Sitting of 9 May 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  Death of a Member
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Tom Ellis Hooson, Esquire, Member for Brecon and Radnor, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
HARROGATE STRAY BILL
SCARBOROUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL Considered; to be read the Third time.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
ROYAL HOLLOWAY AND BEDFORD NEW COLLEGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
The Speaker: The four Bills all have blocking motions against them. With the leave of the House, I shall put them together.
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Assembly (Running Costs)
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the estimated costs of running the Northern Ireland Assembly in the current year.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): £3·2 million.
    Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that support for the Assembly came, perhaps reluctantly, because many of us thought that it was the last chance for the Northern Ireland politicians and people to learn to live together and work out their constitutional future? Will he now tell the political parties of Northern Ireland that the Assembly represents the last constitutional chance for them to do that, and that the patience and purse of the British taxpayer are not inexhaustible?
    Mr. Hurd: I would hesitate to say that anything is a last chance. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right Much patience is needed, and also a very clear sense of purpose. Since the constitutional parties have such a responsibility for helping to create political stability, I hope that they recognise that that includes a responsibility to listen and to consider concessions in return for concessions.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What steps are taken to ensure that reimbursement is not claimed inadvertently for the same expenditure by Members of the Assembly who are members of other Assemblies and bodies?
    Mr. Hurd: The claims made in respect of Members of the Assembly are rigorously scrutinised, and I am sure that the inadvertent possibility to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is covered in that scrutiny.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend review the whole question of the usefulness of the Assembly before the next elections to that body?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes Sir. I have learnt to respect the efficiency and thoroughness of some of the scrutiny work carried out by the Assembly, but it has not yet succeeded in the main task set for it by this House, which was to work out proposals for the devolution of powers which would command widespread acceptance.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time will have to come when he must say to the Northern Ireland Assembly that, since it has not accepted the challenge put to it by this House, other circumstances will have to prevail and the Assembly cannot continue?
    Mr. Hurd: We are not at that point. I hope that the Assembly, through its Report Committee or in other ways that it thinks proper, will continue on the main task that I have described.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if rugby came into being by changing the rules when someone handled the ball, the Government may have to change the rules under which the Assembly is currently asked to operate?
    Mr. Hurd: We are not at that point yet.

    Constitutional Talks
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had about the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secrtary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his discussions with party leaders in Northern Ireland.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about recent ministerial conversations with political parties in the Province.
    Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent consultations he has had with representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hurd: At my request, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) has met representatives of the Ulster Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour, and the Alliance parties privately to explore and clarify their positions. He has also had an informal discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly Devolution Report Committee. His conclusions will help me to assess how best progress can be made towards new devolved arrangements for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Canavan: Instead of pussyfooting around with an expensive and relatively powerless Assembly with representatives from only six counties of Ireland, is it not time that more radical steps were taken to set up some form of all-Ireland parliamentary body? Is any progress at all being made towards that end in the talks between the British and Irish Governments, or is the British Prime Minister afraid of a few Unionist Members who represent only a minority of opinion within Ireland as a whole?
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister perhaps has a keener sense of the point of Parliaments than has the hon. Gentleman. It would be for this House, or the Westminster Parliament, and, I suppose, for the Dail on the other side of the Irish sea, to decide whether the Parliaments wanted such an organisation.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the impatience expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), which my right hon. Friend appeared to echo, is matched by the frustration felt by the majority parties in Northern Ireland at his refusal to countenance the normal operations of democracy, namely, rule by the majority? Could not a useful role be found for the present Assembly by making it an upper tier of local government and allowing the proper processes of democracy to take place within it?
    Mr. Hurd: I am perfectly ready to consider any suggestions—that one or others—which appear to command widespread acceptance. By "widespread acceptance" we must mean acceptance across the division between the communities. The House would think me foolish if I suggested some new proposition without being convinced that it had that widespread acceptance.
    Mr. Hunter: Leaving aside the immediate question of the Assembly, will my right hon. Friend tell us the extent to which, in his deliberations with representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland, he has come across an awareness that, ultimately, it is only through compromise that social harmony can replace social discord?
    Mr. Hurd: That awareness is scattered across various pronouncements and pamphlets which appear at different times, and I always welcome it. We need to bring together those hints of greater understanding and a greater willingness to listen to others into detailed and practical discussions.
    Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that during the war Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister, offered to reunify Ireland. He made an offer to Dublin without consulting Stormont. Defence considerations were then dominant in his mind and are now dominant in the minds of the British and American Governments. Were the Republic to be persuaded to join NATO, would not the British Government's objection to reunification almost certainly completely disappear?
    Mr. Hurd: No, Sir, that is not so.
    Rev. William McCrea: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are British and proud to be so, and that no decision taken by anyone else will change the Britishness of the Ulster people? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the House must respect the supremacy of the ballot box, and that any politician wishing to defy the democratic wish of the Ulster electorate would make a mockery of all our battles for freedom?
    Mr. Hurd: Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom rests not on any perception of ours about the foreign and defence policies of the Republic, but simply on the wish of the majority of the people who live in Northern Ireland. I believe that their wishes are clear.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people on the mainland are asking why the Tory Government, and others before them, have set up ramshackle organisations in Northern Ireland which have cost a small fortune to run and why decent councils in Britain, which are being run well, are being demolished by the Tory Government while that in Northern Ireland never even gets rate capped?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is taking me a little wide of the original question.
    Mr. Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues impress on the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP, the importance of that party's participation in the Assembly at the earliest possible time?
    Mr. Hurd: It is highly desirable that the SDLP should take its place in the Assembly, although I understand the present difficulties in doing so. We shall not reach the political stability in Northern Ireland which every right hon. and hon. Member here would like unless there is an unfreezing of attitudes, including the attitudes of representatives of both communities, towards the desires and anxieties of the island.
    Mr. Archer: May I tempt the Secretary of State to be a little more cheerful about the prospects of progress and co-operation with the Republic? Does he agree that, whatever decisions fall to be made by Parliament, the initiative must come from the Government? Does he further agree that the Taoiseach and the Irish Foreign Minister have shown generosity and courage in an attempt

    881
    to invite progress? Will he accept that the alternative to pessimism might not be optimism, but that it is at least hope?
    Mr. Hurd: I have not yet said anything cheerful or uncheerful about co-operation with the Republic. I was dealing with the proposal about a parliamentary tier, which surfaces from time to time. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a constitutional expert, I would expect him to honour my point, which is that if these things are to endure as parliamentary institutions, they must be parliamentary proposals.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is (a) the current strength and (b) the total establishment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The full-time strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on 30 April 1985 was 10,802, and the authorised establishment on the same date was 11,000. This represents a significant increase in the size of the force in recent years, increasingly reflecting the police's primary responsibility for all aspects of law and order in Northern Ireland, aided where necessary by the armed forces. I should like to take this opportunity to pay the warmest possible tribute to the courage and professionalism of the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and their growing success in controlling terrorism.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I also would like to congratulate the RUC and its Chief Constable on how they protect the people of Northern Ireland. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are enough police to protect the people of Northern Ireland and the police themselves? What is the RUC's present policy on overtime, which seems to be needed quite a lot?
    Mr. Scott: As I said in my original answer, the size of the RUC has been increasing steadily. More operational hours are being worked now than at any time except during the hunger strikes; more operational hours were worked in the past 12 months than in the previous 12 months. That reflects the primary role of the police. I and the Chief Constable are anxious that overtime should be at a level which helps the working of the RUC. Too much overtime can cause damage. By increasing the numbers, we can decrease the amount of overtime worked by officers.
    Mr. Maclennan: Has there been some success in increasing the recruitment of members of the minority community into the RUC?
    Mr. Scott: The Chief Constable's report for last year shows a small but significant improvement. The RUC and the Chief Constable are determined to do their best to secure a continued improvement.

    Security
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest security situation in the Province.
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Province.
    Mr. Hurd: Since I last answered questions in the House on 4 April, two civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province.
    The security forces' efforts to defeat terrorism continue, and since the beginning of this year a total of 171 people have been charged with serious offences, including 20 with murder. 89 weapons, 3,327 rounds of ammunition and 2,222 lb of explosives have been recovered. The bulk of the explosives—about 1·5 tonnes—was found near Dungannon on 25 April. By denying the terrorists the use of that murderous material, the security forces undoubtedly prevented them from inflicting a great deal of destruction and suffering on the community, and I echo the earlier commendation of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the negative effect on security in Northern Ireland of such events as the visit of the Irish Premier to Londonderry, especially in view of the apparent acquiescence of the Northern Ireland office in that context?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that I follow the connection made by the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister made clear the position about Dr. FitzGerald's visit to Londonderry. He is entitled to come and go there, if he wishes. We were informed of his arrangements, but the decision, timing and arrangements were his. We neither were asked for nor gave advice.
    Sir John Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House is full of admiration for the efforts of the security forces? Is he entirely satisfied with the co-operation that he gets from the security forces in the Republic, especially at senior officer level, when a fugitive is fleeing from the law? Do we get full cooperation in that eventuality?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remark. Yes, we get co-operation. As the Irish Foreign Minister said in London earlier this week, such cooperation is in the interests of both Governments. I should like to see it improved. The right summary of the position is that co-operation is good, but could be improved.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety of the Prison Officers Association and of others in Northern Ireland and elsewhere about the potential closure of Magilligan prison? Is he further aware that it is one of the few prisons in Northern Ireland which are fully following the Government's policy of integration in prisons? Will he assure the House that that prison will not be closed?
    Mr. Hurd: I am aware of that anxiety, which has been expressed direct to my Department. Certainly, it is part of our continuing policy to work for integration in prisons. The impact on the prison system as a whole in Northern Ireland of the prospective opening of the new prison at Maghaberry is still being considered.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that if Sinn Fein were to make a significant advance in the local government elections next week it would be a setback for security? As the Government discovered only on 24 April that the advice given to the

    883
    House on 30 November 1984 about the foundation stone of identification policy — the medical card — was completely wrong, what further steps does he intend to take to ensure that such a matter does not happen again and to correct the present problems?
    Mr. Hurd: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in linking the question. As soon as the chief electoral officer drew our attention to the problem, we carefully considered what we could do. We came to the conclusion that it was not sensible to amend the legislation, for reasons of timing and substance, which the hon. Gentleman knows. Instead, we have given the maximum publicity to the possibility of exchanging the old medical card for the new, and have streamlined and accelerated the administrative arrangements for doing that. According to my information, that is proceeding quickly and well.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that the call by the Labour spokesman for Northern Ireland, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), for the disbandment of the Ulster Defence Regiment is wholly irresponsible, causes only delight to the members of the IRA and all enemies of peace in Ulster, and in no way assists security in the Province? In acknowledging the debt that Ulster owes to the UDR, will the Government clearly affirm their support for the UDR as a crucial part of their efforts to fight terrorism? Would it not have been better for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the loony Left of the Labour party should be scrapped instead?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman skated round that awkward recommendation in a recent Fabian Society pamphlet, and did not commit himself to disbanding the UDR. He knows perfectly well, as does anyone who studies such matters seriously, that the UDR plays an indispensable part in the security of the Province.
    Ms. Clare Short: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a mounting feeling in the South of Ireland that its major problems of law and order require it to spend less on policing the border and more on policing its own country? If there is no major improvement in relations between the North and the South of the island, is there not a real danger of a withdrawal of support for security in the North, which will have major implications for all the people of Ireland?
    Mr. Hurd: Mr. Barry has made it clear that the efforts of the security forces of the Republic along and behind the border are made, not from a desire to do the British Government a favour, but from a calculation—I would say an accurate calculation—of their interests, given that the provisional IRA is clearly and explicitly determined to end the system of government, not only of Stormont and Belfast, but of Dublin.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: What recent evidence, if any, does my right hon. Friend have that terrorism in the Province is still encouraged and supported, not only with finance, but through training in terrorism supplied by such good friends of democracy as Colonel Gaddafi, Mr. Castro and Mr. Gorbachev, in ascending order of merit?
    Mr. Hurd: I had better confine myself to the first. There is evidence from publications in the Libyan press that the Libyan Government believe that it is part of the
    884
    responsibilities of the Libyan people to keep the provisional IRA in a good state. We must take that seriously.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister admit that, although he thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) had skated round the issue, that was not the impression created in Northern Ireland? Would it not be advisable for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his statement, because it would be an insult to the entire British Army if, because some people had acted wrongly, an entire regiment was so slurred? Does he recognise that it is not the Protestant involvement in the UDR which causes concern, but the fact that it is a regiment of the British Army?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not interested in helping the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of the problems created for him by his party. My opinion chimes with that of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the final analysis, the answer to the security problem is to bring together the two halves of the community, and that that can be greatly achieved through sport? Does he agree that the excellent marathon run last week was a demonstration of the way in which people who wish to work together can do so?
    Mr. Hurd: The Belfast marathon was clearly a great success. It attracted people not only from all over Ireland and the United Kingdom, but from many parts of Europe. The more people, whether sportsmen or others, who visit Northern Ireland to see what is happening there—the difficulties and the opportunities—the more satisfied the people of Northern Ireland will be, because they suffer greatly from the impression given in the media.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Dr. FitzGerald's recent visit to Derry posed no problems for security in the area? Why does he not say that the Prime Minister of the Republic is welcome to visit any part of the United Kingdom at any time?
    Mr. Hurd: I said that Dr. FitzGerald was free to visit Londonderry or any part of the United Kingdom at any time —
    Mr. Dubs: Welcome.
    Mr. Hurd: —but I also said that the timing and the programme were, naturally, matters for him.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend talk urgently with the local radio authorities in Northern Ireland, because radio stations are causing great difficulties for the security forces by interviewing IRA terrorists, who threaten Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Hurd: This matter has been discussed often, and I have no statement to make on it today.
    Mr. Benn: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that people should visit Northern Ireland, did he notice that Geraldine Ferraro, the former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, went there last week and joined the growing number of people who express their opposition to the mass show trials, without juries, using informers who are subject to inducements by the Government to give evidence to get convictions? Is he satisfied that that form of justice should be maintained anywhere in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hurd: I noticed that Mrs. Ferraro joined a number of people, including the right hon. Gentleman, who choose to spend a few hours in Northern Ireland and go away making definitive pronouncements about the conduct of the judiciary and judicial affairs. I do not understand the view that because evidence comes from an accomplice it should be disregarded, regardless of its merit. In the system that operates in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and federal cases in the United States, it is for the court and for the court alone to judge whether such evidence is justifiable. That is the right approach.
    Mr. Nicholson: Does the Secretary of State agree that not only Mrs. Ferraro but many other people come to Northern Ireland on these bucket-shop trips and go away experts—including some hon. Members sitting not too far away from me? Will the Secretary of State wholeheartedly add his support to the UDR, which has suffered much over the past 15 years in Northern Ireland? Is it not time that he brought security back to the people in Northern Ireland and solved the problem after all this time?
    Mr. Hurd: I gladly repeat my tribute to the UDR, which is an indispensable part of security in Northern Ireland. It is an excellent thing that right hon. and hon. Members and friends from other countries should visit Northern Ireland. I simply plead that they do not come just for a few hours and then release a draft statement pontificating about matters which they have not had a chance to study. They should come with a balanced programme, see a wide range of people, and stay a day or two. I am sure that then they would be far wiser.
    Mr. Archer: Is the Secretary of State at least persuaded that the most effective method of improving security is to win the hearts of the people of both traditions for a system of law enforcement which they can see is manifestly fair? Is it not clear that if that can be achieved the roots of paramilitarism will wither? Whatever the reason why the UDR is perceived as sectarian, is it not the case that doubts about whether it can now perform an effective role are entertained not only by the Fabian Society but by senior RUC officers and officials of the Security Committee?
    Mr. Hurd: It is true, as the Chief Constable made clear in his recent annual report on the security forces, that they need the support of as wide a section of the population as they can achieve. While the Army, including the UDR and the RUC, are, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, active and energetic in trying to bring that about, there is a responsibility on the elected representatives of the minority community and on their friends in the House to play their part in this process. I have made my position on the UDR clear and I have nothing to add.

    Tourism
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives the Government have made to increase tourism in the Province.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Government initiatives in support of the Northern Ireland tourist industry include an expanded programme of marketing and promotional campaigns at home and abroad by the Northern Ireland tourist board and
    886
    the provision of grant assistance by the Department of Economic Development to encourage the development of tourist amenities and accommodation in the Province.
    Mr. Parry: I welcome the increase in tourism and the benefit it brings to the economy. Will this initiative to alleviate the serious unemployment problem in the Province be continued? Are there any plans to increase the sailings between Liverpool and Belfast?
    Dr. Boyson: Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Perry), who is interested in the passage to and from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we welcome the increase in tourism. There has been an 8 per cent. increase in the number of tourists coming into Northern Ireland and the number is now approaching 1 million. That helps employment—about 8,000 people are employed in the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very interested in and concerned about Northern Ireland. I welcome his support for saying that Northern Ireland is a good place to visit, in particular because his constituency is so close to the Province As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, if only people would spend two or three weeks in Northern Ireland instead of a few hours there, more sense might be spoken in the House.
    Sir Humphrey Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tourist attractions of Northern Ireland are very considerable and that not least among those attractions is the warm welcome that tourists receive from at least 99 per cent. of the population? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the opportunities given to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board by our missions abroad to bring this home to foreigners, who, in large numbers, already spend time in Northern Ireland, are adequate?
    Dr. Boyson: May I underline what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the hospitality of both communities in Northern Ireland. I am eight pounds heavier than when I first went there on 10 September 1984, which demonstrates that wherever one goes in Northern Ireland some of the best food in the world is offered to visitors. My healthiness at present depends in more ways than one upon what happens in Northern Ireland. As for my right hon. Friend's second point, there are now tourist board representatives in Scotland, West Germany and the Republic, and 350,000 visitors from the Republic came to Northern Ireland on holiday last year. We are examining whether the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is spending its money effectively and what more we can do to help.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: While sympathising with the Minister's encounter with Ulster pride, is it not the case that those who spend a holiday in Northern Ireland and experience not only the beauty of the country but the friendliness and peaceability of the inhabitants obtain a much truer insight into the truth about the Province than those who, with preconceived political notions, flip over and back?
    Dr. Boyson: I can only agree with the right hon. Gentleman about holidays in the Province. It is beautiful. A great deal has been done to the loughs and harbours to make it even more attractive than before. Anything that any right hon. or hon. Member can do to encourage other people to come to the Province will be of advantage to all concerned.
    Rev. William McCrea: Can the Minister tell the House what positive steps he and his hon. Friends have taken to encourage touring sports teams to come to Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the teams which have cancelled their visits because of threats by the IRA and the INLA?
    Dr. Boyson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all that we can—and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), similarly—to encourage teams to come to Northern Ireland. It was undoubtedly due to the Government's encouragement that there was the recent excellent snooker result involving the Province.

