see little justification for further legislative change.
      The new clause seeks to restrict the sale of alcohol from off-licences near a designated sporting event. It would add nothing to the existing law as it affects football hooligans who try to take drink or bottles into the ground. In addition, the new clause would duplicate the existing powers of the licensing board which, on the application of the police, may close certain licensed premises to the public if it is in the interests of public safety or order to do so. I refer to section 66 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. The matter was considered by the McElhone working party, and it was felt at the time that that legislation was sufficient. As far as I am aware, those powers have never had to be used in connection with a football match, but I am advised that they have been used in other circumstances.
      The new clause is an unnecessary duplication of existing law, in an area where there is sufficient legislation to provide the safeguards that we need.
      This is a rare opportunity for us to pat ourselves on the back for the success of the 1980 legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Maxton: If I had thought that I was merely giving the Government an opportunity to pat themselves on the back, I might never have tabled the new clause.
      It is true that there has been a vast improvement. Everyone would congratulate the Government on it, and the Minister has rightly paid tribute to the work of the late Frank McElhone and his working party.
      Hampden park is perhaps more completely surrounded than some other sports grounds by a residential area, and the people living there suffer when big games take place. This year, an extra big game has been forced upon them by the action of the Government. People feel strongly that there should be more control over what happens in the vicinity of the ground.
      I take the Minister's point about the duplication of the licensing laws. Perhaps I should have a word with my colleagues in the licensing courts in Glasgow to see what they could do.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has made an allegation that—with his love of accuracy—he will not wish to remain on the record. He suggests that the decision to transfer a certain game to Scotland originated with the Government. It was not a Government decision. It was a decision taken by the football authorities on their own initiative. The Government had suggested a change of date. I believe that the decision to move the game to Scotland was a compliment to the Scottish football fans and to the law on football matches in Scotland.
      Mr. Maxton: If we were not in the House of Commons, I would give the Minister a straight answer. The Minister must ask himself whether, if the Minister responsible for sport had not asked the Football Association to make a change in relation to the game, the game would be taking place at Hampden. It would not. It would be taking place at Wembley on 25 May.
      The decision about transferring the game may have been that of the Football Association, but the decision to take the game out of Wembley on 25 May was forced upon the FA by the Government. The FA knew that it had no option but to cancel the game altogether or switch it to Hampden. It was the Government's decision.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 5

      RECORDING OF QUESTIONING AT POLICE STATIONS
      'At the end of section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be added the following "Any questions put to a person and any replies given by him while in detention in a police station detained under section (1) above shall not be admissable as evidence in any subsequent trial unless they have been tape-recorded or video-taped and the said tape recording or video recording and a transcript thereof is lodged as a production in Court.".'.—[Mr. Matron.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I promise that this will be the last clause on which I shall speak this evening.
      I wish to begin with a quotation from the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill 1980. It is from a speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) who at that time was the Minister in charge of home affairs at the Scottish Office. He was
      460
      later transferred to the Foreign Office, and the Minister who is to reply is one of his successors. I tabled an exactly similar amendment during that Committee stage. The Minister said:
      "The Government's view quite firmly and quite clearly is that if the tape recording experiments which are presently being conducted in Dundee and Falkirk are shown to produce no insuperable difficulties, it is our firm intention to implement these proposals"—
      the proposal to tape-record interviews at police stations—
      "at the earliest opportunity. We do not see the question of resources as significant in implementing such proposals."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13 May 1980; c. 364–65.]
      I do not know what has happened during the past five years. A five-year delay does not seem to me to be the earliest opportunity. We have had no published reports on the experiments in Falkirk and Dundee. The time has come for the Minister to give us some facts about those experiments, to publish any outstanding reports on them and to explain why the commitment given by his hon. Friend has not been carried out.
      Have the experiments produced insurmountable problems? I accept that a problem has been caused by the judgment of Lord Jauncey concerning tape-recorded evidence being produced in court, but tape recordings have been used in other courts. How many people have been interviewed? How long are the interviews? I have heard that tape-recorded interviews are considerably shorter than is normal. What is the average length of a tape-recorded interview? What is tape-recorded? I believe that, in Falkirk, only the caution, the charge and the accused's response are recorded. In other words, there is not a full recording of the whole interview.
      I believe that there is some evidence of police suspicion of tape-recorded interviews and that a much larger percentage of interviews are now conducted outside police stations, either in the suspect's home or in the police car on the way to the station. What are the police saying about the experiments? During proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill it was said that detainees might refuse to answer questions with a tape recorder running. Have people refused to be interviewed with a tape recorder running? If so, how many?
      After five years, and the promises that were made in 1980, we are entitled to know the answers to those questions. We want to know what is going on and when the Government will fulfil their commitment to enact the Thomson report, which proposed that interviews should be tape-recorded and that the tape recordings should be used as evidence in court. Such a procedure would help with police relations and, in regard to challenges made by lawyers about what has and has not been said, the police would be helped as well. The hon. Member for Pentlands was prepared to accept that. Is the present Minister?
      Mr. Dewar rose——
      Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have also put my name to the new clause and I am in some difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has asked several questions, and this is the only opportunity that we shall have of getting answers to them. If I were to speak before the Minister, I should merely add to, buttress or repeat the questions that my hon. Friend has asked and I should not be able to speak again on Report unless moving a motion.

      461
      Would it not therefore be better if the Minister answered my hon. Friend's questions now so that we can have a meaningful debate?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That is a matter for the Minister, not for me.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has decided to hold his fire for the moment, perhaps I can deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
      I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has always made it clear that he intends, for consultation purposes, to publish the results of the recent study into the tape-recording of police interviews with suspects in Scotland. The final report of that study, which deals with many of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, is expected to be submitted to my right hon. Friend shortly. We expect to make a statement about the Government's plans before the summer recess. It has taken time, but I am sure that the House appreciates that a good deal of evidence was collected during the experiments.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart realises that, in those circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to answer his specific questions, which are much more a matter for consultation.
      Mr. Bruce Millan: Will the statement relate to conclusions on which consultation is asked for, or will there be genuine consultation?
      Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend has said that he will publish the report for consultation. The right hon. Gentleman must wait to see what is in the report, but a statement will be made before the summer recess. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cathcart will agree that it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt any decisions that might be made after publication of the report.
      Any decision to introduce tape-recording of police interviews with suspects in Scotland would not require new legislation. The new clause reveals some of the difficulties, especially with the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence. For example, it might not be possible for the police to tape an interview. There might be an equipment failure, the police station might be in a remote area, or it might be necessary to travel a long distance to a fully equipped station. The experimental study has shown that a small but significant number of people refuse to be interviewed on tape. In such cases, the new clause would make statements thus obtained inadmissible in court. The hon. Member for Garscadden might like to mull over that before we debate this matter more fully when the time comes.
      Moreover, the new clause does not mention the considerable number of people who attend police stations voluntarily or who are detained under section 2 of the 1980 Act in premises other than a police station where there might not be tape recorders, but where statements which form an important part of the evidence might be made.
      There are many complexities, which I am sure the hon. Member for Garscadden will enjoy when he treads through them. I am glad to have been given the opportunity to say that we shall make a statement before the summer recess. I hope that in the circumstances the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for tabling the new clause. It was obviously meant to be an exercise in information gathering, and we have succeeded in obtaining some quite interesting information from the Minister. I was relieved to hear that there would be a statement before the summer recess, because the situation was bordering on the scandalous. The delays have been so lengthy that my colleagues have been rightly concerned about the total lack of action by Ministers.
      This argument, in its immediate past, dates from the first version of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and, I suppose, from the Thomson report. Thomson produced a package with three principal parts. The first was detention for questioning, which became section 2 of the 1980 Act, the second was judicial examination, which became section 6 of that Act, and the third was the tape recording of the questioning of suspects in police stations. However, that was not included in the legislation.
      Some of us have always thought that this matter should be considered very carefully. To be fair, that view was widely shared by Conservative Members. I am sure that the first amendment calling for tape recording, which was tabled in the course of two attempts to put that Bill onto the statute book, was initiated by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). He continued to be enthusiastic when he become Solicitor-General for Scotland. On 22 July 1980, as Solicitor-General, he said:
      "The experiments in Dundee and Falkirk are going well. We shall be making a report in November or December on the initial situation."
      The hon. and learned Gentleman then referred to the possible video taping of interviews, and rightly dismissed it on the ground that it was an unnecessary complication that would delay matters. He said:
      "We should not, however, introduce anything at this stage to delay what was the wish of the last Government and is the wish of this Government that recording should be proceeded with, and should be found to have a satisfactory future provided that no appalling difficulties stand in its way."—[Official Report, 22 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 409–410.]
      That is what was said as long ago as 1980. Until today no final date had been given for the endless consideration arid sort of ministerial dwalm—a form of paralysis—that seems to have affected the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and his colleagues.
      It is stretching things a little even to refer to the recent study. The experiments in Falkirk and Dundee, and ultimately in Aberdeen and part of Glasgow, ran from 1980 to 1983. Thus, however comprehensive the consideration and however ingenious the complexities, I would have hoped for something by now. However, we must be thankful for small mercies. The Minister refused to reply to the specific questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart on the ground that it would prejudge the issue to do so, but he then went on to give us little snippets of information about the difficulties that might arise. Someone of a more suspicious frame of mind than me might think that he was approaching the whole issue with a fair degree of scepticism.
      However, I accept that there are difficulties. I know that there have been problems in the courts and I know from conversations with police officers—they were not a solicitor's conversations but very helpful conversations—that there is a difference of opinion among those

      463
      officers who have experience of operating the system. Obviously, we shall await the report with an open mind, but I hope that there will not be any insurmountable difficulties, and that any difficulties will be considered on their merits, on the basis of the practicality of the system.
      However, I have been worried, because I have been watching events in England and Wales. The Minister is no doubt well aware of them. England and Wales were, for a while, a long way behind us, but now the Government have, in principle, openly committed themselves to the change. The Minister is probably more familiar with section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act than I am, but there a statutory duty has been placed on his colleagues south of the border to introduce a system of tape recording parallel to the system that we have been considering for so long.
      In fairness, I should point out that that section needs implementation and there is no timetable. The Minister responsible has made it clear that experiments are still running in England, and will, I think, run for the next two years. Therefore, I am not suggesting that tape recording will appear instantly in the English system, but at least there is a clear Government commitment on the statute book in section 60 of that Act.
      I do not want to labour the point, but it might be useful to put a few facts on record. Home Office research study No. 82 was published in 1984. It was an interim report by Carol Willis. I shall weary the House with the briefest of quotes from the "summary and conclusions".
      "these preliminary results are encouraging in one important respect: they show an absence of any evidence that the data collected are invalidated or made meaningless through the systematic avoidance of tape-recording by the police. This goes to support the anecdotal evidence available to the researchers that the police officers involved in the trials have generally taken to tape-recording with commitment and enthusiasm. The preliminary data show that interviews with suspects have become slightly less frequent and shorter"——
      the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart——
      "which goes to support the view that tape-recording has required a greater discipline in interviewing practices. There appears to be no evidence to suggest that tape-recording inhibits the suspects from confessing or making damaging admissions; nor do the results suggest any decrease in the amount of information about other offences obtained during interview."
      There may be a difference in police experience north and south of the border, but the comprehensive interim report that has been produced—remarkably promptly, compared with the Scottish experience—suggests that the police found the experience very positive. Of course the police are not the only interest involved, but they are an important interest. We have always maintained that if such a system was introduced, it would act as a safeguard not only for the suspect and the courts but for the police, as it would guard against the all-too-easy defence that they had acted improperly in some way in obtaining a statement or confession.
      The appearance of a report in the next month or two will greatly help this debate. Once the report is published, we should reach some conclusion within a reasonable period, but after proper consideration. The Minister said that there would be a statement before the summer recess. I take it that he means that a statement will be made on the Floor of the House about the Government's intentions and about the way in which the report will be handled, but as such
      464
      phrases can sometimes be ambiguous, I have put that point on record so that there can be no misunderstanding about it. If we obtain the report within the timetable suggested, we may be able to make some progress on this important issue. Sadly, the delay and general dithering that has characterised the past three or four years—especially when compared with the speed of events in other parts of the country—does not reflect great credit on the Scottish Office.
      Mr. Maxton: I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that the report will be published and that a statement will be made. I gather that at least three interim reports have already been prepared and circulated. I think that the last was in 1982. I cannot understand why those reports were not published, and why there could not have been an on-going review of what was happening, rather than five years of experimentation. No one expected that it would take so long. Indeed, I am not sure whether the report will cover the whole five years or whether monitoring was stopped in 1982. Can the Minister help?
      Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that it stopped at the end of 1983.
      Mr. Maxton: Even the period between 1983 and now is too long. However, I accept what was said by the Minister. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 7

      COMMITTEE TO LOOK INTO PROBLEMS OF YOUNG OFFENDERS
      The Secretary of State shall appoint a Standing Commission on sentencing policy for young offenders, their custodial treatment, care assessment and rehabilitation; and the Chairman of this body shall be a senator of the High Court of Justiciary and shall report to the Secretary of State on any matters he sees fit to refer to them.".—[Mr. O'Neill.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7 pm
      Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I fully recognise that the new clause may contain drafting shortcomings. Therefore, the Minister may choose to oppose it. All that I am trying to do is to establish a forum for debate rather than prescribing an exact option which the Minister should embrace.
      My involvement in the issue stems from the fact that the Glenochil young offenders institution and detention centre are situated in my constituency. Before the boundaries were redrawn, Polmont borstal, as it as then was, was situated in my constituency, and on the fringes of my constituency, although it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), there is the women's prison at Cornton Vale. Within the central belt of Scotland there are to be found, therefore, a number of penal institutions. I have seen at close hand the problems facing the prison service, and I have been able to monitor some of the Government's responses. My lack of satisfaction with the outcome of those responses leads me to believe that an independent advisory body is needed which would be capable of restoring public confidence in the prison service.
      There are very few votes in penal reform. Those who in the past have sought popular support by advocating

      465
      repressive regimes and harsher sentences have found that it does not result in ballot box dividends. The electorate have felt satisfied until recently that those in prison probably deserve to be there. To be out of sight is to be out of mind, and the care of offenders is left to the prison service. It is only when something goes wrong that questions are asked.
      Because of the tragic events at Glenochil, there has been an increase in public interest. Public concern is rekindled whenever a fatal accident inquiry takes place and interest is reawakened when the report of the inquiry is published. Constant publicity and continual dripping of water on the stone has etched the word "Glenochil" upon public consciousness in Scotland. Public interest has changed from concern to a lack of public confidence in the sentencing and care of young offenders in Scotland, particularly at Glenochil. This is despite the fact that five public inquests have already taken place. The report of each fatal accident inquiry showed that the sheriff concerned was unable to establish a cause and effect link between the regime, either at the detention centre or at the young offenders institution, and the death. The Inspector of Prisons, who is independent of the Secretary of State, has also failed to establish any connection, but even this report has not allayed public anxiety.
      The exposure of the closed world of the prison service to the glare of publicity has had an effect upon the morale of the staff. To be repeatedly told that one's work is leading to the deaths of young men is bad enough, but to have brought home to one the apparent futility of one's efforts when another corpse is discovered has a devastating effect upon some of the best trained and most highly committed men in the service.
      There is nothing to be achieved by using these tragic deaths to vilify the staff or to make cheap capital out of attacking the system. Most of the members of the Scottish all-party penal affairs group have visited Glenochil and other Scottish penal institutions. Although we may not approve of everything that takes place in those institutions—and we have made our views known to the authorities and to Ministers—it is fair to say that those who advocate sudden and wholesale changes to the system, in particular the closure of institutions, do not have a great deal of evidence to support their case.
      Perhaps I have already dwelt for too long upon the sensibilities of the staff. They are important, but they are not so important as the anxieties of the families of the young men who are in prison. I am sure that every death is felt in the homes of all those who have sons in prison. The scale of the problem can be illustrated by the figures which have been collected. They were made available to me last week by the governor of Glenochil and cover the two institutions that are to be found at Glenochil.
      In 1984, there were 1,037 detention centre inmates. Of these, 75 were placed under suicidal observation for periods of between two and 60 days. A total of 138 days were served under suicidal observation. Of the 75 who spent 138 days under suicidal observation, 53 admitted to self-inflicted injuries before they were admitted to the institution. Of the 53, 10 had inflicted injuries upon themselves during the sentence. Up to 24 April 1985, about 30 inmates had been placed under suicidal observation lasting between one and 46 days. During the first quarter of the year this amounted to a total of about 235 days under suicidal observation. Of the 30 inmates, 14 admitted to self-inflicted injuries before sentence and
      466
      six inmates had tried to mutilate themselves since sentence. Of the 386 inmates admitted to the detention centre in 1985 for the short, sharp shock, 30 of them have, in one way or another, displayed suicidal tendencies.
      The position is the same in the case of the young offenders institution. In 1984, out of 858 inmates, 89 were placed under suicidal observation for periods of between two and 365 days. Of the 89, 37 admitted to self-inflicted injuries before admission and 15 of them inflicted injuries upon themselves during sentence. Up to 24 April 1985, of the 225 inmates who were admitted, 24 had been placed under suicidal observation for between two and 92 days, amounting to a total of 489 days. Twelve of the 24 admitted to self-inflicted injuries before sentence and three have so far admitted to self-inflicted injuries during sentence. I have spent time upon these figures because they are significant. All these inmates have admitted to suicidal tendencies.
      I need not spell out the consequences for the prison staff of those young men being in prison. There is the overtime that has to be worked, the care required from the prison medical staff, the burden that is imposed on the social workers and the numbers of hours that psychiatrists and psychologists have to spend working within the prison service in such institutions.
      It is clear that Glenochil has been the subject of interest and concern. Staff and specialists, such as psychologists, tell me that despite everything they are doing they expect the problem to become worse. With fewer young offenders being given custodial sentences, those going to detention centres and young offenders' institutions are probably more difficult prisoners than ever before. We are seeing a concentration of potential problem prisoners.
      Although there has not been serious research to underpin what I am saying, I am sure that the Minister will have heard from his advisers that at the moment a qualititive change is taking place in the young prison population. We are now seeing the first wave of those who have gone through the process of solvent abuse into hard drug addiction. The damage which that process inflicts upon young people is such as organically to damage their brains, and it creates problems the like of which the prison system has never had to confront before to any substantial extent.
      Even with the speedy implementation of every recommendation in the report produced by Dr. Chiswick's committee on suicides and parasuicides in Glenochil and other institutions, the problem will not go away. I hope that that will reduce the difficulties and that deaths might be avoided, but I cannot honestly say that Dr. Chiswick's committee will have all the answers. In fact, the calibre of the members of that committee is such that they would be the first to admit that.
      There is a danger of becoming alarmist in spelling out the problems, and I hope that I have not done that. We recognise that that group represents only 10 per cent. of the prison population and that the other 90 per cent will come through the experience for good or ill depending on how effective their treatment has been.
      The parents of every youngster who is likely to receive a custodial sentence in Scotland will be extremely worried about the prospects, and it is to that problem that I must keep returning. That is why I am suggesting tonight that some kind of advisory body, separate from the Scottish Office and the prison service, answerable to the Secretary of State, could begin to restore public confidence.

      467
      The chairman of such a body must be a member of the bench. Experience has shown that the judiciary do not take kindly to outsiders advising them on how they should be sentencing. We should work on the basis of the old political maxim that if one has a problem and opposition, one of the opposition should be recruited to work for one rather than against one. The appointment of a High Court judge who has probably had extensive experience in one aspect of the business—the sentencing of offenders—would be substantial enough to ensure the independence and authority of such a body.
      I imagine that other members of such a body would be recruited from the Scottish Office's list of the great and good, and perhaps there could be some useful people as well such as psychiatrists, sociologists and social workers—people with some experience in the field.
      Such a body could be given the chance to look at the appropriateness of present custodial sentencing, the different types of institutions which could be made available, at what is being done in other parts of the United Kingdom with regard to day centres and the like, and examine the possibilities of hostels, where shorter stays could be arranged. It could look again at the generic sentence. Within the Executive, with all the appropriate safeguards, the prison system specialists could consider the most effective means of dealing with the offender once the courts had decided on the length of a sentence.
      7.15 pm
      We could consider different ways of applying remission procedure and perhaps go down the road taken in Northern Ireland, where there are remission procedures of 50 per cent. Certainly in sentences of more than two years a remission of that order would be appropriate.
      We should consider giving greater assistance to accelerating remand procedures, and probably endeavour to delay detention of any kind until all oustanding cases have been heard so that a prisoner knows that when he begins a custodial sentence it is for a particular period and that if he keeps his nose clean he can get out early, or, if he has to do the whole stint, he can do it without the threat of future punishment hanging over his head. That should not be beyond the courts' administration in Scotland.
      Above all, there must be a serious and rapid examination of detention centre training. There must be far greater scrutiny of the short sharp shock treatment than a stroll around a detention centre by a prejudiced Home Secretary before there is any guarantee that the short sharp shock treatment is working or can ever work. Over the years of having watched and tried to gather information about the effectiveness of the system, I have been singularly unsuccessful in obtaining any evidence which shows that it deters, improves or keeps away from a life of crime many of the youngsters who pass through the doors of such institutions.
      I say that with regret, because I recognise that many of the staff try hard with the boys. Many of them are committed to the welfare of the young lads. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government commit so much of their prestige and resources to that unproven and distasteful form of incarceration.
      As well as changes in the nature of the institution and the widening of the options available to the courts and whoever would be responsible for allocating prisoners
      468
      their appropriate punishment, there must be some mechanism whereby the grievances of prisoners can be examined. I say that because there is a constant chipping away and undermining of the prison service because of the nagging doubts at the back of people's minds. Sometimes that can be the subject of an orchestrated campaign. Sometimes it can be that people, when they are released from prison, grind axes and try to settle old grievances. I freely accept that. However, it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State, if he is prepared to look at the care and treatment of young offenders, to seek to establish a more effective means of examining prisoners' grievances which would enjoy the confidence of the staff.
      If we do not have a system which can balance the obligations and rights of these two groups, allegations and counter-allegations will continue to be made and at the end of the day nobody will be satisfied either that one side has been cleared or that the other side has been vindicated.
      When we consider alternatives to prison, we must also look at what happens outside. We must find ways of helping and supporting the beleaguered social worker panels in the preparation of the social inquiry reports and community service order work, all of which are taking up an increasing amount of time.
      As anxiety about sentencing policy increases, greater emphasis will be placed on the social inquiry report. More time will be required by social workers. I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for that area of local authority funding, but I hope that he and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will bend the ear of the Secretary of State to obtain more resources.
      It is important to recognise that, outwith local authorities and Government, private agencies could be of considerable assistance in the resettlement and rehabilitation of offenders. The figures for suicidal observation times show the amount of effort and time involved. Suicide observation means 15-minute observations, which means that in every 24-hour period, 96 checks are made. If the lad improves, the number drops to 48 checks in 24 hours. It takes only five minutes for someone to hang himself. I do not want televisions in cells, or glass doors. Prisoners are entitled to privacy. That is the balance that governors must strike. However, the problems and difficulties consume much of our resources.
      I have seen the overtime figures for Glenochil, and I am sure that they are paralleled in other institutions where the authorities are just as anxious to ensure that the lads do not abuse themselves any more than is consistent with civil liberties. If we could reduce those dreadful figures, we would reach the point where such reforms would become almost self-financing.
      I do not wish to take a partisan, anti-Government position. To some extent, the Government have tried very hard. The Minister has allowed greater public asccess to institutions. Indeed, the media now visit them almost as often as some of the recidivists. I have never been denied any information, and every courtesy and assistance has been shown to me. I recognise that the Minister has instructed sheriffs to extend the terms of fatal accident inquiries so that every facet and aspect of a death is regorously examined. The Minister was probably right some years ago to refuse to set up a public inquiry into the running of the Glenochil institution. The requirement of the law to have a fatal accident inquiry and the sub judice provisions that govern that would probably have inhibited a public inquiry from going about its business.

      469
      The specialist groups studying suicides and parasuicides will go a considerable way towards providing highly specialised assistance. The reception of Mr. Barry's report was cool, to say the least. He is a distinguished public servant, who has produced a report on an issue of great public interest, but while it might have been correct, it did not allay public fears. The restoration of public confidence will take both money and time. It will take a great deal more than the limited range of options currently open to the courts. Any young man who is sentenced to four months or less must go to a detention centre unless the governor or the courts think otherwise, and then he could be sent to a young offenders institution. If he is a security risk, he will be sent to Glenochil. If that institution has one record, it is that no one has escaped from it.
      I was recently told about two boys who had been sent to the detention centre at Glenochil for the short sharp shock treatment. One of them had only one foot and the other did not have a left arm. I am not sure what the courts were about when they sent those lads to the detention centre. I do not know the quality of the social inquiry reports. Quite frankly, the simplicity and the crudeness of the way in which the sentencing policy was carried out horrifies me.
      I know that there are now provisions to stop that happening a second time. There is a provision in the Bill that someone can be sent only once to a detention centre and that if the short, sharp, shock treatment does not work, he should be sent elsewhere. That is a first step, but the Government are moving at a slow pace. After almost 20 years of operating the system, there is no option open to the courts when dealing with a young man who is showing signs of serious nervous disorder and who needs secure treatment. There is little help available in the Scottish Health Service. None of us would want to go to Carstairs. If it is shown that a lad is a security risk, he must go to a secure institution.
      I make these points not to criticise the system, but to show the paucity of choice and the alarming consequences of that narrow scope. I am not trying to patronise the Minister. I know that he is well intentioned. As a liberal in his party, he is constrained by those about him. However, if one thing has been shown during the past few months or years, it is the shift in attitude in Scotland. There has been a deafening silence from the old Dundee thunderer urging police or prison reform. The Sunday Post has not commented on the institutions during the past few months, or even the past few years. It does not have any answers. It realises that harsh treatment is not the answer, and has made that point clear by its silence.
      Options are open to us. There is now a concensus on penal matters in Scotland which affords the Minister the opportunity to move forward with public support on a programme of reforms, especially for young offenders. The modest proposal that I have put forward tonight would give the Secretary of State an opportunity to do something that is desperately needed, if only to allay the fears of parents, to improve the morale of the prison staff and, most important of all, to try to prevent further tragedy.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Like him, I represent a considerable number of prison officers. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting speech on an important subject.
      470
      All too often, prisons have been the forgotten sector of Scottish politics, but they are vital not only for prison officers, social workers and prison visitors but for the relatives and the prisoners. All have a vested interest in the prisons operating effectively and in ensuring that really severe problems do not arise.
      I have considerable sympathy for the aim behind the new clause. The May committee recommended the setting up of the inspectorate of prisons. At that time, the committee clearly saw the need for an independent and impartial overview of prisons. That principle is now generally accepted, but when the May committee reported, although the governors and staff associations accepted the idea of an inspectorate, there was some objection from administrators. However, the inspectorate was set up, and it has performed a valuable function. Mr. Phillip Barry has completed several reports and many of his recommendations have been implemented. They have been useful in highlighting the need for improvements.
      7.30pm
      As for Glenochil, what we say today is necessarily constrained by the sub judice rule and by the fact that a working party was set up last year by the Secretary of State to consider precautions when dealing with possible suicides. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that its report is published as soon as possible, because then it will be much easier to see what steps can be taken. By that time, the review of the possible options for the future of the prison system should also be available.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider setting up a small standing committee of professionals who could perform the necessary investigations as and when difficult circumstances arise—a sort of watchdog committee. The hon. Member for Clackmannan talked about a standing commission. It might not be necessary to have such an impressive body; a small standing committee might be more appropriate. It would need to be largely independent. A similar committee in the past may not have been completely effective, but the Scottish Select Committee of more than 10 years ago was not completely effective either, although since it has started again it has worked actively and had a substantial effect. A similar committee could serve a useful purpose.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to make a cheap debating point about this being another quango, but after what some Conservative Members have said about quangos, how will the hon. Gentleman defend another one? Secondly, with some good will towards his suggestion, what does he say to the argument that it is rather a cop-out when dealing with extremely awkward problems?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Genuine problems must be considered seriously, on their merits. I do not believe that Members of Parliament are competent to do the job. It is difficult for an all-party committee completely to grasp what is going on. Even if the Scottish Select Committee were to take on the task—it has other priorities on its agenda—it could not easily do justice to the subject. A small committee of professionals to investigate cases as and when they arise would be the best way forward.
      Several serious points should be made. First, is the Minister satisfied that information about incoming prisoners is arriving quickly enough at prisons and other

      471
      penal establishments? Is there a satisfactory computer system? Other institutions in Scotland have no problems with suicides. Although the Minister will not be able to do this until the working group has reported fully, will he consider whether there is a danger of imitative behaviour? On 5 November last year, The Guardian quoted the deputy governor of Glenochil as saying that
      "deaths by hanging were having a knock-on effect."
      Further, there is no provision in the law for re-sentencing if it is discovered that a custodial sentence is unsuitable. The Solicitor-General and the Minister will be aware that there has been a substantial expansion in community service orders, which have worked well. Diversion schemes have also been successful. If a youngster cannot cope with the regime, for a variety of reasons, a mechanism should be available to deal with him so that, if necessary, a tough but constructive noncustodial sentence can be applied.
      What about the future of the special units? Should they be available only to dangerous prisoners who must be kept out of circulation, or will other special units be set up for those who are prone to commiting suicide? One criticism from the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties was that only one 40-minute visit a month is permitted at Glenochil, which it believes is too harsh. The Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders called for a code of practice for the treatment of young persons in custody. It recommended that medical officers at penal establishments and prison staff be trained in understanding immature patterns of behaviour. It also argued for continuity of supervision for youngsters in custody, and for a re-assessment of procedures in relation to behavioural problems.
      That organisation also said that strict suicide observation in special solitary confinement cells with canvas bedding and a canvas smock for clothing was dehumanising. The other side of the story is that, if youngsters have committed serious offences, they should be dealt with firmly under a strict regime. The criticism is not directed primarily against firmness under a strict regime; it is that, in some circumstances, prisoners cannot cope with their conditions.
      Those of us who have been in the Army—I was in the Territorial Army for about 10 years—have some practical knowledge of what a short sharp shock means. But it is different for volunteers. Some do not mind it, a few like it, and some do not like it at all. But if someone cannot cope in the Army, he can be asked to leave. There are no volunteers in a detention centre.
      I have the highest regard for the prison service in Scotland. However, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan said, there is a problem of public confidence, morale and parental anxiety. As a matter of common sense and experience, if something is believed to be not quite right, there should be scope for an investigation, to be followed by the necessary action.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) moved his new clause with all the knowledge that comes from having lived with the problems of Glenochil for many years. He has a detailed and sympathetic understanding of the predicament of prison officers who are asked to provide custodial care for those who, as a result of our laws, we send to prison. He
      472
      made a powerful and effective speech with which I agree almost completely. His argument went beyond the tragedy of the self-inflicted deaths of recent months to the underlying causes. That is the appropriate tack in a debate on the reform of Scottish law.
      The Social Democratic party wholeheartedly supports the hon. Gentleman's recommendation of a standing commission on sentencing policy for young offenders. However, there is one small caveat. He suggested that the commission's duty should be to report to the Secretary of State on any matter which the Secretary of State sees fit to refer to it. I believe that it should do more. It should have the power to initiate inquiries and to make recommendations when it chooses; it should not be confined to acting upon the submission of issues by the Secretary of State. One of the defects of the Law Commission is that it relies upon a reference. That limitation should be avoided.
      Mr. O'Neill: I was proposing an additional role, so that the commission can examine specific problems put to it by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Maclennan: In that case we may need only a drafting amendment.
      This is not an appropriate time to dwell at length on the recent tragedies at Glenochil, which are subject to fatal accident inquiries. I have no doubt that Dr. Chiswick's committee will have relevant comments to make.
      Ministerial responsibility is involved. No recognition is reflected in ministerial action of the need for an investigation into the seven deaths at Glenochil since 1981 to see whether there are any connecting factors. Separate fatal accident inquiries cannot deal with the circumstances of other fatal accidents. The scope of the inquiries is too narrow and their remits are inadequate.
      The terms of reference of Dr. Chiswick's committee have been widened since the latest death, and an early report has been called for, but the terms are too narrow to examine the causes. The committee is considering how best to prevent a fatal accident or self-inflicted death, but it cannot cover all the issues discussed by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. It cannot consider whether people admitted to Glenochil are properly or wisely admitted.
      The hon. Gentleman provided us with interesting information about the number of people who had been on suicide observation in the last two years. The statistics are terrifying. How could 75 people with suicidal propensities be admitted to the detention centre in 1984? Should such people be admitted to such custodial care? We must go into that in greater depth.
      In response to periodic expressions of dismay that have accompanied the announcement of yet another death, the Government have drawn back behind a stockade of self-defence, as if their reputation were as important or more important than the future of such custodial institutions. That has added to, not diminished, public anxiety. Some recognition of the seriousness of the problem would have resulted in a different response from the Government.
      7.45 pm
      The proposal for a standing commission is wise. We should look beyond our own experience in the United Kingdom and take account of United States experience. In New York, all young offenders in one year were discharged from custodial treatment. The consequences of that are worth examining.

      473
      My experience is limited to constituents who have received custodial sentences. I have observed a high rate of recidivism. In England, it is as high as 70 per cent. The Home Secretary has admitted that the short sharp shock treatment has had a negligible effect upon a person's propensity to commit crime. The 70 per cent. figure applies to the only part of the United Kingdom where studies in depth have been conducted by academics of quality and ability.
      Custodial treatment is more common in the United Kingdom than in all other European countries. It does not seem necessary for us to stick with the penal philosophy favoured by this Government. I cannot discharge the present Government from responsibility for that, because they are making a virtue of extending the principle of the short sharp shock treatment. I recognise that such treatment is not formally applied in the young offenders' institutions.
      The Minister claims that nothing has changed since the Conservatives came to power. However, changes have taken place in the numbers of people in such institutions—some falling off in numbers has occurred—and there has been a change in the type of person sent to them.
      We want more than a response to individual tragedies. We want a thorough examination of sentencing policy for young offenders in Scotland so that we might avoid using custodial treatment which coops up some of the most inadequate and deprived people in our society. For them there is little prospect of becoming normal citizens because of deprivation, which forms an inevitable part of custodial treatment. I do not criticise those who look after young offenders, but those young offenders are less likely to become normal citizens after they have experienced such custodial sentences.
      Some of my constituents have responded badly to custodial treatment. They came through the ordeal, but it did them no good. In certain circumstances such treatment is unavoidable. Society must detain in custody certain young individuals, but only a small number need that treatment. Experts increasingly take that view.
      Major public expenditure implications are involved, because the alternative to custodial treatment is not cheap. Community service orders, day care orders and other tried methods are extremely expensive to administer. The Scottish social work departments are over-stressed, and the Government are putting yet more pressure on them. If the Government want to avoid tragedies, they must find alternatives to custodial sentences. They must recognise the inappropriateness of their retributive penal policy and the need to provide a humane alternative.
      Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) was right to use the Bill to raise a burning issue. I congratulate him on what he said, especially as an inquiry is being held. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was right to say that, given the background of Glenochil, it would be insufficient to have merely a fatal accident inquiry.
      We are told that there is no apparent connection between the deaths at Glenochil. That, in itself, is disturbing. If there is no apparent connection, the number of deaths must be related to the regime or to the area.
      Those of us who feel in our bones that the short sharp shock is wrong do not believe that other custodial solutions will necessarily produce magnificent results. As a former
      474
      Minister, I know how weary we are after all the attempts to reduce the rate of recidivism. Few of our attempts succeed.
      However, some regimes can give hope, both to those who work in the institutions and to those who serve sentences there. Some regimes deaden hope, which must create recidivism. The special unit at Barlinnie had success with a much more serious category of prisoner. Hope must be provided.
      The most important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan was the concept of sentencing being done by the courts, but the handling of the prisoner being done by the Executive. There is no reason to assume that the person who judges and sentences necessarily knows the best form of custodial treatment for an offender. There should be a much more flexible response, whether by introducing a delay before sentencing, so that the Executive can examine the case and decide whether to endorse a form of treatment, or by providing that, if a custodial sentence is passed, we should consider what sort of place is appropriate.
      In addition, there should be much freer movement between institutions, though not on the lines of the Bill, which says that if a young person has been to a detention centre he must subsequently go to a young offenders' centre. It must be wrong to adopt that attitude towards young people.
      We must make sure that we do not create a beleaguered attitude among the staff. They are as much the victims of the situation as the rest of society, and they are in the front line.
      All the evidence about the short sharp shock treatment shows that no improvement results from it. It was nonsense to bring back that treatment.
      It is said that there is no relationship between the seven cases at Glenochil, but the incidents appear to be related to the people involved being about to undergo a change—perhaps going for an interview or about to be released. We sometimes forget that there are not only prison and staff regimes. There is also the regime of the prisoners who get information from staff and from inmates as they move from one place to another. That regime has its own mythology, folklore and rumours. It can be frightening and panicking for someone facing a change. One of the young people who died at Glenochil was about to be released, or perhaps he was about to see the governor. In any case, the stories spread. I wish that more studies were made of that aspect.
      Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I was horrified by the numbers who had made suicide attempts and so on. We must deal with that problem. Supervision is not enough.
      I support the suggestion in the new clause that the standing commission should consider not only sentencing policy, but custodial treatment, care assessments and rehabilitation. It must be a continuing process, and we must give hope to the staff and to the inmates. Above all, we must have the sort of mechanism that makes changes easier if it is obvious that a regime is not appropriate for an inmate. We must not be bound to a hard and fast regime.
      We cannot separate one inmate from the mythology in an institution. Nor can we have the 100 per cent. supervision imposed by television cameras. That creates its own terrors and problems.

      475
      We must have flexibility. The standing commission should consider sentencing, and, if custodial treatment is recommended, we must decide the nature of that treatment and the place to which the offender should go. That would at least allow us to deal with the situation and to offer hope, above all to the staff.
      Mr. Dalyell: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) that the staff in institutions—I do not believe that I have any constituents who are staff—should not feel beleaguered. That is most important.
      I speak with muted reticence about teenage suicides. I thought that I knew the son of a right hon. Friend of mine very well. I chatted to him at length one day, but found out that a fortnight later he had hanged himself, in circumstances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) and others know about. Great tragedy has struck the teenage children of hon. Members on both sides of the House and of many other people. Who can know what goes on inside the heads of those young people? I am reluctant to pass judgment on a subject that few of us or anyone else can claim to know much about.
      A constituent in Winchburgh contacted me the day after the most recent tragedy at Glenochil. She was going round the proverbial bend about what would happen to her son. I do not criticise the staff at Glenochil, because I do not know enough about the centre. However, is it a fact that visiting arrangements have been less than flexible?
      I was given the impression by the family in Winchburgh that they would go to Glenochil far more often if they were allowed to do so. Whatever the harshness or otherwise of the regime, it is important that any family ties—some teenagers do not have much of a family life—should be encouraged, within reason, at every turn. I should welcome a response from the Minister about visiting.
      It is partly for that reason that I am not unsympathetic to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) said about having a committee. That might help in many cases.
      Mr. Dewar: We have had an extensive debate and I do not wish to prolong it unnecessarily.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) not only on tabling the new clause and allowing us to raise a number of issues about the custodial treatment of young offenders, but on his constructive and dignified response to a most difficult constituency problem—the tragic series of incidents in the Glenochil complex over the past three or four years. I have some inkling, as have other hon. Members, of the pressure that can be placed on the local Member of Parliament to go for what one might call a high profile response. In this case, my hon. Friend has resisted that pressure for the best of reasons and in the best traditions of the House.
      8 pm
      It is right that we should be debating this issue, because there is undoubtedly a great deal of public anxiety over it, and we should reflect that in Parliament. We must try to put what have been tragic events into some perspective, and discover the best framework within which the staff, who have the unfortunate job of supervising persons serving custodial sentences, can operate. An enormous
      476
      spotlight has been turned on the issue because of the suicides since 1980–81. It is clearly a subject of tragedy, of high emotion, and sometimes, in terms of public reaction, of anger.
      I join those who recognise the problems that face the staff. I do not want any sort of accusatorial procedure to be established. We should ensure that the staff are not, in some way, placed in the dock for what has happened. To do that would, by and large, be unfair. I also caution taking a sceptical approach to some of the remarks that have been made. I say "some", because they must be properly investigated.
      For example, some statements that have been made about the way in which the staff operate and the way in which the regime is run within the Glenochil complex.
      In that context, we had an interesting example of the need for caution with the sensational letter that received widespread publicity at the time of one fatal accident inquiry in 1983. Subsequently, the young man who wrote the letter, in which he made the most lurid accusations of assault, drugs and extortion in the detention centre, gave evidence at the fatal accident inquiry and confessed that he had never been in the detention centre and had no direct knowledge of any of the events described in his letter. They had all been inventions of his imagination—a form of attention-seeking of a most destructive kind. I mention that because it is important to try to take a balanced approach to the problem.
      I intend to make some critical remarks about the way in which we have organised the regime and about the detention centre procedure. It is important to remember, though sometimes easy to forget, that we are considering a complex that contains two separate institutions and two different approaches and regimes. Although much of the criticism has centred on the short sharp shock approach, as it is called, five of the seven deaths occurred in the young offenders' institution, some involving young men facing lengthy sentences.
      The last one—a tragic case, the details of which appeared in a newspaper, so I am not breaking any confidences by repeating the personal details—concerned a young man who came from a fractured and sad background, an example of the inadequacy of many such young men. He had been to a detention centre originally; he had been at Friarton and was transferred, because of his instability, to the young offenders' centre at Glenochil. He was typical of the individual problems with which the system must cope, but with which it has obviously been failing to cope, in the most final sense, considering the number of individuals concerned.
      I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan said in favour of the new clause. I argue for an overall review, on a permanent basis, of the way in which the system is operated. There is undoubtedly much scope for reconsideration of the way in which we carry out the sentences imposed by the courts and the form of custody that we inflict on the young men concerned.
      I welcome the fact that an inquiry is now going on into the way in which suicide-risk inmates are dealt with at Glenochil. Nobody would cavil that such an inquiry should take place. However, we should go wider than that in our researches, and that is where the standing commission referred to in the new clause would come in.
      A substantial mistake was made when we abolished borstal and the indefinite form of sentencing that borstal

      477
      training represented. I do not mean that we made a mistake in abolishing borstal as such. I supported that, and I still do. The mistake was what we put in its place. The Government decided to go for the detention centre as basically the only option for any custodial sentence between 28 days and four months. It was to be a one-road solution, the regime for all individuals and all seasons, with no flexibility and no attempt to consider the needs of the individual.
      That was undoubtedly a mistake, and it was pointed out to the Government at the time by me and many other hon. Members. We opposed the proposal then, and nothing that has happened since—I am not referring specificially to the two detention centre suicides; I am talking of a broader perspective—has convinced me that I was wrong.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan spoke of a couple of spectacular mistakes in placement by the courts. He referred, for example, to the case of a boy with a physical defect of a dramatic sort who was clearly unfitted for a detention centre, yet who was sent to one. I recognise that such mistakes can happen. There is machinery in section 45(10) of the 1980 Act to deal with such persons. It allows transfers from detention centres to young offenders' centres. I gather that that provision has been used occasionally—almost always when there has been a specific, usually physical, problem which has made its use essential.
      We need greater flexibility than that escape route allows. I believe that Ministers also take that view. Therefore, I welcome the fact that clause 43 of the Bill contains an important concession which recognises that a substantial number of youngsters who were going into the detention centre at Glenochil—and, no doubt, into the detention centre at Friarton—had been there once, or perhaps more than once, previously. Those youngsters created a substantial discipline problem in the detention centre. It is the law of diminishing returns if one believes that the detention centre concept is always effective. They created real problems for the staff.
      In clause 43 we are legislating to prevent a continuation of that situation. That is a recognition of the fact that all is not well with the old, simplistic assumption that a detention centre must be right for everyone, that it does much for the backbone of a lad and aids his moral character. We have departed to some extent from that with this sensible provision in the Bill.
      We made an error in going down the detention centre road. I checked the earlier debates and noted that, at the time, I did not call for the abolition of detention centres. I do not call for their abolition now. There may be a case for the retention of the detention centre as one of a range of options for the young offender. However, I repeat my strong feeling that to have it as the only option has been a narrow piece of legislation which has had unfortunate results.
      There was a tendency for the Government to see it not simply as something which fitted their approach, but as a remarkably convenient move, for it could be represented, on the one hand, as being tough with the young offender, and, on the other, as a move which would save a considerable amount of cash because it would reduce the size of the population in young offenders' institutions.
      I have had handed to me an interesting little publication, issued by the Conservative Research Centre, on the policy of the Government in Scotland. The document, issued a few days ago, in the section dealing
      478
      with law and order, refers to a statistic that I have heard Ministers use in the House in recent weeks. It says that the number of youngsters serving custodial sentences has been reduced by 20 per cent. since the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act came into effect.
      However, I suspect that the number of admissions might show a considerably different picture because the population has dropped. When we abolished borstal, the average was nine or 10 months, and sometimes longer than that if satisfactory progress was not made. Now everyone on a summary complaints procedure faces a maximum of six months at a young offenders' institution, and many go to a detention centre. Inevitably, the number who were in at any one time was cut, but not necessarily the number of youngsters being admitted and experiencing the difficult transition into and out of a detention centre or young offenders' institution.
      It is not my job to argue at great length tonight, but I genuinely think that that is the sort of area that we must consider. We should look back to the debates in 1980—for example, 12 June 1980—when the matter was first discussed. It is amazing to see the lack of research and what might be described as proper inquiry made by the Government before they took that dramatic change in direction in the way in which we deal with the young offender. It was Opposition Members who scrambled around reading articles in New Society and looking for documentation from the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. We were trying to bring some logical facts to bear on whether the detention centre had a desirable effect and whether it reduced recidivism. For Ministers, it was merely a statement of faith, "We believe in the discipline. We believe in the short sharp shock." That was the end of the argument. I genuinely believe that, with Glenochil, we have misused an opportunity to look in a systematic, in-depth way at the impact of the detention centre and the results that it produces. We should do so before committing ourselves, as we did in 1980, to a road which, unfortunately, has been littered with the tragedies that we have been discussing for the past hour or so.
      I still unashamedly prefer the solution in the first Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who was then the Minister in charge of the Committee. It was lost because of the 1979 general election. The House will remember that in clauses 36 and 37 we had something that looked very much like what was wisely commended by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan)—that the court should decide on the necessity or otherwise of custodial sentence. It decided the length of the sentence, but after that it was a matter for proper assessment as to whether it should be a detention centre, a young offenders' institution or some other form that might evolve in future. That proposal would allow greater sensitivity, which might lead to better results and give a new dimension to the job of a prison officer. I accept that it might be difficult for some to adapt, but I believe that almost everyone in that profession is conscious of the fact that the system can be rigid and limited, and that they must try to broaden the range of their activities, experience and sensitivities.
      Therefore, I welcome the idea of a standing commission to go into the broader issues of policy that we have neglected and for which we in the House can be criticised.