    Republic of Ireland (Talks)
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any pains to hold discussions with the leaders of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Irish Government to discuss matters relating to Northern Ireland.
    Mr Hurd: I meet representatives of the Irish Government from time to time but I have no firm plans for a meeting at present.
    Mr. Flannery: In view of the dismissive attitude of the Prime Minister to the Forum report, when she voiced the trilogy "out, out, out", will the Minister consider the extension of the friendly attitude which we are assured exists in Northern Ireland to the Republic in order that the political set-up in the whole of Ireland may be discussed? For instance, when talking about British justice, will he try to justify to the Prime Minister of the Republic just how the supergrass trials fit in in any way, or do any good whatsoever, to the political situation anywhere, especially in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Hurd: I believe that peaceable citizens are now living in greater security in Northern Ireland because in the past people have been correctly, according to the courts, convicted of terrorist charges as a result of the evidence of their former accomplices. Therefore, I should have no difficulty in explaining to Irish Ministers, if I met them, or to Mrs. Ferraro or to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the system by which supergrass evidence in trials of this kind is tested by the court, and not before it comes to court, is correct.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State willing to comment on the merits of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier and its bearing on relationships between the two countries and on the problems of Northern Ireland? May I press him further? Is he aware that there is no possibility of such a tier being established unless he and the British Government positively discuss it with the Irish Government and set it up? The House of Commons has no mechanism for doing that on its own.
    Mr. Hurd: I must hold to the answer that I have given on this. If there is to be some new form of parliamentary arrangement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, its solidity, endurance and life will depend on that being a genuine parliamentary initiative. Governments can then facilitate and discuss it to the extent that Governments have to. But the impetus must come from Parliament.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that discussions with leaders in the Republic of Ireland are certainly not helped by Americans such as Mrs. Ferraro coming over to the Province and stirring up sectarian hatred for cheap political gain?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not want to be unjust to Mrs. Ferraro; she did not do that. She was rather careful in her comments. My criticism is that she did not spend long enough in the Province for her comments to be valid. It would be going too far to make the accusation that my hon. Friend makes.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Secretary of State accept that it cannot and should not be beyond the wit of Her Majesty's Government to reach agreement at this historic time, following the report of the New Ireland Forum, to resolve with the Irish Republic the manifold problems that have separated us in the past? Will he give us an assurance that any discussions he is having with his counterparts in the Government of the Irish Republic are not being placed on the back burner and will be pressed vigorously and resolutely to an agreement?
    Mr. Hurd: The dialogue between ourselves and the Government of the Republic that was mentioned in the communiqué after the last Chequers summit is continuing, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we are putting the necessary energy and good will into that.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Nicholsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in achieving equality with other regions of the United Kingdom for small dairy farmers in respect of milk quotas.
    Dr. Boyson: My right hon. Friend has continuing contacts with his agricultural colleagues, but it is not yet possible to announce what relief can be given to small dairy farmers in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Nicholson: Following the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food earlier this week that small dairy farmers in England and Wales would be brought back to the 1983 levels of production and that hardship cases would be met in full, will he assure me and the House that small dairy farmers in Northern Ireland will receive the same treatment, to which they are entitled?
    Dr. Boyson: I know of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety and that of many other hon. Members about small dairy farmers in Northern Ireland. The outgoers scheme has not been taken up in Northern Ireland to the same extent as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that has created a problem. However, we are planning an early meeting of the three territorial Secretaries of State with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about that very problem.

    Multi-fibre Arrangement
    Rev. Martin Smythasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet representatives of the textile industry in the Province to discuss renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.
    Dr. Boyson: The multi-fibre arrangement is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade

    889
    and there will be a debate on the matter this afternoon. If I receive any requests for a meeting I will of course give them full consideration.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's response, but will he recognise that the matter concerns not only the rest of the United Kingdom but has specific implications for job opportunities in Northern Ireland? Will he use his influence with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to have such an agreement speedily implemented, for the good of all the textile industry?
    Dr. Boyson: I realise, as does the hon. Gentleman, that the percentage of people employed in the textile and clothing industries in Northern Ireland is three times greater than in the rest of Britain, and that is an important matter. If the hon. Gentleman is staying longer this afternoon, I suggest that he tries to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement.
    Mr. Bell: Does the Minister not realise that that answer is not acceptable to those who work in the textile industry in Northern Ireland? Does he not recognise that it would be socially intolerable to increase the existing pressures on employment in Northern Ireland through non-renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement? Will he give the House an assurance that he is prepared to fight his corner with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
    Dr. Boyson: Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I put forward the views of Northern Ireland. But, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) knows, the decision is made by this Parliament and not just by Northern Ireland. Indeed, those hon. Members who are integrationists want the decision to be made by this Parliament. Consequently, this afternoon's debate will be the decisive factor.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Winnick: If it is true that today the Cabinet decided to abolish or phase out the state earnings-related pension scheme, how can the Prime Minister justify 11 million people being swindled out of their right to be able to spend their retirement in comfort and dignity? How many of those 11 million people who will be adversely affected by the Cabinet's decision believed the pledges that were given at the time by herself and her colleagues to the effect that the scheme would not be touched?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself in patience. Today the Cabinet completed its consideration of the social security review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will now finalise the Green Paper, which is to be published following the Cabinet's decision. He hopes to be able to publish it and accompany it by a statement to the House soon after the Whitsun recess.
    Mr. Holtasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Holt: During her busy day, would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on the fact that at the Endeavour school in Middlesbrough handicapped children who are confined to wheelchairs are being abandoned by their teachers at lunch-time, in connection with the dispute, and that so-called professionals are causing great distress to both parents and children?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the information that my hon. Friend has given about the school in his constituency is correct. I understand that for a time the head teacher was trying to cope on his own but was unable to do so. I am amazed that the teachers should have taken this action, and my sympathy lies with the children, many of whom are in wheelchairs, and with their parents.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that a very warm welcome awaits her on her visit to Scotland tomorrow? As we have just passed the 10th anniversary of her pledge to abolish the rating system, will she recognise that no announcement of temporary relief—however welcome—will be a substitute for redeeming that pledge?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have made some provision for temporary relief on domestic rates in Scotland—as was announced some time ago—amounting to about £90 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to make a further announcement to the House next week, which will help with commercial rates. We are also studying the longer-term reform of rates, and we hope to be in a position to make an announcement about that when the studies have been completed.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons stated for the loss of the Bosporus bridge contract was the time taken to put together an aid and trade project? Is she further aware that although she returned from her highly successful visit to Sri Lanka three and a half weeks ago, we still await the result of the aid and trade negotiations on the Samanala Wela dam?
    The Prime Minister: When I was in Sri Lanka I announced a further aid package of £20 million for Sri Lanka, following the £115 million aid package that was given to enable the building and completion of the Victoria dam. My hon. Friend asked about the Bosporus bridge. The contract went the other way because the rival consortium gave heavy aid, not only for the bridge, but for the road contract. We are still in contact with the Turkish Government and hope that we can rescue something from that contract.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister had what she quaintly called her rates summit at Chequers six weeks ago. Was it there that the decision was made to rush through a panic Bill for Scottish commercial rates relief, or did the decision come later, without the benefit of a seminar, but with the benefit of the knowledge that the right hon. Lady was going to a Scottish Tory party conference that is on the warpath?
    The Prime Minister: The relief that has already been given to domestic ratepayers in Scotland has been very

    891
    welcome, particularly bearing in mind that of the 17 per cent. average increase in domestic rates in Scotland this year, two thirds is attributable to council overspending. Overspending councils are to blame. Even if the right hon. Gentleman does not like it, the ratepayers of Scotland will be pleased if further relief were given from those high-spending Labour councils.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows that she is talking nonsense. The Comptroller and Auditor General has said that by far the biggest reason for increases in rates in Scotland and elsewhere is the withdrawal of Government support for local authorities. Is the Prime Minister aware that she is engaged in a U-turn and is to give back to Scotland the £1,000 million that she has taken away from local authorities there in the past five years?
    The Prime Minister: I stand by the statement that of the 17 per cent. average increase in domestic rates in Scotland this year two thirds is attributable to council overspending. The offset of 8p in the pound to domestic ratepayers at a cost of about £90 million has cancelled out the increases which are directly attributable to revaluation. There is also great difficulty because of high-spending Labour councils. It is they who cause the trouble. The right hon. Gentleman should remember the example of Edinburgh.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I—[Interruption.]—refer the Prime Minister to the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Audit Commission? Will the Prime Minister take up these matters with that body so that she does not mislead the House with her recital of figures that are not based upon reality?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends are, of course, considering the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which will not always favour the viewpoint of the right hon. Gentleman. In the meantime, perhaps he will acknowledge that two thirds of the increase in domestic rates in Scotland is attributable to council overspending and that the overspenders are Labour-controlled.
    Mr. Churchill: As we commemorate our momentous victory over Fascism—a victory that could never have been won without both our American and Russian allies—is it not a matter for regret that the 40th anniversary should have been marred by the trading of insults between the two super powers? Will my right hon. Friend and Great Britain take an especial lead in seeking in the months ahead to bring closer together the United States and the Soviet Union, so that we may together win the peace as we so victoriously won the war?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it is in the interests of the Western Alliance and of the Soviet Union that there should never be conflict between us. To achieve that we have to be prepared to defend our way of life at a rate that will deter any aggressor, and in the meantime to enter into discussions with the Soviet Union on how best to reduce the large stores of weaponry, which we all want to see diminished.
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 May 1985.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of my constituents were heroes in the last war and fought for a country fit for heroes to return to and live in? Is the right hon. Lady further aware that those same heroes are now unemployed? Is she aware that in Maesteg 24 per cent. of the male population are out of work and that if a colliery closes at St. John's, Maesteg, 45 per cent. of the male population will be unemployed? If the right hon. Lady has a message for the Tory party conference in Scotland tomorrow, could it be that she will join the ranks of the unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are as anxious as any other and Conservative Members are as anxious as Opposition Members to increase the number of jobs that are available. That increase will not come merely by sharing out the number of jobs among more people, which would mean lowering wages as we increased the number of employed persons. I do not believe that overmanning is the answer to our problems. The answer lies in the private sector increasing the number of small businesses and thereby increasing the number of businesses that can expand and take on more people. There is no other answer in the long run to getting more jobs.
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the forthcoming Local Enterprise Week? Does she look forward to a reduction in interest rates as a further encouragement to new businesses?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I welcome the Local Enterprise Week, which is being run by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment with responsibilities for small businesses, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is running a meeting to further the objectives of the week. Its purpose is to help those who are able to start up in business on their own by ensuring that they obtain all the expert advice that is available to them. I hope that meetings in Bolton and elsewhere will be successful.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Prime Minister recall that during the passage of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill it was decided that the foundation stone of stopping personation by Sinn Fein at local government elections should be the medical card? Is the right hon. Lady aware of the exchanges that took place between my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), on 28 November 1984, when it was alleged that all medical cards would be sufficient for this purpose? Is she further aware that at the end of April it was discovered that only medical cards issued after 1973 would be valid and that this has resulted in anything between 15 and 20 per cent. of the electorate being disfranchised? What steps does she intend to take to ensure that this does not happen again? Does she agree that the officials and Ministers responsible should be removed from office?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that the validity of medical cards has been a source of some concern for those who represent Northern Ireland seats. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland answered a question on the issue before I entered the Chamber to the effect that he is taking every step possible to ensure that valid medical cards are available.
    Mr. Budgenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the proposed privatisation of British Gas? Will she explain why this future private monopoly cannot be broken up according to region and function?
    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the decision further to privatise, and to privatise the gas industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy considered whether the gas industry should be broken up either by region or by function. He came to the conclusion that it would take far too long to break up by region and that that would be far too expensive. He recognised, too, that that could have an adverse effect on the price of gas in some areas. For these reasons he decided that it would be better to go ahead by privatising the gas industry as a whole.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the membership of SOGAT,
    894
    the country's largest printing union, which has recently voted by a majority of nearly 4:1 to retain its political fund
    The Prime Minister: The SOGAT members vote exactly as they will on whether to retain their political fund. They have an opportunity to vote and we insisted that there should be a vote. How they use their vote is a matter for their decision. I shall be only too delighted if more trade unions believe in giving their membership the right to vote by secret ballot. This advance has come about only as a result of the Government's actions.
    Mr. Lyell: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the leader of the National Association of Head Teachers that the NUT's refusal to meet the Secretary of State for Education and Science was ill-judged? Does she further agree that the country is entitled to expect an honourable profession not merely to seek to increase its pay by striking, to the sufferance of children, but to come forward with sensible proposals for a restructuring of its profession' so that a wise, overall solution can be achieved?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is disappointing that the NUT will not take part in any meeting with my right hon. Friend. It has said that it wants an improved offer in Burnham and will discuss only this year's pay offer. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that we need a restructuring of the profession, proper appraisal provisions and proper contracts of service. Then we can, perhaps, have a much more fundamental talk about the whole pay structure.

Security
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on security.
On 22 February I received the report of the Security Commission on its inquiry into the case of Michael Bettaney, the former security service officer who was tried for offences under the Official Secrets Acts and was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment in April last year. The report is being presented to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon.
The commission has fully examined Bettaney's career in the security service, with the object of identifying any errors on the part of management in relation to Bettaney's employment. It finds that the process of recruiting Bettaney was carried out consistently with the procedures at the time. There is, in fact, no reason to doubt his loyalty at that time, or to suppose that he had at that stage ever contemplated the possibility of turning spy.
The commission makes a number of serious criticisms of the errors by the security service in relation to the management of Bettaney's career. In particular, it concludes that there came a point in October 1982 when there should have been, but was not, a very full investigation of Bettaney's lifestyle, which probably would have led to the removal of his positive vetting clearance and the cessation of his employment in the security service.
It remains the case, however, that Bettaney's attempts to get himself recruited as an agent of the Russian intelligence service were not successful. The security service's investigation that led to Bettaney's eventual conviction was effective and conclusive.
Although in the course of his attempts to get himself recruited Bettaney did communicate some secret information to the Russians, he was arrested before he was able to pass over the major proportion of the secret information that he had collected, and the grave damage that would have ensued by such communication was averted.
In the light of its investigation, the commission makes a number of recommendations for changes in positive vetting procedures in the security service. The most significant of these is that, at quinquennial review, special and separate reports should always be called for from all those who have supervised the subject since clearance was last given.
The commission also recommends that the revised and improved arrangements which apply at present only to the more senior grades should now be extended to all staff. These recommendations are being put into effect.
In the course of its investigation the commission received evidence of a more general character which was critical of various aspects of the internal organisation and management of the security service. It did not attempt to pass judgment on those criticisms, but has recorded its impression of aspects of organisation and management which seem to it to require examination and reassessment. The last chapter of the report makes some suggestions for changes in management attitudes and arrangements, and indicates a number of matters which, in the commission's view, call for particular consideration.
896
These criticisms and suggestions are being thoroughly examined and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are determined to see that action is taken to remedy management weaknesses.
The new director general is giving the utmost care and attention to the Security Commission's criticism of errors in relation to Bettaney's employment, as well as to the general management criticisms to which I have referred. He will make the changes that are judged to be necessary to improve the organisation and management of the service and will report to my right hon. and learned Friend and me later this year. I shall arrange for his conclusions and measures to be reported to the Security Commission for any further comment that it may wish to make.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the handling of members of the service who are troubled over particular matters and activities within the service. The director general has been asked to consider, and to report to my right hon. and learned Friend and me, what developments he proposes by way of internal outlets for the expression of grievances or anxieties of individual members of the service.
Finally, I emphasise that the criticisms of management do not extend to operations or overall efficiency.
Indeed, the Commission says:
"nothing in this report is intended in any way to call in question the professional and operational efficiency of the Security Service, which we believe to be of a high order".
Nevertheless, the criticisms that the Commission makes of the handling of Bettaney's case are serious, and every possible effort will be made to see that the shortcomings that it describes do not occur again.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Security Commission's report reveals great managerial inefficiencies within the security service, and I am sure that the whole House and the country will share the concern expressed by the Commission.
Plainly, Britain needs an effective and efficient security service. May I, therefore, welcome the Prime Minister's announcement that she will immediately implement the Commission's recommendations on positive vetting and that the new Director General will attend to the other criticisms made by the Commission?
May I also make it clear to the Prime Minister that, unfortunately, her statement does not meet the real seriousness of the problems illustrated by the Bettaney case? When she says:
"Bettaney's attempts to get himself recruited as an agent of the Russian intelligence service were not successful",
it seems that the right hon. Lady betrays a certain complacency. The fact is that no man could have tried harder than Bettaney to get himself recruited to the Russian secret service, and his fortunate incompetence is not a sufficient reassurance about the general condition of our services. Yet another internal reorganisation cannot, and will not, allay the widespread concern about the state of Britain's security services.
The Michael Bettaney case is only the latest in a series of incidents which have shown that our security services are not as proficient as they should be—indeed, must be—in clearing spies from within their own ranks and in detecting and defeating the spies from powers that seek to do us harm.
Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is wrong that the security services should dissipate time and resources in conducting the surveillance of loyal British

897
people, who have no connection with espionage and pose no threat to the security of this country, when they should be concentrating entirely on real subversives, real spies and real terrorists who do wish us harm?
The Prime Minister has told us of her decision simply to pass to the Director General the evidence to the Security Commission from, as the report says,
"present members of the Service at various levels and from former members".
That evidence is "highly critical" of the service. The right hon. Lady's response to those authoritative criticisms from various levels within the service is not good enough.
Following the report from the Director General, which the right hon. Lady expects later this year, precisely what action will she be prepared to take to remove the problems identified in confidence by those within the service who have made criticisms?
Finally, is the Prime Minister aware that people who share her political affiliation, as well as those who share mine, and people with no political affiliation, believe that it is essential to establish a system of external oversight, representative of all parties, and answerable to the House, with the appropriate safeguards for necessary secrecy? Will she place the security services on a proper statutory footing and establish a parliamentary review procedure so that we can satisfy ourselves and the country that this nation's security is being properly protected?
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, it is a fact that Bettaney was arrested before he was able to hand over some of the information which he had accumulated—[Interruption.] That is a fact. He was arrested and therefore he was caught within his own organisation before he was able to hand over the information.
Secondly, the Security Commission had two main criticisms. The first concerned the handling of Bettaney's career. The right hon. Gentleman will see that in the paragraphs and chapters of the Security Commission's report it argues very carefully and closely its reasoning. I think that we should leave it to be read in detail and leave the new director general of the security services to deal with that matter, as I am certain he will.
The commission also made a general criticism that it had received from other members of the security services adverse comments on the way in which the service was managed. The commission did not go into that. The commission did not validate those criticisms, for it is sufficient both for the commission and for us that they were made. and clearly that whole matter must be inquired into. When the Director general has come up with his proposals and put them into operation we shall also refer those proposals to the Security Commission for any further comment that it may make. Therefore, I believe that we have met the legitimate concerns and the serious criticisms of the Security Commission.
The need for external oversight has been argued at length in the House and came up again during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill. All Governments run the security services in the same way and on the same lines, because they know when they are in power that that is the best way to run them. They must be run under unified management. They cannot be referred to an external group.
Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all that has happened in the past
898
emphasises and underlines the need for a safe and efficient way of dealing with complaints by members of the security services? Will she consider the recent proposal of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including two former Home Secretaries, to appoint a complaints commissioner to deal with complaints internally and without any breach of security by members of the service? Bearing in mind that the American CIA has an ombudsman with powers of oversight — an appointment which has proved to be highly successful, so far as one can gather—does my right hon Friend agree that such an appointment of a comparable kind here would be the safest of all safety valves?
The Prime Minister: I saw the speech that my hon. and learned Friend made to this effect during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill. It was generally in line with what he has just said. We are naturally concerned that for those in the security service who have certain strong feelings about duties which they are asked to perform there should be a channel through which they can make their views known.
I believe that quite a lot will occur through a change in the style of management there. I listened carefully to my hon. and learned Friend's comments. Before jumping to any specific conclusion, I have asked the new Director General to consider this with the staff and to put forward proposals. My hon. and learned Friend's proposal will, of course, also be considered.
Dr. David Owen: The professional and operational efficiency of the secret services surely must come into question when Bettaney was not competent enough even to be able to be recruited by the Soviet security services. Although Sir Anthony Duff is a very distinguished public servant, will the Prime Minister give careful consideration to the proposal for a complaints ombudsman covering both the security and intelligence services? If the CIA and the FBI are both capable of being subjected to an ombudsman and also to a Select Committee of Congress, surely it is time now for an all-party parliamentary Select Committee of both Houses to be able to scrutinise the secret Vote of both the security and the intelligence services.
The Prime Minister: No. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in the latter part of his question. He did not do that when he was Foreign Secretary. for, I believe, very good reasons. I think that we should continue to enable the secret services to run in a secret way—after all, those against whom they operate always have the benefit of secrecy—and carry on in the way that we have done in that they are responsible to Ministers, whether the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary.
With regard to the internal complaints, I have nothing to add to what I have already said about that matter in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner).
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend discard the obviously fatuous suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition, which would be likely to prove positively harmful in their effect? Nevertheless, will she recognise that the spasmodic reviews of the security services by the great and the good are not adequate for the purpose, and that a permanent inspectorate within the services would be likely to prove the best solution?
The Prime Minister: I have noted my hon. Friend's comments, but I am sure he will agree that the best way is for the new Director General to consider these matters first and make his own recommendations.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: As part of the consideration of what the Prime Minister described as internal complaints, will she report to the House later this year on the ideas of the new Director General on this matter? Several of us agree with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee that the best channel would be a sort of ombudsman inside MI5. It took the Bettaney case to achieve any consideration of the matter, and I accept any criticism that might fall on me because of it. It is a serious matter, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) has made a very good suggestion.
The Prime Minister: Without any commitment, may I consider what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has said? It is important to find a solution, and it is important that I report that a solution has been found. I would need to consider whether it would be wise to report the solution precisely.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the aftermath of the Blunt revelations about six years ago both she and the then Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw as he now is, indicated that there would from then on be the tightest possible ministerial oversight of security services? Is it not an uncomfortable fact that the weaknesses revealed by today's statement show that pure ministerial oversight, however good the Ministers may be, is not quite good enough? Will she now be a little more sensitive to the views, held in all parts of the House, that some form of Privy Councillors' committee or ombudsman would reassure public opinion in this area?
The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend would be the first to accept that Ministers should not get involved in the day-to-day management of any service. I am sure that he would accept that. The criticism in the Bettaney case was of that kind of management. That is being inquired into and, I believe, will be put right. There are also certain proposals as to what should happen on the quinquennial review of vetting, which was where the problems arose. I do not think that it would be helpful to the security services to have their operations and their management exposed to cross-examination in this House. I think that it would be highly damaging to them.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Would a purely internal outlet for the expression of grievances of individual members of the service have dealt with the situation where a senior official of MI5 believed that the then Director General, Sir Roger Hollis, was a spy and found himself under investigation for pursuing that line of inquiry?
The Prime Minister: I have already made my views on that quite clear and given the official statement. Therefore, I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman raising it again under the Bettaney case.
I believe that there could be an internal route under a different style of management. It is being considered. The hon. Gentleman heard the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many people feel that she is doing her
900
level best to restore the credibility of the security services, but that some of us feel, in the light of the infiltrations at a very senior level and the continued catalogue of errors such as the one we are now facing, that that must call into question not only the management but the actual operation of the security services? For that credibility—which is the key issue—to be restored, surely nothing short of forming a new service will suffice?
The Prime Minister: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. As he will be well aware, the security service has had its very considerable successes, and those successes have received much less publicity than problems of this kind.
I do not believe that we need a new service. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the excellent work that the security services do, and try to boost their morale rather than to lower it.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Lady aware that what is so disturbing about her report is that she refuses to comment on, let alone take action over, the allegations that a number of people have been investigated by MI5 and the special branch, not because they were subversive in any possible sense, but because of their opinions? I remind the right hon. Lady of the case of Mrs. Haigh in the west midlands.
Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister why, in replies to me, she has said that she would not give permission for the newly appointed Director General of MI5 to give evidence, if invited, before a Select Committee, or to come here perhaps once a year to answer questions from hon. Members? Does the Prime Minister not recognise—unlike some of her hon. Friends—that if there is to be confidence in MI5 and the security services, some degree of parliamentary accountability is necessary?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of Lord Harris's definition of subversion. Only when activities fall within that definition are they investigated. The hon. Gentleman referred to further accountability to the House. I remind him of the view taken during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. On 28 July 1977 a Home Office Minister said:
"I am inhibited from commenting on the allegations in any detail by the long-standing and well-established convention that these matters are not discussed across the Floor of the House."
—[Official Report, 28 July 1977; Vol. 936, c. 1223.]
I believe that in the case of this service it is necessary to continue that practice.
Dr. John Marek: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the personal information that is held and is exempt under section 27 of the Data Protection Act on the ground of national security is relevant to national security, and that no irrelevant information is held? In view of what has been said by hon. Members after her statement today, will the right hon. Lady consider what may be the best way of reassuring the British public that that is so?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that question arises from the commission's report on the Bettaney case. I believe that these matters were discussed during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill, and I have nothing to add to what was said then.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a very important debate to follow. I shall take one more question.
Mr. Ernie Roberts: In view of the serious statement on security by the Prime Minister, will she consider withdrawing a statement sent to me from the Cabinet Office Management and Personnel Office? The Minister concerned said that it was the Government's
"declared policy to introduce competitive tendering for services, including security guarding, in Government Departments … I cannot go into detail about the steps which are taken to ensure the suitability of commercial guarding companies".
That is what I was told, and yet the Prime Minister makes statements about her concern for national security.
I am not prepared to allow private companies to be responsible for the security of the correspondence of hon. Members. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh. The citizens of this country are entitled to security for their correspondence with their Members of Parliament. To place that security in the hands of private companies—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the question have anything to do with the security services?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order afterwards.
Mr. Skinner: It is relevant to the statement, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order afterwards.
Later—
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief, as we have a busy day.
Mr. Cohen: My point of order arises from the Prime Minister's statement. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, there were only four hon. Members standing at the end of the Prime Minister's statement—myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who had been trying to ask a question all the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who began to seek to ask a question in the middle of questions, and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who began to seek to ask a question at the end of questions. You, Mr. Speaker, moved on without calling us, but at the end of business questions you said that you
902
would take questions until 4.15, but called all those hon. Members who had been seeking to ask questions up to now, 4.24. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker, because—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman right there. These are different matters. The hon. Member will accept that business questions are prized Back-Bench opportunities to put questions to the Leader of the House. He will know that I always seek to call as many hon. Members as possible on business questions. I cannot always call everybody on statements; it would be impossible to do so. More than 32 hon. Members wish to take part in the next debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to delay that, because many of those hon. Members are colleagues from his side of the House.
Mr. Cohen: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but the point needs to be made. I appreciate your point about business questions being prime time for Back Benchers, but so are statements on security services. The chances for hon. Members to ask questions are fewer on this subject than on business questions. When we try to raise the matter, it is blocked by the Table Office. I wanted to raise three clear points with the Prime Minister, none of which were made during the supplementary questions. I wanted to ask that anyone in the security services—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that. I have to exercise discretion. He will know that there are other opportunities to put his questions. I try to be as fair as possible in allocating the available time. I cannot take further points on that now.
Mr. Cohen rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being selfish in seeking to keep out other hon. Members. The only sanction that I shall have is to call more hon. Members from Conservative and alliance Benches if the hon. Gentleman wishes to take time from his colleagues.
Mr. Cohen: A question arises out of your first ruling, Mr. Speaker. You said that there are other opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise this matter. Where are those opportunities for debate on the security services? The Leader of the House said that there will not be a debate next week.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to find other opportunities.
Mr. Cohen: There are none.

Business of the House
3.54 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning next week's business. It will be as follows:
Monday 13 May—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions. Remaining stages of the Surrogacy Arrangements 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.
Tuesday 14 May—Second Reading of the Oil and Pipleines Bill. Remaining stages of the Ports (Finance) Bill.
Wednesday 15 May—Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion titled "The Government's Neglect of British Industry and the New Technologies."
Motion on the Unfair Dismissal (Variation of the Qualifying Period) Order.
Thursday 16 May— Motion on the Spring Adjournment.
Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].
Friday 17 May—Private Members' Bills.
Monday 20 May—Debate on a Government motion on the report of the Auld committee of inquiry into proposals to amend the Shops Acts, Cmnd. 9376.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Spring Adjournment on Friday 24 May until Monday 3 June.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
In view of the hostility that the Unfair Dismissal (Variation of the Qualifying Period) Order will arouse among hourly paid workers, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that more time is given for that debate next Wednesday so that more right hon. and hon. Members can participate, as the subject will affect many workers in Britain?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the sixth time, for a debate on the report of the Commission for Racial Equality and tell him that we want such a debate to be held on a day and at a time when it can be reported fully in the press?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing anxiety among management and workers at the prospect of the social security review and its findings undermining the state earnings-related pension scheme, which workers depend on to provide them with pensions that will free them of the need to claim social security in retirement? The Prime Minister said earlier that the discussion of these matters in Cabinet had been concluded. When will we have a statement? Will it attend to each of the subjects separately, or does the right hon. Gentleman hope that they will be lumped together, thereby somewhat restricting the discussion that should take place?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard that it is proposed that the White Paper should be published shortly after we return from the Whitsun recess and be accompanied by a statement to the House. I note what he said about the desirability—
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: It is a Green Paper.
Mr. Biffen: I am most grateful for that correction. It is a Green Paper. We are linked in a dream partnership that has saved me from those incautious words. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the ambit of the statement and will refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about a debate on the report of the Commission for Racial Equality. He will appreciate that this matter has been attended to through the usual channels. I shall ensure that the matter is further attended to.
I take account of the right hon. Gentleman's request for extended time on the debate on the unfair dismissal order on Wednesday. That matter can be helpfully attended to through the usual channels.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Did the Leader of the House notice that the House got on to the Adjournment last night at 8.17 pm? Is this not difficult to reconcile with any suggestion that the Government might find it difficult to provide a little time for the passage of measures desired by the House?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to travel hopefully. It is in the essence of Parliament that it should be unpredictable, above all, about the Committee stages of Finance Bills, which are greatly influenced by the wishes of the Opposition. I am not sure whether the Government can be blamed if business ends a little early.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an appropriate moment to say that there is nothing unpredictable about the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement. In view of that, I shall allow business questions to continue until 4.15 pm.
Mr. Harry Greenway: In view of the damage being done to schoolchildren and schools by the Militant Tendency and the Young Socialist organisation of the Labour party office, which are subverting schoolchildren dangerously, keeping them out of school and closing schools, may we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science, on which hon. Members may question him and seek an assurance from him that schools will not be closed because those organisations are damaging children's chances of education?
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He makes a legitimate point about a matter which has caused a great deal of anxiety. However, I must point out that he has a chance of raising the matter on the motion for the Spring Adjournment.
Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the report in the media that the Secretary of State for Scotland will today make a statement about rates in Scotland at the Tory party conference? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland makes the self-same statement in the House, and apologises to the House for making the statement out with the elected Chamber?
Mr. Biffen: If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is locked in conclave with the

905
Conservative party conference, he deserves our good wishes, not our abuse. Any substantive statements that must be made about rates will undoubtedly be made to the House next week.
Mr. Nigel Forman: As many Conservative Members are anxious that the Government should get their conclusions right following the social security reviews, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be the fullest possible opportunity for debates on those matters soon after the Green Paper is published? Can he further confirm the point to which he alluded in answer to his dream partner, that it will be a genuine Green Paper?
Mr. Biffen: I take account of what my hon. Friend says about the desire for a debate in the Chamber. It must be held in the wider context of a national debate, which will attend the topic. I confirm that it is a Green Paper.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I have frequently pressed him for a debate on the Export of Goods (Control) Order, which brings into operation the COCOM agreement. Indeed, he has gone further and given a generally sympathetic welcome to the value of such a debate. Has he had time to see the reply from the Minister for Trade, who said that the order would probably come into effect on 12 June? Will he show more clearly whether the Government are prepared to give time to discussing this matter which is vital to British high technology industry?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consider that point and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Regarding the Auld report on unrestricted Sunday trading, is my right hon. Friend aware that, although Conservative Members accept that the anomalies in the present law need to be rectified, we have grave doubts about the need to introduce unrestricted Sunday trading? Will he bear that in mind when he prepares for the debate?
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. Clearly the matter evokes a wide range of opinions across the House. He will be interested to know that the Government motion will go down this afternoon and, therefore, will be available for consideration.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: As we now know that the largest political donation in history is enmeshed in fiduciary impropriety, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that we can discuss proposals to prevent future double-dealing, double standards and double hypocrisies on the part of the double Davids?
Mr. Biffen: I have always sought delicately to avoid the big Ds. The matter could conceivably arise on the motion for the Spring Adjournment. I should love the opportunity of answering such a debate.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members have recently received from the Fees Office a letter about their mileage allowance? For cars between 1,300 cc and 2,300 cc hon. Members will receive 28p, and for cars over 2,300 cc they will receive an embarrassing 42p. Is that not an open invitation to hon. Members to buy foreign gas-guzzling
906
cars? Is it not absurd at a time when the Government seek to contain public expenditure, and should we not debate the resolutions again?
Mr. Biffen: It is an interesting development of the argument—I think that it has now been lifted from the columns of the Daily Express—to suggest that the only large capacity cars are foreign cars. If my hon. Friend wishes to become an expert on gas-guzzling cars, he will find plenty of home grown varieties. I shall be happy to see him if he wishes to raise any serious points on the matter.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Is the Leader of the House aware that both sides of the House wish to establish an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier? When Ministers are asked about it they say that it has nothing to do with them and that it is up to Parliament. Can the right hon. Gentleman either find time for a debate on the matter, or suggest a way by which the House can express its views and achieve that end?
Mr. Biffen: No time has been provided for such a debate next week. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is such universal support for the proposition, he has other ways of testing it.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the past there has been criticism on the Floor of the House of the ability of the Church of England to represent great national occasions in our religious services. May we place on record that yesterday the service in Westminster Abbey and the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury were highly acceptable and splendidly delivered?
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that next week's business is the obvious way to place on record praise for yesterday 's sermon. However, that shows that Parliament has its ways and means.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House make it clear whether, when we discuss the Auld report on 20 May, we shall have a firm declaration from the Government about the report's proposals on wages councils? As a Member sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, I must declare my interest. I listened yesterday to the remarks of my hoe. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the declaration of interests. The Leader of the House should examine closely the interests of hon. Members who may participate in that debate, especially private interests in garden centres, DIY stores, Sunday opening and amendments to the Shops Act. Will he assure the House that he will ensure that those hon. Members declare their interests, especially regarding a firm called GJD?
Mr. Biffen: I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Gentleman's point about a debate and a statement of Government policy about wages councils, as he will take part in the debate. I think that the House understands the expected conventions about the declaration of interests, and I am sure that it will abide by them.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider sympathetically the request by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) for more time for the debate on unfair