      479
      There are many other areas that I cannot and should not debate tonight. I have been talking mainly about the detention centre, but when we come to the young offenders' institution we encounter the problems of the young men who are shut in. The staff do their best, but it is a limiting and depressing regime for those young people for some years. There is the important matter of the possibility of getting greater variety in that regime, which the standing commission could consider, too.
      8.15 pm
      There is also the problem of transfers of youngsters showing signs of mental stress. I have been told by some senior staff involved in that work that if they approach a mental hospital and say that they are from Glenochil, doors slam in their faces because it sounds like trouble, and no one wants it. One does not want to see youngsters suffering from stress in the conventional closed ward of a mental hospital, which most mental hospitals are trying to move away from. The relationship between the young offenders institution and detention centre and the mental hospital should be looked at in view of some of the comments that have been made to me by people of genuine experience.
      There is an enormous amount to be done in examining the alternatives to custodial sentence. I do not practise nowadays in the sheriff courts in Scotland, but I doubt whether they have changed very much over the past year or 18 months since my experience came to an end. Until recently, it was frequent to have a youngster in the dock, with the sheriff having before him a series of reports saying unanimously that community service would be a useful way of disposing of the case, and the boy might respond to it. However, the final, deadening remark at the end is, "No place is available." I recognise that there are genuine difficulties in getting the work opportunities implicit in community service orders, but there is also an enormous problem of a lack of resources. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that in areas of Scotland there is not just a lack of places, but the scheme does not operate at all. We should consider that. We should also consider probation and its use, and attendance centres.
      Therefore, there is an enormous area to be covered. The one thing that has happened is that we have allowed the Government—perhaps we could not stop them—to go down a road which, in many ways, at least in custodial matters, has reduced the options, made the system more rigid and made it close in upon individual offenders. That is one of the things that has led to some of the troubles that we are now considering.
      It is a sensitive issue. Clearly there will be variations of opinion upon it. Truth is never absolute, and it is hard to assess the results. We have a duty to continue to try. We certainly have a duty to take seriously the tragedies in the young offenders institution. We must sympathise with the staff and with the problems of an institution which is the place to which all troublesome youngsters are sent. If a boy is in trouble in Polmont young offenders institution, he will be transferred to Glenochil. If a boy shows signs of mental instability, he will be transferred to Glenochil.
      There are special problems for the staff. I still believe that we are giving them a task that has been complicated by an over-rigid approach to the regime that should be available and that many youths will not, in detention
      480
      centre terms, respond merely to the fact that they have to work through a series of grades that depend on taking a minute off their mile time or the ability to order their kit with almost military precision. That may be a useful regime, but it is not a universal panacea. The Government, in trying to make it so for a large proportion of the youngsters coming into custody, possibly took a wrong turning.
      If we can get the wider perspective and in-depth examination that I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan is thinking about when he advocates a standing commission, we shall be doing a great deal to help future generations to cope with the distressing problems that we have experienced over the past three or four years.
      Mr. Ancram: Rightly, this has been a lengthy debate on a very important subject. I join hon. Members who rightly acknowledged and endorsed the efforts that are made by those who work in such institutions. We all recognise that, in a sense, they are working for us. We owe them an acknowledgement of the work that they do. I am grateful to hon. Members who have done so tonight. I listened with care to the speech by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). He raised a matter of great public concern. I entirely share his regret at the tragic deaths in the Glenochil complex, a subject to which I shall return.
      As the hon. Gentleman said to me, I hope that I do not sound patronising in saying this. I should like to thank him for the thoughtful and responsible attitude that he displayed not only tonight but during the difficult months that have passed. He has served his constituency well in so doing. That contrasts remarkably with some comments made by hon. Members, which have done nothing to achieve any confidence, but have done a lot unnecessarily to instil anxiety in the hearts and minds of parents who have children at that institution.
      The Government are committed to the full investigation of those complex and distressing cases, but I should make it clear at this stage that in my view a statutory standing commission is not the answer. Nevertheless, I welcome this opportunity to debate the whole question of the treatment of young offenders.
      First, it is important to set in context the issues that have been raised about custodial treatment of young offenders. Understandably, public interest and concern have been concentrated on those detained in custody. Detention, however, is the last resort, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) recognised to some extent. Only a minority of young offenders are dealt with in that way. The court can sentence a young offender to detention only if it is satisfied that no other method of dealing with his is appropriate. Before doing so, the court must obtain information about the offender's circumstances, usually by way of a background report from the local authority social work department. Other, non-custodial, disposals are available and the courts rightly turn to them first. The figures bear that out. Last year, more than 50,000 young offenders appeared before Scottish courts, but fewer than 5,000 received custodial sentences. The vast majority—more than 90 per cent.—were dealt with in some other way.
      A wide range of non-custodial options is available to the courts. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) seemed to be suggesting that the non-custodial

      481
      options were too narrow, but the range available is very wide and it is still widening. The commonest, and often the most appropriate, is the fine, but probation is also widely used, especially for the under-21s, and community service is now available in most sheriff and high courts as a realistic alternative to imprisonment.
      Mr. Buchan: I was referring to the options within the custodial structure. I was not dealing with the non-custodial options, of which there are certainly many. I believe that the custodial structure should offer a wider variety of regimes and institutions, ranging from the very open, almost teaching, environment to, inevitably, the extremely secure.
      Mr. Ancram: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was suggesting that some offenders who were inside penal institutions should be outside but that places were not available.
      Mr. Buchan: That is true, too, but I was not making that point.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to community service orders. I should point out to him that they are now available in three quarters of the Scottish sheriff courts and we are actively pursuing expansion of that system.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to score cheap public points, but the Minister's briefing to the effect that the options are widening does not accord with the experience of those of us who have received complaints about the closure of the Guthrie school. That option should have been kept open. I do not make the point in a partisan spirit, but the hon. Gentleman must be careful about claiming that the options are widening.
      Mr. Ancram: The closure of Dr. Guthrie's school is the responsibility of another Minister, so it would not be right for me to refer to it at the Dispatch Box.
      The fact that there are now more ways to dispose of young offenders is reflected in the fact that fewer and fewer young offenders now end up in penal institutions. Our policy continues to be that non-custodial sentences should be developed further, as shown by our continued commitment to the growth of community service orders. Last year, 1,200 such orders were made for young offenders. Our recent announcement about fine-enforcement officers is further evidence of our intentions in that direction. The hon. Member for Garscadden questioned this, but the daily population of young offenders in penal custody has been reduced by 20 per cent. since the new sentencing arrangements were introduced in November 1983. The full figures for 1984 are not available, but the 20 per cent. reduction is a clear improvement.
      The crux of the debate is, perhaps, that there will always be a minority of offenders for whom a custodial sentence is the only option in view of their response to previous disposals or, in some cases, the seriousness of the crime. Some young offenders defy all efforts at non-custodial restraint and continue to offend. Some have committed extremely serious offences and considerations of public safety as well as of criminal justice require the imposition of custodial sentences.
      I believe that the Government have responded quickly and positively to the new opportunities for dealing with young offenders out of custody. The methods available to
      482
      the courts are already varied and continue to develop, and they are being used in a constructive and reasonable way. The formulation and review of policy must be flexible so as to respond quickly as new opportunities and difficulties emerge. That is an important part of the Government's purpose. The same applies to the assessment of young offenders. The provision of information before a sentence is imposed is the responsibility of the local authority social work departments, to which guidance has been given by the Scottish Office—most recently in November 1983 in a circular setting out in detail the requirements of section 45 and schedule 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.
      The hon. Member for Clackmannan referred to the resources available to social work departments. A joint Scottish Office-COSLA working party comprising officials from the Scottish Departments, social work directors and financial advisors is currently considering the provision of social work services for offenders and I hope that recommendations will come forward for our consideration in due course.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is desperately important to all our constituents that more resources should be made available. Is the Minister satisfied with the level of resources likely to be made available, because we have heard differently? In that context, the working party is extremely important.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a working party of this kind must assess whether resources are being deployed in the most effective way and, if so, what additional requirements there may be. We must await the results.
      The decision as to the sentence is a matter for the court. I do not think that that fact was fully reflected in some contributions today. For young offenders who may be mentally disordered, there are arrangements for medical reports to be obtained and the court can make a hospital order rather than impose a custodial sentence. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Clackmannan that that does not mean Carstairs.
      Mr. O'Neill: I think that the Minister is about to slip around this, and I want to get him. God forbid that any of these offenders should be sent to Carstairs, but I am told by the prison authorities that virtually no other institution in Scotland is prepared to take them. They cannot find anywhere else to put these lads unless the nature of the disorder is such that the offender should never have been sentenced in the first place. That is the reality of the situation.
      Mr. Ancram: A medical report has to be obtained and the question of accommodation follows.
      The arrangements for assessment and classification of young offenders within the prison system are the subject of current research with the SHHD. That research will be made available to Dr. Chiswick's working group, so that he will have the benefit of it in reaching his conclusion. The changing pattern of offences and sentences by the courts inevitably means that adjustments are required in the allocation and use of penal establishments for young offenders. Apart from the reduction in the daily population of young offenders, to which I have already referred, the response and attitudes of young inmates need to be carefully monitored by the prison service. I can assure the House that this task is not overlooked and that great care

      483
      is taken in the assessment and review of appropriate regimes for individual inmates. I shall, however, come to some specific changes that we have in mind a little later.
      8.30 pm
      Recent concern about the Glenochil complex and continuing, generally uninformed, criticism of detention centres have tended to distract attention from other young offenders' institutions in Scotland. In the light of the subject of this debate, it is right that I should mention them. The open establishments of Castle Huntly and Noranside offer a contrasting and worthwhile opportunity for young offenders to serve custodial sentences in more congenial and open conditions. There is also a YOI at Polmont which deals with shorter-sentence young offenders and a number of young inmates remanded in custody by the court. I share the appreciation of the hon. Member for Clackmannan of the work done by the staff not only at Glenochil but at other establishments such as these.
      I do not think that the type of standing commission which the hon. Member for Clackmannan suggested would add significantly to the considerable efforts that are already being made to improve sentencing and custodial care for young offenders. Earlier in the proceedings on the Bill, the House approved a Government amendment—the hon. Member for Garscadden referred to it—intended to ensure that, normally, young offenders receiving a sentence of between 28 days and four months appropriate to a detention centre would serve such a sentence only once in a detention centre. This amendment reflected experience with the new sentencing arrangements under section 45 of the 1980 Act. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I cannot interfere with the sentencing of the courts in individual cases, but I believe that we have responded positively to the changing needs of young offenders. We shall continue to try to do so.
      There have been suggestions that detention centres should not continue in their present form. I understand that that is one of the contentions of the hon. Member for Clackmannan. I must emphasise that the brisk detention centre regime has operated in Scotland since 1960. It is followed at the Glenochil and Friarton detention centres. As Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons noted in his report on the Glenochil detention centre, the regime is positive and purposeful. I remain convinced that it is of great value to many young offenders who need time away from associates who might encourage them or lead them into other offences and a regime that is physically demanding but worth while in terms of targets for performance.
      I accept that the detention centre regime is not suited to all young men who receive sentences of between 28 days and four months. Section 45 of the 1980 Act recognised that some individuals might be medically or physically unfit for the regime, and such individuals can be transferred to a young offenders' institution. As I reminded hon. Members earlier, there are other amendments which will mean that no one will serve in a detention centre more than once.
      Mr. Dewar: This may be a misapprehension on my part, but I have the impression from talking to staff involved that the exceptional provisions of section 45—
      484
      these provisions require the specific approval of the Secretary of State before a transfer is made—come into play only in cases of exceptional misplacements. An extraordinary example of misplacement has involved a boy with only one foot being sent to a detention centre. Will the Under-Secretary of State assure me that, if the governor of one of these institutions approaches him with the case of a boy who fails to cope, he will look sympathetically at any transfer request?
      Mr. Ancram: Obviously, a detention centre sentence will not be imposed in special circumstances. That might be the case in examples of the sort given by the hon. Member for Glascadden. There are other cases in which a person is found not to be suited or is unable to cope with the detention centre regime. In such cases, the person can be moved. I do not want to go further on that point, because it involves a case on which, for obvious reasons, the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment.
      Mr. Buchan: This might not be the appropriate time to make an in-depth analysis. If the short sharp shock institution is not suitable for young offenders, will the Minister consider using a variety of institutions? Clearly, this will require legislation. Will the hon. Gentleman say that his mind is open on this matter, so that a serious medical, physical or psychological condition does not have to be specified before it is decided that a particular boy should be not in that centre but in a different regime? If the hon. Gentleman were to open his mind to that proposition, he would allay many anxieties.
      Mr. Ancram: Nothing I have said should suggest that I expect individual young offenders who are incapable of remaining within a detention regime to remain there.
      Mr. Buchan: Not incapable.
      Mr. Ancram: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I have said that we are always looking at this matter in terms of trying to meet changing needs. The demand is not static; it is continually moving. We have responded to it as it has moved. Obviously, I shall carefully consider all the remarks made in this debate.
      The suggestion for a standing commission and the other proposals for a large-scale public inquiry bring me to the serious concern that the Government share about recent deaths in custody. Self-inflicted injury or the death of a young man, perhaps at his own hand, are distressing and complex problems, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out. Obviously, I cannot comment on the two most recent deaths which are still to be subject to fatal accident inquiries. I wish to emphasise, however, the seriousness with which the Government regard the problem and the importance which we attach to full investigation of the individual cases and the more general issues.
      I resent the suggestion of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—I should perhaps have expected that he would indulge in such language—that the Government are in any way complacent or are battening down the hatches as a result of these incidents. We take these incidents very seriously. We attach great importance to investigating them in the fullest possible way.
      Mr. Maclennan: If that is so, why will the Government not agree to establish an inquiry that goes beyond the terms of a fatal accident inquiry to consider the conceivable nexus among the seven deaths?
      Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman would let me make my speech in my own way, he might discover my view. The fatal accident inquiry has been criticised as inadequate by some people who, I suspect, have not read the determinations of previous fatal accident inquiries. The independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of a case is a vital first step. The sheriff principal or sheriff concerned has the opportunity to set up additional factual observatons or recommendations in his determination. The Government take full and careful account of any such observations or recommendations. Indeed, in the case of the fatal accident inquiry on William McDonald, which recommended the investigation that Dr. Chiswick and his working group are carrying out, the sheriff principal made several searching and important observations on the issues arising from that case.
      The Government have taken full and careful account of those observations. The Chiswick working group on suicide precautions at Glenochil implemented a recommendation made by the sheriff principal. The Crown Office is taking steps to ensure that the fatal accident inquiries into the two most recent deaths take place as quickly as can reasonably be done, but I am sure the hon. Members accept the need for a full and thorough investigation as a basis for such inquiries.
      There has been criticism of the scope and nature of the investigations by Dr. Chiswick's working group on suicide precautions at Glenochil. I emphasise that the working group is independent and that it has taken a great deal of evidence from within the prison service and from other bodies and individuals. The working group is free to examine and comment upon the wider issues arising from its remit. In view of concern about recent deaths at Glenochil, my right hon. Friend has made arrangements to ensure that the working group can complete its task more quickly and report by the end of June. We have undertaken to publish its report and the Government will want to give careful and detailed consideration to any recommendations that it makes or which emerge from the fatal accident inquiries into the two most recent deaths.
      I do not wish to diminish in any way the concern or importance that the Government attach to these issues. I fully appreciate the force of the argument of the hon. Member for Clackmannan that there needs to be careful examination of the problems of dealing with young offenders, but, as I have emphasised, matters arising from the deaths at Glenochil will already be the subject of careful and independent scrutiny and my Department is continuing to monitor and respond positively to the changing requirements of young offenders in general. I do not exclude the possibility of further inquiries or investigations at a later stage when we have considered the full findings of the fatal accident inquiries and the Chiswick working group. We should not pre-empt those findings by considering further investigations or changes.
      A number of questions were asked by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) asked whether information about inmates was reaching prisons quickly enough. That is one matter with which I hope the Chiswick report will
      486
      deal. He asked also about inmates sentenced to detention centres when they are manifestly unfit for it. I hope that I have dealt with that point.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about visiting frequency at Glenochil. Visiting entitlement was extended in most penal establishments last year. I shall study the arrangements at Glenochil in the light of what he has said to see whether improvements can or should be made.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to the narrowness of the terms of reference of the Glenochil working group. I accept that its membership is professional. It comes from the caring professions. It does not include anyone from the judiciary. At the same time, the evidence that it is taking is wide-ranging. It comes from a number of varied sources. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has spoken recently to a number of people who have given evidence. I believe that the working group is capable of coming to conclusions and making recommendations which will be valuable.
      I said earlier that I would mention a number of measures that we are considering. Before Dr. Chiswick reports, we are continuing to take practical measures to improve the precautions and care of inmates who might be suicidal. I should emphasise the difficulty of identifying inmates who are genuinely suicidal as opposed to self threatening for other motives. That is a matter of which I know the hon. Member for Clackmannan is aware.
      Work is being put in hand at Glenochil to make a secure hospital facility of a ward and a single cell so that strict medical observation can be provided in appropriate cases. In addition, immature or vulnerable inmates who are identified as requiring a more closely supervised regime will be transferred from Glenochil to the secure unit at Carrick house at Polmont. Carrick house is a facility which has been used for some time to allow vulnerable or immature inmates a respite from the pressure that they feel other inmates may put upon them. It is not new, it has been going for some time.
      I must stress that governors and staff already make considerable and continuing efforts to deny bullies any opportunity for their activities and to ensure that weaker inmates are encouraged and helped to remain in normal circulation. For the small number who cannot cope, Carrick house will provide an alternative location. I am also arranging that all inmates who are found to be medically or physically unfit for the detention centre regime will be transferred to Polmont young offenders institution in the first instance as it is the establishment which normally deals with short-sentence young offenders. It may be necessary to transfer some of those inmates to Glenochil if they present serious security risks.
      I mention those measures to emphasise the continuing flexibility and response to change which is day-to-day part and parcel of the custodial services for young offenders.
      I welcome the fact that we have had the chance to debate this important matter. I hope that the hon. Member for Clackmannan will feel, in the light of what I have said, that his suggestions are unnecessary and that he will withdraw his new clause. The Government are determined continuously to improve the system and to respond to the changing circumstances and needs of those within it.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. O'Neill: I am not completely depressed by what the Minister has said. His last few remarks give us some

      487
      grounds for hope, but I am rather sad that he persists in viewing the young offenders' system with the tunnel vision that has characterised the Government from the outset. He refuses to look outside the two options which are open at present—the detention centre and the young offenders' institution. Within those parameters, there is insufficient scope for a flexible response.
      I shall withdraw the new clause, because I realise that it is unrealistic, but it has provided us with a useful basis for debate, and I am happy about that. I must apologise, because I did not appreciate that I had spoken for as long as I did. I feel that we shall have to return to this subject. I wish the measures which the Minister has described a fair wind. We all hope that anything that is done will improve matters, but we may well see more tragic deaths before we find solutions to the problems towards which almost everyone who has participated in the debate has been groping. Until we find them, I cannot see the terrible problems diminishing. We know that they will never be resolved completely because people will have to be retained in secure custody because of the nature of the crimes that they commit. That is, however, no excuse for moving only at the speed of the slowest. That has, unfortunately, characterised the Government's response. To that extent I am slightly disappointed this evening but we have had a useful debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 9

      MALICIOUS CONTAMINATION OR ALLEGED MALICIOUS CONTAMINATION OF FOOD
      '(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence;

      (a) If he without lawful excuse damages or otherwise contaminates an item of food by the addition of a substance whether or not the substance so added is harmful; or

      (b) If he communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing in him or any other person a false belief that an item of food has been contaminated, by the addition of a substance whether or not the substance which is believed to have been added is harmful.

      (2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum as defined in section 74(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1983, or both; or

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine, or both.'.—[Mr. Shersby.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I ask for the indulgence of Scottish Members for intervening on a Scottish Bill, but the matter that I wish to raise can only be considered in a Bill which involves the reform of the law. As there is no criminal justice legislation during this Session, I have taken this opportunity to table the new clause.
      The substance of my new clause is as important to Scotland as it is to the rest of the United Kingdom. I
      488
      declare an interest, in as much as I am a member of the Food and Drink Federation and of other bodies listed in the Register of Members' interests.
      The purpose of the new clause is to make the malicious contamination, or alleged malicious contamination, of food an offence punishable by a substantial fine of up to £1,000 or by a term of imprisonment, or both.
      Why is that necessary? The House will no doubt recall a recent case when a national newspaper was contacted by a group of people who were seeking to publicise their cause by attempting to inflict damage on a well-known firm of food manufacturers. The group claimed that it had placed a contaminated food product on the shelves of retail outlets in five cities in the United Kingdom. In fact, I understand that a note was placed in the product stating that it had been contaminated and that there was also a note on the exterior of the wrapping to the effect that the product was contaminated. The clear message was that the product was unfit for human consumption and could cause serious illness or worse.
      The product sent to the newspaper had indeed been tampered with, but—this is the important point—no other examples of the product found on the shelves of shops throughout the United Kingdom had been tampered with. They did not contain any toxic substance, as had been alleged by the group concerned.
      The items sent to the newspaper for publicity purposes had been subject to malicious contamination, but for thousands or millions of packs of the product on the shelves of shops throughout the United Kingdom and intended for human consumption the threat was no more than a hoax. For the manufacturer and the consumer, the hoax was serious and dangerous. It caused great anxiety in the minds of the public, even though the claims that the product had been tampered with were false.
      While that anxiety was being caused, the perpetrators of the hoax appeared on television, broadcast on the radio and gave stories to the newspapers to publicise their cause. The spokesman for the group simply said that his group had tampered with a nationally known product. He did not speak as the person who had actually tampered with the product, and no charge was preferred, presumably because it was believed that no offence had been committed in England by that person.
      Such a malicious hoax, causing great public anxiety, is a very serious matter for any food manufacturer or retailer. It is somewhat akin to the type of bomb hoax that was made an offence by the Criminal Law Act 1977. To indulge in such a hoax is to make use, or to seek to make use, of the nation's food supply chain as a weapon to advance a point of view or to seek some change in commercial policy. The problem is causing great concern to the Food and Drink Federation, to the food companies that belong to the Food Manufacturers Federation, and to the consumer. I believe that the time has come for Parliament to make it clear that the malicious contamination of food, or its alleged malicious contamination, is an offence that should be punishable by the full rigour of the law in the form of a substantial fine or a term of imprisonment, or both.
      In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the law appears to be inadequate to prevent such highly undesirable and dangerous activities. The law in Scotland may be different. I hope that the House will be informed on that point when my hon. Friend replies to the debate. I hope that he will consider the matter carefully and be

      489
      disposed to welcome the new clause. Perhaps Scotland, which has a fine reputation for clear and sensible laws, will be the first country in the United Kingdom to clamp down on this objectionable and dangerous activity, which can have, and has had, such serious effects on several sectors of our community.
      Mr. Conal Gregory: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has a great deal of knowledge of the industry concerned. However, I probably represent more confectionery companies and employees than any other hon. Member. As a Sassenach, and not wearing my kilt I hesitate to speak in such a debate, but my electors sell their beautiful product north of the border and I therefore think it right to make some brief comments.
      From time to time anarchists appear in our midst, who cannot obtain support at the ballot box for their extreme views and, therefore resort to extremist means. I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of the views expressed by the confectionery trade, which seeks to produce good quality products which are not only enjoyed throughout the United Kingdom but contribute richly to our exports. It is not right that their products should be damaged by hoax calls and similar activities. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will look kindly on the amendment.
      Mr. Ewing: I apologise to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) for not having been present to hear his opening comments.
      The Opposition deprecate the actions of those who resort to such tactics. In the case of the Mars bars there was no infection, but the fact that the group concerned announced that it had done such a thing caused widespread fear and alarm. The Opposition want no truck with such behaviour. We have our views on the protection of animals, on field sports and on other issues. All such issues should be discussed in the political forum. However, in no circumstances will we condone or tolerate actions of this kind.
      As I expect the Minister will explain to his hon. Friend, in the case of Scotland, the announcement by the group that it had injected the Mars bars with poison—although it had not in fact done so—caused the police to investigate the complaint. There is in Scotland an offence of wasting police time. If the perpetrators of that act had been discovered, they would have been charged with wasting police time. As always, Scots law—I do not intend to denigrate the English law, and I could not do so in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker—has certain advantages over the English legal system. Surprise, surprise—our High Court has the power to invent offences. The Solicitor-General looks surprised at that revelation. In the case of Malik v. Her Majesty's Advocate, when the selling of glue-sniffing kits was not an offence, the High Court invented the offence and Malik was convicted.
      I hope that, if the police catch the perpetrators of the offences which we are discussing, they will be charged with wasting police time, or, if not, that the High Court will consider its ability to invent an offence. Having said that, I do not want to prejudge any case. I should not be answering for the Minister and be suspected of reading his brief, but I am sure that Scots law can deal with the problem to which the hon. Member for Uxbridge has rightly drawn our attention.
      490
      The Opposition strongly deprecate the actions of those who were involved in the scare which resulted in announcements about Mars bars and, latterly, turkeys and other produce. I commend the hon. Member for Uxbridge on presenting his new clause, but Scotland should be able to deal with such matters.
      9 pm
      Mr. John MacKay: I have listened with care to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who was kind enough to give me advance warning of his intentions. I also listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who has some interest in the confectionery industry. Some of the rest of us are trying to curtail our intake of confectionery to limit our waistlines. I also listened with interest to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing).
      The behaviour that we are discussing is to be condemned without reservation. It is deplorable, especially with products that are eaten mainly by children. Parents must be greatly alarmed if they think that their children's sweets might have been tampered with and therefore endanger their health. I am sure that the whole House condemns those tactics without reservation.
      I can speak only for Scotland. Matters might be different south of the border. I do not think that we need the new clause, as the behaviour that we are discussing is adequately covered by the common law. We would not wish to contemplate legislative change unless we were satisfied that the common law was inadequate. Much depends on the circumstances of a case, but, bearing that in mind, common law charges which might be brought include extortion, breach of the peace—one of the essential elements of which is the causing of fear and alarm to the public—malicious mischief and, as the hon.. Member for Falkirk, East said, the wasting of police time.
      I am satisfied that existing law in Scotland is sufficient to ensure the prosecution of people who commit these crimes. If such crimes are prosecuted at common law, the maximum penalty can be substantial. It depends on the power of the court hearing the case. In the High Court, the maximum penalty by way of fine or imprisonment t is unlimited. Serious cases could be taken to the High Court, so those who indulge in such activities should be aware that they lay themselves open to extremely severe punishment.
      I hope that, in the light of what I have just said, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will not wish to press his clause. I know from what he said earlier that he wants to give this important subject an airing, and the Bill is a vehicle to that end. I hope that he has been assured that Scotland has the law to deal with such matters. In the High Court, we have the penalties which should cause anybody who contemplates such disgraceful action to have second thoughts.
      Mr. Shersby: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for those remarks. The Scottish law is apparently superior to the English law, but I am grateful to him for spelling out the position. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) for what he said on behalf of the official Opposition. The issue is important, and it is quite clear that the parties in the House fully recognise that.
      It is also useful to know that under Scottish common law such matters can be dealt with, that there are severe

      491
      penalties, and that if such offences are perpetrated in Scotland they will be dealt with severely. I only hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General may feel inclined in the not too distant future to consider carefully the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that it has beneath it the same safety net as the Scottish law, as my hon. Friend the Minister has so clearly explained. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and for the opportunity of raising the issue in this short debate.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 10

      AWARD OF EXPENSES WHERE DEFENDANT ACQUITTED OR PROSECUTION NOT PROCEEDED WITH
      'Where—

      (a) an accused is acquitted or

      (b) an accused is charged with an offence and the prosecution is not proceeded with or is dismissed by the court or the court finds that there is no case to answer,

      the court shall order the accused's expenses to be paid either out of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund or by the prosecutor.'.—[Dame Judith Hart.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dame Judith Hart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      First I shall outline the background to the new clause, and the present position. Contrary to the position in England and Wales, the position in Scotland is that someone who is found innocent or who it is found has no case to answer cannot have his legal expenses paid unless he is a recipient of legal aid. About 10 years ago the Thomson committee reported on several matters relating to courts and procedures in Scotland. In one of its reports it looked at this issue rather briefly, and somewhat casually considered the arguments for changing the system in Scotland, and dismissed them. That was the last opportunity for considering the issue.
      My concern arose originally from the juxtaposition of three constituency cases during the same period a few years ago. As the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State will know, I tabled several questions seeking statistics, had some brief correspondence on the matter with the Lord Advocate, and was involved in an exchange with the Secretary of State for Scotland during Question Time. I asked the Secretary of State whether he would consider ensuring that expenses could be paid to accused people
      "where the verdict is 'not guilty' or where there is a formal verdict that there is no case to answer."
      He said no, and added that he remained persuaded by the assessment of the Thomson committee. When pressed a little further, he said:
      "I must observe that any cases of genuine hardship are covered by legal aid. For people who are otherwise affected, there are other sources of aid. The Thomson committee went into the issue extremely carefully"—
      I do not agree with that—
      "and I do not believe that it would be worth while trying to second-guess by having a full review of the matter."—[Official Report, 30 November 1983; Vol 49, c. 874.]
      That is the Secretary of State's position.
      I shall briefly draw the attention of the House to some of the relevant facts. I believe that the 1983 figures are available, but I do not have them. However in 1982, in the
      492
      case of crimes, 1,459 people had the charge against them withdrawn, and the number of those found not guilty was 3,424. In the case of offences, of those pleading not guilty, the charge was withdrawn in 1,830 cases and the person was found not guilty in 2,666 cases.
      That gives us a total of about 9,400 people. They had pleaded not guilty, or they were found to be not guilty, or the charge against them was withdrawn. The question, therefore, is whether any of those cases were not covered by the Secretary of State's assumption that legal aid was available for genuine hardship cases and whether money was available from other sources for cases of real hardship. Is there any reason to suppose from those figues that there is not a great need not for second-guessing but for having a further look at the matter and coming to a different conclusion?
      Inevitably, the number of cases varies between one part of Scotland and another. Because of my interest in two constituency cases, I obtained the figures for Lanark sheriff court and compared them with those for Scotland as a whole. I have no reason to suppose that there is not so great a variation between sheriff courts and the figure for Scotland as a whole as I found there to be between the Lanark sheriff court and the figures for Scotland as a whole.
      The percentage of those who pleaded not guilty where the charge was withdrawn varied between 8·6 in 1980, 13·6 in 1981 and 12·1 in 1982. The percentage of crimes was almost constant at between 12·5 and 13·5. In the Lanark sheriff court, the percentage of those pleading not guilty where the charge was withdrawn rose from 2 per cent. in 1980 and 2 per cent. in 1981 to 37 per cent. in 1982. The figure of those pleading not guilty who were found not guilty in the Lanark sheriff court was more than double the figure for Scotland as a whole.
      One consideration which clearly has to be borne in mind is that whether or not an accused person who pleads not guilty is found not guilty or has the charge against him withdrawn may be determined at least as much by the decision of the police and the procurator fiscal about whether to bring a prosecution. If that is so, the misfortune of somebody who finds that he has considerable legal expenses to bear can be placed at the door of others, certainly not himself.
      I shall mention my two constituency cases, although not by name, in order to illustrate my point. One concerns a business man in a small way who was charged with reset. He was summoned five time to attend the Lanark sheriff court, and appeared in the dock for about one and a half hours. On each occasion his defence lawyers had to be at court. When the prosecution had brought their case, the sheriff ruled that there was no case to answer. This person's legal costs totalled about £1,100 but he was over the limit for legal aid. There was no professional association, trade union or any other organisation to help him. Therefore, he was brought to court on a relatively serious charge and was then faced with the personal problem of having to pay legal charges, even though the sheriff had ruled that the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence to justify proceeding with the case.
      My second illustration relates to a family who had been involved in a contretemps with the police. Fifteen charges had to be faced in the Lanark sheriff court. In the case of 13 of those charges it was found that there was no case to answer, while there was an aquittal in one case and the other was not proven. The legal costs for that defence were

      493
      £2,500. They were a modest family, living in a council house, but just over the legal aid limit when one took account of the earnings of those members of the family who were involved. That is not right.
      9.15 pm
      What did the Thomson committee argue? Let me take the essence of its argument. It said that the possibility of expenses being awarded against an accused could put indirect pressure on him to plead guilty. So it rightly rejected the idea that expenses could be awarded in that sense. It said that in the case of acquitted persons there had been strong public pressure for the introduction of awards of expenses. It said:
      "It is argued in favour of the payment of expenses to acquitted persons that it is wrong in principle that a person who should not have been prosecuted should have to bear the cost of defending himself against a charge of which he is innocent. Some of the extreme cases mentioned by our witnesses as appropriate for the exercise of judicial discretion in an award of expenses to an acquitted person were where the Crown pursues a case with insufficient evidence or the prosecution fails and the cost of the defence results in undue hardhsip on the accused."
      That is more or less the case in the two examples that I have quoted.
      The committee then went on to deal with less likely cases:
      "where there is gross negligence on the part of the Crown which results in an unjustifiable prosecution or where there is an obviously frivolous prosecution or where the Crown libels a manifestly exaggerated charge."
      Those three categories are rarely met. However, the first category, as we have seen from the statistics, is, according to the judgment of the courts, found by no means infrequently.
      The Thomson committee went on to say:
      " We consider it important to bear in mind that many organisations and associations already make arrangements to assist financially accused persons in the conduct of their defence. For example, motoring organisations, trade unions, various professional organisations, insurance companies and local authorities."
      That is a somewhat superficial statement. There may be many who are assisted in such a way, but equally there will be a number who are not. The law, if it is to take account of fairness and justice, must take into account the minority as well as the majority.
      The Thomson committee did not even attempt to produce any evidence to support that statement. It just said that there would be motoring organisations and trade unions, but it produced not a scrap of evidence to support that claim. If the matter were investigated intensively, I doubt whether it would be possible to find convincing evidence to support that statement.
      The Thomson committee went on:
      "In addition, there is an extensive free legal aid scheme in operation which ensures that persons of limited means are not hampered in their defence and which would make the award of expenses to an acquitted person unnecessary in many cases."
      Of course it would be unnecessary in cases where legal aid was awarded, but there are, as we know, particularly with the considerable limitations that are being defined for the award of legal aid, many cases in which there is no legal aid. The committee said:
      "We do not think the number of people involved justifies the introduction of the system."
      The committee spent a lot of time talking about a Canadian report but very little talking about evidence derived from the Scottish experience.
      The Thompson committee's arguments were trivial. They did not take account of the needs of minorities or the
      494
      extent to which the statistics—I assume that similar statistics were available at that time—showed the proportion of cases brought before the courts where a not guilty plea is entered and where a person is found not guilty or where the court says that there is no case to answer. Therefore, it is not a tiny minority. Natural justice demands that when a person is found innocent—or, even more to the point, where it is found that there is no case to answer—there should not be added to the anxiety the immense burden of legal expenses amounting to £1,000, £2,000 or even more.
      The second reason for looking again at this matter is that if expenses were awarded to those found innocent or where it was found that there was no case to answer, that could be an effective consideration for the procurators fiscal and the police before they brought cases. That could only be good in ensuring that they re-examine the evidence before persisting in bringing a case to court. Finally, the cost would not be considerable in comparison with the exercise of justice that would be represented.
      This practice cannot continue for another 10 years. It is all very well to accept the findings of a committee, but that was only one of its many findings. I venture to suggest that it did not have the full consideration that it deserved. If justice and common sense demand a change, there is no reason why the Government should not be ready to say, "Yes, we will look at this matter again. We do not rest on Thomson for all time. We think that it is a section in the report that is too insubstantial to give us ground to say that it must be true for all time."
      Mr. Ewing: My right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) has raised an important issue. It is important to place on the record the difference between criminal legal aid and civl legal aid. Civil legal aid is entirely income-related and is either granted or refused following consideration by the legal aid committee. The same cannot be said of criminal legal aid. It is partly income-related, but in recent months there have been a number of instances when sheriffs have refused legal aid on the basis that the interests of justice would not be best served.
      My right hon. Friend's new clause might not meet the point that she is trying to pursue, but I have reached the firm conclusion that there should be a system that when applications for criminal legal aid occur the sheriff should not refuse them, on the ground that the interests of justice would not be best served, when subsequently the accused is acquitted, or when even before the case comes to court, the Crown counsel decides to desert the case. It is obviously not a matter for the procurator fiscal. He does not have an interest in the granting or refusal of legal aid or even in the verdict of the court. His role is to decide whether, in the first instance, the case should be brought to court, and, in the second instance, to which court it should be referred—the district court, the sheriff court or, in exceptional circumstances, the High Court.
      In view of developments during the past two or three years, there should be a system whereby an accused person who is refused legal aid on the basis that the interests of justice would not be best served, and who subsequently is not proceeded against or is acquitted, should have the right to return to the court and make a fresh application for legal aid. There must be injustice in the sort of case mentioned

      495
      by my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be flexible in his approach to the problem that has been highlighted by the new clause.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) has pursued this matter for some time and that she is probably more conversant with the provisions of the Thomson report than are many hon. Members. She has raised the matter more than once with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, at the outset I must say that I do not recommend the House to accept the new clause.
      About 8 per cent. of those proceeded against for criminal offences in Scotland are acquitted. That includes cases where the judge or sheriff has directed that there is no case to answer. The right hon. Lady produced statistics based on what she discovered from Lanark sheriff court. I have no reason to doubt what she said, but she will appreciate that the position varies from one court to another and that there are differences in the rates of acquittal.
      The important point to remember, although the right hon. Lady may not accept it, is that some of those acquitted will have had their expenses met from legal aid. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) talked about criminal legal aid in Scotland. Although his analysis was correct as far as it went, it is worth underlining the fact that Scotland has a non-contributory scheme. Therefore, once an accused person has been granted legal aid, his expenses will be paid. The civil legal aid system is different.
      Other accused people receive help from schemes operated by motoring organisations, trade unions and others. I do not wish to go into this in detail——
      Dame Judith Hart: The Minister asserts that many people are helped by other organisations. Could he at least ensure that the next round of statistic-gathering will provide that information? Instead of the Minister making an assertion without producing facts, let us have some facts.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: During the recent unhappy miners' strike, legal aid was refused in some cases. I was told that some individuals would go into court unrepresented. I said in the House that if any hon. Member was aware of people going into court unrepresented, I should be interested to hear about it. It is extremely difficult for the prosecution to know when someone comes into court with a lawyer to represent him whether the accused is paying for the defence or whether an organisation is paying for it. All that is obvious to the prosecution is that the person is represented, and it would be improper to ask him who was paying the bill.
      Mr. McKelvey: Of course, the National Union of Mineworkers, as one would have expected, paid the defence costs of the miners who were refused legal aid. I hope that the sheriffs did not expect that to happen when they refused legal aid.
      9.30 pm
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The point made by the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) was that individuals would have to pick up the bill for their own defence. I was saying that other organisations,
      496
      especially motoring organisations, picked up the bill for many people. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the Crown or the Government to discover who pays the bill when an accused person is represented.
      Mr. Ewing: Some miners who are charged with offences arising from the miners' strike will not be represented by lawyers paid for by the National Union of Mineworkers. That is because the NUM has decided to represent only members charged with offences relating to picketing.
      One of my constituents was charged with an offence arising from the miners' strike, but not picketing. He will not be represented by the NUM, and he has had to make arrangements for his own defence. I do not know whether my constituent has been granted legal aid, but it would be wrong to assume that the NUM is defending all its members who have been charged with offences arising during the dispute.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I did not suggest that. I was saying that trade unions, motoring organisations and professional bodies often pay the bill.
      The case for such a provision, as the right hon. Lady said, was put to the Thomson committee. The right hon. Lady has expressed her views forcibly about its decision, but it rejected the proposal in its second report.
      I have responsibility for procurators fiscal in Scotland and I take the view that they do not commence proceedings without the sound reasons identified by that committee.
      Apart from those from the right hon. Lady, the Department has received no similar representations. The argument that legal expenses should be met from public funds has to be justified by need. In England and Wales, where costs in certain instances are payable to acquitted persons, costs are also awarded in favour of the prosecution in some circumstances. It is difficult to operate one arrangement without the other. There would be little enthusiasm for the suggestion that those who are found guilty should have to meet the costs of the prosecution.
      Practical difficulties would arise in funding and administering the proposed scheme. The clause contains anomalies. If an accused person is charged with several offences—as often happens—but not all are pursued to conviction, or if the individual is acquitted, difficulties in relation to status and expense arise.
      The right hon. Member for Clydesdale said that she did not think that her proposal would cost much. It is difficult to estimate the cost, but we are talking about millions of pounds.
      There is no reason why such expenses should be met from the legal aid fund when under the present Scottish arrangements the accused would not qualify for legal aid or legal advice and assistance. Legal aid should be available only when the relevant criteria are met. I cannot recommend the wide extension proposed to the House.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) talked about the interests of justice provision in the legal aid scheme. The hon. Gentleman will know that a consultation paper on legal aid was issued at the beginning of last month and the point that he made will be considered. It is an interesting matter on which the Government would like to receive views, but it does not arise directly out of the new clause.
      I have little doubt that my answer has not satisfied the right hon. Member for Clydesdale, who is worried about

      497
      this complicated matter, but I hope that I have set out clearly the reasons why the Government are not prepared to approve the introduction of the scheme which she proposes.
      Dame Judith Hart: I am disappointed, because the Solicitor-General for Scotland and his colleagues have closed minds on the matter. Their arguments are as frivolous as those presented in the Thomson committee report.
      The Solictor-General for Scotland told us what proportion of people were found innocent and he said that most of them were on legal aid or had their expenses paid by other people. On that basis, his estimate of the cost of my proposed scheme was ludicrous.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman equated the innocent with the guilty when he said that in England the defence might have the pay the prosecution's costs. I am worried about the injustice suffered by the small number of people against whom cases are not proceeded with—that is probably the fault of the police or the procurator fiscal—or who are found innocent when perhaps the charge against them should never have been brought.
      What happens to the guilty should not bear too heavily on our consideration. I hope that the Government will continue to think about the matter and perhaps even have some new thoughts. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 12

      BREACH OF THE PEACE (CHILD MOLESTATION)
      '(1) Any person who commits a breach of the peace involving molestation of a child by putting him into a state of fear, alarm or distress or by threatening him, shall be guilty of the offence of breach of the peace (child molestation).

      (2) Any person convicted of the offence of breach of the peace (child molestation) shall be liable on summary conviction to the same penalties as may be imposed by the justices or sheriff for the offence of breach of the peace.'.—[Mr. Bruce.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I ask the House to consider seriously my modest proposal. All hon. Members have received a letter about the matter covered by the new clause. It arises out of an incident in my constituency which worried two local ladies who felt that it raised a point of law that needed to be dealt with.
      I pay tribute to those ladies for the way in which they have presented their case. They have done it in a thorough, responsible and balanced way. They have sought information from a variety of experts. I have had correspondence with the Minister, but he has not convinced my constituents that nothing can be done about the problem.
      When a person has committed what any reasonable person would regard as child molestation—not involving contact or assault, but causing embarrassment or distress to the child—the response is to charge that person with a breach of the peace. The argument is that that is a general, catch-all charge which gives at least a chance of getting a conviction, which may satisfy the community that the person who perpetrated the offence has been dealt with.
      498
      However, the fact that breach of the peace is such a general charge means that it does not demonstrate to anyone investigating the record that the person concerned has been engaged in activities that make him unsuitable to be employed in jobs that bring him into close contact with children.
      Somebody who has in some way embarrassed or distressed children—say, outside a school playground or while on their way home from school, as happened in a case in my locality—would be considered by most people to be unsuitable as a school janitor, as the driver of a school bus or as an employee in a local community centre or youth club.
      The new clause proposes that such a person could be charged, if the police thought it suitable, with "breach of the peace (child molestation)". It is well understood that such records should not be available for public consumption, but when a major employer, such as a local authority, checked the records, it would be known from the definition of the charge that the prospective employee had been involved in a case which made him unsuitable to be employed in a job which involved contact with children.
      Regrettably, there have been too many instances of people being employed in jobs of the sort with which we are concerned after they have committed offences involving children. In some cases they have gone on to commit more serious offences. The new clause is designed to ensure that such people are so categorised at the time of the first offence that they will not subsequently be put in a position, which would be a threat to them as well as to the children, where they would be exposed to the possibility of perpetrating similar, or perhaps more serious, offences. The system should not allow such offenders to filter through and again be employed in occupations involving children, so that when they offend again the public say, "That should not have been allowed to happen."
      The procurator fiscal, or whoever was pressing charges, could use the charge that I propose at his discretion. In other words, it would be an additional charge rather than a supplement to an existing one. It would not remove what exists, but would add a new dimension. That would reassure parents who are concerned lest offenders who have offended in a minor way go on to commit a more serious offence.
      The additional offence that I propose would not magnify the situation out of all proportion, but will provide law officers with an additional safeguard. It would be stronger than the catch-all charge of breach of the peace, a charge which does not tell people the nature of the original offence.
      Mr. Ancram: I share the concern of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about incidents of child molestation. Such incidents can be traumatic for children, and even a minor incident can have a disturbing effect and be a source of great worry to parents. Incidents which have a specific and explicit sexual connotation are of particular concern, and that is especially true when young children are involved. I agree that we should do everything in our power to ensure that incidents are adequately dealt with.
      The hon. Gentleman and I have been in correspondence on the matter, following approaches made to him by the constituents to whom he referred. Those constituents have also been in direct correspondence with my Department,

      499
      which brought the matter to my attention. I, too, have been impressed with the concern that has been shown by the parents and with the businesslike manner in which they have approached their arguments for changes in the law.
      The new clause seems to go wider than the concern expressed. It relates to all breaches of the peace as a result of which a child has been alarmed. That could result from any of what one might call ordinary breaches of the peace—for example, shouting abusive language outside a football ground or a fight outside a public house. That might alarm a young child, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be wrong to seek to label an offender of that sort a child molester.
      However, that illustrates the difficulty of drafting a workable provision in that area. My Department has been considering the matter for some time, and although we entirely sympathise with the objectives, we see great difficulty in pinning down in statutory language the sort of behaviour, presently comprised within breach of the peace, which nevertheless could be described as child molestation in some sexual sense, and which one would wish to see on an offenders' record for future reference. Almost any description of the behaviour that can be worked out seems to take it out of the realm of breach of the peace altogether and into some other common law crime—for example lewd and libidinous behaviour, which would be charged as such, and in relation to which the offender's record would be entirely plain.
      Therefore, while I sympathise with the objective, so far I have been unable to devise a form of statutory wording that would achieve the desired effect. I do not believe that the present clause, as I have already explained, succeeds in doing so. Having said that, I should make it clear that my mind is not closed on the matter, because I recognise the worrying nature of the problem. I remain happy to consider any further suggestions or alternative means of approach that would reach that objective. I should be prepared to look sympathetically at any alternative formulation that may ultimately be forthcoming. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's new clause achieves the purpose in a satisfactory way; and I hope that he will withdraw it.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which deals adequately with the concerns that have been expressed by my constituents and the way in which they have gone about trying to promote their issue.
      I accept the shortcomings of my new clause, which, I freely admit, was an opportunity to bring the matter to the House and discuss it a little more. From the correspondence that he has had, I think the Minister recognises that the existing charge of lewd and libidinous behaviour is too strong for the circumstances. My constituents are looking for something in between to deal with a particular situation. I accept that the new clause may not be the right way to do it. I appreciate the Minister saying that his mind remains open and that he is willing to consider alternatives.
      I advise the House, and warn the Minister—although I think that he is aware of this already—that my constituents have written to numerous foreign countries to obtain guidance on similar circumstances elsewhere. There have been some interesting and useful replies. In a
      500
      nutshell, the problem is that simple breach of the peace does not quite go far enough, but lewd and libidinous behaviour goes too far. There is a need for something in between. I appreciate the difficulties.
      My constituents are looking for an additional option, not a replacement for an existing charge. They are looking for something which, if it were possible to pin it on someone who was guilty of the offence, would make it clear that it was a child molestation offence, whereas breach of the peace could mean almost anything and would not elicit the same danger signals.
      I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 13

      INTERIM DETENTION IN PLACES OF SAFETY OF A CHILD, BEYOND THE CONTROL OF HIS PARENT
      'In section 37(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, there shall be added at the end of sub-paragraph (e), the following:
      "(f) who is beyond the control of his parent.".'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is an amendment to section 37(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. That subsection gives a constable or any person authorised by the court, or any justice of the peace, the authority to take a child into a place of safety. A series of circumstances are listed in which the child may be taken into a place of safety. The purpose of the new clause is to add to the list children who are beyond the control of their parents.
      Once taken into a place of safety, the child may be retained there until arrangements can be made for the child to be brought before a children's hearing. When a child is so taken into a place of safety, it is incumbent on the occupier of the place of safety, for example, the constable, to inform the appropriate reporter to the children's hearing of the circumstances of the case. At that point, certain duties are placed on the reporter, relating to the length of time that the child may be detained. If the reporter is satisfied that the child is in need of compulsory measures of care, wherever practicable he must try to ensure that the children's hearing sits on the first lawful day after the commencement of the child's detention.
      Section 37 safeguards the interests of a child taken into detention. I seek to extend those provisions to children beyond the control of their parents. At present, various circumstances are laid down in which a child can be taken into care—offences committed by a member of the household, lack of parental care, and so on. In all those circumstances, the interests of the child are very much at stake. If circumstances come to the attention of a person authorised under that section suggesting that the safety and welfare of the child may be at risk because the child is unruly, perhaps frequently absconding from school and putting himself or herself at some personal risk, that may constitute something of an emergency and powers should be available to take the child to a place of safety. A reporter in my constituency told me of a case in which the

      501
      child had to be locked up in a police cell before the reporter could take any action. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that that is highly unsatisfactory.
      During the passage of the Bill, letters have been received by hon. Members advocating this change and I am told that, at a recent meeting of reporters from all over Scotland, there was considerable if not unanimous support for such a measure. I believe that it is consistent with the general theme and purposes of the children's hearing system and it is based on the welfare of the child. I commend it to the House.
      Mr. John MacKay: As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has said, his proposal has been supported for some time by the Association of Reporters to Children's Panels, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to make the change at this stage, for a number of reasons.
      First, we thought it right to include in the Bill a strictly limited number of social work provisions. Our intention was to include items which were self-contained, in the sense that they would not open up significant areas of wider interest which ought to be dealt with more systematically. We wanted to confine ourselves mainly to those which were generally agreed and did not require further consultation or were needed to clarify a matter on which the meaning of the legislation appeared to be uncertain. In looking at the proposal put forward by the Association of Reporters to Children's Panels we considered that there were wider issues involved.
      Section 37 of the 1968 Act sets out various grounds on which a child may be taken to a place of safety in an emergency. One could roughly describe all those grounds as circumstances in which the child is a victim or possible victim. They are generally, but not entirely, similar to those set out in section 32(2) as grounds on which a child may be brought before a hearing, but they are clearly designed to relate to situations in which some dramatic change in the child's circumstances has taken place which requires immediate action and which justifies immediate removal of the child from his home. I am not convinced that a child getting beyond the control of his parents is that kind of emergency. I should prefer to look rather more broadly at the relationship between section 37 and the other sections of the 1968 Act dealing with compulsory measures of care, together with some of the procedures for dealing with children subject to such orders before agreeing to the changes proposed in the new clause.
      It is also right to point out that the view of the Association of Reporters on the necessity of this amendment, although forcefully put, is not generally agreed by other interested parties. I understand that, for example, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Work are not convinced of the necessity of this amendment. This reinforces my view that it would be preferable to avoid a piecemeal change at this stage.
      In a sensitive area of law such as this, dealing with important distinctions between grounds for immediate action to remove a child and grounds for longer-term compulsory measures of care, where the distinctions between the grounds for action in relation to the child are real and important—although they are by no means easily made—it is better to take a wider view which is supported by all those most clearly involved. I hope that
      502
      the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), having aired this desire by the reporters to the children's panel, will agree to withdraw his motion.
      Mr. Wallace: I have listened to the Under-Secretary of State. Although I accept that the provisions of subsection (2) relate to cases where a child is usually the victim, I suggest that there could be cases where a child has acted in a way that is beyond the control of the parents and has, almost by self-infliction, become a victim. In such circumstances an emergency could arise. I acknowledge the wider points made by the Under-Secretary of State. This matter must be seen in a wider context. It was probably implicit in the hon. Gentleman's speech that the Government have not shut the door and are prepared to listen in a continuing dialogue with the Association of Reporters to Children's Panels and others. Perhaps this matter can be dealt with at greater length in more appropriate legislation. This matter could well come up for discussion again. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 14

      MEMBERSHIP OF THE SHERIFF COURT RULES COUNCIL
      '(1) The Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section:

      (2) In section 33(1) of that Act (Sheriff Court Rules Council):

      (a) the words "one person appointed by the Secretary of State, being a person", shall be omitted, and the words "two persons appointed by the Secretary of State, being persons", shall be substituted therefore; and

      (b) the words, "provided that at least one of the two persons appointed by the Secretary of State shall not be engaged in professional practice of the law in Scotland nor shall he be employed in the administration of justice in Scotland'', shall be added at the end of the subsection.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      A degree of urgency seems to be creeping into the proceedings. The purpose of the new clause is to amend the composition of the Sheriff Court Rules Council. That council's statutory functions are set out in section 34 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. The council
      "shall review generally the procedure and practice followed in civil proceedings in the sheriff court".
      The council shall prepare and submit draft rules to the Court of Session. Thereafter, the Court of Session, by means of an act of sederunt, embodies those rules and they become the rules of the sheriff court.
      The new clause has the support of the Scottish Consumer Council. This measure was one of the specific recommendations made by the council in response to the consultation paper issued on behalf of the Lord Advocate by the Scottish courts administration dealing with small claims. The small claims provisions in the Bill are contained in clause 18. We shall deal with some amendments to that clause probably sooner rather than later.
      The theme behind the setting up of a small claims court in Scotland is that there should be more accessibility to the public. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce lay representation to the Sheriff Court Rules Council. The council comprises two sheriffs principal, three sheriffs,

      503
      one member of the Faculty of Advocates, five solicitors and two persons, each of whom is a full-time sheriff's clerk. They are appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session. One further person is appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and his qualifications are set down in section 33 of the 1971 Act. He is a person with
      "qualifications suitable for such appointment".
      My understanding, on reading the "Parliament House Book", is that the gentleman who currently occupies that post is from the Scottish court administration. All members of the Sheriff Court Rules Council are involved in professional practice or in the administration of justice.
      It is healthy for such a body to include outside lay representation. One of the most immediate functions of the legislation—assuming that it is not amended out of recognition by the other place—is to set up rules for a small claims court. I accept that the council presently consults outside interests, in particular consumer interests, at present when its draft rules are prepared.
      We are dealing with access to the courts. That is not of interest solely to the professionals. It is of considerable interest to members of the public who are involved in the day-to-day running of the courts because they are pursuers or defenders. There has been lay representation on the Cowie committee which dealt with simpler divorce forms and the Dunpark working party which produced interesting proposals, some of which have been accepted, for the improvement of administrative justice in Scotland.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Wallace: I am sure that, from the list of the great and the good which is kept in the Secretary of State's office, he would find at least one person representing lay interests who could make a worthwhile contribution and represent the general public who wish to have better access to the courts.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on previous occasions. I have previously said that the Government considered that the Sheriff Court Rules Council already had sufficient powers to enable it to consult whenever and whomsoever it wished. It is fair to say that that remains our view. The rules council has in the past shown itself willing to consult and to take the views of outside interested bodies where the subject matter of the proposed rules has shown that to be desirable. Such bodies as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—the Scottish Consumer Council and the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—have made helpful and constructive contributions. They have welcomed the opportunity to be consulted. I think of their assistance in preparing forms for use once divorce moved to the sheriff's court.
      It is not every subject for which court rules are required which necessarily lends itself to comprehension by a lay member, and on that basis my interest has always been that the appointment of a lay or non-legal member to the council will not always be to the benefit of the council, of
      504
      the draft rules which it may be considering or of the general public. As the hon. Gentleman said, the council is already large. For those reasons, I conclude that the existing arrangements have worked satisfactorily.
      Given the powers that the council has to consult and its readiness to do so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Wallace: It is clear that the Government will not move on that. An increase of one would not make a great difference. There is a view that being in at the start is slightly better than being consulted. I recognise that there has been widespread consultation. I shall not press the clause to a Division. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1
      LIMITATION ON USE OF PROPERTY HELD ON LONG LEASE NOT TO APPLY TO PROPERTY HELD ON CERTAIN RENEWABLE LEASES
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, after 'of', insert 'section 1 of'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
    Clause 2

      POWER OF SHERIFF TO GRANT RENEWALS OF CERTAIN LONG LEASES
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 14, at end insert
      'or appears to him would have been so due and payable had the landlord renewed the lease'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These are drafting amendments. They arise from the concern expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). They relate to expenses and the power of the sheriff to distribute sums consigned into court. They are essentially formal.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 21, after 'obligation', insert 'in or'.
      No. 4, in line 25, leave out from 'so' to 'and' in line 26 and insert
      'when he was obliged to'.
      No. 5, in line 30, leave out subsection (6).
      No. 6, in line 12, at end insert—
      '(10) The sheriff's power under subsection (9) above extends to ordering that any award of expenses of the application under this section be paid out of any sums consigned in court under subsection (2) above'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 7
      INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 4 TO 6
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 6, line 33, after first 'landholder', insert 'or statutory small tenant'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
    Clause 13

      AMENDMENTS OF MATRIMONIAL HOMES (FAMILY PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1981
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 11, line 3, at end insert—
      '(1A) In section 1(1)(a) of that Act (right of occupying spouse not to be excluded from matrimonial home), for the words from "not" to the end there shall be substituted the words "to continue to occupy the matrimonial home;".
      (1B) After section 1 of that Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) The rights conferred by subsection (1) above to continue to occupy or, as the case may be, to enter and occupy the matrimonial home include, without prejudice to their generality, the right to do so together with any child of the family.".'.
      The amendment adds a new subsection to section 1 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. It will make it clear that the non-entitled spouse's right to occupy the matrimonial home includes the right to have any child of the family with him or her. In view of the difficulties that have occurred, we consider it desirable to spell that out rather than leave it to implication.
      In Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) said that a person who has the right to occupy a house has an implicit right to invite people into it. By spelling out the right of the spouse to have the children with him or her in the matrimonial home we shall avoid any implication that there is no right to invite others into it. The amendment makes it clear that the provision relating to children is without prejudice to the generality of the occupancy rights conferred by section 1(1) of the 1981 Act.
      It also appeared to us on examination of section 1(1) that the occupancy rights under section 1(1)(a) are narrowly expressed as
      "a right not to be excluded from the matrimonial home or any part of it by the entitled spouse".
      It is not at all clear that that is a right to occupy, with all the rights normally implicit in the right to occupy, such as the right to invite others into the house. The amendment therefore amends section 1(1)(a) to refer to the right
      "to continue to occupy".
      It was also generally recognised in Committee that it was undesirable to define "child" too restrictively. Restrictions based upon age or other factors could cause anomalies. We have concluded that the definition of "child of the family" in section 22 of the Act is appropriate. This covers
      "any child or grandchild of either spouse, and any person who has been brought up or accepted by either spouse as if he or she were a child of that spouse, whatever the age of such a child, grandchild or person may be".
      If either spouse abused their right to have the children living with them, for instance by bringing in adult offspring who had no need to be there, the remedy of the other spouse would be to seek an order restricting or regulating the occupancy rights under section 3.
      Mr. Ewing: The Opposition welcome the amendment. The Opposition put down an amendment in Committee, and the Government have kindly taken it away and redrafted it.
      If this provision cuts across the amendments to the 1981 Act as contained in the Family Law (Scotland) Bill which we discussed in Committee this morning, I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will ensure that when the present Bill goes to another place it will be possible to remove any confusion that may have arisen.
      Amendment agreed to.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 11, line 19, at end insert—
      '( ) for the words "the purchase of a matrimonial home by" there shall be substituted the word "a sale to".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 10.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These amendments seek to meet two criticisms which the Law Society of Scotland has made consistently about the drafting of section 6(3)(e) of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. Firstly, in section 6 we are concerned with the dealing of the non-entitled spouse with the matrimonial home. From the point of view of the non-entitled spouse the dealing is a sale, not a purchase, and should be described as such. The Law Society thinks the use of the word "purchase" is misleading, giving the false impression that the third party must be purchasing the property for use as a matrimonial home by the third party. Whether or not this is so, I agree it would seem more logical to refer to the dealing as a sale rather than a purchase, and the amendment makes this change.
      The second criticism is that the use of the words "of a matrimonial home" in section 6(3)(e) gives the false impression that it is only competent to swear an affidavit in accordance with sub-paragraph (i) of that provision where the property is in fact a matrimonial home. In fact, it should be possible to swear these affidavits wherever the subjects are property which is potentially a matrimonial home. The words "of a matrimonial home" are unnecessary in the context and I agree that if they are causing confusion they should be excised.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 11, line 33, leave out 'purchase' and insert 'sale'.
      No. 11, in page 12, line 12, after 'and', insert 'at or'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
      '(6A) In section 15(3) of that Act there shall be added at the end of the following "even if there are no grounds for believing that a criminal offence as such has been committed.".'.
      At another time, this amendment might have given rise to a lengthy debate. However, I will briefly sketch in the purpose of the amendment and invite a reply from the Solicitor-General for Scotland. This is an attempt to amend section 15 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. The House will remember that subsection (3) deals with the power of arrest attached to a matrimonial interdict, and makes it clear that a constable
      "may arrest without warrant the non-applicant spouse if he has reasonable cause for suspecting that spouse of being in breach of the interdict."