907
dismissals, in view of the fact that many of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are threatened with unfair dismissal by their general management committees and may wish to bring their problems to the House for discussion?
Mr. Biffen: I thought that my warm reaction was so transparently sympathetic and devoid of any code that it must be for the reasons stated.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Prime Minister and several of his ministerial colleagues have given specific, categoric and repeated assurances that the NACODS agreement would be scrupulously observed? Is he aware that the National Coal Board has shown a considerable disdain for. and appears to be rejecting, the agreement? If he will not provide time for the House to debate the agreement, may we at least have time to consider the meaning of words such as "sacrosanct", and to allow Labour Members to use such words as "inexactitude"?
Mr. Biffen: I realise that this is a matter of general concern on both sides of the House. There is no provision for a debate next week, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the point that has been made.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday, on a bogus point of order, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) launched a scurrilous attack on the Liberal party, suggesting that the British School of Motoring had bought it with a bribe of £188,000. My right hon. Friend said that this would be a suitable matter for the Spring Adjournment debate, but we must all wish to be fair to the Liberal party. Would it not be more appropriate to have a three-hour debate so that we could find out precisely what happened?
Mr. Biffen: It is an imperfect world, and next week only the Adjournment debate is available.
Mr. John Ryman: May I ask the Leader of the House a serious question for a change? Will he arrange the business of the House in such a way as to give us the opportunity to debate the peremptory closure of coal mines in the north-east of England, especially Blyth Bates colliery and a pit in Durham, where the National Coal Board has completely ignored the existing review procedure and peremptorily closed both pits without notice, without negotiation and in breach of promises made to the NUM in both areas? Will the right hon. Gentleman treat this matter as extremely urgent, since more than 3,000 jobs in the north-east are involved?
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman raises a matter of great constituency interest, to which he has already drawn the attention of the House through the Standing Order No. 10 procedure. I can offer no Government time for a debate next week, but I shall report the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On Monday afternoon, the House will be given an opportunity to debate civil liberties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the National Council
908
for Civil Liberties (sic) is trying to deny to some people the most fundamental civil liberty of all—the right to go to one's place of work free of intimidation and mobs? In the light of the disgraceful goings-on in the council, will my right hon. Friend try not to put in too many statements on Monday afternoon so that the true guardians of civil liberties on the Conservative Benches can speak in the debate?
Mr. Biffen: Private Members' debates on Monday afternoons have been known occasionally to lapse into torpor. I am glad that my hon. Friend gives notice that that will not be the case next week.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 672?
[That this House believes that, in order to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents and to play a more effective role in the legislature, it has become urgently necessary for honourable Members to have, as a minimum requirement, the resources to employ a secretary and a research assistant paid direct by the Fees Office; and expects Parliament to provide these resources as a matter of urgency for every honourable Member who wishes to make use of such facilities.]
Has he noted the many hon. Members from both sides of the House who have signed the motion? Is he further aware that many hon. Members believe that our efficiency is greatly impaired by the lack of secretarial and research resources, and will he arrange for an early debate on this matter, which is taken seriously by all hon. Members?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise that it is a matter of considerable seriousness to many hon. Members, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that no Government time is available for such a debate next week.
Mr. John Browne (Winchester): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the event of hostilities, Britain would be largely denuded of its regular forces, leaving a key role to be played by reservists, the civil defence force and the police? Is he further aware that some Socialist-controlled police authorities are preventing officers from their forces from taking part in exercises, such as "Brave Defender" which will take place in the autumn of this year, and that that will have a detrimental effect on our national defence? Does not interference with national defence by local authorities deserve a debate?
Mr. Biffen: I endorse wholeheartedly the importance of the topic, but there is no Government time for the debate that my hon. Friend wishes. I suggest that he pursues whatever opportunities free enterprise presents.
Mr. Clive Soley: Does the Leader of the House recognise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will have angered many hon. Members on both sides of the House? It was not an acceptable answer. The names on the early-day motion represent only the tip of the iceberg. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to become like the captain of the Titanic, rearranging the deck-chairs as the ship goes down, he would do well to make Government time available for such a debate.
Mr. Biffen: I notice the friendly advice about lifebelts.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Although I said that questions would stop at 4.15, I shall call those hon. Members who

909
have been rising. Perhaps I could say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I shall trade a question from him for his point of order.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in 1984, 4,100 youngsters under the age of 18 went missing in the Metropolitan police area? Is that not a worrying figure? The child of one of my constituents was kidnapped and taken to Pakistan only two weeks ago, but the Foreign Office did not keep in touch with the Home Office, so that when the child returned to Britain there was no check at the airport. May we have a debate on missing children as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot offer Government time for such a debate, important though it is, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of Ministers in those Departments.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that, this week, the European Parliament debated a motion concerning the plight of Cypriot refugees, and that it will debate another such motion in the near future? Would it not be appropriate if the House— [Interruption.] If Conservative Members want the name of my tailor, I shall gladly give it to them. This is the latest in summer wear. It is British-made.
Would it not be appropriate to debate the position of Cypriot refugees who were not covered by the 1982 partial amnesty decision? Several families living in Britain are threatened with deportation to a part of Cyprus where their homes are occupied by someone else, and Caterina and Vassilis Nicola have taken refuge in a church in Camden Town to avoid such deportation. Should not the plight of those families and of Cypriot refugees in general be fully debated by the House, as it never has been since the war in 1974?
Mr. Biffen: I must give a disappointing reply to the hon. Gentleman. No Government time has been provided for such a debate next week. If he wishes to pursue the subject, he should try the avenue of an Adjournment debate.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 634?
910
[That this House notes with concern the British Broadcasting Corporation's intention to defray the damages and costs of the libel action incurred by the That's Life programme team out of money generated by licence fees, which have recently been substantially increased; does not believe that this is the purpose for which low wage earners and pensioners pay a television licence fee; and hopes that in future the British Broadcasting Corporation will take greater care.]
If so, is he aware that an increasing number of hon. Members and of British citizens are becoming worried that the BBC can, with impunity, libel innocent citizens, knowing that the damages that it may incur will be paid from licence fees? Does that not enable the BBC to blackmail people because they cannot afford to sue it for defamation?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's important point arouses a strong response on both sides of the House. However, no Government time is available for such a debate. I hope that she will pursue the matter through other channels.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reconsider what he said about a properly organised debate on the British School of Motoring's expenditure of £188,000 to purchase the Liberal party? Does he recall that a few weeks ago the Liberal party and the SDP lost about an hour from an important debate about ballots and trade union money? It would be a good idea if the Leader of the House were kind enough to give them back that hour so that they might defend their position. They appear to be whiter than white but are receiving money—£188,000—about which there was no ballot in BSM. One man, Anthony Jacobs, cast £188,000-worth of votes. We now hear, according to stories today, that further scandals are about to emerge arising out of people who are living in tax havens which are not unknown to the Liberal party. I am sure we should find time for a debate about that.
Mr. Biffen: I am glad that, in the scale of values of the hon. Member, I rate a notch higher than a point of order. Although but a little more, how much it is. It shows what political choice reveals. His judgment of political cannibalism is to grill slowly over a persistent heat. I do not think that he wants the whole matter resolved in one grand debate, and therefore I shall be guided by him.

Civil Aviation Bill
4.21 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to question 179 on today's Order Paper, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery):
"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Civil Aviation Bill."
I have from the Library a copy of the reply. It says:
"I undertook not to proceed with the Civil Aviation Bill until decisions had been taken on the inspector's report on the Stansted/Heathrow terminal 5 planning inquiries. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Construction and I will not be in a position to announce those decisions in time for the Bill to complete all its remaining stages this Session. I am therefore withdrawing this Bill."
Is it in order to announce such decisions via a written reply when the Committee deliberating on the consequences of the Bill is due to meet again on 14 May further to discuss this matter? Is it not a gross discourtesy to the House to sneak through such decisions without notifying those hon. Members on both sides who were appointed to the Committee as long ago as December last year?
Is it not sadly typical of the Secretary of State for Transport that, having flouted the London Regional Transport Act and tacked undebated legislation on to the Local Government Bill, he should seek to conceal the depth of his latest self-inflicted defeat in this shabby manner?
Mr. Speaker: I have not seen the answer to which the hon. Gentleman draws my attention, but, as the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice that he was to raise this matter, I have had an opportunity to think about it. If he checks "Erskine May", he will find that it is in order for an hon. Member in charge of a Bill in a Standing Committee to give notice at the Table that he proposes to withdraw it. I note that transport questions will be answered on Monday, and there will be an opportunity then to discuss the matter.

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

1. Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985

2. Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1985.

3. Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Act 1985

4. Gosport Borough Council Act 1985.

5. National Bank of New Zealand Limited Act 1985.

6. Lloyds Bank (Merger) Act 1985.

Multi-fibre Arrangement
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
4.28 pm
Mr. Speaker: More than 32 hon. Members have shown their interest in this debate, and there may be others. I propose to apply a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 6 pm and 7.50 pm. I hope that that will be the norm for the other speeches that may follow, because I should like—and I am sure that the House will agree—to call as many hon. Members who have a constituency reason for taking part in this debate as possible.
4.29 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): I am glad to have the opportunity to introduce this debate. The House will know that the multi-fibre arrangement, which clearly will form the centrepiece of this debate, comes to an end in July 1986, and Governments all over the world, both in developed and developing countries, will have to take a view as to the next steps. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in answer to business questions last week that this debate comes at a formative stage, and before positions are fixed. The Government have, of course, had to come to some preliminary views as to the next steps, but the House can be confident that its views are being expressed at the beginning of a long negotiation, when positions are still fluid.
My right hon. Friends and I will listen extremely carefully to what is said in this debate and it will be an important element in helping us to come to a final view on these issues. Perhaps I ought, at this stage, to remind the House that, of course, the British Government, in isolation, will not necessarily get their way in full. We shall have to establish a common position in the European Community, which the Community will negotiate in the general agreement on tariffs and trade, where, no doubt, the developing countries themselves will have strong views to express.
The starting point of the debate must be the state of the British clothing and textile industries. I am sure that the House will be in no doubt about the importance of the textile and clothing industries, both in terms of employment and skills. The industries have been through a process of painful adjustments during the past few years. Major changes have been made and the industries have made great strides in competitiveness. Output of the clothing industry, after having fallen very sharply in 1980 and 1981, has grown steadily in each of the last three years. The upturn in textiles started later than in clothing, and remains more modest, but again output is now moving in the right direction. I am glad to see that the profits of textile and clothing companies seem to be improving, too.
At the same time, there have been some encouraging improvements in export performance in some sectors and some markets. Knitwear exports to West Germany increased in value by 77 per cent. between 1982 and 1984. Our exports to the United States have also been impressive. Between 1982 and 1984 textile exports were up 100 per cent., knitwear exports up 121 per cent. and clothing exports up 195 per cent. More generally, our wool textiles exports increased from £426 million in 1983 to £538 million last year.
How has this happened? It is the result of much hard analysis of markets, much rethinking of product ranges
914
and much reorganisation of production. Many firms have been focusing their efforts on more specialised, higher valued items, where design flair and other British strengths can be made to count.
A leading figure in the textile industry said recently:
"New products have been brought to the market and older ones up-dated—production methods have been adapted to improve quality and to reduce processing time and energy consumption. Customers' changing needs, more variety. more designs, more seasonal changes, shorter lead times—have been anticipated and met."
I am sure this is the type of effort that points the way for the British textile and clothing industries.
In the light of that, the House and the Government have to consider the future situation. The present system of controls in the developing countries' exports of textiles and clothing is due to end in July 1986 and discussions are just beginning about whether it should be extended. This system, known as the multi-fibre arrangement, is an internationally negotiated derogation from the general agreement on tariffs and trade and applies to the vast majority of textile and clothing products. In this country it has led to 500 quotas being applied to some 80 textile and clothing items from 27 developing countries.
In July of this year the GATT textiles committee will be discussing whether the MFA should be extended, modified or discontinued. The Community will need to agree its policy stance in advance of this, so in recent months I have been consulting a wide range of bodies interested in the future of the import regime for textile and clothing and, of course, many hon. Members as well.
First, we must look at the effect on the textile and clothing industries. Of our national expenditure on textiles and clothing, our domestic industry supplies 60 per cent. In addition to supplying this proportion of the home market, our industry exports 27 per cent. of its production. Therefore, 60 per cent. is supplied domestically by our industry and 40 per cent. of our home market is supplied from abroad. Out of the 40 per cent., 25 per cent. is supplied by foreign suppliers who face no restriction on their exports to the United Kingdom, mainly other Community and western European countries. The developing countries of the Third world, where exports are restricted by the MFA quotas, supply some 10 per cent. of our market—I emphasise that they supply 10 per cent. of our market—and approximately 5 per cent. comes from Mediterranean countries. Of the suppliers restricted by the MFA, Hong Kong is much the biggest.
Imports from the European Community have risen from about one third of the total imports of textiles and clothing in 1974 to almost one half in 1984, while the share coming from MFA suppliers has fallen. Developed countries as a whole now provide almost two thirds of our imports. This is partly because of a shift in demand in the United Kingdom towards higher value products, which favours developed country suppliers. In common with trade generally, our trade with our Community partners in textiles and clothing has increased in both directions. All this means that British textile and clothing firms are exposed to changing patterns of demand and to strong and shifting patterns of competition.
In addition to the MFA, the Community also has unilateral restrictions on textile and clothing exports from. certain state trading countries and Taiwan, and has agreed. voluntary restraints with a number of Mediterranean suppliers, of which Portugal is the biggest.
Mr. Jack Straw: Although one accepts the change in the pattern of imports, will the Minister accept that the impact of imports from MFA countries is significant and that the Silberston report predicted that if the MFA were to be abandoned there would be 50,000 more job losses than he predicted in the industry?
Mr. Channon: I am not seeking to argue that their impact is not significant. I want to get the figures straight and to give the facts to the House. I shall deal later, and in detail, with the Silberston report. It has been agreed during the accession negotiations that Portugal and Spain will have some restraints on their textiles and clothing for up to four years, but after that Spanish and Portuguese textiles and clothing will be subject to the normal Community rules of free circulation. In all, the low-cost suppliers whose textile and clothing exports are subject to quantitative controls of one sort or another amount to about 14 per cent. of our home market.
The point that I am making, which I take up with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), is that, although the MFA is clearly an important issue for the British textile and clothing industries, it must be kept in proportion. Whatever happens to the MFA, the British industries' capacity to compete against the developed world—West Germany and Italy, for example—in both home and export markets will be crucially important for their future.
In considering our attitude to the renewal of the MFA, we must bear in mind the strenuous efforts being made to halt the spread of protectionism. This, of course, has far wider ramifications than for textiles only. There is general agreement among all the Governments—I emphasise all the Governments—of the summit countries that spreading protectionism would be a disaster for the growth of the world economy. Since the war, the open trading system has led to an eightfold growth in trade. Surely we must not fall into the trap that our predecessors fell into in the 1930s. This is particularly true for the United Kingdom, where I emphasise that exports are equivalent to 30 per cent. of our gross domestic product and where so many of our jobs are dependent upon our ability to sell abroad. The House must face the facts. I shall deal with policy in a moment or two. Not only do we need markets to sell our goods abroad, but we have to face the fact, not always palatable, that the poorer developing countries need markets, too, to sell their goods so that they can both afford to buy imports, including British imports, and also, incidentally, so that they can be in a position in many cases to pay their debts, to, among others, British firms and British banks.
Mr. Michael Latham: While the general tenor of my right hon. Friend's statement is probably widely accepted, will he also address the crucial point that competition must be fair as well as free?
Mr. Channon: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I shall deal with that point, I hope in not too great detail, in about three minutes.
One of the subjects discussed at the Bonn summit, and earlier, both in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and in the Community, is the need for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT. It is clear that the new GATT round is acquiring increasing international momentum and that it will happen in the near future, notwithstanding the fact that one or two Governments find it difficult to set a target
916
date for getting the new talks launched. There has been concern in many countries that the multilateral trade system is being eroded by an increasing resort to protectionism. We share this concern—I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham)—and see the GAIT round as an opportunity to achieve a better balance in the rights and obligations of all contracting parties to the GATT, to strengthen the GATT disciplines, which are so important to us as a trading nation, and to make sure that the rules are observed.
The negotiations, when they start, will be many sided. No serious objective should be left off the agenda. The negotiations will deal, of course, with tariffs, and especially with anomalously high ones, although tariffs are not in general the area where protection has grown. They will deal with many non-tariff issues, including trade in food, and in services—of prime importance to Britain.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend be considering the question of origin marking? At present the British housewife cannot make an intelligent decision on whether to buy goods with which she is presented because she does not know where they come from.
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are considering the recent judgment of the European Court. I am not yet in a position to give the Government's reply to that, but my hon. Friend's point is well taken and I shall bear it in mind.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am seeking to follow the Minister's argument carefully, but when he turns his head towards his own Back Benches the microphones do not pick him up. He was dealing with an important point about the European Court's decision.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): No doubt the Minister will take on board what has been said.
Mr. Channon: I apologise to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I shall attempt to address my remarks to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in such a way that the hon. Gentleman can hear.
One of the most important and difficult tasks facing the negotiators will be the restoration of confidence in the fairness of the the open trading system. Unless that is achieved, none of the other aims will be achieved.
We need GAIT commitments on better access to the markets of the more advanced among the developing countries. It is one of the most unsatisfactory features of the GATT as it has grown up. Under part IV of the agreement, added with the best of intentions in the early 1960s, GATT rules exempt "developing" countries from any need to reciprocate the tariff reductions and other concessions to which the developed countries have committed themselves in successive rounds of negotiations. In other words, the rules as they stand give them the benefit of all the rights of the agreement, including open access to industrialised countries' markets, without giving comparable benefits in their own.
The history of commercial relations between developed and developing countries since then is perhaps an object lesson in the unwisdom of unequal treaties; the developing countries have not gained in practice in the way intended.

917
The treaty was bound to fall into disrepute, as it was felt to be unreasonable, and the result has been the imposition of restrictions on the developing countries' trade.
Moreover, developing countries, which are a numerical majority of the members of the GATT, are a purely self-selecting group. There are no rules about the stage of economic development at which the privileged enjoyment of rights without obligations ceases to apply. Successive British Governments have been willing and ready to accept that situation, but this bizarre and unbalanced relationship can now be acceptable to Governments and business in the developed world only if the stronger developing countries, those which are rapidly industrialising and already competing successfully in our markets, progressively shoulder the normal obligations of full GATT membership. Fairness in trade is essential, and we shall need it in textiles as well as in other fields.
Even if the new GATT round—this is strictly relevant to the MFA—is launched early next year, it will be some years, perhaps four or five years or more, before it is finished. It is clear, however, that the tasks facing the negotiators in these talks are not such that trade in textiles and clothing can simply be set on one side. It is not open to us, or, indeed, to any other Government, to consider the renewal or termination of the MFA in one watertight compartment and the new GATT round in another. Indeed, we must recognise that whatever British and other observers in developed countries may think of the MFA and the bilateral quotas under it, Third world countries regard it as an outstanding example of the way developed countries discriminate against them. For the most part they restrict the textile and clothing exports only of the developing countries to the developed countries, and not of the developed countries between themselves. We should not forget that textiles and clothing are much the most important of the developing countries' manufactured exports.
Nor must we be under any illusion that protection is costless. Protection does not solve problems; it creates them.
Mr. David Steel: Does the Minister intend to say something about the unfair competition in the form of support given by our fellow Community Governments, notably Belgium, France and Italy, to their industries compared with the British industry?
Mr. Channon: Indeed, as the House knows, the new Commission is taking a much more rigorous stance on the whole question of state aids in the textile and other industries. That is fair enough provided that it applies to everybody, not just to some.
Mr. Cyril Smith: We have been told that for 10 years.
Mr. Channon: I have not been saying that for 10 years, but it happens to be true nevertheless. The Belgian and the Dutch schemes have been cut back. If hon. Members have evidence of other schemes which are going ahead which are not meeting the Community rules, we shall be happy to pursue them energetically. Indeed, the Commission is presently studying an Italian scheme and we are determined to ensure that the rules are applied fairly to everyone in the Community, not just to some.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that steps are always taken after the
918
event? Our European colleagues have always spent the money, which has given their industries the advantage, whereas when we submitted our CLOFT scheme to the Commission it was turned down and a modest scheme of £20 million spread over four years was not implemented at all?
Mr. Channon: I regretted what happened over the CLOFT proposal, but we shall pursue energetically cases of other countries taking an unfair advantage in that way and would welcome any evidence from hon. Members or, indeed, the industry.
The House will be aware of Professor Silberston's report, published last December, which provides an independent assessment of the impact of the MFA on the economy. He found that the MFA raised the price of clothing in this country by about 5 per cent., costing British consumers some £450 million per annum. He said that the greater part of this cost benefited foreign rather than British manufacturers. He considered that the MFA protected some jobs in the textile industry, but said that in the economy as a whole the MFA was, if anything, doing more to reduce employment than to increase it. It seems clear that higher prices for the products of one industry must leave consumers with less money to spend on those of others.
The Silberston report has aroused wide debate not merely about the effect of restricting trade in the textile and clothing industries but on the economy as a whole. I am grateful to Professor Silberston for his work. Neither he nor the House will expect me to endorse every figure in the report, nor every conclusion. I am conscious of the fact that the industry has disputed a number of his calculations—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: All of them.
Mr. Channon: I do not think that it has disputed all of them. The report is a carefully considered one which has received wide study.
The subject has also received international attention. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has recently published a report entitled "The Costs and Benefits of Protection". It shows that protection has a wide variety of consequences—trade diversion, price increases, enforced changes of product mix and transfers of wealth to foreign producers. All of that is echoed in Professor Silberston's work. Most important of all, the OECD study agrees with Professor Silberston that protection does not in the long run save jobs in the economy at large but reduces the scope for new employment by forcing some sectors of industry to bear the cost of protecting other sectors.
Dr. Keith Hampson: It is all very well to talk about the generality of the economy, but what matters is the concentration of the textile industry in some parts of the country, particularly for certain categories of workers, such as part-time women workers and the ethnic groups. Frankly, that is spurious logic. I do not see how Ministers can argue, on the one hand, that if we reflate the economy most of the money will go on imports, but, on the other hand, if we suddenly put £400 million back into the economy it will somehow go on British manufactures, not on imports.
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that I will be coming to that specific point in a moment.

919
During the past several months I have been holding detailed consultations with all the British interests affected by the MFA. I have been anxious to get a balanced picture of the views of all interested parties. I have met trade associations, consumers, organisations and many hon. Members. I have also had many letters from hon. Members, some of them in identical terms.
As was to be expected, wider debate about the costs of protection has led to growing pressure, not only in this country but in the Community and elsewhere, for the MFA to be brought to an end. Within this country, consumer bodies, importers and retailers have called for a firmer commitment that special restrictions on textiles and clothing trade should be phased out. Consumers' organisations, in particular, expressed concern that the MFA bore especially heavily on lower-income consumers, and on the price of children's clothes.
Mr. Barry Sheerman rose—
Mr. Channon: I must get on. I have given way about eight times and about 32 hon. Members wish to speak. I do not wish to be rude, but I must press on.
The consumers' organisations argued that the cost of the MFA for consumers was disproportionately heavy in relation to any benefit that it brought to the industry. On the other hand, I have received strong representations from the textile and clothing industries and from trade unions, which have urged continuation of the MFA. Some trade bodies, such as Comitextil, the European trade association, on which the British industry is of course represented, have argued for a further four to five years of protection. Others have said that there is no telling how much longer protection should continue. I have been left in no doubt about its importance to particular areas of the United Kingdom. The industry has also drawn attention to the barriers which its exports encounter in many parts of the world. It has rightly pointed out that the MFA allows what it calls an orderly development of trade in textiles and clothing.
Although employment in the textile and clothing industries has fallen, it still represents 2 per cent. of employment in the economy as a whole. In addition, although employment in the clothing industry is dispersed fairly evenly across the country, employment in the textile and knitting industries is more heavily concentrated in particular regions. For example, in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which has the strongest concentration of textile employment, more than 3 per cent. of all employees work in textiles. In the east midlands region, more than 4 per cent. of all employees work in the knitting industry.
It is, of course, precisely because parts of the country have been especially affected by the rundown that has taken place in the textile and clothing industries—as in some other industries—that the Government have launched the business improvement services scheme, with funding from the European regional development fund, over a four-year period up to 1989. Grants are available towards the cost of plant and machinery, and also for consultancy on computer applications, marketing and other matters. Some £63 million has been allocated to help small firms in these areas, including funding from the Community and from the Exchequer. Of this amount, the textile areas are rightly receiving the biggest slice. The
920
better business services scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland has been launched for the same purpose. There has been a very heavy take-up of those aid schemes.
In the light of all those factors, the Government must decide what action is needed. What action should we urge upon our Community partners, and what common position do we want the Community to adopt in the GATT? In all this the Government will, of course, have the interests of the textile and clothing industries very much in mind. When the new GATT round gets under way, as I said earlier, one of our key objectives will be to get the basic principles of the agreement accepted and observed on a reciprocal basis as obligations of all contracting parties to the agreement. Any exceptions should be confined to the poorer developing countries. It is time everyone realised that we are not prepared to be a soft touch any longer. Our aim must be mutual, not unilateral, disarmament of special exemptions or derogations.
I cannot disguise from the House the fact that the developing countries will tell us that we have had an MFA, designed as a temporary breathing space, for 12 years; and this, too, is a special derogation which must be brought to an end. Nor is it realistic for us to assume in the GATT negotiations that we and other developed countries will get our own way without us, too, having to make concessions. It will have to be a two-way process, and countries which do not think that it will be are deluding themselves. Any agreement along the lines that I have suggested would be strongly in our interests and those of developing countries as well.
There is also the question of state trading countries, whose trading policies and methods are different from those of the market economies. Those countries have required, and will continue to require, somewhat different provisions.
What, then, should be our position in this period of change? Despite pressures from developing countries and consumers' organisations in this country, I am convinced that the MFA should be renewed next year. I believe that it would be wrong to end such a long period of protection with a sudden jolt. A further period of protection will give the British textile and clothing industries time to establish their international competitiveness, not only against developing countries but against the developed countries, which are both the major source of imports and the major market for our companies' exports.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Channon: I am about to deal with the details.
Mr. Hughes rose—
Mr. Channon: I have already given way about 10 times.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.
Mr. Hughes: I thought that the Minister might be persuaded.
Mr. Channon: I should prefer not to give way, as I must press on.
I believe that the renewal of the MFA in some form will be widely supported among our Community partners. We must now consider on what terms the MFA should be renewed, and for how long. Clearly, with the new GATT round approaching, any renewed MFA will be in some

921
sense a transitional measure. Some of our European Community partners may press for a prior commitment that thereafter all special restrictions on textile and clothing trade will come to an end—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but despite my hon. Friends' views I think that it would be premature to give such a commitment unconditionally at this stage. This is a matter that will have to be negotiated in the GATT round. In those negotiations all the major participants should be prepared to see all the major derogations and exemptions from the basic rules of the GATT put on the table for negotiation. For the developed countries this cannot exclude the MFA. [Interruption.] As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the British Government are extremely anxious that there should be talks on agriculture. For the more advanced developing countries, that cannot exclude their own exemptions from GATT obligations. The important point is that the process of the GATT round will take several years, and it is in this context that the longer run future of the MFA should be decided.
I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The House welcomes the fact that the Minister has committed himself to the principle of renewing the MFA, but will he go further and commit himself to the principle that the MFA will not be phased out? Will he give us an assurance that we are not talking about an arrangement that will last for five or six years and then end? Unless he has that basic principle in mind, he will be driven into a transitional arrangement and the MFA may come to an end.
Mr. Channon: As I have said, some of our partners may press for a prior commitment that thereafter all special restrictions will come to an end, but it would be premature to give such a commitment unconditionally at this stage. We cannot tell. I am saying that the renewed MFA should be designed to carry us from July 1986 into these wider GATT negotiations. In the negotiation of this, there will not unnaturally be pressure from the developing countries for the general improvement in economic conditions to be reflected in access levels. Nor can we forget the British consumer. So a rather more liberal arrangement than the present one seems inevitable and surely right.
I am sure, for example, that some of the existing quotas can be dispensed with altogether. I have in mind especially those whose costs are disproportionate to the amount of British production protected and some textile quotas which seriously handicap British clothing firms. Increases in other quotas are likely to be justified. In particular, I accept the indications that the restrictions have borne especially heavily on the price of children's clothes, and we shall be seeking to liberalise these restrictions where administratively practicable.
We shall also seek above average improvements in the access levels for the poorest developing countries, and for those whose own trade barriers to British exports are low. More advanced developing countries whose own trade policies are restrictive should not be looking to enjoy much liberalisation of their quotas unless, as I naturally hope, they are prepared to open up their own markets.
I said at the beginning of this speech that the Community would need to agree a broad policy stance by July, and I have outlined what, in the Government's view,
922
that stance should be. This, however, will be only the beginning of a negotiation. The MFA does not expire until July of next year, and the bilateral agreements negotiated by the Community under it last until the end of 1986. As the negotiations proceed, the positions of other major participants will become clearer. Plainly, the Community's position will have to evolve to take account of this. The position of the United States will obviously be specially important.
We shall, of course, keep in close touch with the industry and with other interested parties, as well as with the many hon. Members who clearly take an interest in this subject. The House will have seen the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan). It has attracted 110 signatures from hon. Members in different parts of the House—[Interruption.] Although I may not be in complete agreement with all of its preamble, I have accepted its main conclusions. We have agreed to work, as the motion says,
"for an effective renewal of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement which provides developing countries with guaranteed and growing access to the markets of the European Community and ensures a framework of order in international textile and clothing trade that would not otherwise exist."
We are at the beginning of a long road. The House will not expect me to give away all of my hand at this stage, but I am glad to have had the opportunity of bringing the issue to the attention of the House in order to give hon. Members an early chance to debate the subject, and I look forward to hearing their views. We shall consider the debate very carefully and will bear hon. Members' views in mind throughout these long negotiations. I have a sneaking suspicion that this may not be the last debate that we have on this subject.
5 pm
Mr. John Smith: The debate provides a timely and welcome opportunity for hon. Members to tell the Government the targets that they should set for the renewal of the MFA in the forthcoming discussions in the EEC and GATT and in the bilateral negotiations with supplier countries.
In recent months the Minister for Trade has been asked to state the Government's attitude to the renewal of the MFA. Time after time he has been unable to say whether it would be renewed. Not until today towards the end of his speech was it possible for him to say that the MFA would be extended in principle. He was not able to answer in the robust terms that we prefer.
If we say today that we are glad that the Government have at last said that they favour the renewal of the MFA it is thanks for small mercies. The Government's position should never have been in doubt. It should have been possible for the Government view to be articulated clearly and confidently long before today. At least the Government are at the starting gate, but they have a long way to go. Our fears about the Government's resolve to negotiate a satisfactory renewal of the MFA have not been laid to rest.
Much of the Minister's speech was a ramble round some interesting issues to be discussed in the wider GATT talks. He quoted from a number of documents which seemed to take the criticisms before the defences of the present arrangement. He offered a rather lukewarm endorsement of the principle of continuing the

923
arrangement, with the clear hint that the Government thought that this was likely to be the last exercise on the MFA. I believe that some of the Minister's advisers, who are known to take a prominent free trade position, had a little too much to do with the preparation of his speech.
Before I deal with the Minister's observations in detail I shall make clear the Labour party's view. We are strong and convinced supporters of the concept and basic structure of the MFA. Since 1974 it has provided a framework for regulating the terms of trade in sensitive textile and clothing goods from supplier countries to the markets of the major developed countries—primarily the EEC, the United States of America, Canada, some Scandinavian countries and Austria. We are familiar with the defects of the arrangement, but we believe that it has contributed greatly to the stability and orderliness of this extensive trade and that it has permitted imports to the developed countries to increase substantially without wrecking the textile and clothing industries in those receiving countries.
That does not mean that the textile and clothing industries in Britain have had an easy time. They have had to face major contractions and a great deal of unemployment in recent years. The MFA, which is only an umbrella agreement affecting the terms of trade, could not secure the industries against the massive recession, or the foolish Government policies which have accentuated the effects of that recession. It could not protect the industries from the depression of domestic demand, the erratic fluctuations in the exchange rates or the destruction of regional industrial assistance which Conservative economic policies have visited upon them.
Without the arrangement the difficulties for the industries would be much worse. Some of the encouraging signs in the industries would probably not have appeared without the arrangement to guide the decisions of those who have recently made important investments.
I hope that the alliance, whether it has one view or two, will make its view crystal clear. We have no doubt that the arrangement must be renewed on a basis which gives security and confidence to our textile and clothing industries. That is not the MFA's only objective, but it is crucial and we in the Labour party support it unreservedly.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) recall that a Labour Secretary of State, when renegotiating the second MFA in December 1977, described it as a historic turning point in the history of the textile industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman now imply that the arrangement should become a permanent part of our world trading scene?
Mr. Smith: The MFA has proved its worth since 1977. I argue not for the extension of the MFA, only for a further period. We should seek to extend it for a longer period than is contemplated. We should negotiate that now so that we have a 10-year run with an opportunity perhaps to review it after five years.
Another objective that we regard as being of great importance is to secure greater access for the products of the least-developed supplier countries to our markets. Currently the dominant suppliers are the so-called newly-industrialised countries such as Hong Kong, Macao and
924
South Korea. They cannot be regarded as being among the poorest of the developing countries. They have prominent and robust economies.
The suggestion that the MFA is directed against the poorer and starving countries of the world reveals a gross misunderstanding of its purpose and its effect. The MFA is the mechanism which allows some of the poorest countries access to our markets against competition from some of the stronger, newly-industrialised countries.—[Interruption.] I notice cries from the Government Benches. Some hon. Members are keen on the principle of free trade. I wonder whether the enthusiasm for free trade of those who represent agricultural constituencies takes them far enough to condemn the common agricultural policy. Whenever their vested interests are challenged they run a thousand miles from free trade.
More room should be found in the arrangement for the least developed countries. That is a reasonable objective and I am glad that the Minister noted it. For the least developed countries the MFA offers a better prospect of orderly access than any other method.
Any objective evaluation of the MFA shows that it has helped to achieve two important objectives—order and opportunity in the world trade in textiles. Those twin objectives are at the heart of the matter. We need order to prevent surges of imports which could wipe out important industries, destroy companies and jobs and further imperil the declining manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom. We need opportunity to encourage growth in trade and to stimulate the market.
Let us be clear that the textile and clothing industries make a major contribution to the United Kingdom economy and that important issues and interests are at stake in the discussions. It is fashionable in the present Government to look disparagingly at manufacturing industry, particularly in the traditional areas of activity. I remind Government Members and others that the sales worth over £10 billion in the textile and clothing industries represent an added value of £3·9 billion. That is greater than the value added of the whole of the motor vehicle industry, more than half as much again as that of the aerospace industry and over twice that of the computer and office machinery industry.
Perhaps most important for a country labouring under the heavy burden of unemployment, which Conservative economic policies have placed upon the nation, almost 500,000 people are employed directly in the textile and clothing industries. Many are concentrated in areas which are particularly vulnerable to unemployment—the northwest, Yorkshire, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the inner cities. A large number of women are employed in the industry and their wages are often crucial to family incomes A large proportion of employees in the industries belong to our ethnic communities.
Dr. John Marek: My right hon. Friend will know about the Courtaulds proposal to close two factories in north-east Wales. Will he underline the need for a fourth MFA to prevent the further contraction of the textile industry? Does he agree that it is vital to have an effective MFA to keep the industry at its present level without further cuts in jobs?
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making an apposite intervention. He is more aware than most of us of the effect that the Courtaulds closures have had in