      507
      Various discussions arose on the amendment, which I accept was not very practical. It would have made the constable's power to arrest mandatory rather than discretionary.
      The Government rightly argued that that would be going too far. However, there is a genuine worry that at the moment, unless the situation is such that there is likely to be a criminal charge or that the constable believes that criminal charges will be mounted by the procurator fiscal, there is a tendency for the constable to walk away from the scene, regarding it as a domestic event in which the police have no real interest.
      That was not the intention of section 15(3) nor, to be fair, was it the intention of the chief constables' guidance. Nevertheless, there is a widespread belief that it happens.
      The amendment makes it clear that, under clause 15(3), the power of arrest still exists if there is a prima facie breach of interdict, even if there are no grounds for believing that a criminal offence has been committed. It underlines what we have all agreed—that when there has apparently been a breach of interdict, there is a discretionary power of arrest. There is no presumption that that power will not be exercised merely because there is not a circumstance which might give rise to a criminal charge.
      I must put the argument in its most telescoped form. There is some virtue and value in adding these words to the statute in an attempt to deal with the misconceptions which still exist and mean that the matrimonial interdict, with the attached power of arrest, has not been used as frequently as the circumstances warrant and to make the statute stronger and more effective in achieving what was originally envisaged.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Amendment No. 13 would not alter the existing powers of the police. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wants to emphasise that a constable may arrest a non-applicant spouse simply on grounds of suspected breach of interdict, even when no criminal offence has been committed.
      The reference to a criminal offence would blur rather than clarify the distinction between this power of arrest and the power of arrest for an offence. The guidelines clarified matters concerning the power of arrest. As the hon. Member knows, we are examining them to see whether further clarification could usefully be made on this and other matters of concern.
      The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in Committee, I said that I would raise this matter in any discussions that I might have with senior police officers. I fulfilled that undertaking when, like the hon. Gentleman, I was recently at Tulliallan. That is the better way in which to drive the point home. Such problems as might arise stem not from the terms of the legislation but from how it is implemented. In view of the undertakings that we gave in Committee to try to improve understanding of the provisions, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Dewar: I am somewhat alarmed to hear that the Solicitor-General has been following me to Tulliallan. I have been there twice this year. The first time I noticed some sinister gentleman from the Scottish Office at the
      508
      back of the room taking copious notes. I did not have that burden the second time, but I now realise that the master was making inquiries in person. I note that.
      At a serious level, the amendment was worth tabling. If we had had more time I should have probed and argued a little further. I take the Solicitor-General's point and shall not insist on this matter. I am glad to hear that he has already put in hand his discussions with police officers. I hope that we get a gradual improvement of and more familiarity with the intentions of the 1981 Act. I recognise that there will be no overnight change of attitude. On that basis, and in view of the assurances offered to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 15

      WITHDRAWAL OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO INTELLECTURAL PROPERTY
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 13, leave out line 26 and insert—
      '(2A) The proceedings referred to in subsection (2) above include—

      (a) proceedings on appeal arising out of these proceedings;

      (b) proceedings under section 1(1) of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 (provision in relation to the power of the court to order inspection of ducuments and other property etc.) which relate to civil proceedings falling within subsection (2) above which are likely to be brought.'.

      Section 1(1) of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 empowers the Scottish civil courts to order, if necessary before the commencement of proceedings:
      "the inspection, photographing, preservation, custody and detention of documents and other property"
      about which the court considers that questions may arise in existing civil proceedings, or—this is the point of the amendment—in civil proceedings which are likely to be brought, and to order the production and recovery of such property.
      Subsection (2) of claue 15 sets out the civil proceedings to which the clause as a whole is to apply. There is at present no mention there of applications under section 1(1) for a court order in relation to likely future actions. So, if the Scottish court were to grant an order for the production and recovery of goods or materials such as pirate video tapes, because it considered it likley that they would be of relevance in relation to probable future court proceedings for breach of copyright, the execution of the court order might be frustrated because clause 15 did not apply when likely future court proceedings were involved. Consequently, the privilege against self-incrimination would continue to be available. That would clearly be undesirable and the amendment sets out to remove that obstacle.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 17
      POWER OF SHERIFF TO ORDER SHERIFF CLERK TO EXECUTE DEEDS RELATING TO HERITAGES
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 15, line 8, at end insert 'relating to heritable property'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Clause 18

      SMALL CLAIMS PROCEEDINGS
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 15, line 38, at end insert
      'and which are raised initially by the pursuer under the small claims proceedings or have been subject to a direction under section 37(2C) of this Act'.
      We have tabled the amendment in order to obtain some idea of the Government's thinking. Those who served on the Committee will remember that clause 18 deals with small claims proceedings. In Committee we had an interesting debate—which we left with the Solicitor-General—relating to what happened when someone raised a summary cause. Apparently, in the Government's eyes, it would automatically translate into a small claims proceeding if it fell below a certain financial ceiling. In brief terms, there was a distinction between a system that envisaged a choice that might largely lie with the pursuer as to whether it was a small claims or a summary cause proceeding, and a system that automatically translated itself into a small claims proceeding. I preferred the first system. The Minister said that he would think about it, but I think that he preferred the second. I gather that the Scottish Consumer Council, which is just one of the interested bodies, has some sympathy with the first system, but is prepared to live with either.
      I tabled the amendment simply to discover the result of the Minister's thinking.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Government intend that in general every summary cause whose subject matter falls within the prescribed description for small claims will proceed as a small claim, irrespective of whether a defence has been stated. On that basis, in amendments that I shall shortly move, we propose to make provision for taking cases out of small claims procedures where difficulties of law or fact arise. We also propose to cover the question of the award of expenses in undefended small claims cases and the questions of abuse of procedure.
      The effect of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would be that a case might proceed as a small claim only if it fell within the prescribed description and if, in addition, the pursuer chose to raise the case as a small claim. The Government would not consider that to be either a practical or satisfactory way to proceed. I hope that the amendments to which I shall shortly speak will set out a framework for acting that will be satisfactory both to pursuers and defenders, whether they are consumers or those who are small business men.
      Mr. Dewar: I shall await with interest the Minister's remarks. The subject is important and, unfortunately, we are having to take it at rather a sharp gallop. However, at this point at least I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 16, line 9 leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—
      'Expenses in small claims proceedings.
      36B.—(1) No award of expenses shall be made in small claims proceedings in which the value of the claim does not exceed such sum as the Lord Advocate shall prescribe by order.
      510
      (2) Any expenses which the sheriff may award in any other small claims proceedings shall not exceed such sum as the Lord Advocate shall prescribe by order.
      (3) Subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply—

      (a) to small claims proceedings in which no defence has been proceeded with;

      (b) where the sheriff is satisfied that any party to the proceedings has acted frivolously, vexatiously or otherwise unreasonably in relation to the proceedings;

      (c) in relation to an appeal to the sheriff principal.

      (4) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 18, in page 16, line 15 at end insert—
      '(3) When the sum claimed or the amount involved in a small claims proceedings fall below a certain sum then no expenses shall be due to or by either party to the proceedings unless the sheriff certifies that the expenses have resulted from the frivolous or vexatious conduct of one of the parties to those proceedings and such sum shall be laid down by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Under the Scottish scheme as proposed, the cause does not become a small claim on the stating of defences. It starts off as that, and it is that aspect in particular that has given rise to legitimate concern not so much in relation to the recovery of the sum fixed for—since all the remedies available for execution of a summary cause degree will be available for a small claims decree—but rather in relation to awards.
      Some hon. Members will remember that in Committee I said that the Government were sympathetic to the principle of a financial band for small claims within which no expenses would be awarded against a defender in favour of a successful pursuer, or vice versa. However, in the case of those major utilities and many others who use the summary cause procedure for debt collection, if such a no-expenses rule were to be applied universally, then for those debts that fell within such a band, small claims might well be seen as an invitation to debtors to avoid paying their bills, and even after court proceedings were successfully brought against them—having to pay not one penny more than was due at the outset—the pursuer would have to pay all his own expenses involved in bringing the action, and might be substantially worse off financially. We are in no doubt that it would be totally inequitable, since the whole object of our scheme is that there should be a fair and balanced approach to the bringing of small claims and to the award of expenses.
      I shall explain the Government's proposals for a solution while dealing with the details of the amendments. Subsection (1) of new clause 36B makes it clear that no expenses are to be awarded where the value of the small claims proceedings does not exceed an amount to be prescribed. Subsection (2) provides that in relation to small claims falling between the limits prescribed for subsection (1) and the upper ceiling for small claims in general an award of expenses to be made is not to exceed such sum as would also be prescribed. Subsection (3) thereafter caters for what would otherwise be the possible injustices that might arise through abuse of the scheme. It provides for circumstances where the special no expenses or limited expenses rule for small claims is to be disapplied and the ordinary rule for the award of expenses in a summary cause is to be applied.

      511
      The circumstances are, first, where a small claim is undefended or where a defence is not persisted in, to take care of the difficulties which might otherwise arise for undefended debt collection; secondly, where a party has acted frivolously, vexatiously or in any other way unreasonably in the course of a small claim; we envisage this taking care in particular of a party acting in bad faith or in a dilatory manner with the object of frustrating the proceedings; and, thirdly, as at present in clause 18, when an appeal to the sheriff principal is taken from a small claims decision of the sheriff.
      I consider that this is a reasonable approach for the clause to adopt. It maintains the general thrust and emphasis upon small claims and contains, I hope, encouragement for wider use by the general public of the courts for airing their grievances. At the same time it seeks to avoid the inequitable features which all members of the Standing Committee recognised. It will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that the new clause 36B which replaces part of subsection (2) of clause 18 sets out the principle of our approach to expenses. The precise financial amounts are to be prescribed by order by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. I make no apology for this. I consider this to be the correct and proper approach to adopt.
      Mr. Wallace: I do not demur from what the Solicitor-General has said: That the proper way to deal with it is by means of an order. In that way I hope that it can also be regularly reviewed. However, could the Solicitor-General mention the sums he has in mind for the initial order?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In Committee I said that in the first instance we were looking at a range between £500 and £1,000. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no firm decision has been taken. On the top limit to be fixed within which bounds will be set and levels of expenses determined, it seems to me that it is more sensible to wait until the point of introduction before determining what is the most appropriate level.
      As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) appreciates, this is a very important innovation in the law of Scotland. For that reason I have had to take slightly longer over dealing with it. Nevertheless, I hope that the principles I have set out are now clearly understood. It appears from my recent correspondence with the chairman of the Scottish Consumers Council that that body understands what we are now seeking to do and in broad measure welcomes the banding approach that we have adopted.
      Mr. Dewar: The Minister has been consistently helpful. Other organisations which take an interest in the matter have undoubtedly expressed that view, too, and it would be churlish not to put that on the record. I accept that negotiations and discussions must take place. However, the Solicitor-General referred to an upper limit for small claims proceedings of £1,000, wth the range lying between £500 and £1,000. I hope that he has not closed his mind to the adoption of the upper figure that was mentioned earlier. Although the maximum expenses award of £50 has disappeared as a result of the amendments, I presume that it does not mean that the Minister has changed his mind. If I am wrong about that, no doubt he will say so. If not, I shall assume that I am right.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: For the purposes of illustration, if £500 were to be the figure initially seized upon, we would anticipate as presently advised having a £50 expenses limit and the band for no expenses due to or by would be at £150. That is the sort of relationship that I hope will give the hon. Gentleman some feel for what might be introduced if we were to go above £500.
      Mr. Dewar: We might want to correspond on this point. As I said in Committee, £150 is on the low side, but as the orders will have to be finalised we can conduct the debate in another way.
      Clause 18, 36B(3) says:
      "Subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply—
      (a) to small claims proceedings in which no defence has been proceeded with".
      Does that mean that if someone raises what at the moment would be a summary cause, say for a sum which normally when it converts into a small claims proceeding would be below the no expenses limit, it only falls under the no expenses rule if it is defended? That seems to be what that is saying and it takes us back to that anomaly which led to some skirmishing in Committee, as the Solicitor-General will remember, where anyone in the welfare rights office or solicitors office would advise his client to lodge defences in order to get the benefit of the no expenses rule. That might have some anomalous and strange results in terms of equity and the position of those pursuing, say, trade debts. That seems to be the position still under the amendment, but I hope that the Solicitor-General will clarify that point.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am in sympathy with what the Solicitor-General is trying to do but does the amendment help with vextious small claims? That is a problem that we all come across in our surgeries. Will the proposal in any way alleviate the problem?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Subsection (3)(a) is there because we are anxious to avoid a problem which seems to have arisen under the English proceedings that once a defence has been lodged, or whatever the comparable step is, thereafter one is brought into the no expenses due to or by provision whether or not one has a proper defence to pursue. That is an aspect of the arrangement which is open to abuse which we want to avoid. A small shopkeeper might find that he has a number of debts which people are not paying and it could lead him to considerable costs. By that provision we are seeking to make sure—it would have to be elaborated upon in rules—that there is an arrangement for individuals trying to abuse the system.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has referred to the very vexatious type of claim. We are trying to get a simple, cheap and effective small claims procedure, but at the same time we should not so develop things that as we manage to open one door it allows other people to come in and act vexatiously or to the detriment of others who are perfectly entitled to sue for their debts.
      Mr. Dewar: I am probably being rather dim, but, as I understand it, a small claims proceedings in which no defence has been proceeded with will not be covered by subsections (1) and (2). That pulls two ways. It would mean that they would not get the advantage of the no expenses band, but it would also take them out of the protection of saying that any small claims proceedings should not have expenses above the limit set by the Lord

      513
      Advocate. On simple reading that might mean that in those cases normal expenses running above the small claims proceedings limit could be collected. In a counterproductive way, that seems to expose one danger while protecting against another.
      Mr. Wallace rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting into a muddle. We are not in Committee. The Minister had allowed an intervention.
      10.30 pm
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the claim is within the band where no expenses would be due to or by, and if a defence has not been proceeded with, someone could not take advantage of the no expenses due to or by provision. That would protect the small shopkeeper where there is no proper defence. If the claim was larger and came within the band £150 to £500, the restriction on expenses would be £50 if it was defended in a sensible manner. In those circumstances, it would be for the sheriff to award expenses in the ordinary way.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden will appreciate that if it were simply the making of a claim for an unpaid debt, we would not anticipate the amount of expenses being very great.
      Mr. Wallace: I understand the matter as being that if no defence is proceeded with, that covers someone putting in a frivolous defence simply because he wanted to put in a defence to get round subsections (1) and (2).
      It is unusual to have awards of expenses determined by statute in such detail. Sometimes a perfectly legitimate defence is put in, but is not proceeded with because there has been an extra-judicial agreement between the parties. Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland confirm that in such circumstances there might still be a provision for no award of expenses in the higher band?
      Mr. McKelvey: I do not want to delve into legal matters at this stage. I have been guided throughout our debates not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) but by the Scottish Consumer Council. They both appear to be satisfied that the amendments will cover the points raised in Committee. As the aim of the small claims procedure is to make courts accessible to ordinary people, I welcome the amendments, because we are speaking on behalf of ordinary people, who are sometimes forgotten between legal gentleman when they discuss the vagaries of the system.
      I welcome the opportunity for the small claims procedure to be established in an informal fashion so that there is no question of the gowns, trappings or pompousness that occurs in usual court procedure. Ordinary people will not be afraid to go through the informal procedure in an attempt to obtain justice.
      On the question of limit transfers, presumably when the sheriff takes that course it will be on a very limited matter.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The matter to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) referred arises under the next group of amendments.
      The answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is that there are circumstances in which no defence is lodged because an agreement or settlement has been reached. I would expect any expenses to be part of the settlement. On the assumption that there
      514
      was something of a defence anyway, that would hold it within the arrangements set out in the clause. We must make sure that the matter is absolutely dead right, because we want it to operate successfully.
      Amendment agreed to.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 16, line 20, leave out from 'stage' to the end of line 21 and insert—
      '—

      '(a) may, if he is of the opinion that a difficult question of law or a question of fact of exceptional complexity is involved, of his own accord or on the motion of any party to the proceedings;

      (b) shall, on the joint motion of the parties to the proceedings.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 20, in page 16, line 20, after 'instance', insert
      'if he is satisfied that a difficult question of law or a question of fact of exceptional complexity is involved'.
      Government amendment No. 21.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendments relate to the power of the sheriff to transfer cases which start as small claims out of that procedure and into the more formal approach of summary cause or ordinary cause procedure. Hon. Members have expressed concern that there were no statutory criteria to guide parties and the sheriff when this may be done. The underlying concern was that parties should not be subjected, perhaps, to the additional expense and time which may be involved, unless there was something in the circumstances of the case which clearly demonstrated that the small claims procedure was inappropriate.
      Accordingly, the amendment makes it clear that the sheriff may have a small claims case transferred to ordinary or summary cause procedure only where a difficult question of law or extremely complicated facts are involved. Equally, before a sheriff may have a case transferred on the motion of any one party to the small claims, he must be satisfied that one of the criteria applies. Where, however, all parties to the small claims proceedings are agreed that the case should be transferred, the sheriff must have the case transferred.
      Amendment No. 21 to subsection 2C reflects the approach that where parties request that a summary cause or ordinary cause be transferred to and dealt with as a small claim, which otherwise on account of the monetary limit involved would be inappropriate for it, the sheriff must give effect to the parties' agreed wishes. This approach to remits in respect of small claims is wholly consistent with the approach of section 37 of the 1971 Act to other remits within and from the sheriff court.
      The amendments ensure that the parties' wishes may be given effect to, if they represent the wishes of all, and ensure that small claims cases are not diverted from the small claims procedure unless for the sound reasons laid down in the clause.
      I hope that that answers the query of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
      Mr. Dalyell: I have received a letter from Peter Gibson of the Scottish Consumer Council, who says:
      "An informal hearing should be available to the majority of consumers. People will not go to court if they cannot tell in advance whether they will be able to have the cheap and informal small claims hearing. Sheriffs should be able to transfer cases to

      515
      the ordinary court process if difficult questions of law or fact are involved. However, this discretion to transfer cases should be strictly limited to a small minority of cases."
      Is that covered by the Government's suggestion?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I hope that the amendment that I have just moved precisely covers not only what Mr. Peter Gibsn said, but the amendment which the hon. Member for Garscadden tabled.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 16 line 31, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 19

      DISCLOSURE OF NAMES IN CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 17, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'any' and insert
      'any person to disclose such information as he has as to the identity of'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These amendments are designed to clarify the scope of the court's power to order disclosure. At present, the clause may be open to the interpretation that it contains a power only to require disclosure of names and addresses of persons who are otherwise identifiable by the pursuer—that is to say, where the person seeking to raise the action may have knowledge of an individual and all that is lacking is the name and address of that individual.
      As hon. Members may appreciate, it is not our intention to have the power limited in this manner. We wish to cover the case where there is a known wrong which would be cause for a civil action—an easy example to think of would be video piracy—but where that action cannot be pursued because the names of the real wrongdoers are unknown, although it is likely that their identity is known to a third party or to a possible co-defender.
      The Government do not intend that the pursuer should have to supply any further identification of the prospective witness or defender than he can do by reference to the wrong itself. The Government intend that he should be able to apply for an order requiring, for example, the retailer to provide the names and addresses of his suppliers without the pursuer having any knowledge as to the identity of the suppliers.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 17, line 13 leave out 'would' and insert 'might'.
      No. 24, in page 17, line 16, leave out 'would' and insert 'might'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 22

      RE-EMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED JUDGES
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 18, line 14, at end insert
      'and, in either case, has not reached the age of 75 years.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 26 and amendment No. 27, in page 18, line 17, at end insert
      'but any person so appointed cannot serve beyond the statutory retiring age for judges.'.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: During the debate on this clause in Committee, I undertook to consider carefully the argument persuasively put by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that a retired judge should not be brought back to act in a temporary capacity after he had reached the age of 75. Put briefly, the practical outcome of the arguments was that if the court required assistance, it should be provied by temporary judges who had not yet reached the retiring age or by the appointment of another permanent judge.
      I do not want to spend time rehearsing the arguments in favour of retaining the clause, but the proposal will limit the modest assistance provided to the Lord President of the Court of Session. That factor was taken into account when we considered the proposal. We have come to the conclusion that the balance of advantage lies in its adoption. I trust that the House will agree that it is prudent to frame the provision in such a way as to allow a temporary judge to dispose of business that has been only partly heard before he reaches the age of 75. This is a practical and prudent arrangement which in no way conflicts with the principle behind the amendments.
      Mr. Dewar: I welcome the concession. The amendment is sound and I am delighted to see it on the Order Paper.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made, No. 26, in page 18, line 17, at end insert
      'but, subject to subsection (4) below, a period during which or occasion on which a person may so act shall not extend beyond or be after he reaches the age of 75 years.'.—[Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 25

      AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS ABOUT DETENTION OF CHILDREN
      The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 20, line 1, after 'hearing)', insert '—(a)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
      Mr. MacKay: These amendments are simple and technical. Their purpose is to ensure that the accepted policy intention on the 3 days and 14 days is properly achieved. I hope that they satisfy doubts expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made, No. 29, in page 20, line 2, at end insert
      '; and
      '(b) for the words from "for", where last occurring, to the end there shall be substituted the words "after whichever is the earlier of the following—

      (a) the expiry of 14 days beginning with the day on which he was first detained;

      (b) the disposal of the application by the sheriff.".'.

      No. 30, in page 20, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert
      'after whichever is the earlier of the following—

      517

      (i) the expiry of 3 days beginning with the day on which he was first detained;

      (ii) the consideration of his case by the children's hearing.'.—[Mr. MacKay.]

    Clause 26

      AMENDMENT OF POWER TO DETAIN CHILDREN IN SECURE ACCOMMODATION
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 20, leave out from beginning of line 22 to 'the' in line 26 and insert 'for the words from "authorise" to the end there shall be substituted the words "order that, pending the determination of his case in accordance with section 42(5) or (6) of this Act,".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 32.
      Mr. MacKay: These amendments follow a long and important debate in Committee on what the law should provide when a children's hearing or a sheriff decides to issue a warrant for the interim detention of a child pending disposal of his case and considering the use of secure accommodation if that is appropriate.
      The problem arose because a court case in Fife resulted in uncertainty about the powers and responsibilities of hearings which result in the issuing of such warrants. We therefore thought it right to move quickly to produce an amendment which clarifies the legislation.
      The original clause caused controversy. I took careful note of what was said in Committee, of the various representations made to me and of what was said by those who attended a conference sponsored by the National Children's Bureau in Glasgow on 8 March. I concluded that warrants should deal with secure accommodation in the same way as supervision requirements—that is, a warrant for interim detention may simply give authority to the person in charge of the residential establishment named in the warrant, with the agreement of the relevant director of social work, to make use of secure accommodation during the period of the warrant at such times as this is considered to be necessary in the child's interest. The amendments are designed to do that and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Dewar: This is important to those involved with children's panels. In recent months my informed mail on the subject has ben heavy. I thank the Minister for the amendments. He buttressed his view fairly with the opinions of panel members and professionals. Subsequently he discovered that the unanimity which he thought existed among panel members did not exist. The argument's balance has changed.
      For example, Mrs. Sherry, the chairman of the Strathclyde children's panel, takes a different view about where the balance of advantage lies. The difference is small and the change is almost certainly for the better. Even those who were on the other side of the argument accept that we must have some flexibility and that the law should not make it mandatory on those in whose care a child is placed to keep that child throughout the period of the warrant in secure accommodation with all the limitations implied.
      It is wise for the law to authorise that the child can be kept in secure accommodation, but it should not demand that he is. It will please the reporters, the psychologists,
      518
      the social workers and many others, and I believe that it will have much wider support among members of children's panels than we first thought. It is an example of a good piece of work in Committee and a sensible reaction by the Government. I do not often say that to the Under-Secretary, so he had better enjoy it while the going is good.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 32, in page 20, leave out from beginning of line 36 to 'order' in line 40 and insert
      'for the words from "authorise" to the end there shall be substituted the words".'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

    Clause 30

      INTEREST ON AWARDS OF COMPENSATION BY SCOTTISH LAND COURT
      10.45 pm
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 22, line 10, leave out 'of the award' and insert
      'when such sum is payable'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 34.
      Mr. MacKay: The amendment ensure that the clause accords with the normal practice of the Land Court and that the intention of the clause is carried out.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 34, in page 22, line 28, leave out 'of the award' and insert
      'when such sum is payable'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

    Clause 32

      RULES AS TO VALUATION OF SHEEP STOCKS
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 23, line 3, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 36.
      Mr. MacKay: The amendments will ensure the continuation of the existing system whereby the formula for determining the sheep stock valuations at the end of a lease depends on the date when the lease was entered into. That means that both parties to the lease know what valuation system will apply at the end of it. The amendments are, therefore, supported by both sides of the agriculture industry.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 36, in page 23, line 7, at end insert—
      '(1B) A variation made under subsection (1A) above shall not apply for the purposes of a valuation made in respect of a lease entered into before the valuation was made.'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

    Clause 36

      EVIDENCE IN TRIALS OF CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENCES
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 27, line 15, at end insert
      'in relation to sexual matters.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

      519
      No. 38, in page 27, line 15, at end insert
      'with regard to sexual character and habits.
      Governments amendments Nos. 39 and 41.
      No. 42, in page 29, line 12, at end insert
      'with regard to sexual character and habits'.
      Government amendment No. 43.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: During our debate in Committee on clause 33, as it then was, we had an interesting and helpful discussion on the question of evidence about the character of the complainer. This is a complex area of the law.
      In its report on evidence in cases of rape and other sexual offences, the Scottish Law Commission proposed that there should be a ban on questioning and evidence which showed that the complainer in a sexual offence case was not of good character. The commission concluded in its report that the character concerned should be the sexual character of the complainer. That conclusion was arrived at on the basis that it can never be relevant to a charge of rape—any more than it is to a non-sexual offence—to assess a complainer's general credibility by reference to outdated standards of moral propriety. The Government accepted that conclusion, but were concerned that the draft Bill annexed to the commission's report went too wide in its reference to "character" alone. That could result in a sexual-offence complainer being treated more advantageously than his or her counterpart in a non-sexual offence case.
      Further consultation on the commission's proposals carried out on behalf of my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate revealed that the majority of opinion favoured some form of limitation on the prohibition on questioning and character.
      The existing subsection (2), which the amendments propose to delete, reflects the underlying principle that the complainer in a sexual offence case should be treated neither more or less advantageously than the complainer in a non-sexual offence case. Subsection (2) sought to do that by displaying the prohibition on character questioning on cases where the questioning related to the truthfulness of the complainer. While convinced that the principle behind it was correct, the Government were aware that the exact terms of the subsection did not represent the best solution. Our helpful discussion in Committee confirmed that to be the case and I undertook to consider for Report alternative ways of dealing with the problem.
      Subsection (2) does not implement the Government's policy effectively and arguably has the effect of undermining the main purpose of the clause, which is to provide a measure of protection for the complainer from unnecessary intimate and embarrassing questioning. However, a straightforward deletion of subsection (2) would not be sufficient. That would still leave us with the original problem of the reference to "character" in subsection (1)(a) being too wide and covering all aspects of character. For that reason I have tabled these amendments, which provide for the deletion of subsection (2) and also for the qualification of the reference to "character" so that it relates to sexual matters. I think that such an approach will find favour with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) especially, who tabled an amendment on similar lines in Committee.
      The advantage of such an approach is that it limits the Bill's provisions to a particular type of character evidence
      520
      and leaves the other aspects of general character to be dealt with in accordance with the present law. This approach seems particularly appropriate in view of the forthcoming consideration by the Appeal Court to this particular area of the law in the O'Hara case.
      It is certainly true, on the other hand, that amendment of the Bill in this way leaves unspecified the boundary between what is and what is not sexual character. I hope the House will accept that it would be undesirable to seek to define further that boundary and that questions of this sort are best left to the court to deal with in the light of the individual facts and circumstances.
      The amendment of the Bill in this way removes the difficulty with subsection (2), and, by changing the focus of the main provision, is a neater and more effective method of dealing with this sensitive area so that the complainer secures the level of protection proposed by the commission, and at the same time the accused is allowed the opportunity of a fair trial.
      Mr. Dewar: This is an important group of amendments, and the Minister's remarks meet with my approval. I confess that some of the more rewarding Committee experiences are in the less controversial areas of law reform, where it is not like bison locking horns with no chance of movement on either side.
      I came away from the debates on the clause dealing with evidence in rape trials with not much hope of movement on the part of the Government. I knew that the Minister had looked seriously at the points already and I thought that we would not get much more from him. I have been pleasantly surprised, however, and this series of amendments is helpful.
      Subsection (2), which falls, caused widespread alarm, particularly among some parts of the women's movement, as it was seen as a loophole which might have underminèd the whole point of the new provision. The subsection did not appear in the Law Commission's draft Bill. The difficulty was that, without the subsection, the drafting of what will become Section 141A(1)(a) meant that the normal right to attack—allowing for the possible retaliation—the general character of the complainer would have fallen. It was necessary, therefore, to limit the phrase
      "is not of good character"
      in some way that made it clear that it referred to the complainer's sexual habits. I suggested "sexual character and habits" whereas the Minister referred to "sexual matters," but I shall not argue the toss on that semantic point.
      This series of important amendments significantly improves and strengthens the clause. The Minister deserves congratulations for showing flexibility, and there will be a welcome for these proposals in the areas in which this matter has been discussed and studied.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 39, in page 27, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 41, in page 29, line 12, at end insert
      'in relation to sexual matters.'.
      No. 43, in page 29, line 18, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. John MacKay.]

    Clause 49

      ARRESTMENT OF NATIONAL SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS
      Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amedment No. 47, in page 37, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendments Nos. 48 and 49.
      Mr. MacKay: In Committee, I undertook to consider whether it was necessary under present circumstances to give the Lord Advocate an order-making power to direct that the arrestment provision to be introduced by clause 49 should not apply. I now take the view that such a power is not necessary, and this series of amendments removes the order-making power and makes consequential drafting changes.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 37, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).
      No. 49, in page 37, line 14, leave out paragraph (e).—[Mr. John MacKay.]

    Clause 51

      AMENDMENTS TO MENTAL HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984 AS RESPECTS HOSPITAL ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 50, in page 38, line 35 leave out from 'In' to end of line 36 and insert
      'each of sections 21 (approval of applications by the sheriff: hospital) and 40 (approval of applications by the sheriff: guardianship)'.—[Mr. John MacKay]

    Clause 55

      FINANCE
      Amendment made: No. 51, in page 40, line 4 after 'Act', insert
      'or section 5(9) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936',—[Mr. John MacKay.]

    Clause 57
      CITATION COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 52, in page 40, line 17, after '29', insert '54'.—[Mr. John Mackay.]

    New Schedule
    'AMENDMENTS OF LEGAL, AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND)
    ACT 1949 AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980
    Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1949 (c. 63)

    1. Section 25 (provisions as to taking apprentices) is hereby repealed.
    Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 46)

    2. In section 6 (admission as solicitor)—

    (a) in subsection (1)(b) the words "by affadavit or otherwise" are hereby repealed.

    (b)after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(3A) The Council may petition the Court for the admission as a solicitor of an applicant who has complied with the requirements of subsection (1) above; and where it does so it shall lodge the petition not later than one month after the applicant has first so complied.
    (3B) The court shall, on a petition being made to it under subsection (3A) above make an order admitting the applicant as a solicitor.".

    522

    3. Section 15(2)(a) (Council to have discretion as to issue of practising certificates where applicant still has to serve post-qualifying year of practical training) is hereby repealed.

    4. in section 35(1) (power to make accounts rules)—

    (a) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (d) shall be omitted;

    (b) after that paragraph there shall be added the following—
    "; and
    (e) as to the recovery from solicitors of fees and other costs incurred by the Council in ascertaining whether or not a solicitor who has failed to comply with the accounts rules has remedied that failure and is complying with the rules"

    5. Section 48 (restriction on number of apprentices) is hereby repealed.

    6. After section 62 there shall be inserted the following section—
    "Councils power to recover expenses incurred under section 38, 45 or 46.
    62A.—(1) Without prejudice to the Society's entitlement under section 46(4) to recover expenses, the Council shall be entitled to recover from a solicitor in respect of whom it has taken action under section 38, 45 or 46, any expenditure reasonably incurred by it in so doing.
    (2) Expenditure incurred in taking action under section 38 is recoverable under subsection (1) above only where notice has been served under paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 3 in connection with that action and—

    (a) no application has been made in consequence under paragraph 5(4) of that Schedule; or

    (b) the Court, on such an application, has made a direction under paragraph 5(5) of that Schedule.".

    7. In Schedule 1 (constitution etc. of the Law Society of Scotland)—

    (a) for paragraph 6 (subscriptions) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
    "6. Subject to paragraph 7, every member of the Society shall, for each year, pay to the Society such subscription as may be fixed from time to time by the Society in general meeting.
    6A. The subscription payable under paragraph 6 by a practising member (or the proportion of it so payable, calculated by reference to the number of months remaining in the practice year) shall be paid at the time of submission of his application for a practising certificate.";

    (b) in paragraph 7 (subscription in first three years of enrolment)—

    (i) the word "annual", in both places where it occurs, is hereby repealed;

    (ii) after the word "year" there shall be inserted the words "or part therof'; and

    (iii) there shall be added at the end the words "(reduced, in the case of a solicitor first included in the roll for only part of a year, in that year proportionately)"; and

    (c) after the said paragraph 7 there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
    "7A. The Society shall have power, subject to paragraphs 7B to 7D, to impose in respect of any year a special subscription on all members of the Society of such amount and payable at such time and for such specific purpose as it may determine.
    7B. The Society may determine that an imposition under paragraph 7A shall not be payable by any category of member or shall be abated as respects any category of member.
    7C. An imposition under paragraph 7A or a determination under that paragraph or paragraph 7B may be made only at a general meeting.
    7D. No imposition may be made under paragraph 7A above unless a majority of those members entitled to attend and vote at the general meeting at which it is proposed has, whether by proxy or otherwise, voted in favour of its being made.".

    8. In Schedule 3 (the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund)—

    (a) in paragraph 1(1) (annual contributions to Guarantee Fund) the words "not exceeding the sum of £25" are hereby repealed.

    523

    (b) in paragraph 1(3) (Council to fix amount of contributions for each year by previous 31 July) for the words "31 July" there shall be substituted the words "30 September"; and

    (c) paragraph 1(7) (limit to special contributions to Guarantee fund) is hereby repealed.'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 43, line 43, at end insert—
      'The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 62)
      20A. In section 3(5) (which defines the terms "parent" and "child") after the word "guardian" there shall be inserted the words "and any person who has the actual custody of a child".'.
      This ensures that the provisions in new section 3B of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980—which is concerned with children detained in connection with terrorism and which is inserted by clause 35—cover the case where the detained child is living with someone who is not his parent or guardian.
      As these provisions must be consistent with those relating to children detained under the 1980 Act for other offences, the change is achieved by amending the general definition of "parent" in section 3(5) of the 1980 Act to include both guardians and persons who have actual custody.
      Mr. Dalyell: This matter repeatedly arises in one form or another in our surgeries, particularly in new towns. How will the amendment help the problem of single parents?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With respect, I do not see that there is so much a problem with single parents. We are concerned with the cases in which it may be more difficult to identify not just one or other parent, but any parents at all. It is for that reason that we want to say that there should be not just the word "parent" or "guardian" but the phrase
      "and any person who has the actual custody of a child".
      A child may be living habitually with someone other than his parents or guardian. We want to ensure that there is an opportunity of intimation to that person. In view of discussions that we had in Committee, I should have thought that that change would be considered desirable by everyone.
      Mr. Dalyell: Does that help the problem of parents having access and seeing grandparents? It is difficult to do it in telescope form, but can the hon. and learned Gentleman address the matter?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We are dealing with a special situation which, I hope, will seldom happen, if ever, in Scotland, where children are arrested for terrorism offences. It applies only in those exceptional circumstances. Clearly, some provision has to be made for giving intimation to the parents. The particular problem which was underlined in Committee, and which I promised to look at again, was where the child did not have a readily identifiable parent, and was living with someone else. In those circumstances, the arrangement for intimation to that person is now provided for.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 55, in page 46, line 16, at end insert—

      '1949 c. 63

      The Legal Aid and Section 25. Solicitors Act 1949.'.

      No. 56, in page 46, line 40, at end insert—

      '1980 c. 46

      The Solicitors (Scotland) the Act 1980

      In section 6(1)(b), the words "by affidavit or otherwise".

      Section 15(2)(a).

      In section 35(1), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (d).

      In Schedule 1, in paragraph 7 the word "annual" in both places where it occurs.

      In Schedule 3, in paragraph 1(1), the words "not exceeding the sum of £25" and paragraph 1(7).'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen' s Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      10.56 pm
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) had his opportunity to say how grateful he was to Ministers for the flexibility that they have shown on several issues. I should like to add my own words of thanks. We did not get all that we wanted on several matters, but in Committee Ministers showed a willingness to listen. In some of today's amendments, they have shown that they have taken on board many of the comments that were made. The Under-Secretary of State referred to a tidying-up, technical amendment to clause 51. I persuaded the Solicitor-General eventually to concede that amendment. I am grateful for the tidying-up that was done to it.
      I would not wish my speech to be all bouquets, and should like to make just one final comment. My hon. Friend the Member of Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), being an English barrister, was somewhat amazed to hear that, almost in the same breath, we were dealing with valuation of sheep for leasing purposes and then important matters relating to evidence in rape trials. It is unbelievable that that would ever happen with the law in England and Wales. The sooner that such matters can have proper and separate debates in a Scottish Parliament, the better.
      10.57 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: As one who was not on the Committee, I should like to express a certain gratitude to colleagues of all parties who worked hard on what every Scottish Member of Parliament knows are important subjects.
      I thank the Minister for giving undertakings to some of us about Glenochil in the hope that at least it will ease people's minds in that difficult area.
      10.58 pm
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the Bill has addressed such a wide range of issues, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has said, it is difficult to highlight its most significant provisions. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described the Bill as a collection of legal bric-a-brac. However, I am sure that he will agree that, none the less, it contains many useful provisions. They may not have been controversial in any party political sense, but such matters as evidence in rape cases and the introduction of new small claims proceedings have been important changes in the law of Scotland.
      I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for his comments in this debate and the hon. Member for Garscadden for what he said earlier. Debates on the Bill were certainly not conducted on party political lines, which meant that in many respects, both in Committee and on Report, we were able to give more assiduous scrutiny to the provisions than is sometimes the case.
      Although the Bill is something of a miscellany, I hope that what we have achieved in it will be welcome to the people of Scotland even though it was quite properly completed in this House and not in another building, somewhere in Scotland.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ENDURING POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL (LORDS)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69(6) (Second Reading Committees),
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

PETITION

  Human Embryos
  11 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I seek leave to present two petitions, the second and third that I have sought to present on a matter that has become the subject of record petitioning to the House—the protection of the human embryo. They were not presented before the Second Reading of the private Member's Bill on the subject because they were technically deficient at that stage. After they had been corrected I held them back until today—the eve of the return of that private Member's Bill from the Standing Committee for its Report stage on the Floor of the House.
  The first petition is in the name of Father Kevin Maxwell, who until recently was priest at Holy Trinity church, Dockhead, in Bermondsey and 151 other local people, many of whom are parishioners of Holy Trinity, Dockhead, and all but seven of whom live in the SE1 or SE16 postal districts of Southwark and Bermondsey.
  The second petition is in the names of Mrs. Still of 3 Bromleigh house, Abbey street, SE1, the Reverend Tim Wooderson, vicar of Bermondsey parish church, Dr. Dominic Beer of 25n Becket house, Becket street, SE1 and 82 other people.
  The petitions are in similar terms. They affirm that the newly fertilised human embryo is a real, living and individual human being and pray
  "that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure which involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned)."
  We shall be debating this controversial and difficult matter tomorrow, when these views and others will be properly taken into account by the House.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Courtaulds (Cardiff)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: The announcement by Courtaulds on 19 April that it proposed to close the Greenfield plant was a devastating blow to my constituency. It marked a further stage in the 15-year-long erosion of the area's manufacturing base, which has produced what can be described without exaggeration as a blitzed local economy. The lastest proposal will add a further 595 redundancies to the 200 announced by Courtaulds last autumn, and the knock-on effect on local businesses and subcontractors will add at least a further 100.
  When I met Sir Christopher Hogg, chairman of Courtaulds, earlier this week he informed me that the future of the Deeside mill—the one remaining Courtaulds plant in my constituency, which employs 164 people—was "hanging by a thread." In effect, therefore, we are talking not about a possible 600 redundancies in my constituency but about 1,000, and probably considerably more.

  527
  The most hard hit town is Holywell. If these redundancies take place, they will add 30 per cent. to existing unemployment in a town in which the ratio of unemployed people to vacancies is already 40 to one.
  Since 1973, 5,084 Courtaulds jobs have been lost in my constituency. In addition, 2,200 of my constituents lost their jobs in British Steel at Shotton in 1980. The total number of jobs lost in the past 12 years is 7,300—a quarter of the jobs in my constituency, out of a total labour force of 28,500.
  The severity of the problems that Delyn faces can be highlighted by comparison with Wrexham, which also faces the closure of its Courtaulds plant. Wrexham is much better able to absorb the blow. It is a bigger borough, has greater resources, a more longstanding experience in attracting industry and a more favourable geographical location. Last year, 1,500 new jobs were created in Wrexham with the arrival of Sharp, Brother, Laura Ashley and Metal Box.
  I think that I have said enough to illustrate the size and dimension of the problems facing my constituency. These problems have been recognised already by the Government with the designation of the Delyn enterprise zone and with Delyn's retention of the highest level of development area status. The feeling before Courtaulds' announcement was that the enterprise zone was about to take off—that substantial financial support that had been received from the Government was about to contrbute to a significant improvement in employment opportunities. Just as we were about to take two steps forward, we have suddenly been thrust four steps back. Now, more needs to be done urgently.
  I should declare an interest as a shareholder in Courtaulds since last week. I own one share which I bought for £1·87. That is the only share that I own in a British company. I bought that share because I was fed up with meeting senior management at Courtaulds who always said to me, "We have to look after the interests of our shareholders." I thought that when I met the chairman earlier this week, this would enable me to say to him, "I totally agree with you, Sir Christopher. You have to look after the interests of your shareholders. I am one of them."
  The first thing that I ask the Government to do, through the Under-Secretary of State, is to put pressure on Courtaulds. If it will not reverse the proposed closure and phase in the redundancies, it must at least recognise its social responsibilities to Delyn. Courtaulds must discharge its moral obligations to the community. For more than 50 years, the company has dominated the local labour supply, and so had a distorting effect on the local economy. This maginifies the impact of the latest redundancies.
  The local labour force, for relatively low rates of pay, has given great service to the company. Indeed, the deputy chairman of Courtaulds, Dr. Wooding, described the work force to me last week as first-class, hard-working, highly motivated and extremely flexible. Dr. Wooding went further, and said that he was prepared personally to recommend the work force to any company thinking of coming into the area.
  Courtaulds cannot just up and walk away from a work force and a community that have served it so well. The failure at Greenfield has been the failure not of the work force but of senior, London-based management. The work force at Greenfield has exceeded its production targets. It
  528
  has increased its share of the western European market for viscose fibre. Yet the London-based senior management have chosen to close Greenfield in preference to Grimsby, although it is Grimsby which has supplied predominantly the market that has been lost—the so-called deep sea or far east market.
  As the Prime Minister said in Clwyd last Friday,
  "Where you have a factory dependent on one product, then I think management does have a duty to develop different products. Products do change. We do need new ones. It ought to be part of the work of successful management."
  Indeed, it should be. Any one can asset strip. Management, if it is to be described as successful, has to do more, much more, than that.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said on 8 March
  "there is a distressing tendency appearing among some companies to believe that a great industrial group should with the help of substantial Government contracts"——
  and I might add, Government grants—
  "prove itself a successful financial institution rather than risk its resources in innovative research and development or the agressive marketing of new products."
  Courtaulds' management has conceded—indeed, Sir Christopher did so personally to me—that it saw long ago what was coming. The company should and could have diversified. If the Japanese had been in charge at Greenfield, they would have done so.
  The Greenfield site is ideal for diversification. It has a superb work force and an endless supply of cheap water, and it generates its own steam and electricity. The No. 1 site, which is currently derelict, could be cleared in six months, and so could be let to another company which could share with Courtaulds the overheads on the site.
  There has been no such imaginative approach by Courtaulds. Like GEC, the company has been content to shed labour while increasing its cash mountain. Indeed, Courtaulds made £128 million profit last year. Despite that massive profit, it is now ready to shed 800 employees at Greenfield, with a loss to the Treasury and a cost to the taxpayer of £7,000 per employee a year.
  It would be wrong and immoral if the taxpayer were expected to pick up the tab for these redundancies while the shareholder got off scot free probably with an increased dividend. That would indeed be the totally unacceptable face of capitalism.
  Courtaulds senior management must accept the diminution of their profits and the shareholders must be prepared to give up an extra dividend so that the company can discharge its obligations to the people of Delyn. My constituency has yet to see any evidence that Courtaulds recognises its responsibility and accepts its obligations. We have yet to have evidence of its good faith.
  Dr. Wooding, the deputy chairman, is to visit Delyn shortly for detailed discussions with the chief executive and myself. We look for and expect during those meetings a change in attitude from the company. We have many points to raise with the deputy chairman. The first relates to the future of the No. 1 site, the transfer of which I helped to instigate earlier this year. Negotiations are currently running into some difficulty. It is important that if vital infrastructure is not to be transferred to the borough council its continued use must be guaranteed.
  The chief executive and I want general discussions about the No. 2 site. If the redundancies are to go ahead, we should like first option on that site and Dr. Wooding has indicated to us that the company will give the borough

  529
  council first option. The third point is that the site must be left clean. Greenfield has been a chemical site for 50 years. There is extensive and serious contamination of both land and buildings. They must be cleared of asbestos and toxic waste. There is a 10-acre licensed tip bordering the site and the Dee estuary. To maintain it let alone to clear it, will cost a great deal. It is a potential hazard. If it is not properly maintained, there is a danger of toxic waste seeping into the Dee estuary.
  Courtaulds must pay for the maintenance or clearance of that tip. The shareholder not the taxpayer must bear that burden. The company cannot walk away and abdicate responsibility as it did at Castle works in 1977. It left a burning toxic tip there which Dr. Wooding described last week as "frightening." A NATO-sponsored study tour of environmental scientists examining serious contamination problems visited the tip last year. When a Dutch member of the group was told that it was a Courtaulds tip he asked whether Courtaulds was a common Welsh name. When he was told that it was not, the penny suddenly dropped and he said, "You do not mean The Courtaulds, the distinguished British company?" He could not believe that the company had been able to walk away from such a serious contamination problem. He said that no company in the Netherlands would have been allowed to do so.
  The borough council is having to undertake a £50,000 survey simply to find out how to deal with the tip. The borough surveyor estimates that it will cost over £1 million to clear it. That cannot be allowed to happen again. Courtaulds must leave a clean site at Greenfield.
  If the closure goes ahead, Courtaulds has said that it intends to sell plant from the site. In 1979–81 it undertook a £9 million modernisation for which it received I believe—I should be grateful if my hon. Friend will confirm this—£3 million in regional development grant. That was to create the most technologically advanced viscose fibre plant in the world.
  Again, it would be unfair and immoral if that plant, partly paid for by the taxpayer, were sold to benefit the shareholders. A proportion of the proceeds must go to the Government for the benefit of the community and to bring jobs to my constituency.
  As I said earlier, Courtaulds has dominated the local labour market for 50 years. We look to the company to help bring new companies and jobs to the area. I emphasise that we want it to do that through the Delyn enterprise agency and not through the Deeside enterprise trust which concentrates on the Deeside-Shotton area. We should like to see the company emulate the good example of Pilkingtons in St. Helens by seconding a high flier with two full-time assistants from the company to help run the agency. We look to the company for a substantial financial contribution towards the agency's running costs. One month's losses of £500,000 would be a good figure from which to work upwards.
  I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for an assurance that the Government will exert maximum pressure on Courtaulds to ensure that it discharges its obligations and to emphasise to it that it cannot and will not be allowed to escape from them. The proposed closure is the result not of a failure of the work force but of the senior managenemt, and it must be paid for by shareholders not taxpayers.
  On direct Government help, two reports have been produced—"A Development Strategy for Courtaulds, Greenfield Plant" by Delyn borough council and "Action
  530
  Response to Major Textile Job Losses" by Clwyd county council. I pay tribute to Delyn borough council on their excellent document, which it has produced so speedily. It gives a good background to the situation and proposes specific measures which focus on Delyn's needs. By contrast, the county council document is sadly disappointing. It focuses almost exclusively on Wrexham and Deeside industrial park. Indeed, there are only two passing references to Delyn in a 19 page report, and the first of them is inaccurate. The introduction says that the report:
  "has been prepared in consultation with Delyn borough council".
  No such consultation took place. The chief executive of Delyn has yet to receive a copy of the document. When I met the chief executive of Clwyd county council last week, he assured me that the council would give every possible backup to the borough council. I hope that the liaison will improve markedly in the next few weeks. The county's report is totally inadequate. It is no answer to Delyn's needs and shows no recognition of the intense local impact of the unemployment problem that has been created, or of the particular needs of Holywell and Flint.
  Delyn looks to Clwyd county council not for a second Dee crossing costing £25 million, which the county is pushing, but for something more modest and more practical—a coherent integrated road strategy for the area, to create a link between the A55 and the A548 coast road and an acceleration of improvements to the A548. The borough council has pressed for some time for such an integrated road network to be drawn up. Unfortunately, the county has yet to respond.
  Delyn council's strategy is more hard-headed and economically realistic than the county's. It focuses directly on Delyn. Its proposals for No.1 site alone:
  "would directly create development potential for up to 604 jobs at a minute fraction of the cost of more general initiatives such as the dualling of the A55".
  It outlines where substantial public investment, where Government finance is needed—for demolition and site clearance, for the renewal and upgrading of existing service infrastructure, for the refurbishment of retained buildings and for the accelerated improvement of road communications, including improved access to No. 2 site from the A548, should the council take it over.
  Substantial public investment is necessary to prime the pump, to ensure private investment for the redevelopment of the site. One other important measure is necessary to ensure private investment—extension of the enterprise zone to include the Courtaulds Greenfield site. The financial advantages of an enterprise zone, especially the 100 per cent. capital allowance for new buildings, is essential to attract substantial private investment.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for an assurance that the Government's response to this serious situation will be based on Delyn's development strategy, not on the county's wholly inadequate one.
  I have said enough to illustrate the seriousness of the situation. I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply. I hope that he will be able to show the Government's readiness to exert maximum pressure on Courtaulds to discharge its obligations and responsibilities to my constituency. I also hope that he will be able to show the willingness of the Welsh Office to respond favourably to applications from the borough council for direct financial help to my

  531
  constituency so that, together, we can give hope to the people I represent, especially those who, in Courtaulds words, are:
  "a workforce second to none."
  11.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): It is characteristic of the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) for his constituents that he has secured this evening's debate on the important subject of the proposed closure of the Courtaulds plant at Greenfield, Clwyd, announced by the company on Friday 19 April. Of course, this announcement, coupled with the proposed closure of another Courtaulds plant at Wrexham, is a nasty blow to north-east Wales, to the work forces and their families.
  Clwyd has a well-deserved reputation for resilience, but the loss of more than 1,000 jobs now is an unwelcome setback to the county's economic recovery. The community's dismay is not lessened by the fact that these closure announcements were made by an employer that has had a long association with the area.
  Much that is good and hopeful has happened since that bleak Friday. On Monday 22 April my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a deputation from Delyn borough council led by my hon. Friend; and he has also met the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). On Friday last my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met representatives of Clwyd county council, Delyn borough council and Wrexham Maelor borough council at the start of her visit to north-east Wales, and I had the honour of being with her on that occasion. Later in the day she met representatives of the Wrexham plant work force. She has also met my hon. Friend; and she will be meeting the hon. Member for Wrexham shortly. In the meantime, she has been active in other ways in this context. A senior Welsh Office official was also in north Wales last week, together with a representative from the Welsh Development Agency, to pursue discussions with the local authorities. I recount all this to show that the Government are totally aware of the situation and fully understand the different viewpoints of the bodies concerned and the different representations that are being made by different authorities. It would not be right for me to discuss the merits of the cases put forward tonight; suffice it to say that the cases advanced are receiving active consideration.
  However, I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that, in response to a request from Delyn borough council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today approved an adjustment within the council's existing total capital expenditure allocation under which a larger amount—some £500,000—will receive urban aid support. The implication of this adjustment will be to ensure that Delyn can proceed this year with an industrial unit construction programme costing £3·7 million, which will create over 800 job opportunities within the enterprise zone.
  I think that it is important to see these closures in their historical context and to make it absolutely clear that they are in no way consequential upon the Government's policies. Courtaulds has run down its operations in northeast Wales—and elsewhere—over many years. As my right hon. Friend reminded the House on 22 April, at column 610 of Hansard for that date, the Castle works at Flint was closed in 1977 with the loss of 1,500 jobs. There
  532
  have also been substantial reductions in employment at Greenfield and at Wrexham before the present closure decisions. There has also been a very substantial reduction in employment at the Deeside mill.
  Of course we are very disappointed that these closures are likely to occur, not only because of the job losses that will result but because there was also a substantial investment of taxpayers' money in these plants. Regional development grant of £2·1 million and selective assistance of £0·7 million have been paid to Courtaulds for its modernisation programme at Greenfield and close to £2 million has been paid in grant at Wrexham. But I have to say to the House that it is not for the Government to try to second guess the commercial judgments that had to be made. Courtaulds—like any other company—has to consider the commercial realities of the market place in which it has to survive, and to make its decisions accordingly.
  I know that Delyn borough council and my hon. Friend are making representations to Courtaulds both about the closures and the consequences—including the part that Courtaulds might play—and so are Wrexham borough council and the hon. Member for Wrexham. I very well understand my hon. Friend's concern about the future of the Greenfield site; and I know too of the discussions that have been taking place between the council and Courtaulds over the No. 1 site at Greenfield; discussions which were of course under way before the most recent closure decisions were announced. I am aware that some difficulties have arisen over the transaction on the No. 1 site, but I understand that Dr. Wooding, the deputy chairman of Courtaulds, intends to visit the area in the near future with a view to seeking a resolution of these problems.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that we at the Welsh Office will be watching very carefully to see how Courtaulds responds to the representations that are being made to it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to the chairman about the representations that were made to her in north-east Wales last Friday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already indicated to the chairman that he hopes that Courtaulds will respond positively to the proposals on future use and clearance of the land and to the suggestion that resources be put into the regeneration of the local communities, possibly, as my hon. Friend suggested, through the Delyn enterprise agency. I, too, would urge Courtaulds to do all that it can to assist and accommodate the requests that are being made, bearing in mind its long association with north-east Wales and the loyalty that has been shown to the company over a long period.
  Against that background, it is right to look at north-east Wales to see what is being done. My hon. Friend is well aware that Shotton, Flint, Rhyl and Wrexham now have, and have had, the highest assisted area status and thus the highest possible level of regional industrial assistance. The Government's role has been that of a constant and continuing provider of financial incentives to development.
  In recent years Clwyd has attained a high reputation for attracting inward investors and diversifying its economic base, It is notable that the last two major investment decisions by Japanese companies were to locate in Clwyd. The Sharp video recorder project and the Brother typewriter project are both at Wrexham. In addition, decisions to invest in Clwyd have been made by Metal

  533
  Box, Squibb Surgicare, F. W. Bender, Deeside Aluminium, British Tissues, Kelloggs, Continental Can, Optical Fibres, United Paper Mills, Kimberley Clark. Warwick Chemicals, Hoya and Laura Ashley.
  All these developments, coupled with yesterday's announcement by Data Magnetic that it is to start Europe's first plant manufacturing thin-film computer disks on Deeside, point to an area that can look forward to the future with the confidence tht it will continue to attract companies in a wide range of new industries.
  Since January 1983, there have been 32 acceptances of regional selective assistance in the Shotton, Flint and Rhyl travel-to-work areas, related to an investment of over £9 million, with 1,600 new jobs and 400 jobs safeguarded. In the same period, in the Wrexham travel-to-work area, there have been 33 acceptances of regional selective assistance, with just under 1,400 new jobs, 1,200 jobs safeguarded and an investment of £7 million. In total, this amounts to an investment by private companies in the two areas over the last two years of some £16 million, promising over 3,000 new jobs. This is no mean achievement.
  The Welsh Development Agency has been particularly active in providing the infrastructure to enable industrial development to proceed in Clwyd, and its achievements are worth putting on record. Since 1979, the agency has completed 203 units totalling 1·3 million sq ft in the county. In 1983, 58 units were allocated. In 1984, a further 50 units were allocated. These allocations promised over 1,800 new jobs. Some 59 units are still available for letting.
  When we look at this countywide activity on a travel to-work area basis we find that in the Shotton, Flint and Rhyl travel-to-work area 145 Welsh Development Agency advance factories have been completed since 1979. Twenty-eight units are still available for letting. In the Wrexham travel-to-work area, 57 WDA units have been completed since 1979. Twenty-five units are still available for letting.
  Delyn is of course unique in north-east Wales in that it has the benefit of an enterprise zone. Since its designation in 1983, 40 per cent. of the enterprise zone has been developed and 22 new establishments have been attracted to it. It has resulted so far in a net increase of employment of about 300 jobs and I know that the local authority hopes to make further positive announcements in the near future.
  The Welsh Office has made very considerable commitments to the zone since 1981–82 totalling £6·3 million. Of this, £1·6 million has been allocated for the current year through the urban programme and capital allocations. Additionally, Delyn borough council has received £750,000 to compensate for the loss of rate revenue in the zone. The WDA has completed 38 units on
  534
  the Manor industrial estate there, and the agency has financed three substantial reclamation schemes at a total cost of nearly £2 million.
  All that would seem to me to be a highly creditable record of involvement in providing land and factory building in advance of demand by would-be developers and employers. I am sure that the Welsh Development Agency will maintain its record.
  The EEC has also been helpful to Clwyd. The total identifiable EEC aid to the county is in excess of £175 million since 1975. Within this, over £36 million of ERDF quota aid has been committed to the county since 1975, of which about £850,000 has been made available for schemes within the Delyn enterprise zone alone.
  I could mention other support measures if time were not against me. They all add up to a substantial input of public money into the area.
  I shall draw to a conclusion by paying tribute to the local authorities in north-east Wales, which have striven energetically over the years to encourage economic regeneration in their areas. They have "sold" the attractions of their areas responsibly and effectively, and they have substantial successes to show for it. I know that no one is more anxious than they are that positive steps should be taken to continue with the task of creating new job opportunities. Within the past few days Clwyd county council and Delyn borough council have put forward proposals to tackle their latest problems. They have rightly emphasised that they are looking essentially for a re-ordering of existing priorities and resources. However, they are calling also for the expenditure of additional public money. My hon. Friend would not expect me to say any more this evening than that the proposals are being considered. We shall examine them as quickly and as sympathetically as possible to ascertain what can be done.
  It is sad that these major closures in north-east Wales should be the subject of debate in the House, bringing almost to an end, though not completely, the long-standing relationship between Courtaulds and the people of north-east Wales. Although the closures announcements were not entirely unexpected, they are a considerable blow. They represent the culmination of a series of cuts by the company over the years. The decisions were for the company to take and I am sure that they were as painful to the management as to the work force. It is not for the Government to try to second guess companies which have to survive in the market place and respond to changing demand for their products.
  There are encouraging signs, and I know that they are recognised. The effort to build on the successes achieved in Clwyd and Delyn must and will continue.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  "The Wild Girl"
  "The Wild Girl"
ENVIRONMENT
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Right to Buy (Business Tenants)
  Right to Buy (Business Tenants)
  Itinerants
  Itinerants
  Development Control Policy Note 13
  Development Control Policy Note 13
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Royal Docks (Development)
  Royal Docks (Development)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Organochlorines
  Organochlorines
  Pollution Control (Regulations)
  Pollution Control (Regulations)
PRIME MINISTER
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Rating System
  Rating System
  Bearsden
  Bearsden
  Land Drainage
  Land Drainage
  EC (Policy Integration)
  EC (Policy Integration)
  Superphénix Reactor
  Superphénix Reactor
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Government Priorities
  Government Priorities
  Security Services (Vetting Procedures)
  Security Services (Vetting Procedures)
  Regional Industrial Policy
  Regional Industrial Policy
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  EC Directives
  EC Directives
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
EMPLOYMENT
  Wage Statistics
  Wage Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  EC Directives
  EC Directives
WALES
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Gas and Electric Cookers
  Gas and Electric Cookers
  Lead-free Petrol
  Lead-free Petrol
  Thames Shiprepair Services Ltd. (Correspondence)
  Thames Shiprepair Services Ltd. (Correspondence)
  EC Directives
  EC Directives
  ECGD (Open Account Scheme)
  ECGD (Open Account Scheme)
  Director General of Fair Trading (Report)
  Director General of Fair Trading (Report)
  British Shipbuilders (Privatisation)
  British Shipbuilders (Privatisation)
  British Telecom (Shares)
  British Telecom (Shares)
TRANSPORT
  Telephones (M1)
  Telephones (M1)
  Road Works (Compensation)
  Road Works (Compensation)
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Merchant Shipping (Defence Requirements)
  Merchant Shipping (Defence Requirements)
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  A42 (Motorway Link)
  A42 (Motorway Link)
  Singapore (Civil Aviation Policy)
  Singapore (Civil Aviation Policy)
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  British Airways (Privatisation)
  British Airways (Privatisation)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Press Gallery (Costs)
  Press Gallery (Costs)
  Fibre Flax and Hemp
  Fibre Flax and Hemp
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cotton
  Cotton
  Milk
  Milk
  Wine
  Wine
  Livestock Units (Expenditure)
  Livestock Units (Expenditure)
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Milk Producers
  Milk Producers
  EC Fisheries Inspectorate
  EC Fisheries Inspectorate
  Agricultural Land (Value)
  Agricultural Land (Value)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Victim Support Schemes
  Victim Support Schemes
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Citizenship Applications
  Citizenship Applications
  Asylum
  Asylum
  Motorway Speeding
  Motorway Speeding
  High-crime Areas (Insurance)
  High-crime Areas (Insurance)
  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Air Weapons
  Air Weapons
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Crime Prevention and Victim Support Schemes
  Crime Prevention and Victim Support Schemes
  Prison Building Programme
  Prison Building Programme
  Channel Islands (Drugs)
  Channel Islands (Drugs)
  Immigration Rules (Interpretation)
  Immigration Rules (Interpretation)
  Criminal Justice Act 1982
  Criminal Justice Act 1982
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Chief Constables
  Chief Constables
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Police (Establishments)
  Police (Establishments)
  Immigration Control
  Immigration Control
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Drug Traffickers
  Drug Traffickers
  Market Research
  Market Research
  Prisoners (Death Statistics)
  Prisoners (Death Statistics)
  Prisoners (Families)
  Prisoners (Families)
  Videotape Recordings (Censorship)
  Videotape Recordings (Censorship)
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  HMS Conqueror (Log Books)
  HMS Conqueror (Log Books)
  European Music Day
  European Music Day
  Shop Hours
  Shop Hours
  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Prisons (Education Facilities)
  Prisons (Education Facilities)
  Mr. Alhaji Umaru Dikko
  Mr. Alhaji Umaru Dikko
  Immigration Statistics
  Immigration Statistics
  EC Directives
  EC Directives
  European Convention on Human Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Police Violence
  Police Violence
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
SCOTLAND
  Rating and Valuation Service
  Rating and Valuation Service
  Cormorants
  Cormorants
  "Smoking—The Scottish Epidemic"
  "Smoking—The Scottish Epidemic"
  Smoking (Health Costs)
  Smoking (Health Costs)
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  Heart and Lung Diseases
  Heart and Lung Diseases
  Rates
  Rates
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Traffic Statistics
  Traffic Statistics
  Forth Road Bridge (Tolls)
  Forth Road Bridge (Tolls)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Immigration Clearance Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Immigration Clearance Interviews (Tape Recording)
  United Nations Integrated Programme for Commodities
  United Nations Integrated Programme for Commodities
  Tel Aviv (Incident)
  Tel Aviv (Incident)
  Namibia (Fishing Limits)
  Namibia (Fishing Limits)
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Dhaka (Entry Clearance)
  Dhaka (Entry Clearance)
  Mr. Godfrey Shiner
  Mr. Godfrey Shiner
DEFENCE
  European Fighter Aircraft
  European Fighter Aircraft
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Departmental Bills
  Departmental Bills
  Clyde Submarine Base
  Clyde Submarine Base
  Pensions
  Pensions
  E1 Salvador
  E1 Salvador
  Service Bands
  Service Bands
  Courts Martial
  Courts Martial
  Flying Officer Allan James Malcolm
  Flying Officer Allan James Malcolm
  Defence Installations (West Midlands)
  Defence Installations (West Midlands)
  SP70 Gun
  SP70 Gun
  Community Health Council (BAOR)
  Community Health Council (BAOR)
  Welfare Services (BAOR)
  Welfare Services (BAOR)
  Cervical Smear Tests (BAOR)
  Cervical Smear Tests (BAOR)
  Infant Mortality (BAOR)
  Infant Mortality (BAOR)
  Peace Demonstrators (Photographs)
  Peace Demonstrators (Photographs)
  Waste Material (Faslane-Glenboig)
  Waste Material (Faslane-Glenboig)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Market Research
  Market Research
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Glaucoma.
  Glaucoma.
  Private Hospitals
  Private Hospitals
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  NHS (Hospital Expenditure)
  NHS (Hospital Expenditure)
  State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme
  State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Liverpool Women's Hospital
  Liverpool Women's Hospital
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Doctors (Reimbursement)
  Doctors (Reimbursement)
  Pyridoxine
  Pyridoxine
  Nurses (Training)
  Nurses (Training)
  EC Directives
  EC Directives
  Mildmay Mission Hospital
  Mildmay Mission Hospital
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Death (Statistics)
  Death (Statistics)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Health Services
  Health Services
  White Papers and Government Reports
  White Papers and Government Reports
THE ARTS
  European Music Day
  European Music Day
  Kelmscott House
  Kelmscott House
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Customs Officers
  Customs Officers
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  Petrol (Lead Content)
  EC Directives
  EC Directives
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Assets Sales
  Assets Sales
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

European Airlines: Navigation Charges
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give additional support to the 20 members of the Association of European Airlines in their demand for greater participation in the establishment of user charges for en route navigation within Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, en route navigation charges for participating countries are set by the Permanent Commission of Eurocontrol. The airlines are regularly consulted and their views fully taken into account.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the airlines are correct in stating that they never have been given a complete breakdown of these en route charges, how they are constructed and whether they are relevant? Secondly, does the Minister not agree that the level of air fares in Europe is now being tackled with some success, and that the Government have helped in this? Would it not be useful to look at the actual airline costs and see how the fares charged compare with them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that it is correct to say that the airlines do not have all the information that they want in these matters. For example, the list of organisations which Eurocontrol consult on a formal basis includes the International Air Transport Association, the International Air Carriers Association, the Association of European Community Air Carriers and a number of others. In fact, the organisation to which the noble Baroness refers in her Question has not, I understand, made a formal request for recognition in this way.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I do not think the Minister has exactly answered my question. Is he aware that the Eurocontrol charges have doubled between 1980 and 1983? Does he feel that the Government, as they have helped on competition policy and as the machinery is there, could now give some impetus to the efficiency of charging?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware, I think, that the function of Eurocontrol has changed in recent years and that it is now collecting the charges on behalf of the participating countries rather than the members, and therefore relies upon the charges raised by those countries. Each of the
340
countries formulates its costs and charges in a separate way, so I am afraid I cannot give a simple answer to the noble Baroness on this matter.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the airlines are given all the information, but can he tell us what the airlines say in return about the level of charges?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not suppose there was ever an organisation that relished the idea of charges going up, but I believe that the airlines understand the need for the charges as they are presently applied. However, as I said in my original Answer, their views are very closely attended to.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether it is within the terms of remit of Eurocontrol to publish the basis upon which air navigation charges are made? If it is within its remit, will he take steps to ensure that these are made public so that we can see exactly what is going on in this regard?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord's question is, no. It is a matter for the participating states to reveal in as much or as little detail as they choose the basis for the charges that they make. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we go into very considerable detail, and I draw the noble Lord's attention to the annual report of the Civil Aviation Authority, which covers this point.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord further, but is there any real, valid reason why these matters should not be made public? We cannot possibly determine the reasonableness of what is being done unless the various Parliaments are aware of what in fact occurs.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Eurocontrol is a result of a treaty entered into voluntarily by the nations concerned, and it has to conduct its affairs in accordance with the terms of that treaty. It is not possible for Eurocontrol to impose its views, or the views of one member, on all the other members because, naturally, they would not agree. Different nations approach the issue of revealing details in a different way, and that is inevitable in a grouping of this kind.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 60 per cent. of these costs are entirely beyond the airlines' control? Would it not be sensible to look at the costs to see whether they are justified, compare the fares charged, and hope that a reduction in fares will result?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the airlines need to be asked to carry only the minimum of charges that they should, but in this case it is not the responsibility of the British Government, for example, to impose upon other Governments the sort of regime that they would prefer. We reveal our own costs in as much detail as we can. We encourage the others to do likewise, but we are not in a position to dictate to them.

Life Sentences: Prisoners' Release
3.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 prisoners, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, were released during each of the last five years; and what was the average time served in prison by prisoners so released in each of those years.
The Parliamentar), Under-Secretary of Slate, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the number of life sentence prisoners released on licence in England and Wales in each of the years 1980–1984 inclusive was 48, 79, 104, 96 and 68 respectively—a total of 395. The average time served under life sentence for those released in 1980, 1982, 1983 and 1984 was about 10½ years, and about 10 years for those released in 1981.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that exceedingly interesting information. Does it not amount to saying that a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by a court does not now mean that? Is my noble friend happy about that? Does it not carry a risk that the deterrent effect of a sentence which is only imposed for very serious offences is being undermined?
Lord Glenarthur: Not necessarily, my Lords. The average periods of detention which I have given provide no indication of the time for which any individual life sentence prisoner is likely to be detained because of the wide variations in the periods served in custody from which the averages are calculated. Nor do they reflect the longest periods likely to be served by some of those given life sentences and who have not yet been released. In considering the cases of life sentence prisoners my noble friend will be aware that the very greatest care is taken by all concerned, not just by the Home Office but by the Parole Board and the prisons themselves, and no such decision is taken lightly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and indeed any noble Lord, is absolutely entitled to ask a Question of this kind, cannot the effect of replies to such Questions, and the very raising of them, be both misleading and mischievous? Can it not raise the whole question of the powers and duties of the Parole Board and the way it carries them out, and the conduct of the Home Secretary in agreeing, or otherwise, with the recommendations of the Parole Board? Would it not be wiser to leave matters in the hands of the Parole Board and the Home Secretary, bearing in mind that each case is different and each ought to be judged on its own merits?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that each case should be judged on its merits.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, leaving aside the point that these statistics do not cover the prisoners who were not released during the period in question, is there not a risk of misunderstanding in that many people tend to compare these periods with the sentences passed by courts? Am I not right in thinking that a sentence of, say, 15 years passed by a court could mean as little as five years' detention, and certainly not more than 10 years.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord will be well aware of the procedures, which are complex and would take me more than a minute or two to go into now. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that each case should be judged on its merits, and the very greatest care is taken, not only by the prisons concerned but by the Parole Board, and, of course, by my right honourable friend when he considers these cases.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the real danger arises from the message behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? Surely we must not give the impression that any board or group is sacrosanct and cannot be commented on by Parliament. That is the very reason for having a Parliament.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, to that extent the last part of my noble friend's comment is right. But it is always a matter of the greatest concern to all when a life licensee commits a grave offence; yet it must be borne in mind that the vast majority settle down in the community successfully.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure that he is—that currently there are approximately 2,000 prisoners in England and Wales serving life sentences (what his noble friend would no doubt wish to call "so-called life sentences") which are mandatory in the case of murder; whereas in Holland, which has approximately a quarter of the population of this country, the number is three; and in Holland a life sentence is a maximum sentence? Is he further aware that the incidence of murder in Holland is proportionately no higher than in this country? In those circumstances does he agree that there would be merit in making a life sentence a maximum sentence to be served for very considerable periods but to be reserved for the most heinous offences rather than being mandatory as at present?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord raises some interesting points, but having listened to what he said I think that they go quite wide of the immediate Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that although the original Question is perfectly proper in seeking information, one is almost bound following the supplementaries to get into a short debate on the subject, and this is not a matter for debate at Question Time? If noble Lords wish to debate what is a very important subject, would it not be better if it was set down for debate at the proper time?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is not really a matter for me; it is more a matter for the usual channels. But I take the noble Lord's point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that these important matters should be withheld from Parliament and from the public?
Lord Glenarthur: Certainly not, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister and all your Lordships accept a protest from me that after I had made perfectly clear that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was entitled to ask the Question, as indeed would be any noble Lord, his remarks do not measure up to his usual fairness and accuracy?

Oxygen Concentrator Service
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they plan to publish their new proposals for changing the way oxygen is delivered to people with breathing difficulties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, work is proceeding as fast as possible on the introduction of an oxygen concentrator service. We hope to send out invitations to tender in the next few weeks. We will make a further announcement when arrangements have been completed and the implementation date is known.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that helpful and encouraging reply, I should like to ask whether she is aware that concentrators of American design and manufacture are not suitable to give best results on the British electrical system, while those available from EC countries are. Furthermore, is she aware that there are at least two French firms and one German firm (namely, Drage) which are currently supplying concentrators which provide oxygen at what would be the rate of cycle most beneficial to United Kingdom patients? Therefore, will she ensure that those applications receive at least special consideration?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's question of many parts, she will understand if I do not comment on particular firms, but she may be interested to know that to date 27 organisations have expressed an interest in tendering and our main consideration will be their ability to provide a complete concentrator service. We should of course be delighted if the firms offering the most cost-effective and efficient service were using United Kingdom manufactured concentrators.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, although I very much welcome the statement made by the Minister, does she agree that there have been remarkable advances in producing oxygen both cheaply and efficiently? Bearing in mind that the British Oxygen Corporation is at this stage making enormous profits at the expense of the National Health Service, will she accept that on this side of the House we would enormously appreciate the early movement forward of the documentation and tendering to which she referred?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said, and of course I agree that we shall do what he suggests.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that 50 cycles AC is standard for electrical equipment in this country and that it is 60 cycles in the United States, and that either system is sub-optimal when worked on the generating system of the other? Therefore under all circumstances British equipment should be preferred.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I noted with interest the noble Earl's remarks and I have already answered the latter part of his question.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, may I stress to my noble friend that this fact should be taken into consideration? It is understood that BOC intend to provide concentrators via an American-based firm with a design and manufacture which for the reasons I gave previously would not be so beneficial for patients.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we believe that by selecting suppliers by competitive tender on a regional basis we are introducing the maximum competition to the service at the present time while keeping our options open for the future.

Employment Act 1982: Monitoring
3.16 p.m.
Lord Rochester: 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, and if so when, they propose to publish the results of their monitoring of the action reported to have been taken by companies in introducing, maintaining and developing employee involvement in accordance with Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government are presently analysing the first reports to come within the scope of Section 1 from several hundred companies. We hope to make available the results of this analysis within the next few weeks.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that positive response to my Question. Does he recall that some disappointing conclusions have been

345
drawn by organisations concerned with industrial relations about statements on this subject that have already been included in company annual reports? In publishing the results of their monitoring, will the Government accordingly state what further action they propose to take to encourage more involvement of employees in improving the performance of their company?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have noticed that many of those who make a practice of forecasting disappointing results have their hopes dashed when the full report comes out. I hope very much that when the full report comes out we shall see what steps have been taken and at that time we shall be able to say whether anything else should be done.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that along with other noble Lords I await the report with interest and am pleased to hear that it will be forthcoming shortly? Bearing in mind that the figures just published show a further increase in unemployment by about 5,000, despite the rosy predictions of an economic recovery, would he like to tell this House how he believes those people will view the statement that he has made today?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that that is rather far from the point of the Question.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is an even greater problem in terms of "us" and "them" in the public sector of industry than in the majority of private companies? If he does, will he say whether the Government propose to take action to deal with the problem?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Question before the House refers specifically to the date of reporting on a matter which arose under Section 1 of the Employment Act. I hope in the fullness of time—and it will not be many weeks at that—we shall make a report on that. The conclusions to be drawn from it are another matter.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, since, as the Minister points out, the section is concerned with companies recording information about employee involvement, will the Government consider asking them to state whether they recognise their employees' independent trade unions? If the Government are not considering that, what other steps do they intend to take in regard to companies that refuse to recognise trade unions, in particular if they are in receipt of public contracts?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am trying very hard to confine the answers to the scope of the Question, and I think once again the noble Lord's question has gone right to another matter.

Business
3.19 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee Stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill will be taken.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Bill
3.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Development plans]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("in any such area").
The noble Baroness said: At the present time we have one national planning system. This Bill will give one system in large cities and another in the rest of the boroughs and the districts. On top of this, the Government can bring in a new system, borough by borough and district by district. Therefore it will be much more complicated. The whole matter will be full of complexities.
The amendment seeks to reduce the Secretary of State's discretion over when and where to bring the new planning system into operation, by forcing him, by statute, to bring it into force within one year of the abolition date and throughout London and the metropolitan counties at the same time. The discretion over where to introduce the system I am afraid is also equally ludicrous because it could lead to different parts of London and different parts of the metropolitan counties operating under different planning systems. Effective co-ordination would therefore be impossible and considerable confusion almost inevitable.
The introduction of the system throughout London and the metropolitan counties at the same time would minimise such occurrences. It would reduce confusion. It would also reduce costs and save a great deal of trouble and concern among many people whose plans are involved in this. The strategic view of land-use planning would be almost impossible to develop or retain if each local council prepared unitary

347
plans at different times. Co-ordination of data collection, analysis and interpretation would be lost. This is very important and would be a very great loss. Policies would be unlikely to add up to a sensible whole when considered across boroughs for the conurbations as a whole.
I must point out that this arrangement would be wholly unnecessary if a strategic planning authority were retained for each county as a whole. However, because at the moment we do not have that in the Bill, we have to try to improve it to the best of all our abilities. It would be intolerable if the already confused system of town planning proposed in the Bill were to be compounded by having different metropolitan areas subject to quite different systems of plan making.
Without the provision contained in the amendment, the Secretary of State could unreasonably delay the start of work on the new unitary plans. The unreasonable delay may not be deliberate but may be due to what goes on, the amount of work in a department and the amount of work which is now being heaped higher and higher on to the plate of the Secretary of State. It would mean that the delays could be even greater than they have been and are in the planning system at the moment, a matter on which many of us have been exercised for some considerable time. Thus there may be a delay to the start of work on the new unitary plans, without which strategic plans in the metropolitan areas would become progressively more out of date.
I do not think these amendments are of such shattering importance that they knock anything or any principle in the Bill. They are a very constructive attempt to get a better and more simple planning system within the context of the Bill as it is. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve by these amendments. I am sure she feels that she is making a constructive attempt. The Bill as drafted permits the new system of unitary plans to be introduced in different areas on different days. That is really what worries the noble Baroness—who I see is trying to rally support; perhaps with indifferent success, but that remains to be seen.
Baroness Birk: No. I was just asking my noble friend how she was today.
Lord Elton: I am sorry that it seemed to be such a saddening reply that she received!
If the amendments were accepted, all areas would be treated alike and all boroughs and districts would be obliged to begin the work of preparing a unitary development plan on the same day. Not all areas are the same, nor are all authorities at present at the same stage of the process of structure and local plan preparation. It follows that it would be unreasonable to treat them alike in the manner which the amendment proposes.
If the Committee compare, for example, Greater Manchester with Merseyside, they will see what I mean. Greater Manchester have a structure plan with proposed alterations which are well advanced and will bring their policies forward to 1991, no less. In
348
addition, local authorities in the area have 13 adopted local plans and 33 local plans at different stages of preparation. The Merseyside structure plan, on the other hand, carries forward development proposals only to 1986. There are seven adopted local plans and eight more being proposed. Surely it must be best to take these considerations into account in determining when the authorities need to begin to prepare new unitary development plans.
As the Committee will be aware, the transitional provisions in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bill provide for existing structure plans to continue in force until a commencement order is issued. They also provide for the continued preparation of local plans which will be ultimately incorporated in the new unitary development plans. In some areas, local planning authorities which are presently preparing local plans will wish to complete this work before they begin to address their minds to the new system. To abort that process, as the amendment proposes, would not lead to savings and simplicity but to delay and confusion.
Clearly, the Bill should allow for this and provide for work to continue, particularly where the authorities have local plans on deposit and local plans which have been the subject of a local public inquiry. It would equally clearly be wrong—would it not?—for us to call for new plans, as this amendment would do, where adequate plans already exist. Again, the amendments ask the local planning authorities to undertake additional and unnecessary work and not to make savings or proceed in a simplified manner.
I speak not in any contentious spirit; but I hope that I have explained to the noble Baroness that what she sees as an unequal patchwork of confusion is in fact a very flexible way of enabling us to benefit from those areas of planning which are already well advanced and not precipitately replace them; whereas we can under this system call for additional planning where it is now due. Thus, I hope the noble Baroness will not feel bound to press this amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely my noble friend the Minister has made a reasoned case for the retention of the measure of flexibility which is contained in the Bill. On those grounds it would surely be right not to queer that pitch by the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can tell the Committee what is to happen in those metropolitan county areas where the new structure plan has not received the authority of the Minister. For example, the West Yorkshire structure plan which has been with the Minister for some time has not been approved by him. It has been held up. What will happen in such areas? The structure plan has been crucial to the development of housing, industry, the preservation of the green belt and so on. Will there be a hiatus in areas such as those?
Lord Elton: No. The structure plan will remain in force until there is a commencement order.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: This is rather confusing. The metropolitan counties were established because of the difficulties of strategic planning. The idea was for

349
strategic planning to operate through a much wider area, especially in built-up areas. This was most important in order to protect green belt areas. I recall often on the town and country issue that those in the countryside did not want more of the town encroaching upon their areas for housing or other purposes. It concerns me greatly that we are now going back to the circumstances that operated previously.
The Government are saying that what the 1974 reorganisation tried to overcome should now be restored. In other words, we are recreating muddle. We shall have unitary plans from the districts with the Secretary of State trying to perform a strategic function. That seems completely contrary to what is needed. The strategic function will not be carried out by the Secretary of State. He will be much too busy. We know what will happen. The work will be done by the regional offices of the department—in other words, by a group of civil servants who will perhaps not know half as much about strategic planning as the planners already employed in the metropolitan counties.
It seems to me to be crazy that we should be changing over from what is a very good system of planning to a mish-mash, as my noble friend Lady Birk spelt out. The Minister has to recognise that if you are to protect the green belt—I am not opposed to that—it is necessary to make the best possible use of derelict land inside the metropolitan counties and so enable housing and industrial development to take place within those areas. I support what my noble friend has said in that strategic planning is perhaps one of the most important facets of protecting the green belt.
Lord Elton: I would not disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, about the preference for in-filling over the use of the green belt. I hardly feel, however, that it is germane to this question. The noble Baroness said that we were returning to the conditions that we sought to cure in 1974. On the first half of that proposition, I rely entirely on what was stated by my noble friend Lord Bellwin at the conclusion of the debate on Tuesday on the general principle. On top of what we had in 1974, we have two differences. We have the unitary plan in two parts. There is the part designed to secure the objectives of the old strategic development plan. Above that, which is unitary and in the hands of the local authority, we have the strategic guidance produced by the Secretary of State. We have talked about this a good deal. I have tried to show your Lordships that it will be simple and flexible. It will be founded upon a great deal of advice, much of it generated at local level.
I do not believe that the noble Baroness should altogether denigrate the abilities of the civil servants. In so far as she may feel they are a threat to local interests, the strategic guidance will be exposed to local consideration and advice to the Secretary of State. We are actually further on than we were before the reorganisation. That proved to be a wrong turn. We are now on the right road.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Are not these conferences purely advisory? There is nothing statutory about the advisory bodies that will advise the
350
Secretary of State. Local authorities are to be asked to join together but there is no compulsion. There is nothing in the Bill so far as I can see to say that it is a statutory requirement.
Lord Elton: If the local authorities do not wish to protect either their interests or those of their electorates, it is open to them to cut off their noses to spite their faces. I hardly think that they will do that.
Baroness Birk: My answer to what the Minister has said is, "Well, he would have to say that, wouldn't he?". He has to defend what is in the Bill even though it makes, I still maintain, for much greater confusion and more complication. My noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lady Fisher of Rednal are absolutely right. They have made out powerful cases that have not been answered by the Minister. The noble Lord said something about criticism of civil servants. That is not the point. The point is that Ministers will be overloaded with what is put on them. I do not imagine that the noble Lord or his right honourable friend are going to be able to spend a great deal of time; and even if they did spend from morning to night and did not sleep at all they would still not be able to deal personally with all the powers given them in the Bill. So of course it comes down to the civil servants—to different layers of different civil servants doing these jobs.
Once again, it is immediately exposed at the beginning of this clause how the new system will work and how unsatisfactory it will prove. I do not, however, propose to press the amendment at this stage. I should like to read carefully what the Minister has said and to find all the many other holes that I have not yet discovered to be exposed in his argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 25A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Development plans]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved].
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 74, line 8, after ("shall") insert ("jointly with the other local planning authorities in Greater London or as the case may be the metropolitan county").
The noble Baroness said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider also Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 31.

Amendment No. 28: Page 74, line 9, leave out ("their area") and insert ("Greater London or, as the case may be, the metropolitan county").

Amendment No. 29: Page 74, line 11, leave out ("may, if they think fit,") and insert ("shall jointly consider whether surveys could usefully be carried out in connection with any such matters and, if they decide that any such survey or surveys could usefully be carried out, shall").

Amendment No. 30: Page 74, line 11, leave out ("their area or any, part of their area") and insert ("Greater London or any part thereof or, as the case may be, the metropolitan county or any part thereof").

Amendment No. 31: Page 74, line 17, leave out ("of the authority") and insert ("concerned").

The Bill provides for each borough and district to look at its own area. The Government proposals mean that there will be no single organisation to produce research and information for planning in London and the "mets". There will not be one overall organisation to do this. The only provision consists of the enabling powers under Clause 86 which will enable boroughs and districts jointly to carry out research and collect information. But it would not necessarily be directly related to the needs of planning.
The amendment requires the boroughs and districts to consider what information they need and to carry out any surveys that may be required. That will go some way to maintaining the present services which are vital to the development of effective planning policies. One of the reasons for the GLC being set up was to provide a central London-wide research and information service. This is widely used by central Government, boroughs, developers, commerce and voluntary groups. The amendment would require the continuation of the service to be considered. This precise point is relevant to the metropolitan counties, where, in the different counties, they have built up equivalent services which are exercised county-wide and therefore have the benefit of the expertise of extremely experienced staff.
A strategic plan is only as good as the information upon which it is based, and in particular this should be collected according to uniform standards across the whole conurbation if policies of relevance and fairness to every part of the conurbation are to be achieved. Without the amendment the proposed unitary plans have very little chance of remaining relevant to the problems of the conurbations, and, indeed, the problems themselves will have little chance of being articulated or understood. I believe that this group of amendments really is essential to a Bill of this sort. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: These amendments propose that local planning authorities in Greater London and the metropolitan counties should act jointly to keep matters affecting the development of London and the metropolitan areas under consideration, and should make joint decisions as to whether to carry out a survey of such matters. The amendments are therefore attempting to carry forward joint working for the whole area of London and the conurbations.
I accept that these amendments fall short of making it a requirement for the local planning authorities to institute a joint survey of their area, but they would nevertheless impose an unnecessary burden on the authorities by making it a matter for a joint decision as to whether a survey should be carried out. We do not expect that, after abolition, all areas in Greater London and the metropolitan counties or the areas as a whole will necessarily require a new survey before the local planning authority can begin to prepare its unitary development plan. Not all the areas in one county will have the same amount of development plan coverage in existence at abolition date. It may be that one area had been surveyed quite recently, while another only had access to fairly limited or out-of-date data. Each borough or district, with its own experience of local issues, will be best placed to keep such matters
352
under review and to make its own decisions on the need for a new survey.
As we have previously explained, there are a few matters that need to be dealt with across borough and district boundaries—the noble Baroness is of course quite right. These will, however, be covered in the strategic guidance, which will be supported, as necessary, by appropriate factual material. The London Planning Commission and planning conferences in the metropolitan areas will be able to identify the major issues which need to be considered across an area as a whole and will provide the most appropriate focal point for collecting information on such issues.
In addition, Clause 86 of the Bill provides for research and collection of information by groups of boroughs or districts. We have also tabled amendments—in particular, Amendment No. 140A—which further strengthen the clause to provide for a lead borough to undertake research and information collection on a London or county-wide basis should the local authorities so wish. Constituent councils in each area will thus be able to make a scheme for such matters with a designated council exercising the research and information powers, subject to a two-thirds majority. The designated council will also be able to require other councils to contribute data to keep the databases up to date. Finally, the clause provides a free-standing research and intelligence power to allow smaller groups of boroughs or districts to make voluntary arrangements to collect information on matters concerning their areas quite separately from any London or countywide scheme. I am sure that the Committee will agree that these arrangements, together with the powers to institute a survey, will be more than adequate to allow councils to work both individually and together to gather information prior to preparing their individual UDPs. Indeed, I would argue that they make any such amendment as the one proposed by the noble Baroness redundant.
We are transferring functions connected with development plans, including powers for surveys, to the boroughs and districts; we are giving them powers for area-wide research and information collection; and I cannot believe that they will thank us for superimposing an additional requirement on them to undertake joint monitoring and to consider preparing joint surveys. They will be best placed to decide what is needed, and, therefore, I would urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: From listening to the noble Lord's reply, I sometimes wonder whether the noble Lord recognises how difficult it is for local authorities to get together on these matters. The boundaries are so close together in the metropolitan areas. If the noble Lord was going to the West Midlands, an area which I know very well indeed, he would not realise that he had left Birmingham and had entered Sandwell, West Bromwich or Walsall, because it is a completely built-up area. If one crosses the road, one can find oneself in another district. Therefore, because of that and the historical background of the people who live in these areas, to expect them to work

353
separately as districts and then to ask them to get together on joint ventures will not work.
The noble Lord said that there will be a lead authority, and again I use the example of the West Midlands, the area which I know best. I suppose that for a lead authority one would look to the largest authority—the authority which has the biggest population, the highest rateable value and perhaps a greater input of specialised staff. As soon as it is decided who the lead authority shall be—and presumably in the West Midlands it would be Birmingham—the other districts would immediately think that they had a big brother to make the decisions and impress the Secretary of State.
Therefore, I believe that it is very difficult to ask districts to get together under a lead authority. Whether or not it will work is open to debate. I would simply say that at present the West Midlands is experiencing great difficulty over a major road, which is quite well known to the transport Minister. The majority of the road is to pass through one district and a smaller section is to pass through a smaller district, and even the transport Minister is having difficulty getting that major road through those two local authorities in the West Midlands. Therefore, when the noble Lord asks that this should take place, is it not really pie in the sky?
Lord Hylton: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, by giving this example from Bristol and Bath, which are an almost continuous conurbation with very short gaps in between on the north bank of the River Avon. I well recall the very serious difficulty that my late father had when he was chairman of the Somerset County Council Planning Committee in getting the various then fragmented authorities ever to work together. It so happens that the new County of Avon is an ordinary county and not a metropolitan county, and therefore the planning situation will continue to be as it was in 1974, but in a rather better state. I hope that on those grounds at least the Government will have second thoughts on this matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, surely mandatory joint review does not grasp the problem which the noble Baroness seeks to expose. I agree that as regards strategic planning there is the need for a measure of co-ordination. This point was made by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross the other day, on Second Reading. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would agree that this is a matter that should be looked into. True, as my noble friend said, advice is tendered by the planning authorities to the Secretary of State; but that does not quite take the point of the need for the co-ordination of that advice on strategic planning. Or does it? I do not know, but would this not go some way to meet the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is making? With the utmost respect to her, does this amendment of mandatory joint review really meet the point? I am not trying to take a debating point; I am merely asking.
Lord Shinwell: Without discussing the merits of the issue before the Committee—I confess that I am not
354
competent to undertake that task—I must say that I have listened to much of the debate. What I have failed to listen to I have read, usually through the night. I have read practically every word uttered by Members of your Lordships in Committee and in the other stages, so I have a fair idea of what is happening. My conclusion—I think it is a conclusion—is that no matter what the Opposition may say about various features of this legislation, the Government do not intend to yield a single inch.
We have had an example already this afternoon: an amendment was moved and it had to be withdrawn. The second amendment has been moved and is supported by a noble Baroness on this side of the Committee and a noble Lord on the Cross-Benches—I presume therefore completely independent and not subject to any party discipline, which is very useful on occasion (I mean the absence of it)—and also by one of the most able legal experts in the Chamber on the other side, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Now I am fairly certain—in fact I am prepared to take a chance and put a bet on it, although not too high as I cannot afford it, it might be a loser—that the Government are not going to yield an inch on this issue. They will find some sort of argument. They have probably consulted their advisers and have been told, "Don't give way". At the end of the discussion my noble friend Lady Birk will then, in the usual fashion, somewhat reluctantly rise and say, "I withdraw the amendment". Well, I dislike that intensely.
Lord Elton: Would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Shinwell: Yes, certainly.
Lord Elton: I trespass on the noble Lord's intervention with greater hesitation than I would on almost anybody else. He has been longer in Parliament and in this world than I have been or am ever likely to be. But in this matter and in this Committee I think the noble Lord may have things just a little out of focus.
We are actually out of order because we are not now discussing the amendment but discussing the general proceedings. However, if I may follow the noble Lord for a moment in that direction, there were yesterday 141 amendments which had been put down on the Marshalled List, and there are now additions. I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect us to deal with all those amendments in a spirit of charity and yield them all to the Opposition on a points basis that having been beaten once, they ought to be given some to make them happy or none because they should not be yielded.
We have to discuss the issues on the merits. The issues are complicated, and my noble friend addressed them extremely competently. I ask the Committee to continue to address each amendment on its merits and not to look at a sort of tally board because I cannot tell when the concessions we are able to make might strike. If they were all on the last day the noble Lord would be in apoplexy before we got there.
Lord Shinwell: So far I have endured, or tolerated, a very substantial intervention. In ordinary

355
circumstances, I might regard it as being offensive with regard to the sort of action I might undertake. I cannot agree with what the noble Minister has just said, that we have a great many issues involved and one cannot deal with every aspect of them. This is important legislation. It affects the whole future administration of London and the conurbation associated with London.
Of course it is very important, whatever views may be held—biased views, views based on prejudice, views based on whether one would support the Government on occasion or sometimes offer an opinion rather adverse to the Government's proposals. We have that all to consider.
If we are now going to go through the Committee stage, the Report stage, Third Reading and so on, and we are going to be in a situation that amendments are moved and always withdrawn, then I am going to make a suggestion to my noble friends, if I may. I hope that they do not mind if I make this suggestion: if the Government adopt this attitude—and it looks as though they are going to continue with it—we should divide on every issue involved. That would not mean that I would be involved in every one of the debates because I would not be staying; but at any rate I would be reading—as I have already informed the Committee—the debates and watching who is voting on one side or the other, and come to my conclusions accordingly.
No, this sort of thing will not do. This is very important legislation affecting the whole future of London's administration, and it will probably affect the whole country in due course. Therefore one side or the other has to decide or the Government will not give way on anything. If they obviously are not going to give way on anything then we have to divide against them and make the position clear.
I was waiting for my noble opponent—I was about to say "friend" but I dare not say that—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to get up and say something about it. I know where he stands. He stands on the side of the Government no matter what happens. No question of debate about it; no question of argument; no question of discussing the issues step by step and sentence by sentence. He makes up his mind about the issues. He is on the side of the Government, and he knows what he intends to do. I know that he will get up shortly and try to make a mess of what I have been saying. Let me assure him that he cannot make a mess of it because what I have been saying is right.
I am advising the Opposition what to do. Fight the other side occasionally, and more particularly when we have, as we have just had, opposition on one side, and on both sides a certain measure of opposition which is indicative of the kind of general opinion that exists in the Committee. Let us take advantage of that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: For the sake of the record as my name was mentioned, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, misunderstood. I opposed the amendment. The noble Baroness will confirm that I opposed the amendment, but I did go with her in another direction. I did not want to be misunderstood at a later stage. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to say that.
Baroness Lockwood: I hope that the Minister will take note of what his noble friend has said. It is important that there should be as much liaison as possible on this whole question. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not really reply to my previous intervention. I was referring to the updating of the West Yorkshire structure plan, which is still with the Minister and which is awaiting ministerial approval. It has been with him since last summer.
That particular structure plan has the wholehearted support of all the districts within the metropolitan county area. Nevertheless, it is quite significant that there have been problems in the past. One of the problems, for instance, on the development of the industrial infrastructure came from the authority which is likely, or would be likely, to be the lead authority in West Yorkshire if his proposals were carried through.
4 p.m.
The point that I would make to him—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not here to hear me make this point—is that a couple of days ago the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred to some of the Labour councillors in districts in West Yorkshire who had indicated to him that the districts wanted to go ahead and they could carry out some of these functions. All I would say in response to that is that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, obviously lends his ear to Labour councillors with whom I do not come into contact. The fact is that they are all behind West Yorkshire in the development of the structure plans, but we do need a framework in which we can continue with these structure plans if this Bill goes through. If the Minister cannot accept my noble friend's amendment, then I hope that at least he will listen to what his noble friend has said and perhaps come back to it.
Lord Elton: We have strayed so far from Amendment No. 27 that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take 30 seconds to reply to an earlier point that the noble Baroness has put to me. Of course, she is aware that the West Yorkshire structure plan is at present under consideration by my right honourable friend for the use of his powers under the paving Act. That is not an unreasonable consideration given that the original structure plans took several years to develop. The Greater London development plan took seven years to develop, being based on earlier work. To come to a conclusion between the putting forward of the proposals there and the abolition date is a fairly tall order. I cannot yet tell her, of course, what my right honourable friend will conclude. I suggest that we now return to Amendment No. 27.
Lord Skelmersdale: If I may be allowed to answer some of the points that have been raised in this short debate, the first thing I should like to say on the amendment as it stands on the Order Paper—this is probably an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—is that if it was within the principle of the Bill and made things better we would of course take it away, consider it, and, in other words, accept it in principle; but from my earlier comments the Committee will realise that I do not think this

357
amendment falls into that category. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, was worried about the districts, especially in the West Midlands, getting their act together. She did not actually use those words, but that is what she meant. There are two points here.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The point is that it is got together. The West Midlands county has got the act together. What you are going to do is try to smash it all up. That is the point of it.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, if it has got itself together does it really need the metropolitan county of the West Midlands to keep it together? This really should be the argument.
If I may again return to the various points that I had noted, before the 1974 reorganisation local planning authorities were in general very much smaller than those which were created under the 1972 Act. In round terms, some 1,200 authorities were reduced to just over 400. The metropolitan district councils and London borough councils are as large as most of the most powerful pre-1974 authorities, the county boroughs, were; in other words, if we talk about what happened in the pre-1972–74 period in local government in metropolitan areas this is no guide to what may or may not happen post the operation of this Bill.
The other thing which I think has confused the Committee is the exact role of the districts in all this. The Government and the Secretary of State are not imposing the decision on the districts. It is for them with their own local knowledge—which the Government have not got and (let us face it) never would have—to make the decision for their own people.
Baroness Birk: I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Shinwell for his very encouraging intervention, and also for the way in which he has pinpointed the Government's obduracy about this Bill. I am thinking now of its passage through the Commons. We have not yet got very far with it here. The signs so far are not very bright, but of course the Government could put all that right by showing much more flexibility and give. I hope that the very wise words of my very experienced noble friend Lord Shinwell may encourage the Government to be a little more flexible in their approach, particularly when these are really practical matters. We are not talking about what they may consider to be points of political principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, drew attention to the Government amendment, Amendment No. 140A. That is no substitute for what I had put down in this amendment. The Government amendment only allows the collection of research and information if two-thirds of the boroughs agree; and again they want a lead council. They are using this quite amazing anachronistic method which runs through the whole Bill of hoping that they would get the boroughs together—which is very unlikely—and then making it contingent on the two-thirds, and then having a lead borough. This is all pie in the sky. No; it is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. He may be a very clever
358
young man, but he had not had the experience of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, who, on speaking on an amendment—
Lord Skelmersdale: If I may rise to that, I freely accept that particular charge.
Baroness Birk: I said he is a clever young man; I did not say he is not. I said he is a clever young man but not as experienced as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. I do not want to upset him; and I did not say anything critical.
The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, on an amendment on which he was joined by the noble Baroness. Lady Stedman, and myself, made these points so well from his immense experience—being one of the most distinguished town planners in the country, if not the most distinguished—when he gave examples and spoke, quite frankly far more in sorrow than in anger, about how boroughs do not co-operate together and will not do so. He gave example after example of that. That is what the Government are relying on in their amendment which does not meet the same point at all. The noble Lord said they would take it away and consider it if they thought there was anything in it. I shall return to that in a moment.
They then said to my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal, who I felt made an excellent intervention on this particular amendment, that they should get it together. The whole point is that she was absolutely right when she said they had got it together on a county-wide basis. What the Government are doing is reversing that; the Government are undoing it all. She was right when she said it was got together. The noble Lord was quite wrong when he said, "Well, if they've got it together now…"
I now come to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I quite took his point. I quite understood that he was not supporting my particular amendment but he thought there was a point there. I am going to put it to the Govenrment that if there is a point which has been defined by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, (who is a noble friend of theirs; so it is not just an opposition view) then I think the least the Government can do is to take the amendment back and look at it again. I can quite understand the point about accepting the amendment as it is, but when somebody—again on their own side—with that experience and knowledge has raised this point, if the Government will not consider that, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would certainly win his bet—I wish he had made one—on that. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will consider that and let me know.
Lord Skelmersdale: Certainly my noble friend made a valuable contribution to this debate; but he said, as I understood him, that he did not consider this amendment to be the right approach. I am perfectly prepared to speak with him at a later stage, and indeed with the noble Baroness, as to what the right approach should be.
Baroness Birk: I am a little worried about the way the Minister put that. He is saying: "All right; the amendment is not the right amendment, the Government think that, and so does the noble Lord

359
who commented on it". But if the Government want to try to do something with this Bill—a wretched Bill I would call it, a good Bill they would call it, but never mind the adjectives—I should have thought the reaction would have been immediately: "No; as we have explained, we do not accept that amendment, but if there is a point to be raised we will take it and look at it". I should have thought that they could do that rather less grudgingly than they have.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I seek to assist? This is not my point, but a point made by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. With respect, I think he is right. It is a decision whether something more is needed to provide the requisite measure of co-operation. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to say that he will look at that question (that is all) which is worrying the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and, without commitment, will take it back. There are other stages in the Bill, and would that not be of assistance to the Committee?
Lord Elton: I think the picture is clearing. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross drew your Lordships' attention to a point which we discussed at some length rather later on Tuesday on an amendment by my noble friend Lord Sandford which was about how one gets a proper corpus of opinion in an area so that it can be brought to bear upon all the planning decisions within it. I have already undertaken that we will consider that. IfI were to suggest to the noble Baroness that in our consideration we might come up with something like the statutory requirement of rather narrow confines which she put in her amendment, I should be misleading your Lordships and the Committee.
I am content to say that we will consider, and in fact are considering, the basic principle advanced by my noble friend Lord Sandford, as I said two days ago that we would. I hope the noble Baroness finds that helpful. It would not be right for me to try to curry the regard of the Opposition by leading them to expect that the answer would be exactly what they propose, but we are considering the general principle.
Lord Sandford: If, when the noble Baroness replies, she could tell the Committee what progress, if any, she has made since we had that debate in persuading her colleagues in the AMA to come to join us in this discussion, we would be making progress.
Baroness Birk: I will do that as well. We will all get together on the ADC. If I understood from what the Minister was saying that he will take it back and consider it, I am content about that. I accept that he is not accepting the amendment as it is, but if we can achieve some improvement, even if it is on a slightly varied point, that at least is making a little progress. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 32:
Page 74, line 40, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall produce strategic guidance for the whole of London or the metropolitan counties as the case may be and in so preparing this guidance he shall