925
north Wales and the fears which exist. The House is aware that his constituency has been affected directly by one of the closures. It is a stark example of the fragile nature of a great deal of the clothing and textile industries. It shows that we cannot afford to take any risks with their future or with the employment that they provide. The Government must bear that in mind when they enter the negotiations. I hope that Ministers will keep the Courtaulds example in front of them and recognise what might happen on a much greater scale if the negotiations are not concluded satisfactorily.
Extremely important social considerations involving the welfare of people throughout the nation are at stake. The Silberston report refers to a possible job loss of 48,000 if the MFA were not to be renewed. However, there are many in the industry who take the view of the TUC that that estimate is far too low and that if the arrangement were not renewed satisfactorily 100,000 would be a more realistic figure. I happen to know that that is the view of the employers' organisations as well.
Britain cannot afford to lose any more jobs in these industries. It would be intolerable if in our handling of these matters we were to add to the serious unemployment in the areas and categories to which I have referred.
Another important aspect of the MFA is that it has permitted a considerable increase in imports from supplying countries. It has created substantial opportunities even in a period when market demand in the United Kingdom has been static or falling. The rate of import growth has not been restricted to growth in market demand, with the result that in sluggish market conditions the increase in low-cost imports has far outstripped the growth in the market itself. Between 1978 and 1984, market demand in the United Kingdom appears to have fallen by about 1 per cent. In the same period imports from suppliers under MFA bilateral agreements increased by 15 per cent. If we include imports from the preferential Mediterranean associates, there was an increase of 23 per cent. It is not true to suggest that the arrangement has set up an unyielding set of barriers to growth in trade. The supplying countries saw a substantial increase in access to our markets between 1978 and 1984.
These are the facts and it is unfortunate that many of those who contribute to the argument about the arrangement believe that facts are much less important than theory. Those who believe almost theologically in free trade—I am looking straight at some of them on the Conservative Benches—have always regarded the MFA as objectionable. For many years there has been no greater disparity between theory and practice and profession and action than in talk about international trade. There is a tendency throughout the world to state the principles of free trade almost to the point of tiresome repetition and behind the scene to set in train actions which, by whatever means, secure and protect markets without the slightest acknowledgement to the meaning of the principles which were so piously pronounced shortly before the actions were taken.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about the practical effects of the MFA. Does he recall the dispute with Indonesia in 1980 about the MFA, involving about £10 million-worth of goods? As we could not reach a conclusion on that disagreement, we lost exports of about £160 million. Is that theory or is that practical?
Mr. Smith: I think that it is theory because we do not know whether we would have secured the order. It is always extremely doubtful to say that we would have secured certain orders. The hon. Gentleman knows that every country has to balance such considerations. If I gauge his line of thinking correctly, he is suggesting that without having secured anything on the export front we should bilaterally rid ourselves of the arrangement. His words can have no other meaning than that the arrangement acts against our national interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes".] There we are. That is confirmed by several Conservative Members. There are substantial sections of the Conservative party which are willing to throw away the regulation and protection which the arrangement provides.
Mr. Fallon rose—
Mr. Smith: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman previously and it is not reasonable to expect me to give way to him again.
I have been drawing attention to the difference between theory and practice. That is bad enough, but when it comes to the argument about the MFA an illusion is added. Those who argue that the choice is between the MFA and free trade do not live in the real world. If the arrangement were to be discontinued or, which is more probably the prospect, become so weak as to be an ineffective influence, we would be more likely to set in train a series of beggar-thy-neighbour trade sanctions than to establish free trade. Such sanctions would do enormous harm to textiles and clothing and the damage would extend across a much wider trading front. The rules of the GATT in the absence of an effective MFA are not adequate to ensure conditions of free trade in textiles and clothing.
If the MFA were to be abandoned or rendered ineffective, it is virtually certain that the United States would act unilaterally to introduce import restraints. About eight months ago, the United States Administration introduced a new series of rules of origin, which reflect its present tough disposition. We know of the intense pressure which currently exists upon and from Congress. The United States would act either under its domestic legislation or would take unilateral recourse to article 19 of GATT. Whichever course were followed by the United States, the EEC countries would in turn face the import consequences of abandoning the MFA, which would be serious enough, and an additional flood of imports diverted from the United States. I doubt that even the most theological of the free traders whom I am observing could stand idly by in the face of such a development.
If the United States were to act under article 19, the effect would be even worse. The difficulty of this article, which I think Professor Silberston, who rather blithely advocates its use, fails to understand, is that it cannot be used selectively. It has to be universal in its application. Therefore, a very wide restriction has to be imposed. Article 19 confers also the right of retaliation by way of compensation, which could be in any area of trade, so the danger of trade interruption spreading beyond textiles and clothing is very real.
If there were no MFA, the poorest of the EEC's 130 supplying countries would suffer. The MFA provides them with a guaranteed level of access to the EEC market. In the absence of the MFA, it is likely that they could not

927
compete with the commercial power of newly industrialised countries such as Hong Kong and South Korea, or with the huge potential of China.
We must be realistic about the existing trade barriers. True free trade cannot exist while so many countries block our exports to them with high barriers, both tariff and non-tariff. With the exception of Hong Kong and Macao, which are tariff-free, and Singapore, which is largely tariff-free, we face very high tariffs in both the developing and the developed world. Brazil has a tariff of 200 per cent. In the developed world, considerable restrictions are imposed by Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and, in some areas, by the United States.
Let us not waste our time in the heights of the theory of international trade. Let us come down to the dusty plains of the real world and deal with the real relationship, the real prospects and the real gains and losses. We did not hear much about those from the Minister.
The Silberston report concluded that the MFA should be phased out after being renewed one last time. That seems to be the drift of the Government's thinking. We believe that that conclusion is unsound and wrong headed and that there are such serious errors and omissions and wrongly based assumptions in the report that it will not do as a basis for judgment. For example, in a document that has been given such attention, the misunderstanding of the effect of article 19 of GATT is one that I find surprising. The lack of selectivity in action under article 19 makes it hopelessly ineffective and potentially dangerous.
The report bases its views on prices entirely on evidence from Hong Kong, although no reason is given why evidence should be so restricted. Hong Kong is not an average situation because of the pressure on quotas, and the effect of the MFA on prices is at its highest in respect of imports from Hong Kong. It should not be used as a basis for generalisation, as is done in the report.
It is misleading to believe that a reduction in landed prices will reach across to a similar reduction in retail prices, given the large mark-ups involved and the undoubted propensity of retailers to pitch prices at what the market will pay. Conclusions on prices do not appear to be based on a sound analysis of fact.
On unemployment—which, if anything, is a more serious matter—the report concedes that abandoning or weakening the MFA will affect jobs adversely, although three different estimates are given—one of 10,000 jobs, which is absurd; one of 48,000 jobs, which is nearer the mark; and the third of an unspecified number.
Sir John Farr: I draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to a document that he may have missed, which is the report of the Manpower Services Commission entitled "Labour Market Trends Midland Region 1985–1987". It is quite a long report, and has one critical paragraph summarising the views of the MSC on the MFA. It refers to it as a structure for permitting certain regulated imports from Third world countries, and says that, in view of the tremendous efforts that have been made by our textiles and clothing firms in the midlands to modernise their production methods to become competitive, a lack of renewal of the MFA would be a disaster. I thought that that might help the hon. Gentleman in deploying his argument.
Mr. Smith: I am glad to find that there are some realists on the Conservative Benches. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak to some of his hon. Friends. I seek not to cause division among Conservative Members, but merely to spread the enlightenment that has obviously reached the hon. Gentleman, and of which some of his hon. Friends are in need.
The hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the real world. Those engaged either in running the industries or in working in them take that realistic and sober view of the prospects of the industry and the need to cater for its interests in the negotiations. The Silberston report did not give due weight to that, and insufficient weight was also given to the drastic effect on employment and confidence in the industry if its profitability were to be sharply affected by changes in the MFA. The true job loss is more likely to be about 100,000, and I hope that all sides agree that that is plainly unacceptable.
In the assessment of employment prospects both within and without the textile and clothing industries, the report places too much emphasis on theoretical arguments and assumptions. I would not place so much emphasis on the effect of changes in the exchange rate. Important and direct factors, such as currency movements and interest rates, affect the exchange rate, which, as we know, has varied widely and erratically in recent years, very much to the detriment of these industries.
We should be extremely careful not to assume that if we were to lose industrial interest in one area we could recoup it easily in another. Apart from the fact that it is cold comfort to those who go out of business or who lose their employment, recent experience shows that ground lost is not easily regained as the relentless decline in manufacturing industry continues. The removal of the MFA or its serious weakening would cause serious job losses. Hypothetical countergains in other areas would be extremely uncertain given, among other things, the general trend of Government policy towards manufacturing industry.
We seek a renewal of the MFA. The crucial question is, what will MFA4 be like? What should be sought? I hope that the Government will not listen to those who argue that this should be the last MFA. If it is believed that this is the last agreement and that the Government give credence—as I believe they are near doing—to that proposition, that will be bound to undermine the status of the agreement and to render it terminal in character. The loss of confidence that could flow from that would affect long-term investment, which is badly needed in the industry, and could have a dramatically adverse effect. The way to counter that problem is not to consider ending the MFA, but to argue as vigorously as possible, both within the EEC and GATT, the case for renewing the MFA for 10 years, with a break after five years.
A serious attempt should be made to improve upon the inadequacies of earlier versions of the MFA. I fully understand that the Government are only one of the parties to the negotiation. We are asking them, as previous Governments were asked, to do their best to eradicate some of the difficulties.
In recent years, supplier countries have been permitted substantial increases in quotas, despite the poor growth of consumer demand. Under the bilaterals negotiated in 1982, increases of 4·5 per cent. per annum were agreed.

929
Given the likely estimate of demand, especially if present economic policies continue, high quotas will pose serious problems.
We agree with the TUC's submission to the Government that the quotas should be based on 1985 actual import levels. The quota growth should be related to consumption growth, although there should be higher growth for the less developed countries. That could be more easily achieved if quotas were re-based on the actual levels of existing imports.
Mr. Tim Eggar rose—
Mr. Smith: An important part of the negotiations should be to seek ways of increasing the access of the less developed countries. There is a strong case for coming back on the quota levels—
Mr. Eggar rose—
Mr. Smith: We believe that—
Mr. Eggar rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way. Many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
Mr. Smith: I am not disposed to give way to the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), who interrupts in such an arrogant manner. He is a little—
Mr. Eggar: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a fair and open debate and my right hon. Friend the Minister gave way on a number of occasions. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) would give way more than he has.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is up to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to decide whether to give way. I shall take account of interventions in making judgments about who should take part in the debate.
Mr. Smith: We believe that there should be more room—as I said before I was partially interrupted—for the less developed countries to get better access to our markets.
There are a number of more technical matters which must be taken into account by the Government. The anti-search mechanism, which has not worked successfully, would not be necessary if quotas were re-based. If, however, that is not achieved, the mechanism would have to be retained but should be strengthened and made more effective.
Similarly, if the basket extractor mechanism was strengthened—it, too, has been the subject of justified criticism, despite improvements that were thought to have been made in the last round of negotiations—it would be possible to reduce the number of quotas.
I was a little alarmed at what the Minister said about reducing some quotas and increasing others without clearly indicating which quotas he had in mind. It is one thing to take a negotiating position, but he should be more frank with the industry if his purpose is to assist it to face the difficulties. I hope that the doors of the Department of Trade and Industry will be opened to more frank discussions with the industry while the Minister prepares for, and even during, the negotiations.
Mr. Channon: I have never yet refused anyone who wishes to come to me about these matters. Throughout the negotiations I shall be only too delighted to see representatives of the industry.
Mr. Smith: I do not doubt that the Minister is willing to see the representatives. I am asking him to listen to what they have to say. I am familiar with the ministerial technique of listening to delegations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows—and this can be said of Governments of all colours—access does not necessarily lead to comprehension or action. I am asking the Minister to listen carefully and patiently because these are important matters. The industry would have more confidence in the Minister's advocacy if it felt that it was being listened to in an attentive and understanding manner.
It should also be the Government's objective to bring the Mediterranean suppliers, who enjoy preferential status, more into line with the low-cost suppliers. The Minister mentioned the accession of Spain and Portugal. We believe that measures should be introduced to ensure an even spread of Spanish and Portuguese exports of textiles and clothing to other member states.
During negotiations, the Government should seek a reduction of the tariffs against our goods imposed by some supplier countries that are clearly successful economies. It is difficult to describe them as developing countries. The Minister suggested that that might be one of the Government's objectives.
I hope that the Government will also support the TUC's argument that a new article of social development should be written into the MFA. After all, article 1 of the arrangement states that its principal aim is to further the political and social development of developing countries. There are undoubtedly many cases of labour exploitation in supplier countries and the MFA should provide a stimulus for improvement by requiring minimum standards to be met.
Any agreement needs to be enforced effectively, which has not always happened. That has not always been the fault of the British Government, but improvements need to be made to the capacity of United Kingdom and EC authorities to monitor and ensure the implementation of what is agreed.
On behalf of the Opposition, I state our scepticism about the value of outward processing and our objection to any special quotas being established for outward-processed goods.
If the Government are to carry out their obligations, they will have to negotiate with determination and conviction. I did not get the impression that the Minister is approaching the matter with sufficient determination or with conviction about the efficacy and usefulness of the MFA. I wish that I could feel more convinced that the Government will negotiate with conviction.
We know that the United States will approach the negotiations with a determination to achieve a robust agreement that safeguards its interests. We know also that in the preliminary assessments within the EC the United Kingdom has veered more towards countries such as Germany, which are less enthusiastic about the MFA—some are frankly against it—and away from France and Italy, which take a different view. The role of the United Kingdom is important and I hope that the Government will not see their role as that of tipping the EC against a new, strong MFA.

931
The Government have important obligations to the people of this country. If those obligations are neglected, great perils will face our important industries. I hope that the Government will be determined to secure, as best they can, the economic prosperity of our industries and of those who depend on them and to seek a better deal for least-developed countries. Above all, they should seek an agreement that will work effectively and fairly and provide a long-term basis of order and opportunity, which is essential for these crucial industries.
We shall watch the discussions with great care, and the Minister will be required to answer questions from time to time about the progress of the negotiations. However, before they start, the House must make it crystal clear to the Minister that important interests are at stake and that we expect the Government to pursue them with much more conviction than has been apparent up to now.
5.33 pm
Mr. Marcus Fox: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade should ignore the less than generous remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Conservative Members with textile interests in their constituencies are delighted that my right hon. Friend has announced the renewal of the MFA. Hon. Members who have no textile interests in their constituencies are entitled to their view, but if they differ from me I shall await their speeches with interest.
The MFA has brought stability to the textile and clothing industries. Without it, the industries would have been decimated. When I became an hon. Member in 1970, the textile industry was the largest employer in Shipley. Today, it is nowhere near that. However, after years when there was only bad news, we see a different story, with sales of £10,000 million and exports of £2,700 million, which gives me great encouragement. Productivity is rising relatively faster than that in other industries. Huge investment has taken place and the companies are innovative and are more conscious of marketing and design. They are earning profits, most of which go back into those companies. Surviving firms have fought back to win orders at home and abroad.
I know the argument that protection is bad because it leads to feather bedding and slothfulness. However, that has not happened in the textile industry, as can be shown by the fact that the clothing component of the retail prices index has gone up more slowly than other items, and certainly at nothing like the rate of inflation. In addition, the public have not been held to ransom by restrictions on imports.
I do not believe that developing countries have suffered anything like as much as some people try to make out. Again, that is proved by the figures. The GATT study of 1984, covering the years from 1955 to 1982, showed that developing countries increased their share of world textile trade from 15 to 30 per cent., while the share of developed countries fell from 79 to 60 per cent. In clothing, the developing countries did even better. Their share increased from 10 per cent. to 48 per cent. No one can claim that, whatever restrictions have been placed on those countries, they have not had at least some opportunities.
We should also remember that under the MFA the quota allowance has increased by about 5 per cent. a year. My figures are different from those of the right hon. and
932
learned Member for Monklands, East. I am told that over the past six years the market has increased by 2·5 per cent., yet imports affected by quotas have increased by 16 per cent. Any reduction has not come from other countries. If there has been a fall, it has been within our industries.
Talk of "total freedom" in this area is nonsense. It would certainly be free, but it would not be fair. There would be dumping on an unprecedented scale and I have no doubt that the United States, which has already started to take unilateral action, would take even more such action. The surpluses would not go back whence they came; they would be dumped in Europe. Low-cost countries would not hesitate to do that.
Too much attention should not be paid to the Silberston report. Professor Silberston is well known for his views on liberalising trade. Perhaps those views are the reason why he was appointed.
A major criticism of the report is the fact that the terms of reference mention barriers to our exports, but the subject was dealt with in only a few short paragraphs, as if it were of no importance. In addition, it is unbelievable that Professor Silberston should dismiss the consequences of unemployment. He seems to forget that the textile industry is concentrated in a few areas. He talked about 2 per cent. unemployment as if it did not matter, but there are no other jobs in those areas. If 50,000 or 100,000 jobs were lost, people could not find work elsewhere.
Professor Silberston claimed that a reduction of 5 per cent. in import prices would lead to shopkeepers reducing their prices by the same amount, so that customers would benefit. I find that hard to believe.—[Interruption.] I am delighted that Opposition Members are on my side, for once.
To demonstrate that these are not my own views, let me quote a letter from the managing director of a company employing more than 600 people in manufacturing. He writes:
"we cannot compete with the unfair competition from the political pricing countries of the Comecom or the low cost, highly subsidised, poor working conditions in the Far East … At the present time my own company imports very little, mainly components or machinery, and we are proud to be able to say that we use in excess of 95 per cent. British outer fabric for our clothing. If the MFA is not renewed we shall certainly have to review our policy as the last bastion of concentrating primarily on British materials and manufacturing."
I believe that that is the true position. By his action today the Minister has shown that the Government care about our textile and clothing industries. There have been occasions when they have been accused of thinking that the textile industry was expendable and that only the high-tech, sunrise industries held the key to the future. We can already see the results of that policy. Many of these so-called high fliers are already in deep trouble. I am very glad to say that the Minister has shown by his speech that the Government care about the textile and clothing industries, and so they should.
It would be a kick in the teeth for the industries if this renewal had not been promised. A loyal, hard-working work force, good management and, dare I say, shareholders who deserve a return, to say nothing of the country, will be better served by the renewal than they will be without it.
5.42 pm
Mr. J. D. Concannon: Today, I am sure that we shall find a great deal of unanimity across the Floor

933
of the House. Those of us who have many constituents working in the clothing and textile industries will be making sure that our point of view is put forward.
It is understandable that so many right hon. and hon. Members want to advance their constituency cases. However, it is incumbent upon us all not to wait for the 6 o'clock rule to come into operation. In my view, we should all keep our speeches as brief as possible. We have had good examples from the Minister and from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). The Minister said that he accepted that the MFA should continue and that he would be working hard for that. That has made my task of trying to restrict my speech to 10 minutes that much easier.
If the Minister had not put forward that view, I hate to think what might have happened to employment in my constituency. No one should be surprised that my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) appear in the top six of the list of names appended to an early-day motion about the MFA. We represent major industry constituencies. Hon. Members of long standing know that we usually talk about our coal mining industry and the effect of that on our constituencies. However, that major industry causes an imbalance in the area, because there are not many females working in the coal mining industry. Over the years, that imbalance has been absorbed by the lighter industries which are the subject of today's debate. In our area they employ thousands of our wives and daughters. Over the years, in the northern end of Nottinghamshire, we have become familiar with such companies as Pretty Polly, Courtauld and Mansfield Hosiery Mills. All the household names are to be found in our region.
I was glad to hear the Minister acknowledge the importance of the MFA. It is extremely important to the thousands of our women folk who are employed in the industries, and they would have been disappointed if any other answer had come from the Minister. What is more, the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East will go down very well with the vast majority of the work force in Mansfield.
Not only have the industries been beset by unfair competition and dumping, but they have been beset by the impact of modern technology. Modern technology has seen the upgrading of factories and equipment and the closing of some of the old mills, which none of us regretted. But others have advanced with the times. Companies have put a lot of capital into their factories, only to be met with cheap imports. They might have been cheap imports in the eyes of the public, but they could have been very damaging to the nation.
A few years ago I was invited to one of the mills in my constituency where I saw row upon row of new machinery costing hundreds of thousands of pounds. The machines were not even working, having only just been installed. The intention was to make what is now the old-fashioned silk stocking, which was very fashionable in those days—many a tale can be told about them. The manager spent a couple of hours showing me round the factory, telling me about the massive investment and how well he would do in the new market. After giving me two hours' good talking to about the massive investment, he said, "We have just done this, Don, and some Italian so and so
934
has invented tights and flooded the market with them.' He is still trying to sell that machinery for any price that he can get.
With so many right hon. and hon. Members wanting to put forward their constituency interests, we must impress upon the Government the importance to our areas of the MFA. It is not perfect by any means, and there is no doubt that it demonstrates an element of protectionism, but it is necessary to protect our jobs from some of the unfair competition from overseas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield holds an important position on the all-party committee which tries to look after the interests of the industries. He has done a lot of work over the years. I represent the constituency next door to his, and I thank him on behalf of all those who work in the industries in my area.
This is a very important issue. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to right hon. and hon. Members for whom the MFA is so important. I feel that the only hon. Members likely to speak against what the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East said are those in whose constituencies these industries are not represented. I shall be very interested to hear their arguments.
The feeling in my constituency has always been that it is we who play the game of cricket, whereas the others bend and break the rules as they see fit. It is time for the Minister to take off the gloves and make sure that he goes into battle on behalf of the many thousands in our constituencies to whom the MFA represents some kind of future for their jobs and for the industry.
5.49 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in the debate. It is a very important debate which is vital to many regions of the United Kingdom.
We are debating the future of what has become known as the multi-fibre arrangement. We are not simply discussing whether one specific measure should continue to attract the commitment of our Government in their negotiations with our trading partners and competitors. We are discussing the future of the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry. As the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said, it is an industry which employs nearly 500,000 workers. That is without the tail—those industries, serving the textile and clothing industries, which account perhaps for a further 150,000 to 200,000 workers. We heard that those industries realised annual sales of almost £11,000 million, and a value added of £3,900 million. Those figures are larger than for the motor vehicle manufacturing industry, and more than half as large again as those for the aerospace industry. I add—with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) particularly in mind—that those figures are twice as large as those for computers and office machinery.
The textile industry is a traditional industry in the United Kingdom and has played a valuable part in wealth creation and the provision of employment. It has stood the test of time in producing the jobs and wealth on which the nation has been founded.
In itself, the MFA is indeed a controversial policy, arid numerous studies and commentaries have been produced by those who question its value and would rather see the unrestricted market of a free trade ideal, whatever that

935
might be. But in the course of our deliberations we must not lose track of the fact that we are talking today about people. We are talking about 500,000 or more people employed in the textile and clothing manufacturing industries. We are talking about their families. We are talking about the firms which supply those industries with textile machinery, factories, and so on. We are talking of the building and construction industry, the energy industries, and of those who supply the textile and clothing industries with transport and many other services.
We are talking about the devastating effect upon people who have spent their entire working lives in the industry that would have followed a failure to reintroduce a robust MFA. We are also talking of industries which were never able to look to Government for the sort of support or material rewards which have been showered upon the workers in other manufacturing and extraction industries. I do not think that I need to outline those industries to the Ministers on the Front Bench.
We are talking about the future of an industry that is vital to the United Kingdom and is its fourth largest employer. It is one of our nation's most valuable resources. We are talking of whole communities and the way of life which has evolved within them. Coming from the north-west, I am proud to have associated myself with those industries from the very day that I set foot in the House of Commons. They have had a just cause for which hon. Members on both sides of the House, under successive Governments, have struggled for many years.
We are not talking about the sections of an industry which has become unprofitable. We are not talking about an industry which is uneconomic. I say to my hon. Friends who apparently represent the consumer lobby that we are not talking about an industry for whose products there is no longer a demand. We are certainly not talking about an industry which has received massive Government investment; in fact, the opposite is true on all counts, especially the last.
As we have heard, since 1980 productivity in the textile and clothing industry has risen by a magnificent 30 per cent.—a much faster rate than in manufacturing industry as a whole. Demand for clothing and textile products rose by 4 per cent. in 1984, and the longer-term trend still indicates an expected annual rise of about 1 per cent. Yet, despite those superb achievements and the existence of the MFA, imports of clothing and textiles are at record levels. This is a fact, and I hope that my Back-Bench hon. Friends, the consumer lobby addicts, will accept it. I hope that they will appreciate the vital importance of the industry to various regions—a point that was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox). Despite those superb achievements, clothing imports into Britain are running at record levels.
The textile and clothing industry is one of the largest exporting sectors of our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, the figure last year was £2,700 million. Although that was an increase on the previous year's figure, it is still much lower than could be achieved if our exports were not subject to the excessively punitive restrictions imposed by countries whose protectionist policies attempt to exclude United Kingdom products altogether. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East for making that point.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the low figures for textile exports in the 1980s owe far more to the grossly overvalued pound sterling than to any difficulties with certain markets abroad? Is there not a chance now, with a much more realistic value of sterling vis-a-vis the dollar, that textile exports will continue to improve, as they are doing?
Mr. Winterton: I share the optimism of the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Liberal party. But in respect of the MFA and its importance, I am sure that he will regret the speech that one of his colleagues—if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye—is likely to make. I would prefer to go by the information that is submitted to me, virtually unanimously, by the industry, and by the work force, through the papers submitted to the TUC.
I agree that much of what goes on in the industry can be affected by Government policy. Interest rates, the rate of inflation and currency values are all vital. I respect the hon. Gentleman's experience in the industry, but, if he takes a rather different line from the one he has taken previously, no doubt voters throughout the country will take note of it. I believe that the MFA is vital, and the industry and its work force believe so. The British Textile Confederation should know what is good for the future of the industry. I see its members and have discussions with them. I have come to the conclusion that they are right and that a robust MFA is absolutely vital.
The question of the severe restrictions which other countries place on our exports is important and must be borne in mind when considering the future of the MFA. We have heard much about the prospect of free trade. Desirable though it may be, it cannot be realised while many of our competitors around the world block our exports—which in quality terms are often world beaters—with crippling tariff and non-tariff barriers; none more so, perhaps, than Japan, which has featured in criticism by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
With the exception of Hong Kong and Macao, which are tariff-free, and Singapore, which is largely tariff-free, our exports face severe high tariffs in many parts of the world. That applies not only to developing countries but to developed countries such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and even that epitome of private enterprise the United States of America. So long as those and other distortions of trade exist, the need for the MFA will continue.
There have been many false claims circulated about the effect of the MFA, and I am sure that other hon. Members will touch on those issues during the debate. I wish to comment on the fallacy that the MFA has simply brought about a diversion of trade. Contrary to such claims, a detailed study of trade flows in textiles and clothing between 1978 and 1984, on a category-by-category basis, reveals no—I do not say some—justification for the claim that is often made, that the MFA quotas have been responsible for diverting trade and increasing imports from non-MFA suppliers.
The reasons why imports from non-MFA suppliers have grown rapidly are overwhelmingly due to factors other than controls on MFA suppliers. Therefore, it is the United Kingdom's clothing and textile industries that would be most severely affected by the relaxation or termination of the MFA.

937
The use of aggregated data does indeed suggest, at first glance, that quotas on suppliers controlled under the MFA have led to a diversion of trade on a huge scale, to the benefit of other supplying countries. The proposition, based upon such aggregated data, has been made that the MFA has been of limited value to the United Kingdom and to our textile and clothing industries, and has benefited United Kingdom suppliers in other developed countries, particularly in other member states of the EEC. Certainly a study of the aggregated data reveals a growth of only 23 per cent. from MFA suppliers compared with a staggering 73 per cent. in imports from our so-called European partners.
A more detailed study—this is where Silberston let us down—reveals that this is not a simple diversion of trade. Such a consideration leads inescapably to the conclusion that the reasons why imports from non-MFA suppliers have grown so rapidly are overwhelmingly based on factors other than controls on MFA suppliers. Professor Silberston utterly failed to give the issue such detailed consideration. In his abysmal failure to do so, he produced two highly questionable hypotheses. First, he suggested that simply because the MFA has coincided with a period during which imports from non-MFA suppliers have risen faster than those from MFA countries, the MFA must have been the main cause. He suggests a causal relationship with no evidence to back up his claim.
Secondly, Silberston claimed that, because there has been a particular development or trend in the import pattern for textiles, the same trend can be directly extrapolated into the future. We all appreciate the value of historical evidence in formulating policies and anticipating market direction, but it cannot, in a complex market environment, be accorded such infallible status.
Let us glance briefly at the changes in volume of imports from MFA and non-MFA sources. To take one example. total imports of men's suits have risen from 2·1 million in 1978 to 2·9 million in 1984. It is certainly true that there was an increase of more than 30 per cent. in such imports from EEC countries. However, that must be set in the context of the overall increase in the volume of such imports. There was an overall rise of 38 per cent., with increases of 27 per cent. from low-cost non-preferential suppliers and of a staggering 200 per cent. from low-cost Mediterranean suppliers. In short, imports from low-cost sources have risen faster than those from what we should call the EC, and few MFA quotas for men's suits are in fact fully used at present. The only logical conclusion, if the figures are studied, is that no diversion of trade has occurred because of the MFA.
It is important to note that over half the total rise of 107,000 tonnes in textile imports from the Community between 1978 and 1984 was accounted for by rises in just three categories—filament synthetic yarn, carpets and non-woven goods—in which MFA suppliers were only of marginal significance, with virtually no quotas. Without any question of trade diversion, there was an increase of 106 per cent. in the volume of imports in those categories. A further 54,000 tonnes of the increase in imports from the EEC was in categories in which MFA suppliers are of comparatively minor significance and for which MFA quotas are relatively few and substantially under-used, such as cotton yarn, dyed and printed fabrics, spun synthetic yarn, pile and wool fabric.
No doubt my right hon. Friend will say that adjustments and amendments can be made to the current quotas under
938
the MFA. In these categories in which there is little scope for diversion of trade as a result of the MFA, the increase in European imports was still 57 per cent. The remaining 43,000 tonnes import increase from the EEC includes products heavily subject to the MFA.
Without doubt, the fact that imports from MFA suppliers have risen more slowly between 1978 and 1984 than those from non-MFA suppliers is only marginally attributable to the MFA. Detailed study of the evidence should have been accompanied by consideration of background developments such as the progressive integration of the United Kingdom into the EEC trading framework, the fluctuations of the United Kingdom's exchange rate, the recent trend towards increasing design and fashion content, the state aid available to our competitors in Europe, and the World Bank assistance that increases the competitiveness of industries in those countries. Such detailed study was glaringly lacking in Professor Silberston's report, and it points to numerous other factors being responsible.
Products by MFA countries show especially high growth rates from non-MFA countries, but since the MFA is not the major reason for the sharp rise in imports from non-MFA suppliers there is no reason for the Government to believe that the brunt of relaxation of the MFA would be borne by overseas supplying countries rather than by the United Kingdom. As I have said many times, I for one am not prepared to accept the devastating blow to our industry that a relaxation of the MFA would undoubtedly bring about. I trust that the Government will not abrogate their responsibility to act in the national interest, and to stand up for the interests of more than 500,000 people who work in our clothing and textile industries.
We have heard that the MFA is to be renewed. I hope that the Government will take a robust position and that the agreement, which has been good for the developing world as well as for the United Kingdom, will have the support of the Government. I hope that they will go to Brussels for the discussions with a positive policy as well as, I believe, with the overwhelming support of the House.
6.6 pm
Mr. James Lamond: The secretary of the Oldham and Rochdale textile employers' association wrote to me the other day to remind me—I needed little reminding—of the continuing importance of the textile industry to Oldham.
Oldham was built on the textile industry and upon spinning in particular. For perhaps five decades the industry has been in sad decline, but even today there are 106 textile and clothing units in Oldham and 142 in Rochdale. Many of the firms are small, but there is a substantial number of large employers. In total, the firms account for about 25 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry in Oldham. Oldham is a town of 250,000 people, and 25 per cent. of those who are employed in manufacturing industry work in textiles and clothing. There is a real interest in my constituency in the future of the MFA.
The negotiations are now getting under way and we hope that they will come to fruition in perhaps 18 months. The negotiations are complex and difficult to follow. However, it is important that we should realise that the MFA is not merely a restrictive arrangement of benefit to the United Kingdom. I listened to the Minister's speech with interest, and I welcome his assurance that we are

939
determined to have a new MFA, but I thought that he was rather defensive. He seemed to suggest that we were doing no more than defending our interests. I do not believe that that is so.
The MFA is not an arrangement to shut out the textiles and clothing of the main exporting nations of the Third world. It is an attempt—sometimes unsuccessful from our point of view—to regulate in an orderly fashion the opening up of the markets of the United Kingdom and other developed countries to textile and clothing imports.
No one who has studied the figures for import penetration or for the decline of employment in the textile and clothing industry would accept the allegation that the MFA is a device to restrict trade to the advantage of our own industry. Employment in the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry has declined from about 1 million to 500,0000 in 12 years. Import penetration of the United Kingdom market for textiles and clothing has risen steadily in the past 30 years. At one time it was less than 10 per cent. Now it may be three times that figure, and much worse in some sectors of the industry. Those who oppose renewal of the MFA, even in its present imperfect form, forget that we do not live in a perfect laboratory environment. There is no such thing as free trade. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, we have recently heard complaints in the Chamber about the Japanese Government's restrictions on imports and excessive assistance to Japanese firms. Those complaints refer to trade in general.
The tariffs on textile and clothing products operated by MFA supplier nations range from 128 per cent. in Pakistan to 22 per cent. in Malaysia. The tariff is 97 per cent. in Egypt, 60 per cent. in Thailand, 34 per cent. in South Korea, and in Spain, which is waiting for accession to the EEC, it is 30 per cent. The average EEC tariff is 11 per cent., and it has been reduced by more than one third in the past five years. There has been no equivalent reduction in the tariffs charged by supplier countries. I welcome the Minister's assurance that there will be some attempt to ensure reciprocal arrangements among those countries. Perhaps I might put in a word about Hong Kong, which has no tariffs or barriers against our goods. If we are to be generous in any respect, we should realise the efforts that Hong Kong has made.
The textile, clothing and footwear industries committee of the Trades Union Congress has produced an excellent booklet entitled "A Fair Balance in Textile and Clothing Trade", which I am sure the Minister has read, in which it says that it strongly believes that there should be another MFA lasting 10 years, perhaps with a review after five years. That is important as it would give the industry some stability. The booklet also sets out many desirable improvements. I do not intend to list them because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) mentioned many of them. However, three of the suggestions are in the finest tradition of trade unionism. I refer to the fine tradition of unions associated with the textile industry.
In my maiden speech I said with pride that textile workers had stood side by side with those in the United States who were fighting to free slaves there. They refused to touch cotton imports from the southern states during the civil war because they supported the fight against slavery. They did so at considerable expense to themselves.
940
Mahatma Gandhi visited Manchester at the height of the Indian boycott on cotton goods in the north-west. Rather unexpectedly, he was well received and cheered in the streets of Manchester by textile workers, although his action was to their detriment. They did that because of their compassion for people who were worse off than themselves.
The trade union movement has made similar statements in the booklet to which I have referred. It says that it wants a new MFA to give more favourable treatment to the least developed countries and that it wants to encourage improvements in the social development of all member states. It also wants to reduce the gross exploitation of labour in member countries. We have all seen films of young children employed in the textile industry in some of the countries that export to us. They are remembered in the trade union document.
Lest it is felt that I have concentrated solely on what the trade unions have to say, I should like to quote from the letter sent by Mr. John Longworth. He writes:
"All of us, unions and employers alike, are deeply concerned about the effects on employment if the MFA is not renewed on similar or better terms than the present Arrangement. There is no doubt that there would be a large increase in imports from countries such as Hong Kong and Korea, and especially from China, which is a major threat. At the same time it would be impossible to argue for voluntary restraint arrangements with countries like Turkey if the MFA restraints on other suppliers had been removed. Without doubt these increased imports would mean thousands of further job losses in Oldham and Rochdale.
You may possibly be wondering why we cannot meet this competition head on. The reason is quite simply that government aids and subsidies given to overseas industries coupled with the distortion caused by unrealistic exchange rates make free and fair trade an illusion. Furthermore the overseas industries frequently operate behind protective barriers giving them a firm and profitable base from which to support their exports."
Conditions overseas are not beyond the minds of trade unions. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
6.16 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Even if I had not been caught by the 10-minute rule, I would have been brief because it is important that as many hon. Members as possible should have the opportunity to take part in this debate, thereby reflecting the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. It is encouraging that so many hon. Members wish to take part and that so many signed the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.
When I made my maiden speech 18 months ago, I urged the House never to forget that Britain had prospered through the skills and hard work of the people in the textile industry and said that the situation could be summed up by the old slogan, "Britain's bread hangs by Lancashire's thread." I went on to suggest that people in textile areas such as Hyndburn were proud and independent and would rather give help than receive it, but now they desperately needed that help. Consequently, in common with many other hon. Members, I am delighted to hear the Government's commitment to work for a renewal of the MFA. I hope that they will support renewal on the most effective terms possible. To do otherwise would be to increase the existing pressure on employment in areas that are already unemployment black spots. Anything less than the commitment to which I have referred will simply accentuate the economic and social problems of areas such as Hyndburn, caused by the decline in the textile industry for many years.