(i) consult with London borough councils, metropolitan district councils, the county councils adjoining Greater London or the metropolitan counties as appropriate and their constituent district councils, the local authority associations, the London and South East Regional planning Council, London Regional Transport or passenger transport authorities as appropriate, business and professional associations, local and voluntary organisations and others as he thinks fit; and

(ii) hold an examination in public into that guidance.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 32 is very similar to an amendment that will come before us shortly in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson—Amendment No. 34. They both seek to ensure a system of strategic guidance and they both seek to ensure that there will be wide consultation. I think that the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord is possibly more acceptable and is probably less clumsy than Amendment No. 32. Therefore, to save the time of the Committee I shall not say any more on Amendment No. 32 and I shall listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has to say when we reach his Amendment No. 34.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 75, line 6, after ("traffic") insert ("and shall be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum summarising the reasons which in the opinion of the local planning authority justify each and every policy and general proposal formulated in the plan, stating the relationship thereof to any strategic guidance given by the Secretary of State, expected development and other use of land in neighbouring areas where relevant and containing such other matters as may be prescribed; and the explanatory memorandum may contain such illustrative material as the local planning authority think appropriate;").
The noble Baroness said: I was wondering whether I could take advantage of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, to see whether the Government were likely to "give" on this amendment, but I had better not risk my chances on it and deal with it as I had originally intended. It is a probing amendment to try to find out a little more about the Secretary of State's guidance. We believe that this amendment has the advantage of making the guidance that has to be given by the Secretary of State much more open to public scrutiny, because it means that if a local authority includes a policy in its unitary plan directly to meet the wishes of the Secretary of State then the source of that policy ought to be clearly identified in an explanatory memorandum. It means that policies resulting from commitments already made, like planning permissions granted, or policies that are contained within an adjoining authority's unitary plan, would also be explained in some detail. It brings into the open any conflict between the local planning authority and the Secretary of State or a conflict between two local planning authorities. It can also highlight instances where the local planning authority is adopting policies which are in conflict with the proposals which have come forward as a result of the structure plan.
I had assumed that the Government intended that Part I of this new style of unitary development plan would have the same or equivalent status to the structure plans that are currently prepared by the county planning authorities elsewhere in the country. That means that the other 38 county authorities in England and a further eight councils in Wales are all unaffected by this Bill, and they are required by Section 6A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to prepare such an explanatory memorandum to accompany their structure plans, which inter alia justify each and every policy and general proposal formulated in the plan. Section 6A was not included in the original 1971 Act, but it was added recently in 1980 by an amendment to Schedule 14 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—long remembered for as many long nights as we shall have on this Bill. The Government clearly thought it important, then, that we should have that explanatory memorandum to accompany the structure plans as recently as 1980. So it is difficult to understand why they have made no provision in this current Local Government Bill for a similar provision to apply to the new-style unitary development plans.
In this amendment we are seeking to standardise the position in the metropolitan areas affected by the Bill and the other county authorities elsewhere in the country which are preparing their structure plans. But there is one important addition which we have included in this amendment; that is, in justifying each and every proposal in Part I of the unitary development plan local authorities will need to state, as we say:
"the relationship thereof to any strategic guidance given by the Secretary of State".
The Secretary of State's strategic guidance is going to assume a crucial importance in the planning in the metropolitan areas and the surrounding towns and countryside. It is the strategic framework within which the 33 London boroughs and the 36 metropolitan districts and boroughs will have to prepare their plans.
It is difficult enough to know how all these plans can add up to a metropolitan-wide strategic planning framework, but if the Government intend that these plans should add up eventually to a conurbation-wide framework, then this amendment, if accepted by the Government, would at the very least ensure that local authorities are required to justify each and every proposal in their plans in relation to the wider guidance from the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I want to say only a word or two on this amendment. I think that it may raise an important issue and certainly one on which I believe the Committee would like to have some information from my noble friends on the Front Bench, not only for the purposes of considering whether this is practicable in the formulation that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has put forward but also in preparation for dealing with my noble friend Lord Molson's amendment, so that we may know whether the suggestion that he is making is practicable as an alternative—perhaps.
It really relates to the question of what the strategic guidance is going to be. If one or the other of my noble
362
friends could give an indication of the type of thing that the Government have in mind by way of strategic guidance, then I think that those who are familiar with the way in which structure plans and Part I of the unitary development plan are normally handled under the procedures that have been built up since 1968 will know whether either of these two suggestions is apposite and practical.
I can very well imagine—and I think that my noble friend Lord Elton said something about this the other day—that the strategic guidance may take the form, at least in part, of circulars. If it does, then the circulars, I suppose, could take one of two forms. They could be circulars which are, as it were, nation-wide; they could apply to the whole of England and Wales, as circulars normally do; and the Welsh Office, of course, puts out a similar one for Wales. In that case it is less likely, I should have thought, that within the context of a particular unitary development Part I, one would wish to go into quite the detail that the noble Baroness has indicated and even less likely that one would want to make statutory provision for representations, public inquiries and so on.
If, on the other hand, the strategic guidance is going to be directed more towards the specific areas at the present moment constituted by the seven local authorities, the metropolitan counties, which are going to be abolished by this Bill (and will differ one from the other, for that reason) then it may well be that we ought to adopt a procedure which at the moment does not exist under the Town and Country Planning Acts; and one or other of these suggestions may be a helpful route on the basis of which we can move towards a satisfactory conclusion. I therefore hope that my noble friend will take an early opportunity of telling the Committee as much as he can about the form which the strategic guidance will take and how it will affect the various differing problems, as I apprehend them to be, of the different metropolitan areas.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend for that opportunity. I shall leave the conduct of the main argument in my noble friend's capable hands but I think that this information is perhaps proper to introduce at this time so that your Lordships can discuss it properly. Strategic guidance is listed in paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 1 as one of the matters to which a local planning authority must have regard in formulating the general policies in Part I of its unitary development plan. I fear that there may have been some misunderstanding arising from misconceptions about the nature of this guidance.
It is not analogous to the regional plans prepared in the 1960s; it is not analogous to the Greater London development plan and it is not analogous to a structure plan for the area. In particular, I must emphasise that it is not intended to take the place of a structure plan; it is intended to do no more than assist the local planning authorities in preparing the individual, structural part—the Part I, in other words—of their UDPs. If I refer to unitary development plans in future as UDPs, your Lordships will know what I mean.
This means that the guidance will deal particularly with issues that cover more than one borough or one district, how they might be handled and how any conflicting views of neighbouring authorities might be

363
resolved. That is an area of interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. I must emphasise, nonetheless, that it will be couched in general terms. It will not look like the average structure plan or the Greater London development plan which noble Lords may have seen; it will certainly not contain the fine detail of policy which is usually contained in a structure plan. That will be for Part I of the UDP.
As my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has already said, strategic guidance is not a new phenomenon. In fact, he has chosen exactly the right illustration for what we intend. Recent examples include the Secretary of State's letter on south-east regional guidance, which was issued in August 1980, and the letter of March 1984 on the implications of the M.25 for land use planning. Both these documents, which I can place in the Library if your Lordships wish, are short and general. Although the content will vary, this is very much how we shall expect the guidance for the UDPs to look.
I may say in conclusion that it will relate to each area or part of an area and many will deal with only a limited number of issues. Therefore, we are looking at something a good deal less complex and slender than anything that could be seen as a strategic plan. I hope that your Lordships and the noble Baroness, in considering how to handle them, will make sure that what they propose is not too elaborate; because it seems to me that where you want to be detailed, painstaking and elaborate is when you get to the local level, the top half of the UDP and the local plans, which of course ought to be tested in the local environment.
Baroness Birk: I wonder if I may support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I think that she herself acknowledged that it is not a very weighty amendment, but it is a very useful one, as I see it. I think that really it is on a rather different point from that dealt with in the next amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. It strikes me as having the advantage of making the Secretary of State's guidance more open to public scrutiny but it proposes that local authorities not only have regard to such guidance in the preparation of plans but also have to state in the explanatory memorandum how such guidance has influenced the formulation of policy.
I think that both would be acceptable but I find them really rather different. I do not think that they are on exactly the same point. They are both talking about guidance. I hope that the Minister will accept this minor but useful amendment which paves the way to our discussion on the next amendment.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether, before the noble Baroness says what she is going to do about her amendment, I may add a word or two to supplement what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said about the state of regional planning at the moment. Any Member of the Committee who took advantage of what I said on Tuesday about papers from SERPLAN being available in the Library will be able to see from RPC 11 that what my noble friend Lord Elton has just said is indeed the case in respect of the kind of guidance which is currently being issued by the
364
Secretary of State and to a large extent prepared for him by the standing conference. That is guidance which, as my noble friend has said, can be, as it were, fairly light, because it has been prepared with the assistance of the Greater London Council, which is the strategic planning authority for Greater London. The judgment to which the Committee has to come is whether it will be possible to continue with guidance of that character only when we are dealing with 32 London boroughs whose separate views of their particular segment of the whole greater London area have to be brought into coherence; and it is quite clear that the guidance is going to be of a different character and will have to be firm. It is the extent to which it is more firm and more specific that brings into question all the issues which are to be raised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moslon. I thought it would be helpful if I added that comment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may make a very brief intervention which has nothing to do with planning law. Just imagine if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, or my noble friend Lord Renton were in their places: they would be saying—would they not?—that it is wrong to put into a statute words such as this, words of guidance which have no legal enforceability. I merely draw that, with respect, to your Lordships' attention because as a rule it is generally unacceptable.
Lord Broxbourne: Further to the point made just now by my noble friend, can my noble friend the Minister give some indication in his reply of the provenance and status of the term "strategic guidance"? I do not recall it in planning or local government law and certainly a strategic authority is not a term of art in local government or planning law. If any of your Lordships from the inexhaustible quarry of your collective wisdom can show some precedent or place in which this term has been used in a statute I shall of course unhesitatingly accept it; but it would be interesting to know because it is unusual, to say the least, as my noble friend has just indicated, to incorporate into a statute novel words without any definition of their status or what they are supposed to mean.
Lord Somers: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised that question because it is something I have wondered about in relation to every statute that we seem to have passed in this House.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope I shall be able to respond to that particular point raised by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne in a minute, but for a moment perhaps I may turn to the amendment proper. This amendment concerns the contents of the unitary development plan and seeks to add to the list set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 a requirement for an explanatory memorandum in respect of Part 1 of the plan. There is no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has a point here and I am sure that the intention of her amendment is to ensure that the thinking behind the policies in Part I of the UDP can be understood by all those who might make use, or have cause to comment on, the plan—the general public, local planning

365
officers, developers and the Secretary of State himself. There seems to be a particular concern that it should be made clear how the local planning authority's plan has interpreted the Secretary of State's strategic guidance. This term "strategic guidance" has not been used in statute before but, as my noble friend Lord Elton has said, there are some familiar examples.
I am not a lawyer and whether it needs to be structurally defined, if I may use that expression, I do not know, but I am perfectly willing to take advice on the point. It is desirable that the reasons behind the proposed policies should be understood. We had in mind to propose something further for the regulations; however, although I do not think that this amendment, as tabled, is the best way to achieve these ends, I am very ready to consider whether something should be included in the Bill.
The UDP system follows as closely as possible the model of the existing local plan system, and, where elements of both the structure and local plan system had to be consolidated, it was necessary to choose whichever precedent was the most appropriate. In the case of explanatory material, the choice was between the explanatory memorandum of the structure plan system and the reasoned justification and illustrative material of the local plan system. It did not and does not seem necessary to have both. This would be confusing to all concerned and would, of course, add extra work to the authorities' load. We therefore provided in the Bill that there should be a reasoned justification for both Part I and Part II of the UDP. It may well be that the best way forward is to build on this approach.
As I have said, paragraph 2(2)(b) (iii) requires Part II of a UDP to contain a reasoned justification of the policies in Part I, the intention being that it would perform the same function as an explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2(2)(b) (iv) already enables the local planning authority to include as much illustrative or descriptive material as it wishes. We will of course be making regulations on the more detailed aspects of the UDP system; and they may well provide an opportunity to expand on the contents of the reasoned justification.
I sometimes think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, speaks a different kind of English from that which I use, and, if so, the fault will be on my side. I hope, however, that I have made it crystal clear that we shall consider the point, and consider it properly and fully, and that, on that understanding, the noble Baroness Lady Stedman will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Now that my noble friend has helped us in explaining to us what the strategic guidance is going to be, before the noble Baroness decides what to do with her amendment, I believe she now has a point which requires my noble friends on the Front Bench to give some further consideration to what is going to happen. As I understand it—and let us take an example from outside London for the moment—there will be or is likely to be, a document or letter, probably one which has not yet come into existence, which will relate, for
366
the sake of argument, to the strategic guidance for Merseyside. I see the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, present and he would be very interested in any such document. Now, the various district councils on Merseyside will in due course set about preparing the Part Is of their unitary development plan and these will come forward, probably not all together but one by one in accordance with the speed at which the local planning authority happens to work. Some of them may have an easier task than others.
In those Part Is of the unitary development plans there will be reflected the strategic guidance given for Merseyside in so far as it relates to the borough in question. It cannot go very much further because the unitary development plan will only relate to that borough; but it will be reflected in the general policies and it will be reflected in the explanatory material that goes with the detailed policies that the Secretary of State will eventually decide whether or not to confirm.
What seems to me to be the problem is that the very first of these UDPs that comes forward, Part I, will incorporate, in a form that is available for the normal statutory processes, so much of the strategic guidance for, to continue with my example, Merseyside as is relevant to the first borough that brings it forward. Therefore, it will be possible for members of the public to object to Part I of that unitary development plan on the grounds that, among other things, they do not like some of the material in the strategic guidance; and it will be the first opportunity for them to do so.
It will of course be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to hold an examination in public, but, if he does, it seems to me that candidates for consideration at such an examination in public on this first occasion would undoubtedly include the issues which relate to parts of the strategic guidance to which objection is made. Now, what happens to all the other boroughs on Merseyside while that is going on, as they try to prepare their unitary development plans?—because, until a decision is taken on the first one, as to whether or not the strategic guidance as therein reflected is going to be upheld by the Secretary of State or whether he is going to modify it as a result of the objections, nobody else will be able to make any further progress at all and the entire operation of preparing the Part Is and unitary development plans for all the other district councils affected will grind to a halt.
I know that examinations in public need not take anything like as long as the old-style inquiries into development plans, which went on for months and months, if not for years and years. Nevertheless, I do think that the Government ought to try to explain to the Committee even if not today, at some later stage—because this is certainly a point which I suggest they ought to take into account—how this is going to work in practice. It must be right, that, in one form or another, this local strategic guidance (for that is what it is now going to be) is susceptible of some form of inquiry, of some form of examination in public, of some form of objection and, as a result, of some form of ratification or modification by the Secretary of State. I rather fear for the delays that will ensue if the scene that I have set is indeed a correct one.
Lord Skelmersdale: It seems that the Committee are at one on this point and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville for, as it were, giving us guidance on the consideration of this matter. Of course we will consider very carefully what he has said in his speech and probably—although I cannot actually promise this—use it as the basis for our consideration of the point raised in the noble Baroness's amendment. I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to say that we have powers already to synchronise the preparation of plans, where necessary, by the simultaneous commencement order procedure which is in the Bill and concurrent local plan inquiries. If necessary, the Secretary of State may call in neighbouring Part Is of UDPs and hold an examination in public. I hope that that will also be helpful to the Committee.
Baroness Stedman: I am most grateful to the noble Lord and also to the other speakers who have intervened, and particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I am also rather surprised and shaken that the Government Front Bench have said that they will take this back and look at it. They obviously think that we have a point in this amendment, which I thought was quite a modest one. I certainly do not claim to be a parliamentary draftsman, and perhaps strategic plans are not things which are normally included; but I should think the parliamentary draftsmen could probably get round that if it was felt necessary to have it in. In the light of the assurances given and the points which were raised by the noble Viscount, and because this was only intended to be a probing amendment, I would beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness is giving us more and more cause for gratitude. If I may just put this on the record, I will read the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colville with very great care. It may be that he said something which made it look as though the strategic guidance did not precede the preparation of the UDP. I did not actually catch that, but it is clear that we are at one in our understanding that this comes first. I beg your Lordships' pardon. I am increasingly grateful—embarrassingly so—to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Stedman: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molson Lord Molson moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 75, line 46, at end insert—
(" ( ) When preparing any strategic guidance for an area the Secretary of State before finally determining its content shall take such steps as will in his opinion secure—

(a) that adequate publicity is given in the area affected by the guidance to the matters which are proposed to be included within that guidance;

(b) that persons who may be expected to desire an opportunity of making representations to the Secretary of State with respect to those matters are made aware that they are entitled to an opportunity of doing so;

(c) that such persons are given an adequate opportunity of making such representations;

(d) that persons whose representations are so made and are not withdrawn are afforded an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and

368

(e) that if a local inquiry or other hearing is held, a like opportunity is also afforded to the local planning authority and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.").

The noble Lord said: We have had a good many rather complicated arguments about the whole of this matter, and I can only hope that in the amendment I am going to move it will be possible to get a somewhat clearer view than we have at the present time as to what is the intention of the Government and how it is going to be worked out. I am, however, greatly encouraged by the obvious sympathy with which Government Ministers are prepared to consider exactly how these matters are going to be evolved. The gist of my amendment is that before they commit themselves to guidance they should take reasonable precautions to enable all those who are going to be affected by the guidance, when it is issued, to express their views.
4.45 p.m.
In Tuesday's debate Ministers made it clear that the Secretary of State is eager to accept responsibility for co-ordinating the 69 unitary development plans which London boroughs and district councils will be obliged by this Bill to prepare. It is an immense task, involving fairly thorough familiarity with the various problems of various areas. This is not easily available to officials in Marsham Street, or even necessarily to officials in regional offices. They will, in accordance with the philosophy of this Bill, have to draft with understanding the guidance which is going to be issued under Schedule 1, paragraph 4. How far this will be general and how far it will be detailed we do not yet know: that was the penetrating point which was put, as I understood it, by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. The nature of it will obviously be of the utmost importance in considering how this Bill is going to work.
The strategic advice given will vary very much in various areas. That was made plain by my right honourable friend the Minister, speaking in Committee in the other place on 22nd January at col. 473 of Hansard, when he said:
"I expect the guidance issued for different areas to vary. That for London will be of a different character from that for, say, Tyne and Wear, where the scale and nature of the problems are different. Indeed, the guidance may be minimal or limited to only a few subjects".
I make no complaint about that; it is only sensible. However, it does illustrate the complexity of the task the Secretary of State is undertaking in co-ordinating 69 unitary development plans. It would surely be wise and prudent for him to seek local advice before he publishes his strategic guidance. That will obviously go far to conciliate the public and also the authorities representing them, and will avoid to a large extent the danger of appeals at a later stage. This will be particularly important when the problems relate to several districts, as Ministers have led us to believe they normally will. Here I quote again from the Minister, in the same column, because it slightly puzzles me. He said:
"The guidance will indicate the matters that the Secretary of State advises should be covered by the structural part of each unitary plan and his view, where he has one, of how matters might best be resolved where there are differences of view. It will be of particular relevance where issues affect more than one local authority."
That is the end of the quotation, and I interpose here to say that presumably in almost every case the guidance issued will be of a general nature, covering a considerable area and several districts. Here let me recall the opinion that I quoted on Tuesday of the Association of County Councils, which said:
"As county planning authorities, [we] are deeply concerned at the prospect of fragmentation of responsibility for strategic planning within the metropolitan areas".
Therefore I naturally assume that, before issuing guidance, among those who are consulted will necessarily be the county councils in the adjoining shires.
On Tuesday, a Minister said that the amendment that I moved on behalf of my noble friends was a wrecking amendment. That was an accusation that I did, and do, repudiate. In any case, the Government cannot possibly say that about this amendment. This is accepting the policy that they are putting forward and trying to make sure that it will operate easily and not arouse undue difficulty as between one area and another. If they do not accept it, I imagine that they are likely to resort to an argument that I have very often heard used in both Houses in connection with a great many different subjects. They may well say that any wise Secretary of State would undertake these consultations and give opportunities for interested parties to make known their views in the ways indicated in my amendment.
The Government may then ask: why include it in the Bill? My reply is: why not include it in the Bill? When powers are being given by Parliament, even if, as my noble friend Lord Colville has pointed out, they are not entirely novel, it is surely proper for Parliament to indicate to the executive how it expects those restrictions that it is empowered to impose to be exercised. Therefore this is a friendly amendment. I am much encouraged by what has already dropped from noble friends of mine on the Front Bench. I admit that in these very complex matters I have not wholly taken in all the exact problems that are raised. Even my noble friend Lord Colville, who is such a master of the intricate law of planning, has indicated that he is not clear as to exactly what the Government have in mind. I understood him to say that he thought that there was such a considerable difference between issuing guidance on the broadest lines, and on what may be the more detailed lines which will be required under the provisions of this Bill, that that ought to be given further consideration.
I say that the guidance will have to be more detailed for this reason. If each district is to prepare a unitary development plan in two parts, the first setting out general principles and the second developing them in detail, then quite clearly it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to give far more detailed guidance to those 69 unitary authorities than has been the case in the past when there has been an intervening strategic authority—
Lord Elton: I wish to be helpful, and if my noble friend does not wish me to intervene I shall instantly yield. It is simply on this question of the 69 plans all being required at once. The provisions in the Bill allow for those plans which need to be considered together to
370
be considered together. There are areas where there will be only three or four and there are others where the number will be larger. But I would not expect them to be 69. If my noble friend is thinking that they will all fall to be considered together, I merely wish to relieve his anxiety on that aspect. I shall reply to his other points later.
Lord Molson: I did not really mean that, and I wholly accept it. I know that the Bill provides that they may be dealt with at different times. I also know from discussions with my noble friend Lord Colville that there are some parts of the country where things are sufficiently well arranged and planned at the present time for there to be no urgent need about it. But it remains the fact that the whole structure of this Bill requires that there shall be 69 unitary development plans. Some of them will impinge upon each other and others will not. But to a greater or lesser extent it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to bring into his purview the range and effect of each one of those 69 unitary plans. Frequently he may say, "This does not impinge upon another one and can go ahead". But the fact remains that under the structure of this Bill, where the Secretary of State is taken as the strategic authority, he is ultimately responsible for giving guidance in the drafting of Part I of each one of the unitary plans to each one of the 69 authorities.
I hope that I shall have from the Government both an informative and a sympathetic reply. I am fortified in putting forward this amendment. I do so not simply on my own negligible knowledge of this difficult subject. It is supported by the Confederation of British Industry, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. As such, I think it is undoubtedly deserving of the careful attention, and, I trope, the sympathetic consideration, of Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I should like to give this amendment my wholehearted support. One of its most important features is the fact that, as the noble Lord has just said, it allows for individual parties to present their own opinion. We work in this country on what is known as the democratic principle, which of course means that the public shall have a chance of expressing their opinion. I must confess that on looking round at the machinations of Parliament I have sometimes been tempted to think that that means precisely nothing at all. But there it is. We have the principle and we must abide by it, and surely this amendment very much reinforces that in that interested parties will be able to object and also to give their advice, which is very valuable. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I may make just a brief comment here. The matter to which my noble friend's amendment is addressed is one to which the Standing Conference for London and South-East Regional Planning has already addressed its mind and on which it wrote back in October to the Minister of State for Local Government. By way of a preliminary, I want to endorse completely what my noble friend Lord Colville said: namely, that the judgment in this

371
matter depends entirely on the kind of guidance which the Secretary of State will be issuing. But the opinion of the standing conference was as follows. Remember, my Lords, that the standing conference consists of the 12 Home Counties, each of which are structure planning authorities, the 32 London boroughs, which are the boroughs which will be charged with producing these unitary development plans, and the 98 districts in the Home Counties, whose job it is to give effect to strategic planning all over the Home Counties and in the London green belt on the basis of the structure plans produced for London and the Home Counties.
5 p.m.
Its opinion, which was endorsed by the members—that is to say, the chairmen of the planning committees concerned—is this:
"It has become clear that the principal effect of the proposals so far as planning is concerned would be to make the Secretary of State the strategic planning authority for Greater London but without the obligation to prepare an overall structure plan and subject it to formal and detailed scrutiny through an examination in public. This would be an outcome which the conference would deplore".
Perhaps I may add a further point by way of comment. If the Secretary of State is to have the powers, the exercise of them should be subject to the same constraints as are imposed on other planning authorities. That is the whole object of my noble friend's amendment.
The final comment I wish to make is that it may well be the view of the Government that the whole process of the examination of structure plans in public has become too time-consuming, imposes too many delays and is altogether too elaborate. This may well be so, but in that case, if it has become so elaborate that the Secretary of State is not going to be bound by these requirements and restrictions, then they have to be lifted and lightened for all structure planning authorities all over the country. I hope that the Committee finds that helpful.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I have looked with very great interest at my noble friend's amendment, and, of course, chronologically speaking, when it comes to the preparation of a unitary development plan the stage about which he is talking precedes the stage that was the subject matter of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, which we have just been discussing. It seems to me that there are a number of points which ought to be made about the amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson.
First, I would suggest to him and to the Committee that, unless we absolutely have to, we do not want to introduce a different procedure for the purposes of preparing what are structure and local plans but translated into metropolitan terms and thereby produce differences of a major kind between what would happen in the metropolitan areas and what would happen in the rest of the country. It seems unlikely that that is going to be a fruitful method of carrying forward these quasi-judicial and administrative procedures.
What my noble friend has really done is to put forward a proposition which falls into two halves. I am entirely with my noble friend as to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of his amendment. Of course it would be half-
372
witted for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State or any other Secretary of State, when he is preparing strategic guidance, not to give adequate publicity and take full account of representations made to him—indeed, not to give full opportunity for people to make representations and then take them into account.
So far so good. I should not have thought that there was any necessity to write that into the statute because I believe it would happen in any event and it always has done when strategic guidance has been given in the past. But of course my noble friend has a point when it comes to paragraphs (d) and (e), because if it is really intended that there shall be a procedure whereby a public local inquiry or a local hearing is to be held into aspects of the Secretary of State's strategic guidance, then we shall indeed need statutory provision for it because a whole lot of matters flow from the provisions providing for public inquiries.
I wonder whether my noble friend has in fact taken exactly the right line in relation to suggesting a local inquiry or hearing at this stage. There has been a good deal of dispute in recent years about planning inquiries which take into account very wide considerations of largish national subjects or largish local subjects requiring decisions to be made on them. When one tries to deal, for instance, with the entire energy policy in relation to coal as it affects an individual application for a coalfield development, one is embarking on very large areas which are not in my experience—if I may say so, it is considerable in this respect—easily susceptible of being handled at a local inquiry.
I think that what my noble friend Lord Molson is saying is that there should be, as it were, a preliminary public inquiry or an opportunity for a preliminary public inquiry into something which will be a pretty broad-brush matter of strategic guidance for one of the metropolitan areas. There will not be a great deal of fine detail in it; my noble friend Lord Elton has already made this plain. It will be guidance of a broad nature. I am not sure that material of this kind is readily susceptible of being dealt with at a local inquiry. Of course if there was never going to be any opportunity for it to be dealt with at a local inquiry, then I should probably think that my noble friend was right and we would have to make an exception in the present case where the strategic guidance is going to be of great influence in the preparation of part I. But we have already discussed that and we have established—at least I hope we have established—that the issue of strategic guidance will appear (or, if it does not, woe betide the local planning authority) in part I. It will be reflected in part I of the unitary development plan.
At that stage there is, under the law as it exists, and indeed under the Bill the opportunity for a public local inquiry or an examination in public which would enable people to object to and examine the extent to which the strategic guidance has influenced part I of the unitary development plan. Therefore I believe that it would be possible for these issues to be dealt with in the kind of way that my noble friend has in mind in paragraphs (d) and (e) of his amendment. If so, then one would be back on familiar territory. One would be dealing with the matter in the metropolitan areas in exactly the same way as one does everywhere else in the country, and my primary objection would not

373
arise. I would suggest to him that this would be a preferable way of doing it. I leave this matter with one final thought—
Lord Molson: May I interrupt my noble friend before he reaches his final point? I do not claim that the drafting of my amendment is necessarily perfect. If it does impart too great rigidity to be a practical proposition, then I shall be most happy for the Government in due course at Report stage to produce something which is better drafted. I have no desire for there to be any complicated procedure. All I seek from them is an assurance that before the Secretary of State commits himself to guidance there shall be reasonable opportunity for authorities and persons affected to make representations.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I absolutely agree with my noble friend. What I think he is doing in this amendment is to add a complete extra stage. He is adding a third and preliminary opportunity to go into matters by way of public inquiry prior to the submission to the Secretary of State or consideration by the local planning authority of Part I of the unitary development plan. Therefore, there will be a three-stage planning process in the metropolitan areas as opposed to a two-stage one everywhere else. That is the point of principle which I am trying to point out.
Perhaps I may revert to the one point which I would ask my noble friends on the Front Bench to consider. If we are to make sense of this procedure, then, taking account of the possibility of having a joint presentation or a simultaneous presentation of the unitary development plans, I ask the Committee to look at paragraph 12 of this Schedule. I suggest to my noble friends on the Front Bench that what we probably want is a provision in the Bill—at the present moment I cannot see one—for a joint or simultaneous presentation of all the Part Is of the unitary development plan separate from the detailed material in Part II. If that were done, I can see that the sort of aims that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and my noble friend are after could very easily be comprehended within a single exercise for—and I revert to my original example—Merseyside as a whole. But the one thing you do not want to do at that stage is to go into all the details of Part II of the unitary plan.
I do not see at the moment—and I may be wrong—either in the text of the schedule or in the breadth of the regulations that may be made for dividing up the two halves, that one may have, as it were, the strategic exercise first and, depending upon the outcome of that, detailed implementation of it later. If it is there, I apologise, but I believe it is important that this flexibility should be available to those who try to work this Bill.
Baroness White: Before the noble Viscount sits down may I ask just exactly what he means by "all the Part I inquiries"? It is quite possible that one of what are at present the metropolitan districts which will be concerned with these matters could, for one reason or another, be non-co-operative, recalcitrant, have its own interests more closely at heart rather than that of the wider conurbation and not be willing to take part
374
in such an exercise. What happens then? There will not have been the strategic consideration of the total conurbation which is concerning most of us.
Viscount Colville of Culross: What the noble Baroness says could theoretically arise, but if, say, one out of six or seven district councils in one of the metropolitan areas simply refuses to co-operate, there are, of course, default powers. I do not believe it will ever come to that. All I suggest at the moment is that there should be the flexibility built into this legislation to enable there to be a joint consideration of the Part Is. Whether it will happen or not, I do not know, but surely it would be a good idea to make sure that it could happen if, in due course, that seems to be the best way of dealing with it.
Baroness Birk: The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has been very explicit and articulate in what he has said about the amendment. I think that by the complexity of his own arguments he has illustrated the complexity of the Bill as well.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is very straightforward and is very similar—though there was no discussion between us about them—to Amendment No. 32, which I did not move because his amendment is so similar. There is one difference. My amendment states:
"hold an examination in public into that guidance"
whereas the noble Lord's amendment asks for a local inquiry and that,
"persons whose representations are so made … are afforded an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed".
I gather that this was the point to which the noble Viscount took exception.
I go back, very simply, to what we are trying to do and explain in a totally lay, kindergarten manner. First, the term "strategic guidance" is one which we all feel we know, but it has not yet been defined in the Bill. Perhaps one day we shall find a definition among the definitions at the back of the Bill, as we are told that this phrase has not occurred in legislation before. Obviously it is something that is needed because of what is being done in the Bill.
At the moment the metropolitan counties and the GLC do consult a wide range of authorities and bodies and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, cited many of those bodies as being unhappy about the Bill as it stands. They do that before drawing up proposals for their strategic land use plans. Given that the Secretary of State is now substituting himself for the county councils, the metropolitan counties and the GLC for this part of the strategic planning process, what we are trying to ensure is that he acts with the same care and consultation as he requires of the local planning authorities themselves.
5.15 p.m.
The amendment would ensure that the strategic guidance produced by the Secretary of State would reflect adequately the interests and views of all the relevant public and private organisations and bodies. There is nothing wrong with that. I should have thought that that was absolutely agreed, especially in our form of government. It would also increase the

375
prospects of such bodies making a major contribution to implementing the county-wide strategies which, I should have thought, must have resulted in a chance of getting better planning rather than less good planning. It would also ensure that the examinations, either in public, as in the amendment standing in my name, or by means of a local inquiry, as proposed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would continue to be a central feature of strategic planning and thereby permit important public debate on the relevant issues.
I shall not go into all the organisations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, but will briefly quote a few sentences from a letter from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England which was sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment only last week. It expresses very great concern, lists all the other authorities which are very concerned about the Bill and deals specifically with the issue of strategic planning. The letter states that,
"the rôle of strategic guidance issued by the Secretary of State will take on unprecedented importance, such that, advised merely by a non-elected Commission (in London) and informal conferences of borough and district councils (chaired and serviced by Department of the Environment officials), the Secretary of State is himself to become the sole strategic planning authority for each one of our major cities as a whole.
However, under the Bill as drafted, the role the Secretary of State and his officials will be expected to perform in this field will be of exceptional complexity. They will have to provide guidance at an adequate level of both detail and expertise, to secure the strategic supervision and integration of land use planning policies for each one of the new Unitary Development Plans of no fewer than 33 London boroughs and 36 district and borough councils in the other metropolitan areas."
I do not want to re-open the point raised by the Minister with the noble Lord, Lord Molson; I merely quote from the letter.
To say that the Secretary of State is to become the sole strategic planning authority for each one of our major cities and to say that that requires some form of very widespread consultation when he is preparing strategic guidance is not making any criticism of any particular Secretary of State. It is saying that the situation that is being set up is of such overwhelming importance, responsibility and complexity that this type of amendment—and neither the noble Lord's amendment nor mine is of any revolutionary or drastic character—is absolutely necessary to try to make smoother the working of the Bill. It is for that reason that my noble friends and I support the noble Lord. He said that he wanted a positive response to his amendment and, as there is much feeling in the Committee for the amendment, I hope that he will press it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask whether she agrees that until we know where we stand—and I think it is right that we do not yet know where we stand—on joint and simultaneous presentations in Part I, it is terribly difficult to deal with the amendment on its merits because it would strike too early? Does the noble Baroness agree with me that what we have to know first is where we stand on the issue of joint and simultaneous presentation?
Lord Elton: Would it help if I told your Lordships where we stand on that?
Baroness Birk: May I first just give a brief answer in principle? It seems to me that this is a circular matter which runs through the Bill. The whole Bill is full of areas where we do not know how things stand. We have to take things as they are. I think that it would be quite wrong not to make some form of improvement while we are waiting for yet another problem area to come up, as we are slipping into these all the time.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I regard this whole thing as a tutorial exercise, specially arranged for my benefit. I know far more about planning now than I did even two hours ago.
On the specific point on which my noble friend so perceptively put his finger, I would say simply this. If your Lordships look at paragraph 7(1) in the schedule and then at paragraph 9(4) it will be seen that the Secretary of State can call in any particular number of Part Is that he wishes on their own. He can cause an examination in public to be held on those, and thereafter the local plans can be individually or collectively considered as he wishes. It seems to me that that—
Lord Blease: The noble Lord is turning away from us.
Lord Elton: I am sorry. I did not wish to exclude any of your Lordships from my words. I was saying that those two sub-paragraphs have the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to call in individual Part Is, together if necessary, and as many or as few as he wishes; to cause an examination in public to be held upon them; and thereafter, if he wishes, to continue with the proper procedures—in fact he is bound to do so—for the Part IIs. That at least I hope is now clear. I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Colville for addressing the point and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for making jolly certain that I answered it.
Baroness Stedman: It is at times like these that I wish that I was as well versed in planning law and procedure as the noble Lord, Lord Colville. I, too, am enjoying the tutorial exercise, and I hope that I am benefiting from it.
It seems to me that this is a necessary amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to publicise any strategic guidance he wishes and to hear any objections at a local planning inquiry. We do not yet know, though we are beginning to get little pieces of information about it, exactly what is to be the extent and the nature of the strategic guidance which the Secretary of State will issue. It is important that that guidance should be the subject of public consultation, since it may well cover matters that are at present determined through the structure plan process which are subject to public consent.
The unitary plan, as I understand it, is to take account of the strategic guidance that is issued for the area it covers. If that guidance has not been subject to public consultation, the examination in public of the plan will be devalued, as parts of it will be based on what has been a previously determined policy which the public have not had any opportunity to influence.

377
While I accept that the amendment as it stands is no substitute for a properly constituted county-wide planning authority such as we were suggesting in our group of amendments on Tuesday—it will not be an authority which is in touch with local issues and providing its own strategic guidance—it will at least, if the Committee accepts it, preserve the opportunity for members of the public to participate in the formulation of strategic planning policies in their area and to comment on them if they wish to do so.
If the Secretary of State is to take on those new and rather complex responsibilities, he should accept that with them goes some duty, and his behaviour must be regulated in some form. The Secretary of State's guidance will cover such things as housing, green belts, minerals, waste disposal, transport, countryside conservation and all other such topics. There must be clear procedures laid down to ensure that the strategic guidance has taken account of the very wide range of interests involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, have said, many very worthy professional organisations share our worries on this question of consultation.
I also think that perhaps the procedures of the Bill might put intolerable pressures on the officials at the Department of the Environment. The DoE directorates on regional planning and land use policy, I understand, have been reduced over the past three years from some 200 staff to only 133. I am worried about the operation of this part of the Bill. I can see the proposed arrangements presenting serious problems for forward planning and also problems for the bordering shire counties without a proper base on which to put their own structure and their own local plans.
I think that there may also be a constitutional issue for the Secretary of State when he comes to rule on planning appeals on which it is his strategic guidance that is contested by interests like the housebuilders, the industrialists or the conservationists in the area, and if they were not able to make representations to him before he prepared his strategic guidance.
Will the Minister accept that there is quite universal disquiet about the vague and somewhat imprecise form of the proposed guidance about which we know at present? Will it be regional; and how will the local authorities outside the metropolitan areas—the neighbouring shire counties—be required to have regard to the strategic guidance for the bordering counties? How much detail, and what subjects, will the guidance cover, and how much authority will it carry when it comes to appeals and inquiries?
Examinations in public are allowed for in the Bill at the point that the regional guidance becomes incorporated in Part I of the unitary development plans, but it is no longer possible at that stage to influence the guidance as a whole as it relates to the metropolitan area in its entirety. I believe that that proposed guidance is so important that we have to get it right however long it takes. Therefore, I support the amendment before us this afternoon.
Lord Hunt: I rise briefly from the same set of Benches in support of this amendment just to say that
378
it must be clear from the amount of publicity given to it in the media that this is a very important issue. What has struck me about the publicity given to this amendment in the quality press is the disparate nature of the bodies which are in support of it. I shall not spell them all out. It is clear that what is missing in the Bill at the moment for the Secretary of State is the sources from which he shall draw his advice before issuing strategic guidance.
From the very beginning of the debate in Committee we have heard quite a lot about the importance of taking public opinion fully into account. It has really come across. It has certainly come across to me, and in a minor voice from me, that public opinion is in danger of being inadequately tapped and expressed. This amendment seeks to redress that serious omission from the Bill—the seeking of public opinion at grass roots level. I am talking about local, concerned opinion and also the wider national interest in regard to areas of scenic, scientific and recreational importance, such as the national parks and the AONBs, in which the metropolitan counties have an involvement, and particularly Greater Manchester.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I think uses the word "shall" and goes on to require the Secretary of State to do certain things. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, points out that in the Bill—and in the short time at my disposal I have not been able to look it up—the Secretary of State is enabled to consult appropriately before issuing his strategic planning guidance. There is a vast difference between what he should be required to do to make sure that concerned public opinion is taken fully into account and what he may or may not choose to do.
The title of a very telling article in the Guardian on 30th of April, just the other day was, "The Emperor of Everything". If the Secretary of State wishes to avoid being dubbed with that title, we should take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has suggested we should do at this stage of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Sandford: Perhaps I may just comment. This matter needs to be looked at again. Like my noble friend Lord Colville, I must confess that in studying Schedule 1 I had not seen the possibility of examinations in public of Part I of unitary development plans conducted jointly. If the schedule is intended to work as my noble friend on the Front Bench says, then I would put it to him that paragraphs 3 and 7 need amendment to make it clear that Part I of the unitary development plans can be submitted to the Secretary of State before Part II is completed. That is because if there is going to be examination of Part I jointly in public, that must be conducted and completed before the metropolitan boroughs are asked to go to all the trouble of developing Part II.
Lord Elton: If the Committee find that I am taking a little longer or that I am slightly more confused than usual in my reply to this debate, I am sure they will be patient.
I think the principal issues are fairly simple. The effect of the amendment of my noble friend is to

379
introduce a statutory process of publicity, consultation, objection and public local inquiry for the preparation of the strategic guidance very similar to that which is used at present for local plans and which will be used for the proposed unitary development plans. I think those are the models which my noble friend may have had in mind. I at once recognise the concern which my noble friend has brought to this Chamber as being not only his own but of many public bodies including some that have been mentioned this afternoon. They are authoritative and closely in touch with the system. It is right that the Committee should give due weight to them. I hope that what I say this afternoon will be of interest to them as well as to my noble friend.
I have already explained the nature of strategic guidance. I have offered to put examples in your Lordships' Library. I shall in any case now do that because I think it may still be in the minds of some members of the Committee that I am talking about elaborate, detailed, precise and technical documents. I am not. I think the best way to show what I am talking about is simply to deposit them in the Library so that those of your Lordships who have not seen such examples may do so. However, if the Committee will take that on trust for the moment, I have to say that these documents are not in our view those which ought to be given a statutory status, as would be the result of some of the amendments proposed.
Our purpose is to establish unitary planning authorities and hence the term "unitary development plan". That is what is appropriate to the planning needs of the areas in question. The strategic guidance should not be given a higher status than I have given it with that name. I am sure I can say to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne that the word "guidance" is at any rate familiar in statute. It is guidance. It will be brief. It will be selective. It is for each local authority to consider how far that guidance is relevant to its own situation. It is not intended to be a constraint or a straitjacket. The Secretary of State cannot enforce it directly. This is important: the only power the Secretary of State will have is in relation to the unitary development plans that will be made under it.
If I may now return to my noble friend's theme, his amendment would have a very considerable effect on the proposals for development planning in the Bill. I know he has already told me where the mine lies in the road down which I am travelling and on which I shall now step. I am going to tell him, and I shall tell him again in more detail in a moment, that there will be many opportunities for the public to become involved in the process of developing the strategic guidance and that they will not be statutory. He has said that that is something he has often heard in another place and obviously was increasingly less pleased by the more often he heard it. However, I wonder whether he will bear with me.
The effect of the amendment as proposed would make the Secretary of State for the Environment the structure planning authority for Greater London and the metropolitan counties and, in somebody's terms (I forget whose) would make him the "emperor of everything"—although he would be the emperor of everything with the benefit, I accept, of statutorily acquired public advice.
380
The guidance we propose is to be evolved in consultation with the local authorities and in London with the advice of the London Planning Commission. My noble friend Lord Sandford has said that the Committee's view of this will depend on the nature of the guidance. I have already covered that. Let me repeat that the guidance is not in any way intended to resemble a structure plan. It is therefore not suitable for handling in the way in which an elaborate and carefully built structure plan should be handled. The procedures proposed in the amendment would therefore not be appropriate.
I want to come to the matter in question. I have a fairly large amount of material which I could use but I will spare the Committee because the real need is for some form of public examination or inquiry in the process. I hope that my noble friend has taken it on board that there will be that process under the Bill in the local plan, the Part II stage. Thus at that end the public interest is very clearly implanted in the Bill.
However, many will wish to contribute towards developing the general guidance as my noble friend wishes them to be able to do. At the first stage we come to the officials going out to consider what the guidance should be in its initial form, and informal arrangements will be made for them. Before the London Planning Commission and the meetings and the metropolitan counties advise the Secretary of State on what guidance they consider is appropriate, they will have to gather essential information, consult interested parties, including the boroughs, and take soundings from those likely to have something useful to say. How they do that will be for them. However, it will not be for them alone because, once the Secretary of State has received his advice, that advice will be made public, comments will be invited and he will take into consideration those comments when he prepares the guidance in its final form. So it will come out first in draft, be subject to comment and then it will come out in final form.
It will be published in draft form and the discussions can be held to iron out the specific issues which are a cause of concern before it comes into its final form to local planning authorities. However, its nature will be very different from that of the documents of the kind which are subjected to examinations in public. That process is not appropriate to this stage; it is appropriate to the stage described by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.
I believe there may have been some doubts in the Committee's minds as to whether the examination in public could take place without the work on Part II continuing. However, if the Secretary of State calls in Part I,—and I regret that I cannot point my finger to the paragraph in the schedule but I shall write to my noble friend—the effect is that all work on Part II of a called-in Part I must stop. The Secretary of State will then obviously indicate the necessary changes to Part II when he comes to his conclusion. It is intended that the informal consultations should be as flexible as possible and cause as little delay as necessary to the main task of producing the UDPs.
We now come to the question that my noble friend is bound to ask me—and indeed I recall myself asking other Ministers, with great anticipation of effect, the

381
same question. It is this. If you are going to do it anyway, why on earth do you not put it on the face of the Bill? When you render something a statutory duty, you do something much more than say, "This is a very good thing and you must do it". You open it to all sorts of objections. You make it justiciable. The estimate that we have is that it would delay the conclusion of the process by anything from a year to 18 months.
Given that we shall be going through the processes that I have described, given that those involve the public, and given that to incorporate my noble friend's proposals in statute would delay this process without, in my view, giving additional protection to the public, I must ask him whether he really feels that what he proposes doing is absolutely what he intends to achieve. Both of us want to achieve public reassurance. Both of us want to achieve workable plans that will knit together across the country. Both of us wish to assure the CPRE, the NFU and the other bodies referred to.
It seems to me that, with the help of my noble friends behind me, I have explained how reassurance is available. But, of course, I am in a conciliatory mood. If there is any doubt about the phrasing of the two paragraphs—one was paragraph 3 but I shall make sure which they are by reading Hansard—and re-drafting is needed to ensure that what I have said will happen, that I am happy to undertake. I hope that my noble friend will feel that we are engaged in the same work and that we will arrive at our shared ambition a year or 18 months earlier if we follow the path in the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend makes up his mind about what he intends to do on this matter, I shall, of course, read carefully what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said about the chance for individuals and organisations to make comments on the strategic plan. However, I have to say to my noble friend that the Government must ensure that at the beginning of the planning process—the strategic plan, I think it is called—there must be consultation not just with individuals but also with organisations, particularly, in my view, needless to say, those responsible for land management. If this is not done, chaos will ensue. Despite what my noble friend and some other Members of the Committee have said about the fact that it will delay the process, I do not think that it will. I believe that it will speed things up. Otherwise, at the end of the day, when you come to the district plans, as I call them, you will get an enormous number of complaints from all over the place, without any logic.
I support, therefore, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson. It is supported, as your Lordships probably realise, by the National Farmers Union and, much more important, by the Countryside Commission. I am empowered to say that. I do not know what my noble friend will do about the amendment. I have, however, heard my noble friend on the Front Bench make very much less sympathetic noises at the start, in response to certain amendments that I have moved, only to find, in the end, that he has been very sympathetic. I would ask my noble friend at
382
this stage (I emphasise that I am only saying "at this stage") to give my noble friend Lord Elton a chance to think about it a little longer—just a little longer.
Lord Molson: I find myself in a very great difficulty. There is such a strong feeling in support of the amendment. It has necessarily been somewhat confused by the complications. I should, however, like to put a plain and simple question to my noble friend the Minister. Do I understand him aright in that all he really objects to is the word "shall"—imposing a statutory obligation upon the Minister and making it a justiciable issue? I can understand the difficulty about that, and I sympathise. In return for my realising the difficulty imposed by the word "shall", can I have an assurance from my noble friend that, in a less formal manner, the Secretary of State will at an early stage, before issuing guidance, take all steps necessary—not a formal inquiry—for consulting all those likely to be affected by his guidance?
Lord Elton: My noble friend places me in a slight difficulty. As I understand it—I shall be told in a moment whether I am right or wrong—something is justiciable whether it is referred to under "shall" or under "may" in an Act of Parliament. I shall return to that matter, if I am able to do so, in a moment.
The other question that my noble friend asks is whether all the inquiries that I have described will take place before the guidance is published. Of course, that cannot take place before the draft guidance is published because no one would know what they were going to make representations upon. But when the draft guidance is published, it is the intention that the Secretary of State shall consider all the representations by individuals and recognised bodies—or perhaps I should put that the other way round: by recognised bodies and private individuals—that are brought forward. I have tried to explain that. However, what I cannot yield upon is the principle of making this a statutory process.
Lord Molson: I am much obliged. I accept the point about not making it a statutory process. In view of what I think is the complete assurance that there will be consultation before the guidance is issued as formal guidance, I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 76, line 4, leave out ("in their opinion").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I intend to speak also to Amendments Nos. 34B, 34C, 34D, 34E and 34F.
Amendment No. 34B: Page 76, line 7, after ("to") insert ("or have previously notified the authority that they").
Amendment No. 34C: Page 82, line 4, leave out ("in their opinion").
Amendment No. 34D: Page 82, line 7, after ("to") insert ("or have previously notified the authority that they").
Amendment No. 34E: Page 84, line 2, after ("the") insert ("proposals for or").
Amendment No. 34F: Page 84, line 3, after ("they") insert ("have notified the local planning authority of their desire of an opportunity of making representations on matters proposed to be included in or").
As the Minister will appreciate, these amendments hang together. They are not dissimilar in parts from the amendments that we have just discussed. The alterations that we propose are concerned very much with the extent to which the public will have the opportunity of discussing these matters, not by the leave of the council or the authority but in some other way.
What the Committee is being invited to approve in the Bill, under the heading, "Publicity in connection with preparation of unitary development plan", on page 76, is this. Paragraph 3(1) states:
"When preparing a unitary development plan for their area and before finally determining its contents the local planning authority shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure—".
I am not meaning to be offensive when I say that we question whether it should be left to each council to decide the criteria which help it to form that opinion. According to a range of considerations—political, interest and experience—you will have a different application of the same principle. If the steps to be taken are to depend on the opinion of each local authority, that can be seen, on one hand, as very good local democracy; one is leaving to local people how they wish to treat their electors and interest groups. We are saying, in this series of amendments; that we would prefer to delete the words "in their opinion". The wording would then read:
"the local planning authority shall take such steps as will secure—".
It will be left to each local authority to determine the steps and the manner in which it intends to proceed. We are anxious to make clear that it will not be left to the whim of each local authority as to whether it consults or what weight it attaches to the value of consultation. It should be much heavier than that.
We have tabled related amendments, and we want to ensure that those people who have indicated an interest in a field of activity will be informed of it, even though they may not see an advertisement in the paper or a notice in the local library. I have very much in mind preservation societies, such as the Enfield Preservation Society, the Civic Trust, manufacturers' associations, or federations of ratepayers. These are groups of people who, by some device, have registered with the local planning authority that they are interested in what will happen in this area. In Enfield there is a register of straightforward planning applications, and people are sent that list so that they can decide whether a particular street or the community is affected.
Therefore, in the best sense these amendments are not meant to be malevolent: they are very much benign. I am anxious to strengthen the view that it is the Minister's intention that local people shall not be denied an opportunity to make known their views. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I hope that I have taken on board the points that the noble Lord has made about these amendments, which I accept are not intended to be malign or benign. I refer to Amendments Nos. 34A, 34B, 34C and 34D which concern the initial steps in the plan-making process, whereby local planning authorities, either individually or jointly if they so wish, put forward for public comment proposals from which they wish to make a unitary development plan.
384
The intention of the amendments would appear to be to remove a local planning authority's discretion as to the appropriate consultation arrangements. Paragraphs 3(1) and 12(2) of the schedule set out respectively the steps which a local planning authority, or two or more authorities jointly, in their opinion are required to take by way of publicising the proposed contents of their unitary development plan, and providing an opportunity for representations to be made by interested parties. These steps take place prior to the deposit of the plan. This will be the first time that the general public and others will see all the options for the plan—that is, at the moment of deposition. This is therefore the stage at which they discover whether or not they have an interest. They will not already have made their interest in the plan known because they will not know to what the plan relates.
However, the real point which I think is worrying the noble Lord is whether the provisions in paragraphs 3(1) and 12(2) are adequate in general. These provisions follow, almost word for word, those in the existing law designed to cover structure and local plans. They will be supplemented, as is the case now with structure and local plans, by regulations which will set out in more detail such matters as the length of the consultative period. We also intend to issue an explanatory memorandum similar to that on structure and local plans which accompanies Department of the Environment Circular 22/84. This will contain a step-by-step guide to the procedures, and will reinforce the message of the legislation that every person likely to be affected or to have an interest in the proposals should be given an opportunity to comment. I think that the noble Lord may well be reassured by what I have said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I was almost reassured until I heard the Minister's last few words when he said:
"should be given an opportunity".
How do we ensure that the obligation that they should be given an opportunity to consult and to see the documents is carried into practice? I accept all that the Minister has said. However, I seek some assurance, although it need not necessarily be written on the face of the Bill, and I leave the point with the Minister. He began his remarks by saying that until people see the plan, they do not know whether or not they are affected.
Let us suppose that there is general discussion within a local authority that it will produce its structure plan. I imagine that the members of that authority believe that they have an obligation to their constituents and to the community. I have already mentioned preservation societies, civic trusts and many other groups. I should have thought that they would want to know what is going on. It may be that the areas of their town which they want to preserve are secure; they would certainly be secured by other legislation. I seek to ensure that somehow these groups will have access to that knowledge. The Minister may say that if there is a general advertisement telling people that they can see the plan they can do so, and that may be good enough. But what I have in mind may cost a few pounds, even a few hundred pounds, but it would ensure goodwill and better planning. We all know from experience that

385
dates go by and that comments which ought to have been received have not been received; matters which ought to have been discussed are not included on agendas. We are concerned to ensure that the experience of local people is not forgotten by default. As I think the Minister is aware, I shall certainly not press this amendment to a vote; but perhaps he could reassure me that people should be given an opportunity to comment. How do we ensure that a council operates procedures which make it virtually impossible for people not to be advised?
Lord Elton: I think that I can help the noble Lord further. We are looking at paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. Under sub-paragraph (2) the local planning authority, having prepared a unitary development plan, have to send a copy of it to the Secretary of State before it is adopted. Under paragraph (3), with it must go a statement:
"of the steps which the authority have taken to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above",
which contains the requirements about publicity, and so on, to which the noble Lord's amendment is directed. What is more, under paragraph 3(3)(b), it says that it shall be accompained by a statement:
"of the authority's consultations with, and their consideration of the views of, other persons".
So the proposal goes to the Secretary of State and with it goes a statement of how the authority have sought to see that that is acceptable to the public.
Then under paragraph (4), if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that they have discharged this duty properly—in other words, that the purposes of sub-pragraph (1)(a) to (c) have not been adequately achieved by the steps taken, he may:
"within twenty-one days of the receipt of the statement, direct the authority not to take further steps for the adoption of the plan without taking such further action as he may specify in order better to achieve those purposes and satisfying him that they have done so".
In other words, they have to show their work to the form-master, and before it goes in the book it must have a red tick on it!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I think that I have been ticked off; I shall take it as "red"! If the Minister is satisfied that the steps which have been taken are unnecessary to a reasonable man, I would certainly accept that. I can appreciate that some councils will say that they have put an advertisement in the paper and that the leader of the council has announced at a council meeting that anyone who wishes to see the plan can do so. I wanted a little more meat on that, but I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said, and, if need be write to him or return to the matter later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34B, 34C, 34D, 34E, and 34F not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 86, line 42, after ("him") insert ("following consultations by the Commission as appropriate with London borough councils, the
386
county councils adjoining Greater London, district councils, the local authority associations, the London and South East Regional Planning Council, Government departments, London Regional Transport, business and professional associations, local and voluntary organisations and any other organisations or indi 'duals which the Secretary of State may think fit").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 35 relates to anxieties that have been expressed all round the Committee by a number of very important bodies about the weight that can be attached to the present consultative procedures. The purpose of this amendment is to highlight and make good the fact that the Bill, as it presently stands, would lead to greater centralisation of strategic planning powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and his appointed London Planning Commission with an inevitable loss of the present democratic input into the strategic planning process.
One of the major provisions of the Bill is the power which it gives to the Secretary of State to issue to the London borough councils strategic guidance which they must use as the basis for the preparation of their unitary development plans, a matter we have been discussing at length. This strategic guidance will be prepared by the Secretary of State following the provision of advice by his appointed London Planning Commission. The power which would be given to the Secretary of State is more specific than any presently available to him under the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act. Up to this point the Government have restricted themselves to national or regional guidance. As such, the strategic guidance and its preparation is a key element in the new planning process.
On the issue of public involvement, there is no provision in the Bill for such involvement in any stage of the preparation of this strategic guidance, as the London and South Eastern Regional Planning Conference noted in a letter to the DoE on 31st October last year. The strategic guidance will not reflect extensive public consultations as is the case with both the GLDP and its proposed alteration, and as will remain the case with shire county structure plans. The Association of London Borough Planning Officers—the professionals who are entitled to be heard and who would be responsible for implementing the new system—are extremely concerned about the procedures and working arrangements for maintaining effective strategic planning in London, and feels bound to draw attention to what it believes are serious deficiencies in the proposals as they currently exist.
It is clear from the statements made by the Minister for Local Government at the Committee stage in another place that the Government are not prepared, in the face of overwhelming independent professional criticism of their planning proposals, for changes to be made in this Bill. We are worried that the Minister seems to feel that in every respect he and his colleagues have got it absolutely right, despite the fact that there are professionals—who of course again one would assume, and say, are as unbiased as the professionals at Marsham Street—who can see great areas of concern. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment strikes at sub-paragraph 18(1) of the schedule. This sub-paragraph empowers the Secretary of State to set up the London

387
Planning Commission. It refers to two aspects of the commission's work. The first is to assist the Secretary of State in
"preparing guidance for local planning authorities in Greater London".
We have spent some time already discussing that guidance, but it is not to that that the amendment relates. The amendment relates to the second of the activities, which is giving the Secretary of State advice
"on other matters relating to the planning and development of Greater London".
An example of such "other matters" might be a free-standing study of population, which might not immediately affect the Secretary of State's guidance at all. I find it odd that there might be a requirement to consult London Regional Transport, or indeed the National Savings Department, about that. The commission will be an independent advisory body and it will have no executive powers. The commission will be expected to formulate its advice on these matters in the regional context after consulting the borough councils and planning authorities for the areas adjoining London, and other relevant bodies including SERPLAN. Its advice is to be made public and available for discussion before the Secretary of State ever makes up his mind about his strategic guidance.
I have no doubt whatever that full and careful consultation will be vital. That will be very much in my right honourable friend's mind. He will ensure that it is in the mind of the commission. It will need to consult a lot of people and a lot of bodies of one sort or another. No doubt a list of possible consultees will be useful for it to have, but there are lists and lists, or rather there are lists and there are statutory lists. We have dealt with this distinction already this afternoon.
The amendment of the noble Lord seeks to establish a statutory list of people or bodies that the commission must, in respect of any and every matter on which it advises the Secretary of State, consult by law. If it does not consult them, its advice will be invalid in law. It cannot pick and choose, and neither can the Secretary of State. His choice will only be whether or not to add to the list by virtue of the last line and a half of the amendment. I again ask the noble Lord whether, under those circumstances, he has the right list.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I listened with care to the Minister. I am really arguing contrary to one of my earlier amendments, where I felt that we ought to delete the words "in their opinion" because I wanted to tighten it up. In this amendment I have said, "as the commission thinks fit". In other words, I have allowed it to determine its importance, but I do not think the Minister would deny that it is important that—
Lord Elton: With respect—and I speak from memory because I have just dropped the Marshalled List—I think that the "as he thinks fit" relates only to "such other bodies". That is the qualifying thing. But he has a list in front of that, and that is a statutory list.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, and I would certainly say that the list, as the Minister calls it, of the bodies we are laying down statutorily shall be consulted before the plan is determined is a list of
388
important bodies. I take what the Minister has said, that a list drawn up by any Minister, or anyone, is capable of either being too short or too long. We simply believe that in a matter of such importance, dealing with the wider strategic future of London and its environs, these are the people who are entitled to be consulted. I hear what the Minister has said. I shall take guidance and read the arguments; and it may be that I shall come back again at Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 86, line 44, at end insert—
("(1A) The London Planning Commission in giving its strategic advice to the Secretary of State shall give specific regard to all matters contained in the Greater London Development Plan and in the proposed amendments to the said plan, including the principal physical and economic characteristics of the Greater London area, the size, composition and distribution of population of that area, and the communications, transport system and traffic of the area.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals again with the London Planning Commission and the kind of advice that it needs in order to do its job. I quote:
"The London Planning Commission in giving its strategic advice to the Secretary of State shall give specific regard to all matters contained in the Greater London Development Plan and in the proposed amendments to the said plan, including the principal physical and economic characteristics of the Greater London area, the size, composition and distribution of population of that area, and the communications, transport system and traffic of the area".
I should have thought that we would all agree that observations or comments on all those crucial elements in good planning and sound planning would be helpful. I suspect that the Minister will say that there are other ways in which these matters can be taken care of.
We are a bit concerned because we consider that for the big job—the Minister for jobs is in his place, and I am sure he pricked up his ears there—that the London Planning Commission has to take on, as we understand it, it has a woefully inadequate staff to do the kind of things that we believe are essential. If you have a small staff, or the Government keep the staff modest, then that restricts the role that the planning commission can play. If one hobbles or cripples the ability of a devoted staff to do what would be physically possible, then we argue in this amendment that one is weakening the strength, the value, and the merit of that planning body.
I should like to plead in aid the Conservative-controlled Harrow Borough Council. Last year, when it was talking about the London Planning Commission and its staff and resource potential, this is what it said:
"It is difficult to see a useful role for the Commission. Having only a small staff it will not be able to provide the information and depth of understanding of the complex issues involved".
The coverage of matters in the Greater London Development Plan and its alterations are those which are considered essential to the effective and efficient planning of a city as complex and diverse as Greater London. There are many people in this House who, not only from their knowledge of planning in London but also from their universal experience and common sense, appreciate the great tasks that will fall to the London Planning Commission, which are certainly

389
already covered by the GLC—issues not only on the economy, housing, shopping, transport and the environment, but also more innovative matters such as equality for women, people's disabilities, help for the elderly, policies for energy, pollution and ecology. All of these things need to be worried about by somebody for and on behalf of the 8 million people who make up Greater London. Our worry is that if, in fact, one simply rests on the argument that if one of the 33 London boroughs feels moved to find the money and create a small staff, which would be two or three people, they will be doing their job.
One of the worries we have is that this is an opportunity, if in fact the Minister will accept this amendment, or at least say something kind about it, for him come back again to give some hope to people outside who are not politically motivated but genuinely feel that one of the side products of the dissolution of the GLC could very well be that the quality of life in the future, which is guarded to some extent at a planning level, will be much impaired. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think the Committee might agree with me at this point that this is a mixture of a probing amendment asking, "What on earth is the LPC going to do?" and the actual words printed on the Marshalled List which comprise this amendment. To start with the latter, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, this amendment concerns the functions of the proposed London Planning Commission. It proposes that an entirely new and separate duty should be placed upon the LPC to give specific regard to all the matters contained in the Greater London Development Plan and to the proposed alterations to that plan. It also specifies a number of particular issues concerning the economics, population and transport of the area to which the LPC should have regard.
The trouble here is that, although this may be appropriate in one area, it may not necessarily be appropriate in another. What, for example, have Tower Hamlets and Kingston-upon-Thames in common?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They are Londoners.
Lord Skelmersdale: They are Londoners indeed, and I accept that, but we were talking in planning terms rather than in "personal feelings" terms, if I may express it in such a way. This duty would be additional to the duty specified in paragraph 18(1) of the schedule, which is to assist the Secretary of State in preparing guidance for local planning authorities in Greater London in relation to their preparation of unitary development plans and to advise him on other matters relating to the planning and development of Greater London.
My noble friend Lord Elton has already explained how he would expect the proposed London Planning Commission to exercise its duties. I should not expect them to ignore the content of the Greater London Development Plan or the proposed alterations. Clearly also the matters to which this amendment specifically refers—economics, population and infrastructure—must be considered carefully among many others relevant to land use and planning in London.
390
It would, however, be inappropriate to introduce a specific requirement of this nature. The task of examining the GLDP will not be and should not be thought of as separate from, or additional to, the principal task of the commission as identified in the Bill. Nor should we attempt to dictate, in the manner suggested by this proposed amendment, the detail of the way in which the LPC should carry out its investigations.
I am sure we are all aware of the fact that the GLDP is out of date. This Bill, however, contains provision to carry forward into the future the preparation of land use and development plans for London in a far more satisfactory and appropriate manner. We are to have a new system firmly based upon local planning by the London boroughs. They are best equipped to produce new UDPs for their areas based upon the close knowledge and understanding they have of the needs of those areas. This knowledge will be up to date and will remain up to date in a way which cannot be said even of the GLC's proposed alterations, let alone the plan. It will also be more closely attuned to local circumstances and conditions. Without doubt it will be useful for them to look at the content of the GLDP.
A great deal of careful survey work has gone into the preparation of the proposed alterations. This should not be wasted but should be used where appropriate, not only by the LPC, who will wish to look at these documents as an integral part of their duty as specified in paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 1 but also by the London boroughs when preparing their own UDPs. I wish to make it quite clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will expect the LPC and the authorities to take full account of relevant previous material.
As I said at the beginning, however, not all of the contents of these documents will be relevant in every case and I do not wish the Committee to insert into the Bill an amendment such as this which would dictate in detail the way in which the commission and the borough councils should carry out their work. I believe that the Commitee will agree that it would be preferable to leave such matters to their discretion. This will enable them to identify key features and focus upon these and allow them to progress more expeditiously. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do intend to withdraw the amendment, but it is very sad. Apparently Surrey and Suffolk are entitled to a strategic plan and a county-wide view but London is not. What London will have will be 33 authorities with discretion to take full account. The London Planning Commission will have the opportunity, if it wishes and if it has the staff, to make sure that these 33 London boroughs are taking full account of all that they should, but the Minister is not prepared to lay down the important matters that in my view ought to be looked at by somebody.
When I talk about the economy, it is not an idle threat. Every major city, whether it is metropolitan or not, has a department which is concerned with the economic regeneration of that city. We are talking

391
about industry, housing and leisure. When we are talking about traffic and land development, of course there are disparate bits of London and there are Londoners who are quite happy simply to look after and be concerned with their own little bit, but they are all affected by the quality of life in an overall way.
I think that the Minister is storing up trouble, because what we are wanting, quite rightly, is to be specific. We want to say that this London Planning Commission has an obligation not merely to take into account generalities but to lay down certain things. We may have the list wrong, but we think that these are the important things for a strategic planning authority. We accept the London Planning Commission, if that is to be the vehicle, but we are simply trying to beef it up. Having lost the main argument for a strategic authority, we are saying, "If this is what we've got, let's make it work". That is what we are trying to do.
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us—and I will give the Box sufficient time to let us have the precise detail—what size of body we are talking about, what number of staff. If the Minister tells us that those details have not yet been worked out, it will be quite disgraceful. They must have some idea of the Vote—that is, the money. There must be some idea of what is in the minds of the Minister and his colleagues. I should like the Minister to tell us tonight what size of staff is envisaged. I do not want it to be compared with the GLC or with any other authority, because the comparison will then immediately launch into one being too big and this one being just right but, looking at the kind of things that I have said should be in mind, will the Minister tell us the size of staff which he considers is adequate in order to do it? After that, I shall certainly be happy to withdraw.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the comparison between the 32 London boroughs and Suffolk and Surrey, which were the two shire counties that he mentioned. He suggested that they would be disadvantaged because of size of area. I should tell him that the big stick for which he is looking, whether on this or on other amendments, is there, although I cannot lay to hand the reference in the Bill. The point is that the UDPs have to be compatible with each other, and, if not, the Secretary of State will call them in to make them so.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also asked about staff. I cannot say anything about specific numbers, which is what I think the noble Lord was asking me. However, I can say that the LPC will have a small staff, but that we would expect it to work with the boroughs, which will have a duty to obtain and keep under review matters affecting their area, as defined in Schedule 1, paragraph 1(1)(a).
I think that the noble Lord misunderstands the role of the LPC. It is a small body there for a particular reason; that is, to advise the Secretary of State how best he can carry out those matters in relation to planning that he seeks to do. It can do this in two ways: first, by being asked by the Secretary of State to advise him on a specific problem; and, secondly, by self-generation of its own volition. I hope that additional information will help the noble Lord.
Lord Sandford: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with his amendment, I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether I am drawing the right inference from the fact that he has not answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. That was: how many people are there on the London Planning Commission? It is perfectly respectable not to know the answer or not to have decided yet, because I hope that he and his collegues will take that decision when they have established the way in which the London boroughs will combine, cohere and collaborate, see how much they can do for themselves and, in the light of that, decide what needs to be done by the London Planning Commission. That will keep the London Planning Commission to the absolute minumum. Are those the correct inferences?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, absolutely; and the sooner the boroughs start to talk, not only to each other but to us, the sooner we shall be able to make definitive statements on these and on many other matters.
Baroness Seear: May I ask the Minister whether the items mentioned in the amendment are the subjects which the London Planning Commission will be dealing with? If they are, considering the range and the scope that is indicated here, how can a small staff possibly include the expertise necessary to give intelligent and useful advice to the Secretary of State, who will surely stand greatly in need of such advice?
Lord Skelmersdale: Again, as I was saying to my noble friend Lord Sandford just now, I am not in the position to say at this moment, nor is the Secretary of State himself, for what kind of advice they will be asked. I can add to the information I have given to the Committee that at the moment we expect the membership to be between 12 and 15 with a small staff which will be non-executive. Nor will it be a planning authority; it will be there purely to give advice.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: The answers given by my noble friend the Minister indicate once again how little thought has gone into how this whole thing will work. At this stage they are unable to give an answer, and we are less than a year from the enactment of the Bill. I should also like to know from where and what sort of people in London the members of this London Planning Commission will be drawn. Will they go round London holding public meetings to find out what the people of London feel about these strategic plans which they intend to impose upon the boroughs? Will they consult the boroughs? The Minister chose a particularly bad example when he asked what Tower Hamlets and Kingston have in common. I think he will find that London's biggest route runs through both of them—the Thames.
Lord Skelmersdale: That occurred to me when I said it, but I wondered whether it was appropriate to make the comment then.
I do not think that my noble friend Lord Plummer is being quite fair, because the whole objective of the LPC is that it shall be set up in such a way and be so representative that it can provide answers. It is not for the LPC to consult the population in London, but for

393
the London boroughs themselves to make their plans and to do their consultations and surveys so that when they reach the Secretary of State (should he decide that he wants an objective view on this; for example, whether a particular highway is proposed correctly) it will be the duty of the LPC to give him that advice.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: This is exactly what we shall not get. The London boroughs will give a view about their own cabbage patches. They will not have regard for the rest of London; or if they do, they will only have regard for the immediately adjoining borough. What we want is a plan that considers London as a whole.
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not know whether my noble friend was in the Committee when I said that UDPs have to be compatible, and if they are not my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will call them in to ensure that they are.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: To ensure that the Minister seriously consults with somebody to see whether they are compatible, one needs to consult the kind of body that the Government have in mind in the London Planning Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made a reasonable suggestion, if the premise was correct. He said that it was perhaps too early to know the weight of work which the LPC will have to do, and we shall have to wait to see how it develops. The record will show that the Minister has no idea how many staff are involved; he rests on the word "small", and we know it could be 50 or 200. In the context of the role 200 could be too small and 50 could be too big. The Minister has revealed that an idea has been thought of first, the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC, and then a form of words has been used—words which are constantly shied away from when they need defending and firming, up.
The noble Lord, Lord Plummer, and the perceptive words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, clearly indicate that the Government may get away with it during the passage of the Bill, but come 1st April 1986, when the reality dawns, I am very much afraid that there will be great gaps. If I had the confidence that some Members opposite have that when the trouble arises the Government will be willing to will the means, provide the staff and accept the role, I should be happy, but at this stage I am far from happy.
I shall read carefully what the Minister has said—I do not think it will make pleasant reading—but I give notice that I intend to come back again at a later stage on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 88, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 5 and insert ("obtain the agreement of all the local planning authorities in the area to which the structure plan relates.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 37 is again in line with the first of the amendments I moved. I begin by quoting a friend of the Government—and the list gets shorter as time passes. A friend of the
394
Government called the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has tried to be helpful. In relation to the GLDP (and this applied to these matters) it said that it was,
"convinced that a single plan is necessary for an area as complex as London with various inter-locking functions … in order to provide for its development over the next decade".
6.30 p.m.
The case has been made out; but it has been resisted by the Government. What we are after is a London-wide co-ordinated and integrated strategic plan. I he Minister rests upon the 33 different parts being compatible with each other. "Compatible" as opposed to being "integrated" into one strategy, leaves an enormous area of conflict and doubt. And there will be horse-trading: "You allow ours to go through with a little bit of difficulty and we will not oppose yours". We believe that there is public and private sector support for a London-wide plan. We believe, in fact, that that is widespread not merely from the point of view of Labour authorities but also so far as Conservative authorities are concerned. In this amendment, we are asking the Government to write into the Bill the words at the end of line five on page 88 so that we have the statutory obligation to consult, to obtain the agreement, of all the local planning authorities in the area to which the structure plan relates.
The Government may very well say that to get the agreement of everybody concerned is not only difficult but may very well be impossible. We know the conflicts; but what we have in planning terms is deplorable not just to the professional but to their committees. There are Members of your Lordships' House with long experience of planning—and not just of London and its precepts—who are appalled at what the Government are going to allow to be produced. I think that they have negated their responsibility in this matter.
The purpose of this amendment, quite frankly, is simply to say that before an order under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult and shall obtain the agreement of all the planning authorities in the area to which the structure plan relates. If the Minister says that that will take time, then I say that I would much rather get things right than get them soon or quickly. We are talking about the mistakes that we are looking at now, that were planned—or not planned—30 years ago and which we have to live with for the rest of our lives. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wonder whether the noble Lord will accept that the spirit of his idea could be better achieved if the wording was, "shall use best endeavours to obtain". "Shall obtain agreement" is a type of aim which is very difficult to achieve. It would be more usual—and with respect I suggest more civilised—to put it in that form.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: More realistic.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: In order that I may say at least one word on behalf of the Bill before us, I think that I would support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in this. Having been involved in

395
the Greater London Development Plan which I think ran inquiries for about three and a half years, I am aware that the difficulty of obtaining everybody's agreement to anything in regard to it was very great. I should have thought that the same trouble would prevail here. Somebody has to decide in the end. Therefore, I support the suggestion made by my noble friend.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to my noble friends but, in fact, my argument rest on more than that. We are not necessarily talking about revocation of structure plans as a whole. We could in certain circumstances be talking about revocation of parts of structure plans. As part of the transitional arrangements, paragraph 19 of the schedule provides that the Greater London Development Plan and the structure plans in force in the metropolitan counties at abolition shall continue in force in each of the boroughs or districts until a unitary development plan for the area becomes operative. The structure plan, in so far as it relates to the area of the UDP, will then be revoked automatically.
Paragraph 20, however, enables the Secretary of State, when he has called in an approved Part 1 of the UDP, or any part of Part 1 of the UDP, in advance of the remaining provisions of that plan, to make an order revoking all or part of the structure plan in force in the area of that UDP and to make any necessary consequential amendments to the remainder of the structure plan. Paragraph 20 also provides for consultation with the local planning authority for the area of the UDP.
There is nothing new in this approach. It is precedented in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended. Schedule 7 to that Act provides for the revocation of earlier development plans by order or automatically when a local plan becomes operative. It is clearly necessary to provide for the revocation of the structure plan when Part 1 of a UDP becomes operative. When the Secretary of State calls in Part 1 (or part of Part 1) this may become operative in advance of the remainder of the UDP. Revocation is thus essential to avoid conflict between the outdated policies in the structure plan and the more recently approved general structure policy of the UDP. Clearly, the Secretary of State would only wish to exercise this power of revocation to the extent necessary to avoid confusion. The provisions of consultation will enable the relevant local authority to be involved in the decision.
However, I can see no justification for providing that the Secretary of State should require the agreement of all authorities. Because structure plans cover such a large area, for example London, the interest of some of the other authorities will often be peripheral—and in parenthesis may I say to my noble friend that I shall not make my mistake about the Thames a second time this evening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is water under the bridge.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, water under the bridge. Where the Secretary of State uses his similar powers under Schedule 7 of the 1971 Act, there is no such
396
requirement for the consent of all authorities and there is no case for such a constraint here. I have explained that the Bill is very flexible in regard to the revocation of structure plans (or parts of those plans) and I hope that the Committee will agree that in this case at least the Bill has the correct approach.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say and also to the observations of noble Lords opposite. It is quite clear that there may be the possibility of looking at this afresh and coming up with a form of words which at least will satisfy us. But we have improved the Bill as it is at the moment. In those circumstances, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 88, line 25, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("adopted").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to move Amendment No. 38 and to speak also to Amendment No. 39.
Amendment No. 39: Page 88, line 29, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("adopted").
These are both technical and drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 39:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 89, line 9, after ("to") insert ("proposals made in respect of")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 40 and to speak to Amendment No. 41.
Amendment No. 41: Page 89, line 12, leave out from ("purposes") to end of line 14 and insert ("in relation to the same or similar proposals made in respect of a local plan.").
These, too, are technical and drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved amendment No. 41:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 42:
[Printed 30/4/85; col. 175.]
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I want to explain that the GLC submitted to the Secretary of State in October 1984 the proposed alterations to the Greater London Development Plan which itself had been approved way back in 1976. Those alterations had been in preparation since 1981 with agreement from the then Department of the Environment officials on the need for a review and an assurance that the necessary regulations, which had never been made for Greater London, would be available when necessary. That was in early 1983.
My understanding now is that that assurance was repudiated in the summer after the general election in terms suggesting that the GLC needed to be given further powers before it was entitled to review its plan. This view was rejected by the High Court in December 1983 and the Secretary of State was instructed to make such regulations forthwith. The Secretary of State then took power unto himself, under the paving Act, to exempt himself from the duty to consider the alterations when they were submitted. Paragraph 24(1) of Schedule 1 provides that any proposals for alteration to the Greater London Development Plan or to metropolitan counties' structure plans not approved by the Secretary of State before abolition will lapse on 1st April 1986 and will be treated as having been withdrawn. That means that the submitted alterations would no longer be a material consideration to be taken into account, with the other factors, in taking any planning decisions from borough councils up to the Department of the Environment inspectors or the Secretary of State himself.
Twenty years after being set up, and nine years after the approval of their general development plan, by no means all London boroughs have yet produced local plans covering the whole or most of their area. Under this Bill, burdened now by the Secretary of State's guidance and with the additional encumbrance of an improvised two-part structure for their local plans, there is no reason to suppose they would be any quicker in producing such plans in future. Thus, by the mid-1990s London would still have only a patchwork of half-completed local plans supported by the remains of a Greater London Development Plan which had been approved 20 years earlier. If the Schedule 1 provision is deleted, leaving the boroughs free to adopt, as part of their local plans, at least those parts of the present submitted alterations, passing this amendment would in no way force the Secretary of State to consider these alterations but simply to allow them to survive, as was done in 1965 in a similar situation.
Since I put this amendment down the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has put down another amendment, half of which covers the one I put down. I have looked at what the noble Baroness has added to hers. I am in sympathy with it, and at the appropriate time I shall withdraw my amendment in favour of Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Does the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, want to come in on this or to speak to her own amendment on its merits?
Baroness Birk: I shall speak to my amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: Some alterations to structure plans have already been submitted to the Secretary of State; for example, those concerning the Greater London Development Plan, and, as we heard earlier this afternoon, that of the West Yorkshire County Council. In the case of the GLDP the Secretary of State has already announced that under his powers in Section 6(1) of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 he is deferring his consideration of the proposed alterations; and in the other case he
398
has informed the county council that he is minded to do so—and quite rightly so, since there would not have been time between the dates of their submission and the date of abolition to subject the proposals both to the full process of an examination in public and to the subsequent issuing of modifications. Both the time and the money of my department and of the local planning authority would have been wasted. It seems to me to be a sensible decision not to have started down this particular road.
Let me quickly add, however, that that does not by any means mean that the Secretary of State has made a judgment on the value of the proposed alterations. Neither does the inclusion in the Bill of the provisions in sub-paragraph 24(1). We recognise that all the work done in preparing such proposals should not be consigned to the waste-bin; and it is possibly this aspect that is worrying the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. There will undoubtedly he valuable up-to-date survey material available in them which could prove helpful to the Secretary of State's strategic guidance and to the boroughs and districts themselves when they come to prepare their unitary development plans.
I can therefore assure the Committee that the London Planning Commission and the metropolitan county planning conferences, and all the local planning authorities, will be expected to take on hoard whatever of the work already done by the abolished counties will be of value in preparing strategic guidance and unitary development plans. The noble Baroness can rest assured that, although I cannot accept her amendment, this work will not be lost. Where appropriate it will make a worthwhile contribution to getting the new system of unitary development plans off the ground. I hope that the noble Baroness is able to accept that statement.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In view of the assurance given by my noble friend the Minister, and in view of what he has said—that these are not to be consigned to the waste-bin—would he be good enough at some time to have a look at the words "cease to have effect", which in law seem to render the whole thing null and void, contrary to the assurance that he has given to your Lordships' Committee? Would he take that on board and consider the wording?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, I most certainly shall, and I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Plummer of Saint Marylebone: I was going to make the same point, but may I add to it? The noble Lord the Minister says that all this work that has been done is not going to be thrown away, but which staff is going to enable them to take on board all this information? As I understand it, staffs are disappearing and are being dispersed. Where are they going to get at the guts of the thing? Could the noble Lord the Minister give us some information on how the thing is going to work?
Lord Skelmersdale: Some of the guts will of course be provided by the boroughs and districts themselves, which already contribute input into the original, wider area plan; and the rest of the guts, it would seem to me,

399
would be an appropriate role for the London Planning Commission and the regional conferences.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I support the Government on this issue, and I should like to know, following upon what my noble friend has said about staff being dispersed and how we are to get continuity on planning, what the timescale is likely to be before this new development plan is brought forward. I think that from the point of view of the planners who try to advise people, the fact that one already has a structure plan, approved 1976, is good to be getting on with. There is no harm in the fact that the draft structure plan which the GLC brought forward has not been adopted, and I believe that the fact that there was not time for modification is a reason for not adopting it.
I believe there is interest in planning. We are talking about a capital city, and it is vital that we get proper continuity. I hope my noble friend can give us an assurance on the timescale as well as on the most important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of Saint Marylebone, about staff and continuity.
Baroness Stedman: I accept that what the noble Lord the Minister said he said in good faith, but that does not put it into the Bill. We accept that he is repeating things in good faith, as to how he sees it will work. I would ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment in favour of Amendment No. 43, because I think that that strengthens the position considerably.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 89, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
("(1) Where before the abolition date any proposals for the alteration of a structure plan which have been prepared by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county have not been approved by the Secretary of State, he shall after that date consider the proposals and give his decision thereon as if the proposals had been prepared and submitted as joint proposals by all the local planning authorities in Greater London or the metropolitan county, as the case may be.").
The noble Baroness said: The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has very succinctly and cogently described the situation as it is at the moment. It is absolutely true, as she has said, that in 1969 the Greater London Development Plan was submitted. It was approved in 1976. In 1981 the GLC began to update the plans. In 1984 they were submitted to the Secretary of State. From 1969 to 1976 the old plans were being worked on: in 1984 they were stopped entirely. This means that the need for a London-wide strategic plan supported by a majority of the London boroughs, the surrounding shire counties, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry and virtually all professional and voluntary organisations, was being met. It was being worked on.
We are now going back to 1969; and since this Bill came along these plans have been completely thrown out. The Minister says that they have not been put in the waste-paper basket, but I will read what is in the Bill in Schedule 1, paragraph 24(1):
"Any proposals for the alteration, or for the repeal and replacement, of a structure plan which have been prepared by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council before the
400
abolition date but have not been approved by the Secretary of State shall cease to have effect on that date and be treated as having been withdrawn by that council.".
These plans were all ready; they had been worked on, updated and so on, and suddenly there was a refusal by the Secretary of State, presumably when the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill went through and when this Bill we are now discussing was on the cards. So apart from discussing the merits of this Bill as compared with the old system, what is happening is that the terrific work that has gone on, which has had the admiration and support of many people in districts and organisations, is now absolutely going to waste.
What the amendment seeks to do is to maintain the existing and what is now, according to the department, the out-of-date plan in the transitionary period until the unitary development plan appears. The difference between my amendment and that of the noble Baroness is that whereas she takes out the subparagraph I go on to say:
"he shall after that date consider the proposals and give his decision thereon as if the proposals had been prepared and submitted as joint proposals by all the local planning authorities in Greater London or the metropolitan county as the case may be".
During the debate on Second Reading, in reference to the committee of inquiry on the question of county and metropolitan authorities, the point was made again and again about the problems there were going to be during the transition period after the Bill had become law but before it was implemented and everything came to a stop.
Here we have these plans which are there and have been worked on, and which would be able to cover the transition period, being simply discarded. As was said during the previous debate on the noble Baroness's amendment, it is all very well for the Minister to say: "You do not need to worry; we are not going to do it in that way". That is not in the Bill. What is in the Bill is what I read out, and the only thing that is in the Bill which does not apply to the development plans is in Schedule 1, paragraph 24(3). That applies to local plans but not to the development plans. I think this is a very important amendment which, on purely practical grounds, should make itself acceptable to Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have personally every sympathy with this amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk; but of course she would be the first to realise, whereas I have only just come to realise it, that the root problem lies in the words, "cease to have effect". That is the source of the problem; and using those words in the statute, it is reasonable for the noble Baroness to table this amendment in the form in which she has. But my noble friend the Minister has just given a categoric assurance. He has undertaken to your Lordships' Committee, without qualification, to reconsider those words in view of the fact that he has told your Lordships that there is no question of these documents being consigned to the dustbin. In those circumstances, would it not perhaps be somewhat oppressive at this stage not to give my noble friend the Minister an opportunity to consider this position in accordance with his assurance? Let us hear what he says.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am glad to have a second bite at this particular cherry, which I must confess I find extremely complicated. I should make it clear that where possible the Secretary of State will consider and determine before 1st April 1986 all structure plan proposals which have been submitted to him and which can be processed in time. My noble friend Lord Campbell has commented twice on the drafting of this paragraph, and I am advised that the reference to "withdrawal" is a term taken from the 1971 Act in relation to structure plans. The purpose is to free the boroughs and the Secretary of State from an obligation to take those proposals into account as a material consideration when considering planning applications. This is only fair and just, when it is considered that these proposals have not been subjected to public examination. However, nothing in this prevents the boroughs and the LPCs from using these alterations when preparing guidance on the UDPs.
The reason for the approach adopted in paragraph 24 is to avoid the possibility of confusion as to the status of any plans which cannot be processed before 1st April. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to continue to consider these proposals as if they had been prepared and submitted as joint proposals by all the local planning authorities in Greater London or the metropolitan counties. This seems to me to be quite unreasonable, because abolition will already have taken place. Therefore it is surely preferable to spend what time and resources are available on considering new proposals brought forward by the new all-purpose planning authorities in the metropolitan areas themselves, rather than to continue to work on the policies of a defunct authority, which would have no one to defend them.
I have indicated earlier that this need not mean that the effort put into drawing up these proposals will be wasted. They will remain available and I would expect the boroughs and districts to make considerable use of them when preparing the part I policies of the new UDPs. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the successor authorities will be there to implement their own policies. If they then choose to promote policies for their area which were included in proposals submitted to the Secretary of State by the GLC or the metropolitan county they are perfectly free to do so. They may, however, not always entirely accept the structural policies of the earlier authority. Therefore it makes sense to give them the chance to bring forward their own policies under the new system. The provisions of paragraph 24 clear the ground and give them this opportunity.
While I am dealing with the question of how best to handle outstanding proposals at abolition, I should like just to mention the position of local plans, and I would refer in particular to an amendment which we shall be tabling at Report stage. The provisions of paragraph 24 I think make it quite clear that the Government are concerned that the best possible use should be made of existing plans which is exactly what the Committee is asking for. The particular difficulty in relation to some structure plan proposals has already been discussed in the case of local plans. These are to be carried forward directly into unitary development plans.
402
The Committee will have noted that the paragraph provides for outstanding local plan proposals made by the GLC or an MCC to be rescued where the Secretary of State has called them in for his consideration and approval. We have felt that perhaps this provision is not as clear as it might be, particularly in relation to the grounds on which such a proposal might be called in. Therefore we shall be tabling an amendment to clarify this at Report stage. I think this should make quite unequivocal our firm intention to save as much pre-abolition work as possible. However, to return to this amendment, I repeat that I see no case for imposing upon the new authorities further policies of the recently abolished authorities, over and above those in existing plans. Accordingly, I invite the Committee to reject this amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said. Did he say he intended to table an amendment that will in fact put this situation right? I may be wrong, but I understood him to say—he was reading from a brief—that it was possible to do this, that and the other. But what we want to see in the Bill, in the schedule, quite frankly is a reversal of what is there at the moment. It reads very clearly; there is nothing obtuse at all about the drafting; and unless this is what the noble Lord is offering, I do not think we can find it acceptable.
In addition, the Minister said that once abolition had taken place we must give a chance for the new plan. That is so. But what we are arguing about is exactly the point that once abolition has taken place the old plans which have been brought almost up to date should not be dispensed with. There will be enough trouble and chaos without doing that. This is so important that, unless the noble Lord can give the commitment that there will be this insertion in the Bill, I must find the position unacceptable.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: By leave, I cannot understand the problem. If the Secretary of State has under the amendment to give a decision on the old plan, it does not say that he has to approve it. He can approve it or reject it. It only says that he has to give a decision. If he gives a decision and rejects it,. fair enough. Then he starts off with a new one. What I cannot see—perhaps because I am rather stupid about it—is what the problem is.
Lord Skelmersdale: In answer to the noble Baroness, no, most certainly the proposed amendment which I have suggested the Government will put down for the Report stage is based on the situation as it is in the Bill, but will just clarify it. It will, in fact, be a technical and drafting amendment, but it will certainly not have the effect that the noble Baroness has requested.
Baroness Birk: In that case, I must test the opinion of the Committee and I hope that noble Lords will take the point that it really is something that should be in the Bill.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION
NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kagan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kaldor, L.

Banks, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beswick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Melchett, L.

Collison, L.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Monson, L.

Mulley, L.

Denington, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkender, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacobson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Barber, L.

Croft, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V.

Beloff, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Bessborough, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dudley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Elles, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Chelwood, L.

Ferrier, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gainford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Gowrie, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Cox, B.

Halsbury, E.

Craigavon, V.

Hardinge of Penhurst, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Craigton, L.

Harvington, L.

404

Henley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Holderness, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Hood, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Reigate, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Renton, L.

Killearn, L.

Rodney, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Romney, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sandford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Savile, L.

Layton, L.

Shannon, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sherfield, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Somers, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Southborough, L.

Marley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tryon, L.

Munster, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vivian, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ward of Witley, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Orkney, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: In moving that the House do now resume, I think I should say that it has been agreed that we shall not return to this business until ten past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Representation of the People Bill
7.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Extension of parliamentary franchise]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 36, leave out from ("been") to end of line 37 and insert ("resident in a member state of the European Economic Community other than the United Kingdom".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment bears on matters which we discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill but I am anxious to ask your Lordships to reconsider the position. We have achieved a situation where British citizens who are employed by the European Community full-time in Europe are now entitled to vote in elections in the United Kingdom. It is our view that although that is a step forward it is still restrictive.
As I think I indicated at earlier stages of the Bill, we should like to see British citizens throughout the world allowed to vote because it is on the basis of citizenship and not necessarily residence that the vote should be

405
granted. There are already as we know parts in the Bill which allow people to do this only if they give an undertaking that they will return to this country at some later stage. I do not want to rehearse again the arguments about those people who are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon said, tax dodgers but people who are actually doing a good job for this country as salesmen, businessmen or missionaries or in voluntary service overseas, and so on, who still regard the United Kingdom as their home base and who regard United Kingdom politics as being important to them in relation to their pensions, their future and the safety of the world, if you like.
I do not go so far as that in this amendment; but feel that if we believe in the European Community then people of British citizenship who are resident in Europe on a semi-permanent basis—that is to say, people who intend to return eventually but who are for all sorts of reasons resident in Europe for the time being—are entitled to vote and to take part in the political deliberations of this country. It is on that basis that I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I think I indicated in Committee, the Government accept that there are powerful arguments for making special arrangements for British citizens in the European Community. The background is—and I think the noble Lord will be aware of this—that the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place recommended an extension of the franchise to all British citizens in the Community who have previously resided in the United Kingdom. The main considerations, for the Select Committee, were that the demand for an extension of the franchise had come mainly from British citizens within the Community, and that common membership of the Community gave British citizens in other member states a closer connection with the United Kingdom than was shared by British citizens elsewhere.
We consulted the political parties on this recommendation in November 1983. The parties varied in their enthusiasm for the principle of extending the franchise, and at that stage it was only the Liberal Party which supported an extension to all 3 million British citizens resident around the world. But not one of the parties, whatever their view on the main issue, thought that if the franchise were to be extended at all British citizens in the Community should have the vote in circumstances where British citizens in other parts of the world should not. It was this factor that lay behind the Government's decision to introduce a Bill giving the vote to British citizens around the world but limited to a period of seven years after departure.
7.15 p.m.
The Government's aim all along has been for the Bill to have the widest possible degree of support by all the parties. We have had to compromise on the extent to which the principle is given effect to make sure the principle itself is established. Although we have some sympathy with the noble Lord's amendment, we are fairly sure it would not command widespread support in another place; and it is surely for another place to
406
have the final say on the way its Members are to be elected. I welcome the spirit in which the noble Lord has moved his amendment, which I know does not go so far as perhaps he and some others of his party would wish it to, but I have to say that I hope he will not press it. If he does, I hope that your Lordships will not support it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I intended to intervene but I rather assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would speak and I was giving him the opportunity to speak first.
When we have discussed this matter in the past we have had the prospect held out that if we extended the franchise in the way in which my noble friend has suggested all sorts of tax dodgers and other unsatisfactory people would be enfranchised. Now my noble friend has come forward with a far more limited amendment dealing exclusively with the Community where the same scale of problem clearly does not exist.
With great respect, I find the argument of the noble Lord the Minister singularly unpersuasive. The idea that the other place—I do not want to overstate the argument that he put before the House—is manifestly going to be right on matters of this sort, and that we should adopt an attitude of appropriate humility when discussing these questions, seems to me a rather far fetched proposition.
It could be argued that in the final analysis we are slightly more disinterested than another place. Although I very much welcomed the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, which was carried on the last occasion, it seems to me that the Minister's case today, justifying a position where we would be consciously deciding that people working within the EEC, of which we are a member and which is at the very heart of our foreign and economic policy, should in fact be disfranchised, is one of the least impressive I have heard. That seems highly undesirable and I am bound to say that nothing the Minister has said today has dissuaded me from believing that my noble friend's amendment is entirely right.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it was extremely courteous of the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, to anticipate that I would want to speak before he did. I just wanted to make absolutely sure that the Liberal Party and the SDP were of one mind in this matter, and therefore I waited for his speech. I find that the Alliance is truly an alliance and that they hold the same point of view. I can now reply.
Of course it is for another place rather than this one to have the last word on who should or who should not have the franchise for election to that House. I said "the last word". That does not mean that the opinions of this House are in any way wasted and I am sure that the other place would always respect even on matters of franchise a view expressed in this House. But the whole basis of the way in which we deal hopefully with matters of franchise is one of compromise and discussion between the parties. In another place such discussions did take place. A point of view was put forward on behalf of the official Opposition which was contrary to some of the provisions that now appear in the Bill and that are going through. Both the

407
Government and the official Opposition decided—your Lordships may think very sensibly—to enter upon a compromise arrangement where the best of all worlds was possibly not given the proper emphasis so far as the Government or the official Opposition saw it. But there was a compromise and by that compromise I regard myself as being in honour bound.
Having said that, let me say also why I believe that this amendment is not a good amendment. I said on Second Reading on behalf of my noble friends, and at Committee stage, that it was not right to include under one umbrella people who were not working for the EC—and I especially spoke in favour of that and voted in favour of that in Committee—but who have gone abroad whether to countries of the EC or elsewhere.
I dealt with the various categories that, in frankness, all of us know reside abroad. There are some who do it for very good reason, for medical reasons, and one respects and sympathises with those British citizens who reside abroad for that reason. There are those who do it for trading and industrial reasons, and I have no doubt that that is for the benefit, in many cases, of this country. One respects that category.
I ask your Lordships to bear in mind, in dealing with the EC, that Spain and Portugal are about to enter into its membership. Obviously we will welcome them with open arms on the basis that, happily, certain matters have been cleared up between ourselves and Spain; that has been a very helpful and successful negotiation, I have no doubt. However, particularly when dealing with Spain do I remember that there are many British subjects—I am not sure that we are proud that they are so—who have gone to that country, in order, it is well known, to escape justice in this country.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I should point out that it has just been announced that a new extradition treaty is being concluded between Spain and this country. Those people to whom the noble Lord so frequently refers in this House will no longer find themselves on the Costa del Sol, or wherever it is they are.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I welcome that intervention, but all of us know that excepted from all extradition treaties are offences which relate to fiscal matters. There are, therefore, many offences which will not come within the purview of an extradition treaty, glad though I am to know that that treaty is going to be signed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, who is always courteous, for allowing me to intervene. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting to the House that our decision on this question as to whether to enfranchise many tens of thousands of British citizens living in the EC should be dependent upon what happens to five, six or seven people who may have gone to Spain having committed some fiscal offence, as I think he described it? Is he seriously suggesting that on that argument, and that argument alone we should disfranchise a substantial number of our fellow citizens?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, one of the mistakes of an intervention—although the noble Lord well knows that I am more than happy always to give way to him, or any other noble Lord—is that sometimes the intervention takes place before the original speaker has a chance of completing the point he was trying to make. I was certainly not limiting what I had to say to seven or eight people. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, presumably knows these people so well that he was even able to give the number. I was not able myself to say how many such people there were in Spain or elsewhere. I was obviously adding that up in regard to all the EC countries and mentioning Spain as an example only because of the media emphasis on Spain having been used in the past as a retreat for some of the people to whom I referred.
It is not only those people to whom I refer. It is not only those people about whom I would want to use any sort of offensive language. I am resting upon the principle, not only of the agreement which was reached, which in my view binds me, but also on the principle which does not apply, in my view, to those people employed in the EC. It is those people who are resident as a principle in this country, who pay taxes in this country, who are influenced by what happens socially and otherwise in this country by virtue of their residence, who really should, as a matter of principle, be given the vote. There should be an exception to that principle and rule only when people are engaged in the diplomatic service and, therefore, in the service of the United Kingdom and those people we dealt with in Committee, if I remember correctly, on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles.
On the basis, therefore, first, that an agreement, and a sensible one, has been reached between the main parties in another place; secondly, that I believe that the last word ought to be with them and we are dealing with a Bill which has come from the other place; and, thirdly, because of the reasons which I believe actuated the other place, I say that this amendment should not be agreed to.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is a most extraordinary argument. I have always understood that in this country all citizens are entitled to vote unless they have the misfortune to be either Peers, lunatics or criminals. Under which category are the people we are now going to exclude to be ranked?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support I have received from these Benches. There are two reasons why I reject the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. First, he does not take into account Clause 2(3)(e), under which people have to make a declaration that they do not intend to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom. I should have thought that the people to whom he refers as evading criminal laws or taxation laws were not likely to sign a declaration saying that they did not intend to reside permanently outside the United Kingdom. I should have thought that that was the reason they had gone there in the first place.
More specifically, from these Benches we must reject what I believe to be the rather sordid compromise that was reached between the Government and what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,

409
is pleased to call the official Opposition, by which I presume he means the Labour Party in all its forms in another place. Frankly, if this House has a role it is to question cosy agreements that are reached by political parties that do not necessarily represent the whole of opinion within the country. It is on that basis as much as any—although I know our chances of carrying this amendment are, in the circumstances, very small—that we have a duty on these Benches to say that we are not prepared to deny the rights of British citizens who are doing a job for Britain abroad as well as for themselves. We are not a party to that shabby compromise and, therefore, I feel that we need to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree that the old adage of half a loaf being better than no bread is very real in these circumstances? I believe that we won a good battle when we obtained permission for the officials of the Community to have their vote. One recognises the reaction in another place which at the end of the day will and should have the last word. If this amendment has the effect of removing the half loaf that we have, I cannot think that it is a wise way of wanting to use the powers of this House. Even at this late minute, rather than put that at risk by having a vote on the record, it would perhaps be better not to proceed to lose the half loaf that we already have.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I understand what he is saying and the dangers to which he refers. But if the status quo ante the amendment is now acceptable to the Government and they are prepared to allow that position to go through to another place, and indeed to support it—because that is the only way that it will get through—and they do not like the position as it would be amended by my amendment, they can revert to the previous position. It would surely be cynical for the Government at this stage to accept the situation as amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, but say that they are not prepared to revert to it if things go further than that. That would be an extremely cynical attitude to take. While I understand the logic of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I feel that in the circumstances the danger is considerably less than he fears, and on that basis I propose to take the amendment to a Division.
7.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Falkland, V.

Lawrence, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Grey, E.

McNair, L.

410

Ogmore, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Seear, B.

Winstanley, L.

Stedman, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hood, V.

Barber, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Birk, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Blease, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molson, L.

Chelwood, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigton, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Croft, L.

Rea, L.

Davidson, V.

Reigate, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Romney, E,

Ellenborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ennals, L.

Southborough, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrier, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Galpern, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gowrie, E.

Trumpington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Vickers, B.

Greenway, L.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

White, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Windlesham, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert —
("(e) the person is the wife or husband of a person referred to in paragraph (d) above, is a British citizen, is resident outside the United Kingdom and satisfies the conditions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this modest little amendment is really an addendum to the amendment which was adopted in Committee giving the right to British officials in Community institutions to vote. Referring back to the previous amendment, I would point out to your Lordships that these votes are not only for another place; they are also for the European Parliament. This House has just as much right as the other place to decide who votes for the European Parliament or indeed for another place. It so

411
happens that there are three Members of the European Parliament from this House and only one from another place. Thus, if it was a question of numbers, one could say that this House has more right than another place to decide who should vote in European parliamentary elections. To say that it is unconstitutional that this House should have anything to say on the representation of the people is an extraordinary attitude to take. It is one that I have never heard before, and hope never to hear again.
To come back to my modest little amendment, this refers to the amendment giving the right to British officials to vote in both European and national elections regardless of whether or not they had been away from this country for five years. As I indicated before that amendment was adopted by your Lordships, it did not include the right of spouses of such officials to vote; so this amendment merely enables the British spouses of British officials in the Community institutions to have that right.
I accept that the amendment may be badly drafted. If that is the case, of course I shall be prepared to withdraw it on the understanding that the Government will be prepared to redraft it in the same spirit and within the same parameters, to be adopted on Third Reading.
I press the Government very seriously to consider urging their colleagues in another place that this amendment should be adopted, coming from your Lordships' House. It is frankly nonsense to say that this House has no right to give any guidance to another place on who should vote, particularly in relation to the European parliamentary election. I should point out that it will be only British officials in the Community insititutions who will not have the right to vote in European parliamentary elections, subject to the five-year limit, if this amendment is not adopted in another place. Thus, I urge the Minister to use all his energy and powers of advocacy to persuade the Secretary of State in another place, and the Government, to adopt it.
I should also ask the noble Lord opposite whether his party in another place will accept this amendment, or whether they will vote against it. I hope that noble Lords in this House who are Members of the Opposition will make sure that their votes in this House will be reflected in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the strictures, always mildy given by the noble Baroness, about those who said that it was completely unconstitutional for matters of franchise to be dealt with in this House, were not applied to me. I made it absolutely clear that, whereas I thought that it was constitutionally possible and perfectly proper, my only comment was that in my view the last word in regard to elections to that body should remain with that body, and I used the words deliberately.
I have only this comment to make on the amendment. It seems to me to be perfectly logical and proper, in view of the amendment that was passed at the Committee stage in regard to officials of the EC, that their husbands or wives (as the case may be) should be included in the franchise. At Committee
412
stage I expressed a view on a matter which, as I understood it, had not been considered in the other place. I took a view on behalf of my noble friends, or of such of those who wanted to support me, and I said at that time that I did not think that that view was contrary, so far as I knew, to any policy that had been expressed by my party. In the light of the noble Baroness's question to me, I repeat those words.
However, as I said, the matter has not been tested. I cannot speak for the Opposition—the official Opposition, I repeat—in another place, and I merely record that I myself see this as a logical and proper amendment following upon what was passed at the Committee stage.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hasten to say that this amendment has our full support. Nothing that I said on the last amendment detracts from our support for the original amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, at the Committee stage, or for this amendment which goes with it. We certainly wish it well. We very much hope that the Government will give the noble Baroness the assurances for which she is asking. Like her, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will use his good offices with what I should prefer to call the "paid" Opposition in another place.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I regret that I had to be absent at the previous stages of this Bill. Therefore, I am obviously more ignorant than I should be. For the record, I wonder whether my noble friend Lady Elles, or the Minister, can help me. Representa-tions have been made to me that if my noble friend's amendment is carried NATO employees would find themselves at a disadvantage. Am I right in thinking that because NATO officials are employed directly by Her Majesty's Government their position will not be at all adversely affected by this amendment? If my noble friend or the Minister can help me on that matter, I shall be grateful.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, when the House is as empty as it is at the moment I should never think it appropriate to raise the temperature on such a Bill as this, which, apart from our differences on the last amendment, is not appropriate for normal party strife. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who asked about the position of the Opposition in relation to her amendment, I should like to say that it has our warm and enthusiastic support. I am glad to be able to reassure her that the Social Democratic and Liberal Parties will vote for it enthusiastically in the House of Commons.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think I shall accept my noble friend's invitation to discuss again some parts of the first amendment except to say that when she reads the record she will note that my words were that another place should have a final say. However, relating to this particular amendment, I must say that the Government fully accept that if it is decided to give the vote to Community officials then their spouses should also have the vote. All I have to say now to my noble friend is this. As she is aware, the amendment now before your Lordships does not have quite the effect that I believe she wants it to have.

413
Therefore, perhaps I may suggest that she withdraws the amendment on the understanding that we put the matter right at Third Reading.
It may be convenient if I add that, although the amendments carried at the Committee stage were not defective, on reflection we believe that there is probably a better way of giving effect to the principle that lies behind them, and we shall also be preparing Third Reading amendments which, if your Lordships agree, will replace those which were moved by my noble friend at the Committee stage. I hope that that will be acceptable to her.
My noble friend Lord Home asked about NATO. So far as officials of NATO are concerned, my noble friend's amendment would not cover them. As far as I know, it has not been suggested elsewhere or in your Lordships' House that NATO officials should have the vote in the same way as officials will have it now as a result of my noble friend's amendment. We do not think that it would be possible to go further. It introduces many difficulties about where one actually draws the line. One can think of the British Council, and others. I hope that that answer to my noble friend Lord Home at least sets the scene for the record in the way that he asked.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, with regard to NATO officials, I had always understood that they were either officials employed by the United Kingdom Government, where they were British citizens, or indeed they were members of the armed forces. However, in view of what my noble friend the Minister has said, which I do not find very reassuring, I should like to make further inquiries, and, if necessary, look at this particular aspect again on Third Reading. I do not think my noble friend Lord Home is entirely satisfied. However, perhaps before I say anything further my noble friend may like to say a further word.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that I said that it had not cropped up before. I shall have to seek advice on this and I am subject to correction, but, as I understand it, as it has not been raised before, it is probably better if I take it away and consider it. I shall, of course, write to my noble friend and to my noble friend Lady Elles and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Home, has raised this issue, and given the fact that Third Reading is the final stage of the Bill so far as this House is concerned and we shall not then be able to return to the issue, would it be possible for the noble Lord to let us know—those of us who have participated in the debate, including, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Home—what is the Government's view of this matter certainly a few days before we come to the Third Reading of the Bill?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall certainly copy correspondence to all those who have taken part.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in view of the undertaking of my noble friend the Minister that there will be a redrafting of my amendment in the same spirit as the draft and similarly that the amendment that was adopted at Committee stage will be redrafted but that it will still include everyone now in the Bill—that is, that all those now employed by the European Community institutions will still be included in a redraft—I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
I would press my noble friend to do all that he can to make sure that the Government support the amendment, particularly in view of the many letters and representations that I had from officials on returning to the European Parliament last week following the adoption of the previous amendment. Regardless of party, the amendment was received with great jubilation and a feeling of great gratitude towards your Lordships' House as the House that had considered their position. Otherwise, they would have been the only officials in the institutions without the right to vote in either national or European Parliament elections. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Reduction of minimum age requirement for parliamentary candidates.
. In section 7 of the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 (no person aged under twenty-one years to be capable of being elected a Member of Parliament) for the words "one and twenty" there shall be substituted the word "eighteen".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed at Committee stage an amendment similar to the next amendment to this. It would therefore be helpful to the House, I believe, if we discussed Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together.
Amendment No. 4: Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Reduction of minimum age requirement for local authority candidates.
.In section 79(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, for the words "twenty-one years" there shall be substituted the words "eighteen years".").
The amendments touch on the same principle although one relates to parliamentary elections and the other to local government elections. The objection of the Minister, as I understood it, was that there was very little evidence of pressure for reduction in the age of candidature from 21 to 18. I find that difficult to believe. From a speech already quoted, I believe, I have culled some additional words. I quote:
"I have been made aware of the long-standing Young Conservative interest in having the qualifying age for election to public office reduced to 18".
Those are the words of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary in a speech to the Young Conservative conference in Scarborough in February 1980. The final paragraph of the speech reads:
"In my view the case for changing the law is a strong one. I find it difficult to see why young people who are entitled to vote and are regarded as full citizens should not be allowed to present themselves to their fellow citizens for election to office".
I do not think I could have put the statement more clearly myself. It is illogical to have a situation where the decision-making process is given to people at 18 but that the people over whom the decision is made are not allowed to present themselves to the electorate until they are 21. This is a simple straightforward amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in all deference, it is one of the privileges of those who do not have responsibility either for the Government or for the Opposition to bring forward adventurous and sometimes extremely worthy resolutions and amendments. If one has responsibility either in Government or in an Opposition that hopes to be the Government, then one obviously has to say that despite the many worthy arguments to support the proposition that those who have the vote should have the right to sit—a proposition for which, speaking personally, I have the greatest sympathy—responsibility points to the matter not being incorpo-rated in this Bill in this House in this way.
Responsibility dictates that there should be proper discussions upon matters of this kind between the Government and all other parties democratically represented in the other place and that those discussions should take place, one hopes, in an atmosphere of common sense with all the arguments being advanced and possibly a proper arrangement then being reached so that one can deal with such an important constitutional matter upon an agreed party basis.
No such discussions have so far as I know been set up by the Alliance in another place. There have been no arrangements made for meetings to be held to discuss these matters. It is therefore quite wrong, in my respectful submission, for an amendment sensibly to be brought before the House at this stage. However, I do hope—I say this with every sense of responsibility—that the points that have been raised perfectly properly by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will indeed form the subject matter of consultations that may well take place in the future. After those consultations, decisions can be taken—but not in this House this evening.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 were put down separately. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that he would like them to be taken together. I shall speak to both, although I shall put my remarks in two different pockets, the first pocket being the first amendment relating to candidates between the ages of 18 and 21 being able to stand at parliamentary elections. When I raised the question of local authority elections at the Committee stage, the Minister said that there was not much support for anything of this kind in another place. Given that local authority and parliamentary elections come under the same umbrella, I should like to call attention to an Early Day Motion in another place signed by a number of honourable Members which calls for:
"The age at which a person may stand for public office to be brought into line with that at which Parliament has deemed them fit to vote and further recognises that the real power in any election will still be the ability to choose and not the possibility of being chosen".
416
It is worth remarking that one of the signatories of the Early Day Motion is a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
In addition to support in another place, young members' groups of all the major parties are looking to us to put through this amendment. I have received a document from the national Young Conservatives which says:
"If necessary we are prepared to lobby on behalf of participation of Young Conservatives in council affairs".
They go on to say:
"It is in the best interests that Conservative candidates are representative of the electorate".
Although the arguments refer here to council candidates, they are sound.
With other countries of the Commonwealth, we owe a common allegiance. If, as a development from Empire, the Commonwealth is not the fiction that it is sometimes held to be, it is worth bearing in mind that in two countries of the Commonwealth, Australia and Canada, candidates are eligible to stand for election at 18.
I should like to deal with the arguments put forward by the Minister at Committee stage in regard to local authority elections. They seem rather curious and unsatisfactory. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, the Home Secretary agreed in 1980 that people should be able to stand for parliamentary election or public office between the ages of 18 and 21. The Minister said that he would look into the matter, and write to me. I now see the possible error of my ways in not pressing the matter to a Division then because when the Minister wrote he did not change his position.
The first argument that the Minister produced in Committee on 16th April was that those people between the ages of 18 and 21 need to gain more experience before standing as candidates. This argument is surely self-defeating. Those between the ages of 18 and 21 are already adjudged experienced enough to vote, and there should be no distinction between their capacity to judge a candidate by voting and their capacity to be judged as candidates.
8 p.m.
The second argument adduced by the Minister at the Committee stage on my amendment on local authority elections was that those between the ages of 18 and 21 have more pressing demands on their time than to be able to stand for election. This surely is a curious argument. If all over the age of 21 are able to stand, only a tiny minority—it must be less than 1 per cent.—do stand, and the logic of the Minister's argument surely is that there is no need for anyone over the age of 21 to stand for election as 99 per cent. of the electorate seem to have more pressing claims on their time.
The third argument that the Minister used was that he has only received occasional letters on the matter of local authority elections. How many letters are usually received on matters to do with amendments raised in this House and how does that figure compare with the

417
very few letters which the Minister said had been received on this particular issue?
The fourth argument of the Minister was that there had been no demand for a change in the law on this matter. However, I do not think that the Minister clarified the distinction between apparent and real demand. There was no apparent demand for votes for those between the ages of 18 and 21 when such voting was accorded in 1969; yet during the debate which preceded the Representation of the People Act 1969, providing for the vote for those between the ages of 18 and 21, a Member of another place said:
"There has not been much pressure for votes at 18. Indeed, there is no sign of the Strangers' Gallery bursting at the seams to hear what we are discussing".
Yet, my Lords, what happened at the last election?—hundreds and thousands between the ages of 18 and 21 voted; and I understand that the majority voted Conservative. So much for the arguments of the Minister in Committee which were against my amendment.
I thought that I would go a stage further and show that the Minister had produced an argument for my amendment. The Minister said:
"I accept the noble Lord's point that it is for the electorate to decide … whether or not they wish to vote for a person of any age. Of course I accept that argument".—[official Report, 16/4/85; col. 683.]
To conclude, bearing in mind first the words of the Home Secretary in 1980 to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred, and secondly the Minister's statement at the Committee stage that it is for the electorate to decide whether or not they wish to vote for a person of any age, I hope that the Minister will reconsider this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this matter. I know that the House wants to get on with the Bill which we have been discussing this afternoon, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that this is not a matter for this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, it may be illogical that if one has the right at the age of 18 to vote for candidates for Parliament, one should not also have the right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. However, I do not agree. It may be illogical from the point of view of a computer but we are human beings. When I was 18 I was still at school and would have been absolutely appalled if I had found myself in Parliament. I would have been completely ignorant and completely at a loss. I do not think that it is practicable.
As we all know, the younger Pitt was Prime Minister at the age of 23, but in those days universal suffrage did not exist. The only matters with which governments were concerned were foreign affairs and defence; they were hardly concerned with anything else. We cannot compare William Pitt being Prime Minister at the age of 23 with a man or woman being Prime Minister at the age of 23 now. It would be quite absurd.
As we all know, government is now extremely complex. To a certain extent the same is true of local government. A councillor, particularly in a large
418
metropolitan council, has to deal with millions and millions of pounds. How can a young man of 18, 19, 20 or even 25—I would go as high as that—understand that? I am all for young people—I have been treasurer of boys' clubs and have been a member of the executive of boys' clubs for many years. However, I could not support this amendment; I should like to support it, but to be practical I cannot.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too cannot support this amendment. Although a young person at the age of 18 probably has the experience to judge whether another is suitable to represent him in Parliament, I doubt whether anyone at the age of 18 actually has the experience to serve in Parliament. It must be borne in nind that when the voting age was dropped from 21 to 18 Peers who had reached the age of 18 but who had not yet reached the age of 21 were still, and still are, excluded from serving in Parliament.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when the matter of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sudeley—the second amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that we could take with his amendment—was raised at the Committee stage, I undertook to write to my noble friend Lord Sudeley when I had had a chance to look into the points that he raised. My noble friend quoted a speech—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned it again tonight—given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary when he was Minister of State with responsiblility for electoral matters in 1980. It is no secret that the Government have in the past given careful and indeed sympathetic consideration to this issue, on which a recommendation was made by the Speaker's Conference of 1973–74. It is equally no secret that, in all the circumstances, it was decided not to proceed with a reduction in the minimum age, and the Government gave an answer to this effect in another place on 16th February 1984. The Government detect absolutely no enthusiasm among the general public or from young people themselves for a reduction in the minimum age either for parliamentary or for local government candidates.
I was asked about the question of numbers. I can say that we have received fewer than half-a-dozen letters on this subject. I can also say that we have received far fewer letters than we have received on other electoral issues, such as the extension of the franchise, the deposit, absent voting, and so on. I hope that that puts other people's general views into context.
The consequence of reducing the minimum age would be to give the electorate a message that we wished to encourage young people of 18, 19 and 20 to stand for public office. I fully accept the intention on their part to stand, but I also entirely agree with my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Swinfen. I believe that membership of Parliament or of a local authority surely calls for more maturity than young people of that age group are likely to have. My noble friend Lord Sudeley repeated an argument which was advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in Committee, suggesting that the voter should choose. That is all very well, but one can take that to a logical

419
conclusion, which is that it is an argument for no restrictions at all on the right to stand.
I am sorry, but this is an issue which we have considered carefully. It is a change which, to my mind, would be undesirable. Having said that, I do not think that I can repeat the arguments that I put forward in Committee, and I hope that both the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend Lord Sudeley will not press their amendments.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is strange, is it not, that we reduce the age of majority to 18 and allow people to do all sorts of things save only to stand for public office. To hear some of the arguments one would think that Parliament and the local councils are going to be flooded with 18-year-olds. The noble Lord the Minister in his wisdom and knowledge says that these people are not mature enough to stand. My belief is that that is something which should be tested by the electorate—the electorate now entitled to vote at 18 years of age.
In International Youth Year, if we are serious about the principles which relate to that great event, particu-larly those relating to participation, it seems to me that this is an important gesture that the Government ought to be willing to make. I feel strongly on this subject and so do my noble friends, and we shall seek to test the feeling of the House.
8.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 78.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Diamond, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sudeley, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Barber, L.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Beloff, L.

Cox, B.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Craigton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Croft, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Caithness, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Elles, B.

Chelwood, L.

Elton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Faithfull, B.

Coleraine, L.

Ferrier, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

420

Gibson-Watt, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Gowrie, E.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Greenway, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Renton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Renwick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Sandford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Southborough, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Layton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Molson, L.

Vivian, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

White, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Windlesham, L.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
8.19 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Miscellaneous amendments of the principal Act]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 37, line 34, after ("(5)") insert ("for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are all technical amendments making minor changes in the provisions of The Representation of the People Act 1983. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 37, line 34, leave out from ("onwards") to end of line 35 and insert ("there shall be substituted the words "and a district council or London borough council may assign officers to assist in carrying out all or any of those duties."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 38, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("Subsection") in line 12 and insert—
("(d) for subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted—
"(4) It shall be the duty

(a) in England and Wales, of a district council or London borough council, and

(b) in Scotland, of the council of a region or islands area,

to assign such officers to assist the registration officer as may be required for carrying out his functions under this Act.
(5) ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 53, leave out lines 25 and 26.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Local Government Bill
8.20 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 43ZA:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Action Areasa.
From the abolition date, applications for planning permission for the development of land within any Greater London Council Action Area shall be determined by each local planning authority in the Area in consultation with any other authority in the Area and with local associations and community groups, and where it is considered by any such authority to conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the Action Area Plan the authority dealing with the application shall hold a local public inquiry, and all local planning authorities concerned shall have regard to the outcome of the local planning inquiry.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Birk as it appears on the Marshalled List. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the rubric "Action Areas". This in my view merits the serious attention of the Committee, and it would be helpful if I read the amendment in full.
(" . From the abolition date, applications for planning permission for the development of land within any Greater London Council Action Area shall be determined by each local planning authority in the Area in consultation with any other authority in the Area and with local associations and community groups, and where it is considered by any such authority to conflict with or prejudice the implementation of the Action Area Plan the authority dealing with the application shall hold a local public inquiry, and all local planning authorities concerned shall have regard to the outcome of the local planning inquiry.").
The Covent Garden area I think, with no modesty whatsoever, could be looked upon as one of the world's greatest success stories of urban renewal. There is not a harsh word said about the manner in which certainly the authorities concerned, with the assistance of the GLC, have wrought a wonderful change, whereas in many other parts of the country, where in actual fact there have been major changes and the removal of a once busy part of a city to somewhere else, it is left in somewhat of a sad state. I do not think in actual fact that that can be said about Covent Garden.
The purpose of this amendment is to highlight the Bill's lack of provision for unified planning and development of this key part of central London, which will be vulnerable to disagreements between Camden and Westminster, and to install a machinery that will ensure the implementation of the action area plan.
Following the adoption of the Covent Garden action area plan in 1978, the Greater London Council has been the local planning authority for this area. The GLC has been concerned with ensuring a balanced mix of public and private housing, commercial and light industrial, and social and leisure projects. It has
422
also managed the central market complex and acquired a major property portfolio.
Covent Garden as a large scale urban renewal project has been accepted as a major success for London in both social and financial terms. This far, 500 dwellings have been completed or arc under construction; 4,000 extra jobs have been created; the central market building has been acclaimed as both an economic and a design success; the GLC property holdings in Covent Garden have substantially increased in value, and the council have adopted socially based rent policies towards certain categories of shops in order to promote retail diversification in the area.
There now exists considerable speculative private redevelopment pressure to take advantage of the GLC's commercial successes and consequential increases in land and rental values in this area. This requires a consistent approach in making decisions on planning proposals to ensure the area's continued development.
Contrary to Sir George Young's assertion in the Commons Committee stage that the role of the GLC in Covent Garden was coming to a close and That the development was largely completed, the 10-year action area plan continues. The central market building and part of the piazza have been built, but the planned resident population target of around 1,200 people is still unachieved, mainly because of Government cutbacks on resources for public sector housing. A highly developed consultative machinery exists in Covent Garden involving the GLC, the Covent Garden Forum and the Covent Garden Community Association, tenants' groups and employers' organisations.
In the Commons Committee stage Sir George Young claimed that no representations had been received from groups in the area. However, both the Covent Garden Forum and Covent Garden Community Association have written to the Department of the Environment expressing their concern at the Government's proposals to transfer responsibilities for implementation of action area proposals and the planning of Covent Garden to the boroughs of Westminster and Camden.
The boroughs of Westminster and Camden are known to disagree on major policy issues, such as the provision of public housing, studio and office uses, car parking and public ownership of commercial assets. It is feared that the real policy decisions by either authority would damage existing achievements at Covent Garden and upset the balance of social and commercial objectives currently pursued. It would certainly be inappropriate for these two dissimilar boroughs to deal with planning matters in this area without adequate consultation both with each other and with local community groups.
This amendment proposes a consultation procedure between the boroughs and the local associations and community groups for development, and where the proposals are deemed as conflicting with or prejudicing the action area plan, the holding of a local public inquiry. It is only through such a mechanism

423
that the substantial achievements which the GLC has produced in the area can be maintained and built upon.
That is how we see it from this side of the Committee. We may have it wrong. We are certainly anxious to be assured by the Minister that the procedures and provisions of the Bill will obviate these kind of worries which I do not raise in an alarmist way but which the Minister may be able to tell us are needless and unfounded. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to oppose this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, there is already a very adequate consultative machinery there. Any suggestion of having public inquiries at the drop of a hat, which this amendment would do, would do nothing but place a dead hand on the progress that I believe is going on and will continue to go on in the Covent Garden area. I do not think this is a positive amendment, and I ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Skelmersdale: I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and my noble friend Lady Gardner that I, too, am a fan of Covent Garden. My only regret is that the price of tickets at the Opera House is often higher than my pocket can stand.
Turning to this amendment, Covent Garden is the only GLC action area plan actually in operation, and although there are others in process, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has explained, they will not be complete by the abolition date. More generally, on this amendment, there are already under the planning system and as amended by this Bill adequate provisions; for example, in Article 15 of the general development order which I mentioned in Committee the other day. Anyone, whether an individual member of the public or a community group or any other body, has access to the planning register which every London borough and district council must keep. Of course, they are perfectly at liberty to inspect and comment on the applications listed there.
Secondly, a local authority has to advertise any applications which constitute departures from the development plan unless they propose to refuse them, and they must consider any objections which they receive as a result, whoever the objections may come from. Thirdly, many sorts of developments must be publicly advertised by the applicant before the local planning authority will determine the application, and again the authority must consider any representations they receive in consequence.
Going back to action areas generally, or rather the specific action area in Covent Garden, the noble Lord may not know that in 1982 the GLC agreed with the London Boroughs Association that when the London planning regulations were revised—a revision obviously no longer appropriate in view of this Bill—they should cease to be the local authority for the area. Moreover, they agreed at that time that responsibility for development control should revert to Camden and Westminster, and this is the current proposal. This is what I expect to happen.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has obviously taken with that reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rests the case for no change in the future, despite the change in status in the plan, on the fact that things have been managed well so far. The Minister tells us that, although there is a radical change—we were seeking to perpetuate the good manner in which it has been managed up to now by the GLC as the local planning authority—he wanted to ensure that there was some mechanism in case there was a breakdown in interpretation and so on. I take what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, says. We do not want local public inquiries at the drop of a hat. I am absolutely certain that Camden would not want it—there is doubt in the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—and I imagine that Westminster would not want to rush into it. There would be the maximum collaboration possible, because no one wants to waste money, not deliber-ately, on needless public inquiries.
I did not appreciate that the GLC had, as it were, if not seen into the future, recognised that at some stage it would cease to be the local planning authority for the revision of the plans. In that circumstance the authority for planning would revert to the two former authorities. On the basis that they recognise that that was what they would agree to before, one should be puzzled as to why they are concerned now. There are perhaps some facts that I have to ascertain, revise or rephrase if I need to return at a later stage. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the matter. I shall read carefully what he has said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and ancient monuments]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 43A:
Page 3, line 25, after ("areas") insert ("including Holland Park,")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 43B, 53A, 58B 74A:
Amendment No. 43B: Page 3, line 26, after ("subjects") insert ("including Holland Park")
Amendment No. 53A: Clause 6, page 3, line 36, after ("Council") insert ("save that functions relating to Holland Park shall be transferred to the Department of the Environment")
Amendment No. 58B: Schedule 3, page 98, line 27, at end insert ("or in the case of Holland Park the Department of the Environment." ")
Amendment No. 74A: Clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert ("or, in the case of Holland Park, the Department of the Environment".")
I have spoken to the Minister about these and I have also spoken before about the subject matter of these amendments. Before the Minister for the Arts leaves the Committee, the subject is Holland Park, an historic park. I am grateful to the Minister for retracing his steps. I am asking that Holland Park

425
should have the special consideration of the Government in view of its historic position.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): I am not responsible for historic parks: they are the responsibility of my noble friend Lord Elton.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am sorry, I misunderstood that.
Lord Elton: I am going to stay!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Thank you very much indeed for that very helpful interruption. The other night I spoke at some length and told the Committee about the history of Holland Park—I shall not repeat that—and how it is a beautiful park, full of horticul-tural subjects of great interest, including 3,000 different shrubs and trees. It is a tourist attraction and therefore the public at large come to it. It is not merely a park associated with Kensington. It is not a municipal park.
The other night I was specifically concerned about what should be the position of the planning authority. My last amendment then was concerned to try to persuade the Government that the planning authority should be the Department of the Environment because that department looks after Royal Parks. I read a letter from a Member of this House, Lord Hurcomb, saying that Holland Park was run more or less as a Royal Park. Obviously it is not a Royal Park but it has been looked after by the GLC as carefully and helpfully as if it were a Royal Park. It is a greatly attractive area and requires special consideration.
These amendments are probing amendments, but the Committee will note that Clause 5 refers to listed buildings, conservation areas and ancient monuments. If Holland Park were a conservation area then its functions and care would be transferred as a result of Clause 5(a) to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. If a national park were accepted as being a conservation area under Clause 5 that Commission would be empowered to look after it. I cannot say whether it is a conservation area: no doubt the Minister will tell me. I am delighted that the chairman of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission has been good enough to attend the debate this evening.
This clause governs "certain related subjects": what does that mean as regards Holland Park? Related to what? Is it related in any way to listed buildings? Obviously there may be listed buildings in Holland Park. Is it related to conservation areas? I have dealt with that. Is it related to ancient monuments? There are some very old houses there, but I do not know whether they would be called ancient monuments. In dealing with ancient monuments, as we shall later in the Bill, I shall be reminding the Committee, if it is necessary to do so, of the debates we had about ancient monuments some time ago when the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was dealing with them and giving grants to
426
ancient monuments. I pointed out at that time that ancient monuments should include field monuments which are still underground and have been discovered as a result of aerial photography. The results of aerial photography have transformed the history of European archeology as well as that of Britain. I am assuming therefore that there may be field monuments. I do hope that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, is progressing favourably because we miss him so much in this House.
If Holland Park is a conservation area or is related to any of the subjects, I should be happy, because the Kensington Society, for which I am speaking—I have no other interest in Holland Park except as a member of the public—has for many years been looking after the area and is keen that Holland Park should be treated differently and not go back to a borough council for its care and protection.
So much for the amendments dealing with Clause 5. If I fail with my submissions on Clause 5 at this stage (and I presume I will), I shall come to Clause 6 and ask myself, does Schedule 3 cover the position of Holland Park? Schedule 3 is supposed to have effect for transferring functions relating to the national parks and the countryside. Is Holland Park a national park? Should it be a national park? Should it be considered as part of the countryside? Perhaps the argument that it is part of the countryside is a little far-fetched in relation to Holland Park but the word "countryside" has a wide implication. Therefore if Holland Park falls into the phrase "national park and the countryside" then under Clause 6 it would be bound to fall to the borough council of Kensington to look after it. If Holland House falls within the phrase, "national parks and the countryside", then my amendments say that the transfer, on the abolition of the GLC, to the London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London should not deal with Holland Park and therefore it should not be transferred to the boroughs or to the Common Council.
In passing, I would say that I should be happy for Holland Park to be transferred to the Common Council, which runs the City of London and a number of large countryside areas in and on the fringe of London; but I have not had the opportunity of consulting with the Common Council to know whether they would take it on. Of course, as a Freeman of the City of London, having some knowledge of how the Common Council works, it may be that the Minister will be able to tell us that they would not take it on.
It is part of my submission that Holland Park requires special consideration and should not go hack to the borough council for its care and attention. In my submission, it should go either to the Department of the Environment and be dealt with as the Royal parks are dealt with (but not necessarily be called a Royal park), or else be dealt with by the historic commission or by some other special means. I have heard rumours that the position relating to Hampstead Heath in some respects is similar to that of Holland Park. Hampstead Heath, I understand, without any further amendment of the Bill, will be dealt with by three borough councils. That will cause difficulties and there is a great deal of anxiety about it. In my view, therefore, the

427
sympathy of the Government should lie in doing something about Holland Park other than giving it back to the borough councils.
When last I spoke on this matter, the noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to say that he shared with me my admiration for Holland Park. I am asking him whether he can this evening go that little bit further and help me. Can he say that it is a conservation area? Can he say that it is one of the related subjects? Can he say anything else that would help the Kensington Society and the public to safeguard one of the great heritages of the United Kingdom? I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I make just a brief intervention. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said. If ever there was a case of special pleading, we have heard it moved most eloquently. He is entitled—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: With respect, as a lawyer, the words "special pleading" have a significance which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, does not want to convey. He can use any other adjective, but "special pleading" has a different connotation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I can assure the noble Lord that the sense of what I wanted to convey was that it was an exceptional circumstance or a case that, if not pleading, he was arguing; in other words, that exceptions should be made to the Bill to take account of specific circumstances. I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. I am bound to say that I am not at all moved to have a Bill riddled with taking care of lots of individual illustrations, powerful as they might be. What I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, wants—and I listened to him with care—is an assurance from the Minister that there is no need to be concerned that there will be any change under the new management from the care and concern which now exists. I understand that there are related parts and tracts of London which may be similar and which may have other solutions. I am looking forward to the Minister being able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that there is no need for the Bill to be altered in that way.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was kind enough to remind your Lordships of some of the things that I said at the earlier stage, as well as those that he said; so I shall not repeat my admiration for Holland Park. I understand that what he is trying to establish is that it is unlike anywhere else. In a sense it is; it is a most remarkable and enjoyable place for people living in that part of London. It is in a conservation area and it contains an ancient listed building—although the only ancient monument there was myself when I used to perambulate! But it is not a conservation area; it is a public park in the ownership of a local authority. It is not a subject related to any of those listed in the paragraph to which the noble Lord's amendment refers; it is a public park
428
in the ownership of a local authority. It is not an ancient monument; it is a public park in the ownership of a local authority. It is not a national park nor is it a part of the countryside; it is a public park in the ownership of a local authority.
As that, it falls into a very large category and it is proposed to deal with it as it is proposed to deal with the whole of this category. I hope that that has disposed of the aspirations of the noble Lord as to the legal interpretation of the Bill and the actual meaning of the category. The noble Lord no doubt will have read again what I said on Tuesday on this very subject and he will see that I have gone as far as I can to guarantee anything that a Government can guarantee about the future care of this public park in the ownership of a local authority when it is transferred to the surviving local authority in the area in which it is located. I have done everything except to say that I shall appoint the park keeper and tell him how to run the place. One must leave something to the people who own it, who will be the local authority. I have a high regard for their ability and their intentions in this respect. There is really nothing I can say to reassure the noble Lord that I have not already said.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am obliged to the noble Lord. He has made it perfectly clear that this historic area is owned by the local council, the Kensington Council. May I assume that?
Lord Elton: It is part of the GLC; but, at the abolition, the successor body will be the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord is dealing with the matter as at present. I was not concerned with that. I thought that he was saying that now it is owned by the borough council. What he is saying is that if this Bill goes through, as it is now owned by the GLC it will go to the borough council. I take that position. The GLC has looked after this area very well: it has the resources to do so; it has the expertise to run it. It has available to it resources and expertise which are not at present available to the borough council.
The noble Lord the Minister was good enough on the last occasion that I raised this in Committee (and he has raised it now) to indicate that certain resources will be made available to the borough council in relation to Holland Park. We know nothing about the amount of that resource. We do not know whether it is enough to keep this historic area in the fine condition that it is in now. We do not know. I am not trying to inquire about rate capping or anything like that. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, raised this question with the noble Lord; and quite rightly. I am assured by the noble Lord that there will be resources available—we do not know what they are—by way of finance. I do not know, nobody knows, what resources will be available in the way of expertise for these valuable horticultural specimens—over 3,000 of them still in existence. We have no information as to whether that resource will be available.

429
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, reminded the Committee at the last stage of some unfortunate things that had happened with regard to listed buildings at the hands of this very council. I do not want to discuss it in any detail.
We are worried, therefore, about the continuity of this historic matter. I will read what the noble Lord the Minister has said in regard to the position of Holland Park. I was very worried as a result of what the noble Lord said at Column 202 on 30th April towards the end of our discussion. Perhaps the noble Lord had been harassed by me a bit too much; certainly, I was pressing him rather hard, and therefore I quite realise that a slip of the tongue can take place. The noble Lord, said to me that night:
"The noble Lord"—
that is me—
"may have some great scheme to entrust every piece of greenery in the whole of the metropolis to the Department of the Environment; I know not. But he put a scheme in his amendments"—
I then went on a little later, as the Committee was getting a bit bored with the discussion—
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Yes, most certainly.
Lord Elton: Just in case it should happen again, may I just say that if I were able to substitute—though I cannot of course alter what is already in print—I should substitute for "every piece of greenery", "every public park in the ownership of a local authority", which was a phrase which did not spring in sufficient time to my lips at that moment. That would carry the meaning I intended to give.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord the Minister goes from "every piece of greenery" to a public park but this is 54 acres of historic buildings. We have a little saying in Wales that "a little chink lets in much light" and I rather felt that we ought to get more sympathy than that from the Minister. Before I ask leave to withdraw these amendments, as Holland Park is such an historic area—it is unique in London—I am asking on various grounds that it should be dealt with separately from some municipal park or, to use the words of the noble Lord the Minister, "a piece of greenery". I am asking whether perhaps the noble Lord the Minister would be good enough to receive a deputation from the Kensington Society to discuss this matter a little further.
I have been brought into this, to make these submissions, only recently. I have not been to Holland Park recently to see what the place is like. Therefore, in those circumstances I wonder whether the Government in dealing with a part of the heritage of the United Kingdom in this way would be able, without the noble Lord the Minister committing himself tonight, to consider whether a meeting of that kind would not help the Government. It would certainly help the safeguarding of Holland park and
430
would satisfy a great number of the public that great care will be taken of this unique area.
I do not want to commit the noble Lord to anything tonight. I see that he is getting advice from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in this matter, quite properly, and who am I to complain if the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, is listening to what I am saying? I hope that I shall get even from the Leader of the House, who comes from the North, an area where a great part of the heritage of this country is to be found, some consideration of a further examination of the position of Holland Park.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, can scarcely have been brought later into the proceedings than me. I have that in common with him. I am always delighted to see him and I am sure we can discuss the matter at a very early moment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43B not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
("and
( ) to ensure that adequate funds are made available for archaeological investigations in Greater London after the abolition date.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is concerned with the problem of archaeology, and it is to ensure that adequate funds are made available for investigations in Greater London after the abolition date. Archaeology has always seemed to me to be the Cinderella of the historic and ancient services and anything to do with ancient buildings and monuments.
In Greater London, the first unified archaeological service was set up in April 1983, through the initiative and funding of the GLC. It is administered through the Museum of London and the Passmore Edwards Museum. During the consultation before the service was created, nearly all the London boroughs supported the proposals, although a majority had reservations about providing funds. This was at a time when only one-third of the London boroughs made any contribution at all to archaeology; and that figure has probably dropped back considerably.
The London Boroughs Association recognised the inherent difficulties of the alternative scheme, which envisaged a regular contribution from individual boroughs, which of course was not forthcoming. The GLC saw that the rapidly dwindling and irreplaceable archaeological resources for London required an effective integrated service if the archaeological treasures in London were to be found and also preserved. Central resources of administration have already increased the capacity of archaeologists to meet the demands of rescue excavation, and the establishment of the service has now ensured that adequate provision is made to meet an unprecedented

431
number of major developments on key sites in inner London and on the West London gravel programme for 1982–86. Common computerised recording systems have been developed to link the results of archaeological work across Greater London and the City, and conservation environmental services and post-excavation work are beginning to be efficiently co-ordinated. The accumulated backlog of unpublished sites, the legacy of 20 years of ill-funded rescue excavation, which unfortunately is all part of the history of archaeology all over the country, will be dealt with in a properly organised publication programme over the next five years.
The real problem here is that the Bill gives no specific consideration to the provision of archaeological services in Greater London or the metropolitan counties. Several independent archaeological bodies have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment about this, and have received replies saying:
"It is hoped that the needs of archaeology will be borne in mind by the borough councils in considering how they can best co-operate to provide an effective continuation of existing services";
but since it was due to the inability, or in some cases perhaps the unwillingness, of London boroughs to make adequate resources available for archaeology that the GLC initiated the service, it seems highly unlikely that this solution can possibly be a satisfactory one. Indeed, under increasing pressure to curb expenditure it is improbable that those who have been willing to support archaeology in the past will find it possible to justify funding even at pre-1983 levels.
I am bound to say that archaeology will certainly be very low in the financial priorities of most boroughs and districts. Some major sites, particularly those threatened by large-scale gravel extraction, for example, involved the destruction of entire historic landscapes and settlements. On such sites excavation programmes are being planned over periods of three to five years, phased in with development schemes. This of course saves archaeological finds, which otherwise would completely disappear because they would have been built over.
9 p.m.
The GLC's strategic planning role is vital to co-ordinating archaeological work on linear developments such as highways and service routes, and in placing conditions on consents for mineral operations to allow proper advance investigation. The lack of regional perspective in planning and archaeological priorities will be highly damaging and will really mean that we are going to lose irreparably a great deal of our past. In the heavily urbanised areas of inner London it has been estimated that the majority of surviving sites will have been destroyed within the next ten years at present rates of redevelopment. London's archaeological resources are finite and are eroding fast. Most importantly, any irresponsible or negligent attitude taken towards this matter now cannot, as we know, be redressed later. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I say very briefly on behalf of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton,
432
who unfortunately has not been able to stay tonight, that I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said. I should like to mention in passing that, as I said earlier when dealing with another amendment, when we spoke about funding archaeological matters some time ago, when the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was dealing with the matter, archaeological investigations and archaeological funding should be directed to the field monuments, so many of which have been discovered only recently by means of aerial photography, as well as to those monuments which are above ground.
The Earl of Gowrie: The noble Baroness seeks to make it obligatory for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to provide a particular level of resources to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which may or may not be appropriate. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is committed, I am glad to say—because I share the noble Baroness's interest in and approbation of archaeology in London, and we are joined in that by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd—to providing financial support for archaeological research and investigation. I am glad, in an ecumenical spirit, to congratulate the GLC for what it has done over the years in this respect.
I do not think that any of us would doubt the importance of that work, which gives a fascinating insight into our past ways of life and the changing patterns of our natural and built environment; and, of course, we want to see it go on. I want to see it go on, confident in the knowledge that this is precisely what the commission intends. I know that the GLC provides considerable financial support for the provision of a permanent staff and organisation for carrying out archaeological work in London, but my noble friend Lord Montagu has agreed that the commission will take on the GLC's responsibilities in this area, both organisational and financial.
The Government have it in mind to introduce proposals to amend the Museum of London Act 1965 in due course, including an extension of the commission's powers to provide funding for this service. The Government have undertaken to reflect this additional responsibility in the annual grant that my noble friend's commission receives. However, I do believe that it would be unjust and inefficient to commit the commission to a given level of expenditure for a given number of years. The GLC is not, after all, constrained in this way: of course it is not. It makes its decisions on how much to contribute not only in competition with all the other demands on its resources—however rather less sensible some of us find some of the other demands to be—but also against an anticipated level of need that is discussed and agreed in detail with the Museum of London. I am sure that the GLC would resent outside interference in this process, and so I think it would be with the commission and my noble friend—and I believe that such resentment would be well founded.
I am glad to say that the Government have given assurances of continuing support from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for the

433
Greater London archaeology service. I hope that in the light of what I have said, and because I think the noble Baroness will be able to believe that I, like her, am on the side of the angels as well as of the archaeologists, she will not seek to press her amendment.
Baroness Birk: I do not intend to press any of the amendments that I am moving now. I am really concerned about this subject, and I am also trying to get information. I have to remember, too, when listening to the Minister's honeyed words, that he is on the side of the Treasury as well as of the angels.
It seems to me that there is a real problem here: that with all its willingness and, hopefully, efficiency, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is really not a body that has been responsible in the past for core-funding of archaeology. It seems to me that the commission has always been much more concerned, just as it was the concern of the old Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council, to deal with projects as they come up. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, wanted to speak before I wound up. Perhaps I should give way to the noble Lord. I did not notice that he was getting up.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Since this is the first time that I have intervened during this Committee stage, perhaps I should warn your Lordships that I shall be speaking several times on amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Perhaps, as these amendments do concern the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, I should now declare an interest as its chairman. Perhaps, too, I might remind the Committee that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission was set up by an Act of Parliament in 1983 with all-party support in both Houses and with support also from the noble Baroness. We were set up as an independent body. We value our independence, and I think that we shall wish to conserve it. However, it may be helpful to the Committee if I were able from time to time to intervene and express certain views, and give certain information which I believe my fellow commissioners would fully support.
We are not, we have not been and we shall not wish to be politically involved with this Bill, but we have given a firm undertaking to the Government that we are prepared to undertake the responsibilities as laid down in this Bill if Parliament so desires, and will do our best to discharge those responsibilities as best we can.
Turning to Amendment No. 44, the commission is as concerned as anybody that archaeology in London receives an adequate level of funding, and we are already discussing with the department how this can best be achieved. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Gowrie said about the proposed Bill amending the Museum of London Act. This will be a very sensible way forward, and my commission does not think any problems will arise with regard to looking after archaeology in London adequately.
Baroness Birk: It was very helpful to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, but perhaps I may put one or two points to the Minister. The GLC's expenditure on the archaeological service in 1984–85 was around £450,000. Is the Minister able to give an assurance that that amount will be available for archaeology for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission? Secondly, it is important to distinguish between the project funding of individual digs and the core funding for continuing professional services to provide an integrated service. This is where a very deep financial and resource problem arises, when you cannot keep a service of trained, skilled and experienced people going and they then have to melt away. What I am asking for is rather more assurance than I feel I have at the moment. I shall not press this to a Division, but, as I said in moving the amendment, this is not mentioned in the Bill, and I am concerned about the future of archaeology, as are the many bodies that have naturally been in touch with me and with other people.
The Earl of Gowrie: If the noble Baroness will do me the kindness of studying in Hansard tomorrow what I said, she will find that I have been pretty reassuring. Obviously, I have not tied myself to a figure, nor has the GLC or anyone else. But what I have said is that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is committed to providing financial support in this field, and that the Government have it in mind to introduce proposals to amend the Museum of London Act 1965, including an extension to the commission's powers to provide funding for this service. What I also said is that the Government have undertaken to reflect this additional responsibility in the annual grant that the commission receives. Even for a soul with a foot in the Treasury, that seems to me to be a fairly positive series of assurances.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for those words, and of course we shall have to wait and see. It depends on what the funds turn out to be and whether they are enough for archaeology, so that money does not have to be stretched away from all the other areas with which the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
("and
( ) to provide for the continued development by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission of the computerised sites and monuments record for Greater London maintained at the abolition date by the Greater London Council and of the working and financial arrangements existing at the abolition date between the Greater London Council, the Museum of London and the Passmore-Edwards Museum.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is concerned with the computerised sites and monuments record for Greater London. For the future fulfilment of the Greater London Council's historic buildings and archaeological functions, the continuing development of its computerised sites and monuments record is absolutely vital. The importance of the

435
record would be difficult to over-state. It is immensely more comprehensive than anything of the kind previously seen, and it will provide services which no other such record has attempted.
The scale of the project is no greater than the problems of this great city demand, for in its 600 square miles Greater London contains one-tenth of all the listed buildings in Britain, as well as an unparalleled density of conservation areas, sensitive archaeological sites and many thousands of other features of historic significance. The form of the record has grown out of the specific needs of London, based on the extensive experience and detailed knowledge of the council's historic buildings devision, which not only has an enormously high reputation all over this country, but has an international reputation as well.
Although the project was first proposed only two years ago, excellent progress has already been made. Data collection has been in progress for six months and a live system will be ready for testing in another three or four months. Next year, if the work is not interrupted, it will begin to provide a service to all the authorities concerned with historic buildings and archaeology.
Three facts made the development of the record an urgent necessity. First, the records of the historic buildings division have grown in volume and complexity as the activities of the council in this field have developed over the years. Secondly, the council is the inheritor of a vast accumulation of working records arising from 80 years of preservation work, historical research and recording in London. Thirdly, and because of the only recently resolved difficulties of co-ordination, Greater London is one of the few areas in England and Wales which has not hitherto been able to develop a county-based record of archaeological sites and finds which might help to determine priorities in allocating resources as well as providing a research tool for planners, academics and teachers.
The record now in process of creation will integrate information on all aspects of the historical environment including buildings, industrial structures, parks, design, landscapes, and archaeological sites and finds. It will also for the first time make effective monitoring possible, especially in relation to the statutory control of historic buildings. It is rather surprising that, while extensive powers can be exercised over listed buildings, there is no machinery for collecting and analysing information on how these powers have been used and how effectively they are dealing with the identifiable pressure in particular areas. A significant feature of the system is the potential for mutual exchange of information between all these organisations and individuals interested or involved in the areas of knowledge comprehended by the record.
9.15 p.m.
Once the operational needs of the council itself are met, it was intended to provide access to the system in London borough offices and in the museums through their own linked terminals. I must emphasise that concern is felt not merely that this vitally important service should continue to be developed but also that it should not be straitjacketed by any inadequacy of
436
the computer facilities available to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission or to any other body with which they are concerned. This would indeed, as I am sure they would be the first to recognise, be to waste the effort and skill already invested.
Although, in the light of this Bill, to say that the GLC is at present ideally placed and fully equipped to manage and enrich such a system seems rather extraordinary and goes against what is in the Bill, I think that Parliament and also the people must be assured—because archaeology belongs to the nation as do the historic buildings and ancient monuments—that its successor will also be adequately equipped and committed to the project, because once one is using the benefits of modern technology it would be absolutely disastrous and almost criminal if these were lost. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness has moved an amendment which I think is probably a probing amendment as it affects the "brass plate" in front of the schedule. Clause 5 introduces the schedule and announces who lives within the front door, as it were, and the noble Baroness wishes to add to the functions of the schedule.
I should like to start by assuring the noble Baroness that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission already have powers to keep records under the National Heritage Act 1985. They are therefore able to take on the GLC's site and monument records. The GLC is, I believe, justly proud of this record which it has been increasingly committing to computer files. It is at the heart of the activities of the historic buildings division and, like that division's other responsibilities, it will be well taken care of.
The computer on which the record is kept at County Hall will pass in the first instance to the London residuary body until suitable long-term arrangements can be made. Of course the commission will want to develop this record. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission are alive to the importance of records, as is the GLC. I do not doubt that the commission will treat the GLC's sites and monuments records in just the way that the noble Baroness would wish them to do. But this is their responsibility and they already have the power. It is not therefore necessary to make statutory provision for the sites and monuments record as the noble Baroness suggests.
As for the arrangements between the Museum of London and the Passmore-Edwards Museum, it is the intention, I understand, of the commission to continue to work with the Museum of London on rescue archaeology in London. The GLC does provide considerable financial support for the provision of permanent staff and organisation for carrying out the archaeological work in London, but my noble friend Lord Montagu has agreed that the commission will take on the GLC's responsibilities in this area; and the noble Baroness discussed it with my noble friend Lord Gowrie a moment ago. If therefore what the noble Baroness wants is a reassurance that what she wishes to happen, can happen, she can have it.
Baroness Birk: I am grateful to the Minister. However, I am still a little worried about the actual system that I a m talking about and the technology involved. We have to look at this in an international as well as a national context. It is quite outstanding. What I should like to know is whether all the machinery, the work, the computers, and so on, is going over to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission because otherwise, with all the good will in the world, it cannot parallel what is being done by the GLC unless it has the necessary equipment to do it. Perhaps the Minister can advise me on that.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may be permitted to say that the commission has already agreed to take over the equipment and the staff and will certainly continue to develop it. Moreover, the commission itself has its own computers, the GLC were not the only people to put records on computers. The great thing is to get them integrated and I assure the noble Baroness that we are taking this very seriously.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: May I say that having served as a member of the historic buildings committee I should like to put on record the high
438
opinion that I have of it. I have often said rather harsh things about the GLC but this has always been a most exceptional group.
Lord Elton: May I endorse that?
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord will soon be wondering why he is abolishing the GLC.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I was not in any way criticising the commission and I am sure it has some beautiful computers. I am not an expert but what concerns me is whether the quantity and quality of computers will be available to the commission. Those set up by the GLC are of a fairly large order, so I gather, but I do not understand the mechanics and can only speak as I am advised.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I can assure the noble Baroness that compatibility will be given great importance by the commission in deciding how its computers will be ordered and operated.
Baroness Birk: I hope that when everything is transferred they do not forget to take the computers with them. With what I hope were assurances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Secretary of State for the Environment shall make adequate funds available in each financial year from 1st April 1986 to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England for the purposes of making listed building repair grants in London for properties not affected by the transfer in section 5(a) above, and the total funding shall, in real terms, be not less than that provided by the Greater London Council and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (in London) taken together for this purpose in 1984–85".)
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is concerned with the funds for listed building repair grants in London,
"for properties not affected by the transfer in section 5(a) above".
These are properties which are of special architectural or historic interest and which have been particularly cared for, but they are different from the properties which are in use or are functional for everyday activities. The annual provision for capital and revenue grant over the past three years has averaged £602,000. This money has been carefully directed to obtain maximum advantage over a wide range of repair and restoration activity, ranging from grants of a few hundred pounds in order to reinstate one or two sash windows and restoring the pleasing uniformity of a terrace of houses, up to hundreds of thousands of pounds given to fund-raising campaigns for the repair of monuments of national importance.
Unlike the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, or its predecessor the Historic Buildings Council, it has not limited its grants solely to repair work but has frequently aided work of purely architectural restoration where there appears to be a measurable gain in terms of public amenity. On reflection, I do not think that is true—my brief does not appear to be quite right.
However, it has in recent years taken a positive approach using the offer of grant to bring about improvements which might not otherwise have occurred and sometimes making problem-solving grants to break deadlocks and initiate desirable repair and restoration works which neither the owner nor any other agency would have been able to set in motion with funds normally available. All of us who have had anything to do with any historic buildings at all know that if the owners themselves will not do anything it is very difficult. Unless there is a body that acts as the GLC has done in the past, a great deal of our built-up or urban heritage will disappear and we just cannot replace those buildings.
The council has also identified areas of particular need—for example, churches and, more recently, theatres—and focused grant resources on those particular types of building. In one of SAVE's publications which appeared only a few weeks ago it pointed out that the very survival of some London churches was a direct consequence of generous grants provided over the past 20 years by the GLC.
The planned abolition probably means that such grants will soon cease to be available, and there is concern that the removal of the major single contributor to grant-making in London must be compensated for. The amendment therefore is designed to give Parliament the assurance that an
440
appropriate level of funding in that area will be maintained. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am rather worried about this word "adequate", especially when it comes to money and public funds. Where does it stop? Of course the people who spend public funds are not the people who have created the money that they are spending. I am all for financial support for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, but I do not think that it is a very good idea to say, as it does in the amendment:
"and the total funding shall, in real terms, be not less than that provided by the Greater London Council and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (in London)".
I was under the impression that one of the reasons why we are doing away with the GLC is that it is too extravagant. If it is extravagant, I am all for it being extravagant over repairing listed buildings; but I think that we have to be careful here because "adequate" is a very broad term.
Lord Melchett: Does not that underline the fears that have been expressed not only on this series of amendments but earlier, and does it not contradict everything that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, had to say when he spoke from the Front Bench about future funding? If the Government are abolishing the GLC because it is giving too much money to repair and maintain the historic buildings and churches of London, should they not say so instead of just sitting on the Front Bench and smiling and nodding enthusiastically when the noble Viscount says that that is the case? If they are going to let historic buildings in London collapse, should they not have the courage to say so?
Lord Elton: The purpose for which we are abolishing the GLC is not that it is giving too much money for repairing ancient churches. I can assure the noble Lord of that. There are other reasons. The noble Lord may not perhaps have noticed them but that may be because our efforts have been in vain.
We are fortunate enough to have my noble friend the chairman of the HBMC here this evening, and I say everything subject to his ear. We all know that London is a city with a great many fine buildings of beauty and historical architectural importance. The buildings are admired not only by many people who visit London but also by those who live or work in them day by day. They are important and their value has long been recognised in legislation. The part of that legislation which relates particularly to this amendment permits public funds to be made available towards their upkeep and restoration.
Over the years the Greater London Council has played a key role in this area, and in no way do we wish to belittle it. Of course the Committee is anxious to see that the value of this work is not lost and will not be snuffed out with the GLC on 1st April next year. The Committee knows that the payment of grant towards the repair of buildings of outstanding historical or architectural value is already an important function of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. The Committee will also recognise that the

441
commission will be given the GLC's powers to make grants to any building or place of historical or architectural interest in London.
9.30 p.m.
The noble Baroness's amendment seeks to set total funding of this function by the Secretary of State at a level above a base-year total set in concrete for ever. I appreciate the aims of this amendment, but this is no way to manage finance. In this field, no one year can be taken as typical or representative. Ultimately, the resources which the commission will have made available to it must depend upon its assessment of needs and it will be for it to consider the extent to which it wishes to meet the demand in any one year, having regard to all its other commitments and responsibilities.
The suggestion that this Chamber should commit the Secretary of State to a given level of expenditure, regardless of other pressures, even within the scope of the commission's responsibilities and regardless of any proper assessment of needs, would be financial mismanagement of the worst kind. I have every confidence that the commission will carry out its responsibilities in respect of London in a constructive way. I do not believe it needs to be told how much money to spend on building repair grants in London, any more than it needs to be told how much to spend elsewhere.
The Government consider each year the sum that should be paid to the commission in grant-in-aid according to the resources it has available and according to the expenditure plans of the commission. The Government will of course allow for the commission's new responsibilities when they consider its resource needs for 1986–87 and future years. The commission will then budget according to the resources that are made available to it. That seems to us the sensible way to plan and to spend. The amendment suggests that there is an alternative way, by statutory constraint. That is something I am afraid we cannot accept.
Lord Melchett: Surely the amendment is not trying to tell the commission how to spend its money but telling the Government how much money to give the commission so that this valuable work can continue. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He said that the additional work the commission will have to undertake will be taken into account when the Government come to determine the resource needs for 1986–87. As I understand it, that is what concerns my noble friend Lady Birk; and certainly it concerns me that sufficient resources should then be made available to the commission to ensure that it is able to maintain the excellent work that the GLC has done in this field. To know whether or not the Government are likely to do that, surely Parliament needs to know whether or not the Government believe that the level of resources which the GLC has allocated to this work in London in recent years is about right.
In other words, when the commission takes on this work, will the Government say, "You have taken on a
442
level of work which was about right and we will take that into account in determining resources for 1986–87"; or will they say, "You have taken on work which the GLC has been doing. We consider it extravagant and wasteful"—as I understand the noble Viscount on the Benches opposite does—"and we will chop it back"? That is surely the question that the noble Lord needs to answer if he wants to go that way about determining the resources which are spent in future.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has been in government. He knows that no Chancellor will commit himself before a Budget to a level of expenditure. My money and our money comes from the Chancellor; so the noble Lord will not expect me to give a precise figure for the expenditure. However, I can repeat that we will take into consideration, together with the expenditure plans of the commission, the volume of support it has received beforehand from non-government sources.
Lord Melchett: I am sorry to press the noble Lord on this matter. However, the same topic will arise on a range of other amendments to which we shall come later in the Bill and, no doubt, later this evening. I did not ask the noble Lord to commit the Government to a particular level of expenditure under a particular head in 1986–87, and I would not expect him to do so. With respect, I asked the noble Lord a quite different question. I asked him whether the Government believe that the level of expenditure which the GLC has committed to this area of activity in recent years is about right, or whether it is extravagant. That is the question I asked.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord presses me very hard. If one looks at his question the other end on, he is asking a question on the amendment; and the amendment seeks to pin the Government to a particular figure, which is the figure that you arrive at if you add together the two sources of finance from which the HBMC operates. I can certainly say that I believe that the commission has operated an extremely sensible programme of which the Government approve. That is as close as I can go to saying anything that the noble Lord wants to hear.
Baroness Birk: The hour is very late. I am very conscious that if we do not make more progress, my noble friend, who has been extremely helpful on this amendment, will not reach his own amendments tonight.
My noble friend is absolutely right. The problem with these amendments is trying to find a way to get some assurance. The Minister himself said that the GLC was not being abolished because of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. I am glad to hear that. The trouble is that there could be a by-product disaster as a result of what is being done. I am not suggesting that the Government are asking themselves how they can kill it. However, because of abolition and inadequate resources, it could suffer which would mean the heritage for all suffering. That

443
is the reason for putting forward the amendment. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw—
Lord Elton: Before the noble Baroness does so, I do not wish to give rise to unnecessary anxiety. The noble Baroness will accept, I am sure, that I cannot be pinned down precisely. I am grateful to her for accepting that. The consideration will be first what the GLC has spent. While that is considered, the HBMC will consider what it proposes to do. The commission will then discuss its plans with the Government in the light of that information. We shall then agree an appropriate level of resources. I cannot put it more clearly than that.
Baroness Birk: I am sure that the Minister is doing the best he can. Many of us, however, are worried about the possible outcome. I do not believe that he has any influence over it although he is doing his best. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The transfer referred to in section 5(a) above shall not take place before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on the future arrangements for listed buildings and ancient monuments in London, which shall include details of the following:—

(a) the level of funding which the Exchequer shall make available to the Commission in the five years following the abolition date for the maintenance and restoration of all listed buildings and ancient monuments to be transferred under this Act:

(b) the staffing arrangements proposed for the Commission in the five years following the abolition date;

(c) the arrangements for ensuring adequate liaison to ensure the continued maintenance of listed buildings and ancient monuments in London; and

(d) arrangements for the provision of adequate architectural, scientific and technical expertise to the Commission and to other successor authorities within the meaning of this Act.").

The noble Baroness said: This is aimed at different aspects of the same problem, our concern about funding which will not match that of the GLC in the past in this area of archaeology, historic buildings and ancient monuments. Here again, I am concerned that the future of the 1,400 or so limited buildings in the council's ownership, which are to be transferred to ILEA's successor, to the fire authority, to borough councils or elsewhere, will be extremely uncertain if specific provision is not made for their care. I shall cut my remarks at this point, and beg to move.
Lord Elton: The amendment covers some very important issues. I can assure your Lordships to the extent that it is proper that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission will be given the financial resources necessary for it to do the job expected of it in London properly. That is a key point to stress. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will at least note it tomorrow in Hansard, because it is very close to what he was asking.
444
An important feature of the commission's existing activities is the financial support it gives for the preservation and maintenance of historic buildings. This is an important part of its budget. As a result of the transfer of functions from the GLC, the commission will be taking on additional repair grant responsibilities in London. Its grant-in-aid requirement is considered each year on the basis of a corporate plan setting out in detail how much the commission believes it needs to spend and what it wants to spend it on. On the basis of this plan, the Government decide how much grant should be paid to it for the forthcoming financial year. There is nothing new in this process. However, it would be new not to say extraordinary for either the Government or the commission to commit themselves to a given level of funding for a particular activity over a period of years. I am bound to say that the Government have no intention of doing anything of the kind and I would be surprised if the commission did either.
The second point concerns the staffing of the commission. The Government have never doubted or sought to disguise the fact that the commission will need to increase its manpower. It makes sense for the commission to look first to the staff already working in the GLC's historic buildings division and, as your Lordships will probably know, the commission has already announced that it intends to make job offers to these people on the same terms and conditions as are enjoyed by the commission's employees and staff. This was an early and positive step on the part of the commission.
I am in no doubt that there will be discussions between the Government and the commission about this and any related implications of the transfer of functions in the context of the commission's corporate plan for 1986–87. I can see no need, therefore, for any further statement about those arrangements. They will be discussed and agreed along with many other issues as part of an agreed plan and budget for all of the commission's activities and responsibilities in 1986–87.
I now come to what the amendment calls "adequate liaison" over the maintenance of listed buildings. I have to admit to being a little puzzled here because the commission already works closely with local authorities, voluntary organisations and other bodies and individuals involved in work on historic buildings on a day-to-day basis. I do not believe that my right honourable friend needs to lay before Parliament a report on the way in which the commission will conduct its daily business with the London boroughs. The success of any working arrangement depends upon the responsible attitude and reliability of all parties concerned. I am in no doubt that the commission will play its part, and I hope that the boroughs of all political persuasions will do the same.
Finally, I come to the question of professional and technical expertise. I am not quite sure why the amendment refers to the need for this expertise to be made available to the commission. The commission is an acknowledged centre and source of such expertise for the whole of England. However, I can assure noble Lords that the expertise is there, and I do not doubt that the commission will, as now, be prepared to offer whatever help and advice it can. Let us not forget that,

445
so far as expertise specifically relating to London is concerned, which is at present provided from within the Historic Buildings Division, that same expertise will be available from within the commission, probably from precisely the same people. I hope that that explanation helps the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister very much for that explanation. This amendment expresses real concern about the care of these buildings. The reference to "adequate… technical expertise" was not in order to criticise the commission for not having it, but in order to make sure that, with the extra responsibilities, the commission is given the resources to employ the extra expertise and necessary staff. That was the reason. I beg leave—
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps it would help if I say that when we said we would take on these new responsiblities it was on condition that we had the necessary resources to carry them out, and that includes money for grants hitherto made by the GLC. It does not include the grants already made by the commission which are affected by this Bill. I believe that it is important for the commission, as a responsible body, to keep its freedom and its flexibility to dispose of its own resources as it thinks best.
I confirm that we have agreed in principle to make job offers to the staff of the GLC Historic Buildings Division on the same terms and conditions as are enjoyed by our own staff, although if there are any other inquiries I think that the delays would increase the uncertainty that the staff already feel, because they are not even allowed to speak to us about their future. I should also like to confirm that our ancient archaeological laboratory is used by everybody in the country and is considered to be the finest in the country. Therefore, I think that we shall have all the expertise we need at our disposal.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Listed buildings, conservation areas and ancient monuments]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 95, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
(" (4) The Commission may cause investigations to be made and information to be published with respect to the history, architecture, archaeology, landscape and development of Greater London and shall continue the preparation and publication of the series of volumes of the Survey of London previously undertaken by the London County Council and the Greater London Council.")
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may take Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 together.
Amendment No. 52: Page 95, line 36, at end insert ("and shall continue any such investigations as are being made by the Greater London Council at the abolition date and shall cause information to be published with regard to such investigations.")
Lord Elton: Would the noble Baroness give way? Does she intend also to take 53ZA?
Baroness Birk: Yes, I think they can all be dealt with together.
Amendment No. 53ZA: Page 95, line 46, at end insert—
(" . The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament on or before the appointed day proposals for continuing the publication of the series of volumes called The Survey of London together with details of its funding and management to enable the continuation of the research hitherto carried out into the history, architecture and archaeology of buildings or districts in Greater London by the London County Council and Greater London Council.")
I shall deal with these amendments as briefly as I can in order to hasten the progress of the Committee. This matter is concerned with The Survey of London, which is very important. This raises several issues such as the continuance of a variety of research, recording, and intelligence work which is at present undertaken by the Council's Historic Buildings Division, and the need to preserve the existing link between the division and The Survey of London.
Because it is well known to noble Lords, I am not going into a description of The Survey of London and the work it does. It was founded in 1894 and has had a distinguished growth and history since then. The point about these amendments is that The Survey of London should remain with the historic buildings commission rather than go to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, which I gather is where the Government intend to move it. It fits better with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission than with the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments because the work is interlocking there whereas with the Royal Commission it is more in the way of being part of its archives.
The importance of the survey cannot be overstressed because of the continuing need for research into London's historic buildings for all sorts of purposes. It has always had great freedom from administrative interference. It has had independent scholarship and it has been able to exercise a great independence. It is the future of the survey which is the point which is causing concern.
The most like-minded organisation in my opinion, and the opinion of many others, with whom it should be linked is the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. What I hope that the Minister will be able to say—and I need only a quite brief reply at this time of night; I shall not pin him down with lots more questions—is that the matter is still open, and that the place where it will finally rest has not yet been definitely settled, and that it could go to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: I am rather surprised, though I am prepared to be convinced, that the noble Baroness should think that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, to which we are giving new work at almost every moment this evening, is necessarily a more suitable body to take over this responsibility than the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. The importance of The Survey of London, which has given it its considerable standing—and there we are all in agreement—is its

447
independence of practical and immediate considerations. It is a scholarly enterprise which does great credit to those who work in it and to those who have supported it.
The most important thing about its future, apart from the fact that it must be given the requisite finance, is that it should retain this independence, and that it should be to some extent at least at arm's length from practical considerations. To be linked with a body which has, among its many responsibilities, the actual repair of buildings, the conservation of buildings, is something not so obvious as would be a connection with another body, a much more ancient body, the Royal Commission, which is again concerned with scholarship in the abstract and the recording of existing phenomena. I, and no doubt others, would be delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, on his views and the Government's view, but I find it difficult and less convincing to follow why the noble Baroness does not like what I agree we had thought to be the Government's intention, that the Royal Commission should take over this responsibility.
Baroness Birk: May I just explain, and it might help the Minister as well in regard to what the noble Lord has just asked about. I think the reason is that for over 30 years now The Survey of London has been researched and written in close collaboration with the Historic Buildings Division of the LCC, as it was originally, and then the GLC. It was during this period that it amassed its current very high international reputation, to which the noble Lord referred, as a tool of architectural and urban history. I mean that it has a practical as well as a scholarly role. Now, the proposal is that the survey should be separated from the Historic Buildings Division. It does not really make much sense, when over all these years it worked with the HBD, for the survey to go to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, a body with which it has had practically no former connection, while the Historic Buildings Division, with which it has been closely linked for all this time, is to go to the new Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. It is for those very practical and historic reasons that I have stressed this point in my amendment.
Lord Elton: There is nothing inherently unreasonable in what the noble Baroness has said; nor is there anything inherently unreasonable in the position which the Government have taken on this and for which my noble friend has adduced some very clever arguments. It was a nicely balanced decision, but it was taken in the sense which the noble Baroness regrets. I think I can reassure her on one aspect—perhaps she is aware of the facts already—that the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments exists in Fortress House, Savile Row, and that is the same address as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. The Historic Buildings department of the GLC exists in Chesham House, off Regent Street. That is also where the work of The Survey of London is done, in close association with it; so whether they stay where they are or move to the new address the "arm's length" that the noble Baroness referred to will be very short.
Lady Gardner of Parkes: In regard to Amendment No. 51, I would have to draw attention to the fact that this says
"shall continue the preparation and publication".
I must draw to the attention of the Committee that during the time that I have sat as a member of the Historic Buildings Committee there has been considerable difficulty about whether or not the GLC would continue to publish the survey. I should like to see it continue, but certainly there have been a great many investigations into the most economic and suitable way of publishing it. It might perhaps be necessary eventually to have it published by some other body or authority, and the wording of the amendment would be rather restrictive.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 95, line 46, at end insert—
(" . From the abolition date the Commission shall not charge any fee for the admission of members of the public to any historic building or any other property owned or administered by the commission which is open to members of the public which has been transferred by or under this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: This is really just a question to ask the Minister briefly whether, when the buildings go over from the GLC to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, those for which no charge has been made in the past by the GLC will go over with them, and whether the commission will have the right to place charges on visits to these houses and monuments. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness has denied me a particular pleasure because her amendment suggested that she intended to say that there should be an absolute rule against charging admission fees ever and I was going to ask her how she would have advanced that theory from the Box where she was standing if the GLC had remained the executive authority, and whether she would have imposed on them a no charge. The charging policy on a matter such as this must be—must it not?—for the responsible body which owns the property concerned, as it now is with the GLC. That will not be disturbed.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53ZA not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6 [National Parks and countryside functions]:
[Amendment No. 53A not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 53B:
Page 3, line 36, after ("Council") insert ("save that functions relating to Camley Street Natural Park, Frays Farm Meadow, Hainault Forest, Denham Wood, Fir and Pond Woods and Oxleas Wood shall be transferred to the Nature Conservancy Council")
The noble Lord said: We now turn to a different area of GLC activity—namely ecology and nature conservation—and there are a number of major amendments on this. The purpose of this amendment is simply to probe the intentions of the Government about what will happen to some sites of very high nature conservation importance which are owned, and in most cases owned and managed, by the Greater London Council.
I do not intend to press the amendment. It might be an attractive option that this Bill should become hybrid and we could take some of it off the Floor of the House, but I do not expect the Government would agree with that and I know that that would be one of the effects of the amendment. The sites that I have listed, with the exception of Camley Street, are examples of areas which are managed by the GLC, which are either Sites of Special Scientific Interest or proposed Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
It seems to me that these give rise to rather different issues, although with some parallels, from those which came up under the discussions of Holland Park which we had extensively earlier today and earlier in the week, and discussions we might have about areas such as Hampstead Heath later in the Bill. These areas all require a high level of expertise in their management. I do not suppose anybody in the Committee would disagree that Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which cover about 4 per cent. of the land area—there are about 3,400 top wildlife sites in the whole country designated by the Nature Conservancy Council—are clearly of national importance. That is accepted by everybody and their management requires great care and attention to detail and can often be extremely expensive, as we have discovered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, where management agreements have been made with farmers and landowners to encourage them to manage SSSIs in ways which are beneficial to nature conservation and the sums of money involved have often been quite considerable.
I want to say a word about one or two of the areas I have mentioned. I know that your Lordships will not want to go into each of them in great detail. Two of the woodland sites, Hainault Forest and Oxleas Wood, are ancient woodland. They were there before anybody lived in London and before London existed. They predate not only the GLC but all its predecessor authorities, and I dare say that with sensitive management they will outlive all the successors which will undoubtedly arise from the GLC's ashes. These ancient woodlands require great expertise in their management.
The GLC has a woodland management team which manages these woods, among many others. They travel around the GLC area. The equipment they use is shared around a number of woods. They have their own scientific expertise, which is necessary in determining management of woodland such as these. Hainault Forest is a coppiced hornbeam wood, unusual in that it supports hawfinches and it has an area of scrub associated with it where just a week ago nightingales returned to breed. I know that the nightingale is a popular bird and it is because of the
450
excellent management of this woodland conducted by the GLC that it continues successfully to live there. It is a bird that is quite rare in the wider countryside but it is breeding successfully in the GLC area. Oxleas Wood is an oak woodland on clay soil. It supports all three species of British woodpecker. That is unusual even in the wider countryside and certainly unexpected in an urban area like London.
The first question I want to ask the Government about the future of areas such as these nationally important areas is how they see the expertise being provided to ensure that the management continues to be as sensitive and effective as it has been in recent years under the stewardship of the GLC. Having listened to the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about one park, I imagine that these areas will be managed in future by local borough councils. I should be interested to know what advice the Government have had from the scientific staffs of those borough councils about the management inputs and about the expertise that they will bring to bear.
10 p.m.
The second question that I have to ask is about expenditure. Do the Government have any assurances from local councils (who I assume will be responsible for these areas) that the necessary level of expenditure will be maintained to ensure that nightingales can continue to breed in Hainault Forest and that woodpeckers can continue to inhabit Oxleas Wood, and so on? One of the other areas that I have mentioned raises rather different questions but I want to cover it in the same amendment to try to be brief. That is Camley Street Natural Park, an area which has been created as a wildlife habitat in the middle of London just behind King's Cross. It cost the GLC a very large amount of money—over £600,000—to buy and establish this site. It has been extremely successful. It is work that it has done in conjunction with a voluntary organisation for nature conservation in London, the London Wildlife Trust, of which I am patron.
It provided a very good example of co-operation between voluntary and statutory organisations. The London Wildlife Trust manages the site, the GLC provided the location and much of the ecological input from expert staff. This seems to me to be something, first, that is going to be too expensive for a local borough to continue to run; and, secondly, it is clear to me at least that no similar venture could be mounted without some strategic authority covering a large area with the necessary finance and expertise. It is something simply outside the scope of a single London borough. Indeed, Camley Street itself clearly will provide facilities for residents and, in particular, school children from all over London and not just from Camden, whose council has had an important input into the site. I shall not go into details of the other sites but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to those specific questions. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I am relieved to hear that my noble friend does not intend to press this amendment because, although I have the greatest sympathy with

451
him and the greatest wish to see these sites continuing to be protected, preserved and managed in the way that they have been, I have to say that I consider that there are other sites up and down the country in the areas which are being changed by this Bill which will be equally deserving of expertise and management. I hope that later on, on another day during the progress of this Bill, we shall be able to introduce an amendment which the Government will be able to find acceptable and which will ensure an equal level of management for all these sites whether they be in London or the metropolitan counties.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord has asked me various questions to which I shall respond, but I should like to make it clear from the outset that the absence of ecology and nature conservation from this Bill does not mean that the Government are overlooking such matters. What I have to say now is general to the various amendments on conservation and conservation-related subjects which we are going to discuss on the next few amendments.
It is a fact that ecology and nature conservation do not, in general, figure among the statutory functions of the GLC and the MCCs for which specific legislative provision needs to be made in this Bill. This Bill is concerned with transferring duties from existing bodies to successor bodies. Such powers as the GLC and the MCCs currently exercise, mainly in their role as planning authorities, are also available to the successor authorities, the borough and district councils. Thus, these councils already have adequate powers to own and manage local nature reserves under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended by the Local Government Act 1972.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, asked me in this amendment how I saw the future of such areas. One way I am afraid I do not see as their future is to be owned and operated by the Nature Conservancy Council because this is not appropriate for that body so to do. I see the boroughs getting together on this matter, possibly with a lead borough, which immediately brings up in Lord Melchett's mind, I have no doubt, the matter of finance.
I should like to refute the suggestion that boroughs and districts will not be able to take on tasks in relation to ecology and the countryside because they will not have adequate resources. Their resources will certainly increase in the sense that they will be able to derive income from rates in place of the precept that previously passed to the GLC and the county. The finance system will take account of the authorities' new responsibility in the distribution of the grant-related assessments in the setting of targets, if any, and in the setting of expenditure limits on any that are rate capped.
I do not accept that authorities will be without any resources to devote to these activities although of course at the end of the day it will be for the successor bodies to decide whether they want these functions to continue. I feel that it would not be in their own best interests to discontinue these functions for the simple reason that knowing the interests of Londoners as a whole, who of course are their electors, in such matters, I believe it would be a great mistake for them
452
to take that view; but that, as I have said, is for the successor bodies.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Do I really understand what the Government are saying on this matter, that it is really a matter of more or less indifference to them whether the care of these very valuable and very important natural sites should be continued; that the functions of looking after them and seeing that they continue to go on would be entirely in the hands of the boroughs. If so, it really is a totally inadequate attitude. I would have thought that even if there were specific duties laid on the boroughs, the idea of a consortium of boroughs with a lead borough, dealing with these scattered sites—and not all of the boroughs in the GLC area have them by any means—and the idea that there should be somehow an ad hoc consortium which gets together with even the implication that if they do not actually want to go on preserving them they need not go on doing so, seems to me a totally inadequate answer; but perhaps I misunderstood what the noble Lord the Minister had to say.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I do not think the noble Lord has at all misunderstood. What I was saying is that local democracy is local democracy and therefore it is for the boroughs to decide their priorities in their particular area. I went on to say that I have no doubt that they will take the view that has just been expressed in the Committee and which I share; but it is for them.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Is the Minister saying that there is no natural responsibility whatsoever for the preservation of these extraordinarily important sites?
Lord Melchett: With respect, the Minister is plain wrong. This is not a local responsibility. These are national sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest. They have been notified by the Nature Conservancy Council as sites of national scientific importance. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Nature Conservancy Council draws up lists of damaging operations which landowners, farmers and occupiers of sites of special interest are not allowed to carry out because of the national importance of these sites. It seems to me that one of the things which should be added to this list of damaging operations is the Local Government Bill, because the noble Lord is in effect saying that this Bill can lead to the destruction of these sites and the Government will not do anything about it. Surely, that is just plain wrong.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has misunderstood. Of course this Bill does not override any of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which we discussed at great length in 1981. What however it does is give responsibility in this particular instance to the landowner; and as the noble Lord well knows, the landowner has responsibility for all the SSSIs in the country whether they belong to the Nature Conservation Trust, to local authorities, to one of my noble friends or even the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, himself. It is the landowner who has the responsibility, and it is exactly that that is going to happen under this Bill.
Lord Melchett: That is helpful, because it is taking us forward. Can the noble Lord just tell us what consultations have been carried out by the Government with the local authorities who will become the landowners of these sites? He seems now to be slightly going away from what he said earlier about a consortia of local boroughs and leading boroughs, and so on. I think that is a nonsense, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already said. But if we are talking now about new landowners taking on important national assets, surely what the Committee needs to know is what consultations have been undertaken with these landowners. Have they agreed to take on these important national sites? I assume that the Government have some undertaking about the future management of these sites and that we can be assured they will be protected and that the wildlife there will not be destroyed.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is quite simple. The Bill directs that any property vested in the GLC at the moment will go to the borough in which it stands. That is the first thing. The noble Lord asked whether there have been any consultations. The very shaming truth is, no, because unfortunately you cannot consult with people who refuse to be consulted with. That is the position we are in right across this Bill.
Lord Melchett: Is the noble Lord saying that there is not a single site of special scientific interest owned by the GLC which will be going to a borough which is prepared to talk to the Government? I find that stretching things a little.
Lord Skelmersdale: No; I did not say that at all. What I said was that each of the sites with which the noble Lord is concerned will go to the borough in which it exists geographically. What I also said was that there had been no consultations because unfortunately consultations are not very forthcomng surrounding this Bill. I wish they were.
Baroness Nicol: That really was not an answer. Is the noble Lord saying that the GLC would not consult or that the borough on whose land the SSSI is would not consult? It would be helpful if we could have that cleared up.
Lord Skelmersdale: The GLC will not consult; nor will a fair proportion of the boroughs in London. That is the position.
Lord Melchett: That simply cannot be right, with respect. I am sorry to keep on, because I know everybody wants to get on to the main amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood; but I do not think we should leave it there if the noble Lord is just giving us some information which cannot be correct. One of the sites listed in my amendment, Frays Farm and Denham Wood, straddles the Greater London boundary and a part of it will become the responsibility of Buckinghamshire County Council. Is the noble Lord saying that it is impossible for him to talk to Buckinghamshire County Council?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I am not. I am just making the point, which has been made several times by my
454
noble friends from this Bench, that where consultations should realistically take place with Labour-controlled boroughs, those consultations are not being entered into, for the reasons I have given.
The Earl of Onslow: Is my noble friend saying that as regards this particular wood, which straddles the border of Buckinghamshire and whatever the successor borough is, its management would be divided in half? If that is the case it is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Lord Skelmersdale: I wish I knew the answer to that question. I will certainly look into it, because I agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Nicol: May I press this a little more? If the answer to the question is that the whole of this site is in Buckinghamshre, with whom presumably the Government are on reasonable terms, is the noble Lord saying that he has not attempted to discuss it with Buckinghamshire; or has he tried to and something has happened? It really is not a terribly satisfactory answer.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have no doubt that discussions are going on with the Buckinghamshire County Council, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who knows this area very much better than I do, has said that it will fall into dual ownership; and it is that which I promised my noble friend Lord Onslow that I would look into. I can only add that if there are conditions applying to that land, because there are Sites of Special Scientific Interest, exactly the same obligations will apply to the new owner as to the old. But I have a feeling that I said that some minutes ago, and it does not really add to my explanation in this discussion.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Will the Minister agree that if some of the boroughs have this responsibility forced upon them when they do not want it, then, as they are the arbiters of the financial priorities in their own area, this type of activity may suffer?
Lord Skelmersdale: The whole local authority setup is all about priorities. What this Bill does is to bring local government closer to the people by involving boroughs and districts very much more in various items, and this subject is one of those items. I do not see the problem.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry that the Minister does not see a problem. Is it not a fact that, when local authorities are being severely restricted on spending on such vital services as housing, education and so on, they are bound to place the lowest of priorities on this aspect, which they may not have wanted anyway? Has that entered into the consideration?
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps the noble Lord can do what I failed to do, which is to ask the local authorities.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Whatever its faults, the Greater London Council has a splendid record in looking after these sites and in putting together a department to look after them with extraordinarily

455
good and well-respected expertise. In dealing with the main parts of the Bill, the Government have from time to time—the answer is an extremely good example—gone to great lengths to assure us all that they have set up organisations with responsibility for looking after the problems, so that worthwhile things that are being done will not suffer.
Are we to understand that in this case the whole thing is just being devolved to the boroughs as they are, with no particular steps taken? It may be hoped that some of the boroughs will get together and hire some expertise, which could well be scattered to the four winds by the time anyone gets round to doing anything about it. If the Government are saying that, it is not in keeping with the reassurances that they have given on other subjects and it shows that they ought to take the whole of this subject back and have another look at it. Unless the noble Lord can tell us something better than he has been telling us for the last 20 minutes, I think that this is a subject on which your Lordships' House would be absolutely right to press the Government very strongly at a later stage. I hope that the Government will look at it again.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must be very brief, and there are only two things that I want to say. First, I want to repeat that the local authorities will be subject to their overriding responsibilities as landowners under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Secondly, as I understand it, the GLC is an elected body at the moment, and the successor bodies in this case will also be elected bodies. Therefore, it is a matter for the electorate.
Lord Melchett: We have strayed rather wide from the terms of my amendment, following (I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so) his lead rather than mine, because I restricted my remarks to sites of special scientific interest, and to these ones in particular. We have strayed into a field which I am afraid we shall cover in later and more widely drafted amendments, and I shall not follow the noble Lord into that field. But I still think that there are very real problems here. I do not know what the Government's relationship was like with Buckinghamshire County Council before this evening, but I would guess that it will not improve a great deal when the county council hear that the noble Lord finds it quite impossible to talk to them. Hillingdon District Council is the other council involved in that site. Once again I am not sure what relationships were like previously but I dare say that they have not improved a great deal during the course of this debate.
Surely it must be possible, when dealing with nationally important wildlife sites which have been expertly managed by the GLC with a great deal of scientific care and expense, for the Government to take the trouble to talk to the landowners on whom they are foisting these sites just to check with them that they want to have them, that they are prepared to manage them, and so on, if only, for example, to make sure that the councils are aware of their statutory duties under the Government's Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is the issue which this amendment sought to raise.
I must say to the noble Lord that I do not think he
456
has dealt with it, but we shall be discussing more general issues relating to nature conservation and ecology in later amendments and no doubt these particular points can be returned to then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): Before I call upon the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, to move Amendment No. 54, I have to point out that in the second line the word "council" should read "councils".
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
(" ( ) In discharging functions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the London borough councils and Metropolitan district councils shall consult with the nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and any other interested or relevant statutory body.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 58 together, which I understand is agreeable and will certainly save time.
Amendment No. 55: Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
(" ( ) In discharging functions to which this section applies the London borough council and metropolitan district councils shall have particular regard to the need for protection of areas of ecological significance.").
Amendment No. 58: After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Urban nature conservation
(" .—(l) A scheme for the maintenance and development of urban nature conservation shall be made for Greater London or a Metropolitan County by the constituent councils, that is to say—

(a) in relation to Greater London, the London borough councils and the Common Council; and

(b) in relation to the Metropolitan county, the councils of the metropoltian districts comprised in the county.

(2) Any such scheme shall provide—

(a) for ecological advice and services to be made by one of the constituent councils designated for this purpose by the scheme; and

(b) for the other constituent councils to have regard to the ecological advice of the designated council in the preparation of each of their unitary development plans; and

(c) for the other constituent councils to contribute as provided by subsection (3) below to the expenditure incurred by the designated council in providing the ecological advice and services or otherwise in discharging its functions under this scheme.

(3) The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the designated council which has been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the constituent councils; and the amounts of the contributions shall be determined so that the expenditure in respect of which they are payable is borne by the constituent councils in proportion to the populations of their respective areas.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above the population of any area shall be taken to be the number esitmated by the Registrar General and certified by him to the Secretary of State by reference to such date as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.
(5) The total expenditure incurred under a scheme by a designated council in Greater London or a metropolitan county in any financial year (including the amounts recoverable under the scheme from other councils) shall not exceed such amount as is for the time being prescribed for that area by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(6) A scheme may, in the absence of agreement between all the constituent councils, be made by a majority of those councils so as to be binding on all of them; but a council shall not be designated by a scheme except with its consent.
(7) A scheme may contain such supplementary provisions as the councils making the scheme think necessary or expedient.
(8) The council designated by a scheme may, by giving not less than twelve months notice to the other constitutent councils, withdraw its consent to act as a designated council with effect from the end of any financial year not earlier than the second financial year after that in which the scheme was made; and in that event the scheme shall terminate when the withdrawal takes effect.
(9) As respects expenditure incurred before the abolition date subsection (3) shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to two-thirds of the constituent councils of a reference to a majority of those councils.")
I apologise in advance to the Committee for having to present a rounded case for these three amendments, in which there is a great deal of nationwide interest, but I shall certainly be as brief as I possibly can.
The purpose of these amendments is to create a mechanism whereby urban nature conservation can be maintained as part of the planning process in Greater London and the metropolitan counties. I shall gladly explain the amendments, particularly the long one, Amendment No. 58, in more detail if asked to do so, but it is strictly comparable in its mechanism with Amendment No. 47, which provided for grants to voluntary organisations and was in fact drafted by the Government. So I think it is pretty straightforward.
As is stands at present, the Bill makes no special provision for the centralised ecological functions to these authorities, which will become the responsibility therefore of the boroughs and districts. In the past few years nature conservation in urban areas has become an accepted part of planning—I think I should call it a material consideration—urged on by the Department of the Environment through the Nature Conservancy Council. But the subject has been spearheaded by planning departments of the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council and they have done this as part of their statutory functions as structure plan authorities under Part II of Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, strengthened in London by the 1980 Regulations, Statutory Instrument 443. Section 71 of the London Government Act 1963 gives the GLC the power to collect ecological information and to carry out research into the natural environment. Under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we amended the Water Act 1973 and this puts on to the GLC and the metropolitan counties the obligation to further nature conservation in carrying out land drainage duties. In Section 22 of the same Water Act, water authorities are obliged to have regard to the desirability of conserving flora and fauna. Then Section 15(1)(g) of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 says that planning authorities "shall"—I emphasise that word strongly—consult with the Nature Conservancy Council about the developments on land of special interest, by which they presumably mean nature reserves and SSSIs.
Finally, Clause 6 of the Private Member's Wildlife and Countryside Bill, which we shall be considering on 17th May, requires, using the word "shall", the Forestry Commission to further nature conservation and to conserve flora and fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest. The word "shall" occurs in most of these cases.
In your Lordships' House on 6th June last, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, then Minister of State at the department, made it absolutely clear, and I quote his words:
"The metropolitan district councils already have the necessary powers to carry out this type of work".—[Official Report, 6/6/84; col. 764.]
That was in reply to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who was asking about ecological work.
These amendments therefore simply make it obligatory, if it is not already, as I think it is, for the authorities to carry out the powers already vested in them. In a word, it is now established and accepted Government policy that environmental implications of land use planning and changes must—I prefer the word "shall"—be taken into account from the very outset. There are "shalls" everywhere! So strongly do the Government feel about this that they have urged our partners in the European Community to adopt the same attitude. The "shalls" in my amendment are, therefore, fully justified.
I have a document dated 1977, issued by the Department of the Environment, from which I shall quote only one sentence, although I could quote dozens, all to the same effect. It states:
"The Secretaries of State"—
referring to our own Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales—
"look to local authorities to take full account of natural conservation factors both in formulating structure and local plans, and in the consideration of individual planning applications".
That is clear enough.
In my view it cannot seriously be argued that these amendments would be creating a new function and that they are, therefore, outside the subject matter of the Bill. That was suggested by the department. I seriously believe that the department is wrong, but if it is right and I am wrong, I owe the Committee an apology. In any case, to leave it to the whim of the boroughs and districts whether to consult the Nature Conservancy Council or, for that matter, the Countryside Commission would surely be thoroughly irresponsible: hence these amendments.
I turn now to the importance of the work that is being done in the ecological field in the GLC and the MCCs. There is no doubt about its importance. The Government fully accept that. All seven authorities have ecological advice to enable them to survey and identify sites of significance in their areas, and to keep records. I believe that the work that they do is thoroughly cost-effective. I think that without doubt—and I have looked into this with great care—it is highly professional. There is close liaison with voluntary bodies that have been generously and sensibly grant-aided.
One example of a voluntary body that has been helped a lot is one of my favourite charities, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. It has done most excellent work with its grant-aid. I have no doubt at all that this ecological work has been much valued—and I have checked on this, too—by most boroughs and districts that come within the counties and within the GLC. They know that they have been getting value for money.
Dispersed to the boroughs and districts I do not think that there can be very much doubt that the cost to the ratepayers and to the taxpayers would be multiplied by at least four. That would be very expensive and quite unnecessary. It would also much reduce the range of expertise. The GLC's multidisciplinary ecology unit is only six strong, although it is being increased to eight, and the cost to the GLC last year, I am told on very good authority, of running this unit, grant-aiding voluntary bodies and carrying on related advisory services and advising the boroughs amounted to about £600,000. That was for the last financial year. That is value for money by any standards.
I should like to give three very brief examples which vividly illustrate the need for such work in London and in the metropolitan counties. In London the inspector's decision after a public inquiry into the future of the Gunnersbury Triangle in Chiswick ruled that warehousing should not take place on disused railway land because of its nature conservation value. Without the GLC's advice and help and the grant-aiding of work which followed from that inquiry there would not now be a local nature reserve in the Triangle; and a very good reserve it is.
Secondly, the Crayford Marshes would have been destroyed as a wildlife habitat had the GLC not opposed the Bexley borough's plans to develop the area and build on it. That was an excellent outcome. Thirdly, due to the work done by the GLC and its advice and grant aiding, the Welsh Harp Conservation Group was given, I think, £20,000 as a one-off contribution and it was able to turn an area in Barnet into a nature reserve. It is a very good reserve indeed, which has given people a lot of pleasure.
10.30 p.m.
There is also—and I shall not go on any more about this—the Camley Street Ecology Park, which my noble friend, wearing his ministerial hat and no doubt his ecological hat as well, as he is most interested in these subjects, went to last year and knows all about. I have not been there myself.
The London Wildlife Habitat Survey was completed a month or two ago and was very well and fully reported in three pages of Country Life some three weeks ago. All that work has provided invaluable information to back up future planning applications so as to ensure that nature conservation is as much a part of them as are traffic, roads and buildings, which is the way it should be.
If the work in the metropolitan counties is not on the same scale, which it is not, and is somewhat variable, being very good in some counties and not so good in others, it is still, I suggest, essential and significant work. I give only two examples. The county of West Midlands, with a tiny ecology unit (I think of only two or three people at the most) and employing four graduates provided by the Manpower Services Commission, recently completed a nature conservation strategy for the county. That was warmly welcomed by the Department of the Environment, and it wrote on 9th April 1984 that this strategy should be:
"a material consideration in planning decisions, including those by Inspectors and the Secretary of State".
460
That was very much a feather in that county's cap.
Greater Manchester—and this is my second and last example—with the advice of a small team, again of specialists, now has 120 conservation areas, whereas 10 years ago there were only about 35. Its wildlife survey has identified over 250 sites of importance in the county, 76 of which are of national or regional significance and five of which have been declared SSSIs—and so on, and so on. The story is long. It would fill a book, but we started late and I wish to be as brief as I can. I am turning over two pages at a time most of the time.
We come to the big question. How can we ensure that that work is carried on on a county-wide and GLC-wide basis as it is carried on in the 47 or 48 shires? It is all on a county-wide basis. In my county of East Sussex and in the county of West Sussex the ecological work is excellent and district councils enormously value the work that is done by the counties. It is economically and well done in all the shire counties. Surely it should be carried on on a county-wide basis after this Bill becomes an Act.
If it is not carried on in that way I am quite sure that indifference and financial stringency will combine to make boroughs and districts opt out of the whole operation, because it will have a low priority in their minds. River valleys, coastlines and so on know nothing about boundaries between one district and another and one borough and another. This subject is not incorporated in the NCC's corporate plan and it was never suggested by the department. I think that it should be.
The NCC is already overstretched, although I take this chance to welcome the much more generous grant that it obtained a year ago which means that its resources pretty well match up now with its duties. But nonetheless it is still overstretched, and I do not think that it has the local knowledge or the expertise required to take on that work in the GLC and the metropolitan counties' areas. I speak from some experience here. As some noble Lords will know, I was for six years, until last autumn, a member of the council of the NCC. Its advice of course will always continue to be available in the background, and it has a small urban conservation team which is an efficient little group.
I have considered whether the residuary bodies might take on that work and I dismissed the idea because it would be only a temporary solution. I have considered whether joint boards might be satisfactory. On the whole, joint boards never seem to work very well and do not excite very much interest. Those who attend them are not always those who are most valuable within their councils. We must avoid a hiatus. We have somehow surely to keep the present staffs in being. What is needed here is the Government's view as to how that is to be done. I am suggesting only one way. What I am hoping is that my noble friend will say when he comes to reply that the Government, having listened to the debate, will put forward their own amendment at Report stage. I really do not think that it should fall to Back-Benchers to have to try to find a solution to a problem which the Government have posed. The Government must therefore decide on the structure and on the funding.

461
I want to emphasise this to my noble friend. I seek from him today firm assurances so far as future funding is concerned. Without that, the whole thing will just wither away, and that would be a tragedy.
The proposals in our amendments are supported by almost all the bodies with which I have been in touch. They include the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, which fathers all the county trusts; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; the CPRE, and numerous other voluntary and educational bodies; the Ecological Parks Trust, which has been in touch with the Minister; the London Wildlife Trust, and many others. They are only a few examples.
I should be astonished if the NCC itself had not advised the Secretary of State that it would like to see these duties carried on as statutory duties. I do not know what they have said. They are very discreet. I should like to have found out. I know they have written, not once but twice. I hope my noble friend will let us know what advice he has received from the NCC, because I think we are entitled to know this. For that matter, I should also like to know what advice he has received from the Countryside Commission, though their problems are somewhat different, yet overlapping. I spoke to them this morning and they said they were "benevolent" (I think that was the word they used) towards these amendments.
The failure to carry on this work would have very serious social and ecological consequences. These amendments point to one way in which the problem can be solved. If it is not solved, I hope that we shall bear in mind a sentence in the conclusion of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, where they said:
"Centres of excellence are slow to develop and easy to destroy".
I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: Not surprisingly, I should like to support this amendment, at the very least, though preferably I would support a Government amendment along the same lines later on, at Report stage. I think that an ecology unit which is costing £600,000, with a staff of eight, dealing with the whole of London, must be infinitely preferable to 16 ecology units. That is on the basis of the belief that only half the boroughs will establish such units. Thus such a system would be much more expensive and would cover only half of London.
Perhaps it is not realised by those of us who live in the countryside, or perhaps by Members of this Committee, that the area of London covered by the Greater London Council has nearly 100 kinds of breeding birds and 2,000 species of plants, and that there are deer, foxes and badgers within 20 miles of St. Paul's. This has come about by the action o f cleaning up London—cleaning up London's river and cleaning up London's air—and because people have taken a strong scientific interest in what has happened. The GLC ecological unit is not there only to look after Mr. Livingstone's newts. It looks after the vast areas of educational interest in the area of the GLC. There is a story about the son of a West Indian immigrant, with a voice which was historically from Bow, digging into a pond and saying, "Cor, there's life in this pond!" This young man from an urban background had
462
learned something of great importance: he was beginning to learn something about nature and the crossing of the countryside with the town. We are getting our ecology and our advice very cheap. As my noble friend Lord Chelwood has said, it is something that can be destroyed only too easily. I am convinced that this Government like excellence on the cheap. If the Government do not pay attention to what my noble friend Lord Chelwood has said and what I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, might say slightly more harshly—
Lord Melchett: No.
The Earl of Onslow:—they will get something second rate and expensive. That cannot be right. I should like to refer to Circular 108/77 of the Department of the Environment and the sentence mentioned by my noble friend. This states:
"It should, however, be emphasised that nature conservation interest is by no means confined to traditionally beautiful areas and occurs in town as well as in the countryside".
It is late, but I should like to develop briefly the importance of small areas rich in variety for the schoolchildren of deprived inner city areas. The value that those children derive and the education that such areas give them cannot be over-estimated. We are not asking for much. All that we are asking is that the Government should think seriously about what my noble friend Lord Chelwood has said. I suspect that they had not thought anything about it when they drafted the Bill. So there is no question of them going back on a commitment. There is nothing in the manifesto about it. They can listen, and they can be the intelligent Ministers that my noble friend and I know them to be.
Lord Winstanley: Like the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on the amendment that he has moved, and indeed on the whole group of amendments to which he has spoken. In doing so, I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will not think that I am being unduly cantankerous if I say that I think, faintly, it is rather a pity that we should now have embarked on what I believe are four pages of amendments on the Marshalled List which collectively deal with a subject of immense importance and one to which the noble Earl has drawn attention—namely, the whole question of countryside in our urban fringes and conservation in the midst of our urban areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said, we need at some stage to hear loudly and clearly how these matters are to be undertaken under the new arrangements as and when we have those new arrangements. My involvement in the subject is twofold. I had the honour for some years to be chairman of the Countryside Commission. I shall come to my second involvement in a moment. I became chairman of the Countryside Commission at a time when the commission had taken a policy decision—wisely, in my view—that it should focus a little more of its energy and resources not on the very sensitive areas of the national parks, already well provided for with their own administration, and so on, but on countryside in our urban fringes which was being nibbled away in

463
small patches. Agricultural land was being under-farmed because of the pressures of trespass, litter and vandalism. And with the disappearance of productive agriculture so, too, countryside was disappearing at an alarming rate.
We were also conscious of the fact that this is an era in which an increasing number of people choose to spend their leisure time—noble Lords do not need to be reminded that more people, for a whole variety of reasons, nowadays, have more leisure time—in informal countryside recreation. The commission decided rightly that if we could provide opportunities for that kind of recreational activity close to the homes of the millions who now seek those opportunities, that would be for the good of the country as a whole. As a result, we focused an increasing amount of our resources on the urban areas, and that meant on the areas of many of the metropolitan counties.
10.45 p.m.
Our first experiment probably took place in the Manchester area. Greater Manchester has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. It is quite true that there a number of important conservation areas have developed and an important amount of wildlife has been discovered. However, the first experiment undertaken by the Countryside Commission was the Bollin Valley experiment, and it is right that I should underline this. It was a reclamation of an area of the Bollin Valley, which is a tributary of the River Mersey, which passes from Macclesfield and runs round Wythenshawe; it is a huge area of city rehousing, as noble Lords will know, which one would have expected to be exposed to a great deal of trespass, vandalism, and so on.
In that area there were in the region of 40 farmers, most of whom had given up farming under the pressures to which I have already referred. The land was being used for tipping waste, for the occasional parking of caravans, and for this, that and the other, and was not being effectively farmed. As a result, it was becoming more and more degraded and less and less satisfying in every sense to the local population. In view of what has been said in this debate in your Lordships' Committee it is important that I should underline the fact that the remarkable achievement of restoring productive farming to the whole of that area, where now each and every one of the farmers will say that they are farming very profitably indeed, has, in fact, restored countryside to the area.
That was only achieved because at that time the Countryside Commission was able to get 13 or 14 different district local authorities to work together in harmony. That is a very difficult job indeed, but I think it is right that I should underline it and say that I do not believe it is impossible to get district councils to undertake functions of the kind they might have to undertake if and and when this Bill becomes law. It is possible and has been possible.
However, with.the development of the metropolitan county councils one had an overriding, over-looking integrating force that could do a great deal more. From the Bollin Valley experiment we moved into the London area with the Herts-Barnet experiment, the Havering experiment and so on, in which, from my
464
personal experience, the district authorities played a very important role. However, their part was nothing like as important as the immense part played by the GLC. Its officers and members took an immense interest and were able to do things which changed the whole nature of those areas—areas in which, from looking round the Committee, I know some noble Lords now actually live; areas which have changed their character in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, mentioned, as did the noble Earl. In those areas we now have natural life and wildlife of a kind that, frankly, would not have been seen in any state before, because we have in a sense restored countryside.
That was my first involvement. I believe that if, somehow, that development, which has taken place in other parts of the country, were now allowed to retrogress, it would be a devastating criticism of our present policies. It would be deplorable.
I said earlier that I had two involvements, and I took on another role. I also have the honour to be the chairman of a trust which is known—and some noble Lords may have heard of it—as the Groundwork Trust. It arose from my connection with the Countryside Commission when it was decided that we would apply the kind of techniques which we had developed in areas like the Bollin Valley and in Hertfordshire, Barnet and so on, to the whole of the urban fringe of a free-standing urban area. At that time the Countryside Commission had to select an area in which it would work in partnership with the local authorities.
The area which was finally selected for what was then regarded as an experiment was an area on Merseyside—the boroughs of Knowsley and St. Helens. The whole idea was that this was to be a partnership between the Merseyside Metropolitan County, the St. Helens Borough Council and the Knowsley Borough Council—the three legs of our sponsors. A three-legged structure is extremely stable but, as noble Lords will know, take one leg away and it is apt to become a little less stable. The main partners were the Countryside Commission, the Department of the Environment, the Merseyside County Council, Knowsley and St. Helens. We were the first of the Operation Groundwork movement. This was, as it were, the pilot of the whole scheme. We have been in existence three years, and what we have done in restoring countryside in a devastated area of one of our urban areas really has been remarkable.
It has been so impressive that three successive Secretaries of State for the Environment have been to visit us and have gone away deeply impressed. So impressed have they been that they have extended this groundwork technique to other areas, so that now in the North-West of England there are five other Groundwork Trusts—in Macclesfield, Rossendale, Oldham and Rochdale, Wigan, and so on. It is now thought that the scheme will be extended to four or five other areas, and even to parts of Wales.
The point I want to make applies to all this group of amendments, and it is right that I should say it now rather than wait until Tuesday, or whenever it happens to be. It is that there is no question that the role of the Metropolitan County of Merseyside has been crucial

465
in the work we have done. I am not saying that I would wish in any way to minimise the excellent work done by the permanent officials of Knowsley or St. Helens districts; they have done invaluable work, and no doubt will continue to do so; but we have to have some kind of undertaking that somebody is going to have the direct responsibility of taking over the functions which have hitherto been exercised by the metropolitan county.
I am not saying that nobody will do it: I am sure somebody will, but we need to know before we finish with this Bill precisely how those functions—very important functions which have been discharged for a number of years by the metropolitan counties and the GLC in particular—and that input are to be taken over by other bodies, and how they are to be integrated in such a way as to make the scheme cost effective and make it work. I support this amendment and I shall support some of the others when we come to them, but we shall not come to them tonight. They are important subjects.
Baroness White: As I understand we have to rise by 11 o'clock, I shall not follow the noble Lord in his autobiographical excursion. I shall simply quote one sentence from the notes that some of us have received from the National Farmers' Union concerning the extremely important matter on which the noble Lord touched, agriculture in the urban fringe, which is part of the totality of land care in the metropolitan areas. The note from the National Farmers' Union, having gone into a good deal of detail, says:
"Regrettably we remain unconvinced that the commitment, skills and financial resources currently addressed to critical open land issues will survive the abolition of the strategic authorities."
They have no doubt of the importance of this.
The only other thing I shall quote is from the quite admirable West Midlands county nature conservation strategy, about which I should have liked to say a great deal more because it is an absolutely first-class document, describing such exciting, interesting, innovative—and all the other good adjectives you can think of—work in this direction that it deserves far more reference than one has time to give. I shall give one illustration to indicate that this is not a small problem.
They carried out a thorough and competent wildlife habitat survey. They have a county wildlife record centre. But the most striking fact is that the survey identified in the West Midlands county no less than 83,772 acres of undeveloped land. Not all of this is for nature conservation. Some of it is derelict, some playing fields, much of it is agricultural, but some 26,000 acres provide useful habitats. In other words, about 12 per cent. of the total area of the county is the habitat, or potential habitat, area.
I conclude on that. I have no time to go on. I am not sure what the Government's intention is about this. What I have quoted shows that this is not a small problem. This is not just a peripheral matter. This is a matter of considerable importance not only in Greater London but in the great conurbations. I shall leave it at that. I do not think that the Minister can possibly answer the debate at this stage. I hope that the Government are under no misapprehension at all that
466
this is not just a fringe interest of a few environmentalists. It is a matter of great importance in the great conurbations.
Lord Melchett: May I ask what the Government's intention is on this. As I understand it we are due to rise in five minutes, and I just wonder whether it would not do this series of amendments greater justice if the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, could be persuaded to withdraw Amendment No. 54. We could then resume the debate, when the House is again in Committee on this Bill, on Amendment No. 55 and the subsequent amendments.
I had intended to speak to Amendment No. 58ZA, which covers exactly the same ground as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, but I would not want to try and make a speech on a major amendment, I think the most important in my name to this Bill, in four minutes and also try and allow time for the noble Lord on the Front Bench to reply to both that and the speeches that have been made—and no doubt there are more that noble Lords intend to make—between now and 11 o'clock. I wonder whether the Chief Whip could give us some guidance.
Lord Denham: Of course, we fix things by arrangment between the usual channels, and we are very much approaching the deadline, I do see. In the circumstances—I wonder whether the noble Lord the Chief Whip opposite would possibly comment on this—I wonder whether the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that my noble friend should withdraw his amendment at this stage and we should come back to the next one as first business on the next occasion is probably not the best solution.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: It is certainly a way round the particular difficulty which we face now. I think it is most unsatisfactory, in a sense, to break the debate in the middle of an amendment. My information is that it is likely that one or two more noble Lords will wish to speak, which would take us considerably past 11 o'clock, so perhaps the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Melchett might be the answer, without breaking the tradition of not breaking into an amendment.
Lord Chelwood: Do I gather the suggestion is that we should return to this subject on Tuesday, in which case it would fall to me, would it not, to move Amendments Nos. 55 and 58?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The position is that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has in fact only moved Amendment No. 54 at the present time; that the noble Lord should withdraw Amendment No. 54 now and, when we start again on Tuesday, we should start by the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 55.
Lord Chelwood: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No.54.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: In moving that the House do resume, which is the general wish of the Committee, I would like to thank noble Lords for their co-operation on this

467
rather difficult occasion. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at one minute before eleven o'clock.

  BADGERS AND BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS
  BADGERS AND BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS
  YOUNG PEOPLE LEAVING CARE: HOUSING PROVISION
  YOUNG PEOPLE LEAVING CARE: HOUSING PROVISION
  PRE-WAR HOUSES: REPAIR AND MODERNISATION
  PRE-WAR HOUSES: REPAIR AND MODERNISATION
  MISS HILDA MURRELL
  MISS HILDA MURRELL
  NORTHERN IRELAND: DEBT REPAYMENT STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: DEBT REPAYMENT STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RENT AND RATES ARREARS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RENT AND RATES ARREARS