941
I support the renewal of the MFA not so much because of my constituency interest in textiles, which, alas, is now small, but because I have lived in a textile area all my life. I have seen at first hand the problems caused to ordinary working people by job losses in textiles. Mill towns such as Accrington were devastated. I would not want that to happen to other areas. It was tragic to see such skilled and hard-working people, who worked hard for relatively low wages, whose industrial relations record was second to none and who readily accepted the need to be competitive by agreeing to shift working, time studies, job flexibility and low pay increases—even in some cases reductions—thrown on the scrap heap. It was a bewildering experience for them. There were no £30,000 redundancy payments for them. Even if the MFA is renewed, it is, sadly, too late for the vast majority of textile workers in my constituency. Certainly it is too late for Messrs. Highams Ltd., a name synonymous with Accrington and textiles, which announced six weeks ago that it is closing with the loss of 300 jobs. The loss of such a well-established company is a severe blow to the morale of the area and a tragedy for the employees concerned.
Such closures add to the severe problems of unemployment and industrial dereliction in my constituency. Fortunately, because of the help of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who played an important part in ensuring that a development grant application from the only remaining textile firm in my constituency was dealt with swiftly, 120 of the jobs were saved. Speed was essential, and without the Minister's intervention the jobs would have been lost. I wish to place on record my thanks to him. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that access to Ministers did not lead to comprehension and action. In this case he was wrong.
The textile industry and the fine people in it deserve our support. The industry has acted to improve its competitive position, productivity has risen by 22 per cent. since 1980, which is well above the average for manufacturing industry, investment is rising, even in the uncertain conditions which now prevail, increasing importance is being placed on design, and Enfield Manufacturing has succeeded because of the combination of all those factors and a determination to break into the often difficult export market.
The continued survival of such firms depends on the further improvement of their competitiveness in both home and overseas markets. The investment required in new technology will be achieved only if they have confidence in the future. Without the present system of low-cost import restraint, the prospect of reasonable stability would be removed and with it much of the confidence on which investment depends. That is why the renewal of the MFA is vital.
I support help being given to Third world countries—the world's poor—but it must come from the country as a whole. Indeed, it must also come from other countries, and not from one section of one country. I cannot say to the remaining textile workers in my constituency that they must accept an increased burden when workers in America, Japan and Australia are not prepared to do so. Far from being protectionist, the MFA has allowed EC imports to grow, even in a declining market. By providing guaranteed and growing access to
942
developed markets, it has greatly assisted developing countries in advancing their export interests in an orderly trading environment.
If we were to abandon the MFA, it would lead to chaos, which would hurt everyone, not least the less developed countries. Without any such international agreement, political pressure would build up in each developed country to enact strong protectionist legislation. Such legislation would have serious and mainly negative implications for both textiles and world trade generally.
I recorded earlier my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for helping to save 120 jobs. That action shows that the Government care about the textile industry, and also their care and anxiety to renew the MFA. Clearly the British Government in isolation cannot have their way in the important discussions ahead, but we look to them to argue Britain's case forcefully. Anything less would fail the industry and those employed in it. I believe all that the Minister said and thank him for what he said when he opened the debate.
The Silberston report made many forecasts of what might happen if the MFA were rapidly phased out after 1986. Those hon. Members who live in and represent textile areas know what would happen, and we would not support it.
6.23 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: There can be no doubt that the textile and clothing industry is one of the United Kingdom's greatest industries. There is no point in repeating the figures to point out that fact. There can be no doubt that the industry has made great strides in profitability, efficiency and modernisation, and all hon. Members must join with the Minister in paying tribute to it for that. There can be no doubt that the industry is centred around the present centres of unemployment. Unemployment is often highest where the clothing textile industry is situated. There can be no doubt that it would be folly, and, in the light of the present unemployment trends, dangerous folly, for the Government not to do all they can to create a climate and framework within which the industry can prosper. That must be common ground to us all.
We must consider whether an essential part of that framework is the multi-fibre arrangement. One may imagine that there is little else. Our capacity to assist our clothing and textile industry is woefully inadequate compared with that of the Belgians who put £90 million a year, which is equivalent to £500 million a year for an industry the size of ours, into the industry, or the Italians who provide, it is said, assistance worth £1,500 million a year.
The fact that for many people the MFA is the only instrument with which we can assist our industry accounts for some of the strength of the reactions to the debate whether it should be continued.
There are only two reasons for continuing the MFA: is it good for the industry, and is it right for trade? No one can want the MFA because he wants protectionism—at least I imagined that until I heard the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). It is strange to hear from the mouths of a party which has such a proud tradition in internationalism, which professes to care greatly for the Third world, and

943
which says it wishes to ensure that the poor have reasonable access to cheaper goods, protectionism in that form and manner.
As a trading nation we depend on a free and fair system.
Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
Mr. Ashdown: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that I have said one or two things which will have annoyed him, but with only 10 minutes to speak I cannot afford to give way.
With the mood of protectionism rising, few people can want to put permanently in place a protectionist measure, such as the MFA, for longer than necessary. Is the MFA necessary? There are two parts to the question. First, is it necessary to the structure of world trade for stability; secondly, is it necessary for the industry itself?
The first question is easier to answer than the second. The MFA has provided a framework for stability during a period of great change. It would be wrong brutally and precipitately to dismantle it now as the period of adjustment is not yet complete. However, it is nearing completion. Allowing for transport costs, the West German industry, for example, would need only a 3 per cent. duty on yarn and a 12 per cent. duty on cloth to compete with the Korean industry. It is calculated that the United States industry needs no duty. The need for the MFA in world trading terms has diminished and is diminishing. I accept that it will be needed—but for how long?
What I do not accept is the view that the MFA has been a benevolent instrument for the less developed countries, especially the poorer less developed countries. Seventy per cent. of our net imports come from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, whereas under MFA 1 the figure was 65 per cent. The drift continues in the same direction. More than half of our net imports come from Common Market countries. The less developed countries', share of the market has fallen from 32 per cent. to 26 per cent. If it is so beneficial to less developed countries, why did 21 of the leading less developed countries in the MFA ask only last month for a return to a genuine multilateral form of trading?
Mr. Bryan Gould rose—
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman will make a full speech and no doubt he can make his points then.
I accept that the MFA has had a stabilising effect on world trade, and that it still has a role to play. However, that role is diminishing. The MFA was set up as a temporary structure, and I see no reason to change its temporary nature now.
Is it, therefore, necessary to the United Kingdom industry? That is the contentious question. Silberston said that it was not. I recognise that many hon. Gentlemen disagree with that. However, careful analysis and consideration of the criticisms will show that some of the criticisms are also ill-founded. I have considered Silberston's report and the criticisms of it, and I believe that he got it about right in general direction, if not in detail. We could pick holes in many of the details, but in general the thrust is about right. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it."] There are textile firms in my constituency, and not in insignificant number.
944
I agree that our textile and clothing industry needs support and a framework to help it in the struggle to adjust to difficult world trading conditions. I do not deny that the MFA has provided such assistance, although the assistance may have given too little weight to some consumer views. We must remember that the consumer, not the taxpayer, has paid for the MFA. There is an argument that the MFA is a hidden tax that falls most heavily on those who purchase cheap clothes or children's clothing. Be that as it may, I agree that the MFA has been useful in providing a framework to allow our textile and clothing industry to restructure itself, and that it will continue to have a similar role, albeit a diminishing one, in the immediate future.
However, I cannot accept the fact that the MFA must be enshrined as a permanent structure. We should renew it for a last term—MFA 4—roughly similar to that of MFA 3. The Government should seek a commitment, through the EC, that this will be the last renewal. The Minister may not wish to say that now, but a case could be made for it. Furthermore, as a commitment to a more liberal rather than a more restrictive MFA, we should investigate the possibility of exempting the poorest exporting countries from quota provisions. They occupy a tiny fraction of the textile markets, so such action would cost us little enough.
If we are to provide the support that this great industry needs, there must be better long-term ways of doing it than the MFA. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said in June last year, we need a decent EC plan for textiles to consolidate and build on the great advances that have been made by the industry. By all means, let us renew the MFA for a final term, but let us also begin to draw up a proper and efficient system for assisting our textile industry—a system that will provide the support that is needed, where it is needed, rather than relying solely on a structure of import quotas, which cannot last for long and which, in any event, is an extremely inefficient way of assisting such a great and vital industry.
We have allowed ourselves to hide behind the MFA as an excuse for not making proper provision for the industry. The textile and clothing industry deserves better from us than being put in a position of relying on such a temporary measure. If the Government wish to do something of real importance for the industry, they should press our EC partners for a European plan for textiles rather than the indefinite retention of this essentially temporary structure for ever.
6.33 pm
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle (Lincoln): On the surface, this debate is about the multi-fibre arrangement and the textile and clothing industry, but in reality it goes much wider and touches on matters of great importance to the United Kingdom. We must decide whether we want free trade or protection, and I believe that, as a trading nation, we must take the course that expands our trade most.
Just as the debate goes wider than its title, so must hon. Members lift their sights above their narrow constituency interests. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), who made a moving speech, but he, too, must lift his sights, as a Member of Parliament, to what is best in the long term for a trading nation.
Britain is a trading nation, and it exports a larger share of its output than does any other country. As a result, it

945
does better when world trade is buoyant than when it is weak—that is self-evident. Free trade undoubtedly helps trade to grow and generates wealth, whereas protection has always had the opposite effect. It reduces economic activity and increases poverty, and in this respect I am glad to be on the same side as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). It is sad to hear the constant cries for protection from both sides of the House, and especially from the Labour party, because that would reduce prosperity and jobs.
Let us consider a practical example. I am always impressed by how much of what is manufactured in my constituency is exported. Ruston Gas Turbines, our biggest employer, exports more than 90 per cent. of what it makes. If one adds direct exports to the components that go elsewhere to be assembled into exports, most firms in Lincoln export 50 per cent. or more of their output, and I am sure that many other industrial centres have a similar record. Therefore, if we drift towards protection, barriers will be erected, markets will shrink, and jobs will be lost. It is folly to believe that demand at home or in the Common Market will take up that slack. In an earlier intervention, I gave the example of Indonesia in 1980, when our reactions lost us jobs at home. We must be under no illusion that protection which expands without ceasing would have that effect repeatedly.
Britain is right to fear a drift towards protection. With our Common Market partners, we must stem and reverse that tide. If we do not, we shall suffer. We must achieve our aim of having a new round of GATT talks. We must stop the growing lobby in the United States towards protection, and we must use all the levers we have and all the power of our market to get other countries to open their markets to our products, and to introduce true free and fair trade.
Those who advocate protection have much more to answer than the sole charge that protection reduces wealth. It also narrows choice for the consumer. It increases prices here, as competition is reduced and cheaper goods are kept out. It is estimated that the textiles which come in under quota protection cost the British consumer £500 million more than they would cost if there was free competition. That money is prevented from going elsewhere in the economy to generate its own wealth. In addition, the countries affected by the MFA send us more expensive goods to make the best use of their quotas. Therefore, in all ways, the poorer families in Britain suffer from the MFA, because they must spend more on textiles and clothing than they should.
The consumer has a right to be heard—we are all consumers—and his interests must not go by default. They must not be swallowed by narrow constituency interests.
Many people claim that we should do more to help Third world countries, but one of the best forms of help is to provide British markets for their products. The MFA restricts choice, increases prices and damages poorer countries. We stomach all this because we claim that we are buying time to change our textile industry so that it will compete fairly. But import quotas are a bad way to help the industry, and history proves that. In 1974, the MFA was introduced temporarily, but since then it has been extended twice, and now we hear cries that it should be extended for another 10 years. Protection never promotes the change that is needed; therefore, protection endures for ever.
946
There are better ways to help industry. I welcome the scheme started in March 1984 to help smaller firms to invest in new technology. If help is needed, let us go down that route, not the protection route. The main argument for the MFA has proved itself to be a delusion. Jobs will be created by creating a climate of more exports from Britain and of having cheaper goods for the British consumer to buy. We shall have greater spending power.
The practical lesson that we have learnt since 1974 is that once protection starts it is difficult to dismantle. I have two practical suggestions for new talks. First, we should use existing quotas as a lever to secure reductions in barriers against us in other markets. We must use the force and power of our markets to reduce barriers in Taiwan, South Korea, the United States and other markets. If we do this, we can relax barriers here. Secondly, we must analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the various sectors of the clothing and textile industries. The Silberston report sketches out a sensible timetable for the reduction of the MFA. It does not suggest doing this all in one go. and it tries to meet the practical situation.
I end as I began. As a trading nation we must allow our skill and efforts to stem the drift towards protection because that drift can only harm freedom of choice, prices, our ability to compete, our markets and hence jobs. For prosperity, future and the jobs of our people, we must turn the world back towards free trade and away from this ominous drift towards protectionism.
6.41 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, of which the textile group represents many workers in the industries that we are discussing. Many of them are extremely low paid, and all of them, I remind the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), are consumers. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), I believe that it is sad that it has taken so long for this debate to take place. Because of the Government's equivocation and public uncertainty about whether they were committed to a renewal of the MFA, there has been considerable uncertainty in the industry and outside it. That has been damaging and the Government have only themselves to blame for the damage that they have done to the confidence in the British textile and clothing industries.
The Government have an opportunity to show—I am glad that they have done so to some extent in this debate—the importance of the British textile and clothing industries to our economy, to our manufacturing industry, to exports and, vitally, to employment. It is important that we should never overlook or understate the importance of the textile and clothing industries to employment. They are concentrated in areas that have already been ravaged by high unemployment.
Both sides of the textile and clothing industries support a renewed MFA, even though there are clear and divergent interests among those involved in the industries. It is an insult for those who oppose renewal of the MFA to attempt to dismiss those who support it as being entirely motivated by vested interest. It is equally insulting for them to misrepresent the aims of the MFA and its past and future impact, and to mislead or misrepresent its effect. The most important argument to address is the one that seeks to persuade us that ending the MFA in favour of free trade

947
and intensified competition serves all interests best—the textile and clothing industries, consumers and foreign textile suppliers—including the poorest.
It is clear that if the MFA were to end, or to be substantially weakened, the international textile and clothing industries would not find themselves in a pure free trade environment invigorated by fair competition. Britain, with all other textile suppliers, including the poorest, would find itself in a trade jungle, unregulated, subject to constant and major disruption, with the weak being even more exploited than they are now, or in some cases being snuffed out altogether. Pure free trade and unfettered competition would no longer exist.
The Minister pleaded with us to face the facts, and talked a lot about the 1930s. I wish that he had faced more facts about the world in 1985. Free trade is an obsolete concept in a world in which real economic power, including economic decisions that affect the daily lives of all of us, is wielded by a small group of giant multinational companies. In many cases their individual economic power, or sometimes their power in small groups, is greater than that of Governments of independent sovereign states. Multinationals rather than Governments now determine the location of investment, or its withdrawal, without giving a second thought to the social consequences.
Courtaulds has probably taken more taxpayers' money than many other companies of which I can think. It has recently announced the closure of two companies in Wales, with the redundancy of 1,100 workers. Rumours are circulating that the product that was made in Wales is now to be made in India through a joint venture between Courtaulds and the Indian Government. I support investment in the Third world, but I deplore, if it is true, the social irresponsibility of a company such as Courtaulds engaging in such a venture and throwing 1,100 people in a high unemployment area on the dole.
The profits earned by multinational companies are artificially manipulated to minimise tax payments, and profit or loss is determined by deliberate transfer pricing. Free trade is the fashionable belief among a dwindling band of Thatcherite Ministers, Whitehall mandarins, Adam Smith Institute pamphleteers and those dreaming of higher things at the Institute of Directors. Sadly, to judge from the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), there seem to be lingering supporters of Gladstone in the Liberal party. For the first time, we may be having a second speech from the Liberal party, but one of a different flavour. Perhaps in future we shall have not one member of the parliamentary Liberal party seeking to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box, on behalf of his party, but two. Perhaps the Procedure Committee will take note of that.
Only this week we witnessed the economic and trading realities of the world in 1985. Our tender for the Turkish bridge was the lowest, and our bid matched or beat that of others bidding for the contract, but the Japanese won the order because they offered to subsidise the approach roads to the bridge. That is an ill reward for those senior Tories who have over years been apologists for the Turkish Government and sought to conceal or excuse their appalling record on human rights and their appalling deeds. We failed to get the contract despite the embarrassing behaviour of senior Tories.
948
Free trade offers the consumer little, and the poorest countries in the Third world even less. The poorest textile suppliers will survive and expand only if they can look to relative stability and assured access to markets, and have some confidence of a sustained demand to maintain their markets and open up and sustain new markets. Above all, we need increasing world demand, and that is why the Labour party is constantly urging economic expanion, because such things come only from economic expansion. The internationalism about which the hon. Member for Yeovil talked is meaningless unless there is a determined international effort to expand economic activity throughout the world and allow the poor countries to find new and larger markets for their products.
The MFA is all about trying to assist an orderly growth in trade and about our negotiating a planned growth in trade to the mutual benefit of all textile suppliers, especially the poorest. It is necessary to dispose of the myth, again fashionable among those who still cling to free trade notions, that British textiles are a sunset industry, locked into inevitable and terminal decline, and that the MFA might as well dwindle because it is merely postponing the inevitable death of the textile and clothing industries. That myth must be nailed. As many hon. Members representing textile constituencies have made clear in the debate, the Government need to provide more investment and support for the British textile and clothing industries. They must "talk up" these industries.
It must be emphasised that by any economic yardstick or any economic criteria our textile and clothing industries represent a most important part of the British economy. They employ 500,000 people, many of them women, large numbers of whom belong to the ethnic minorities. Much understandable importance has been placed upon that aspect. These industries represent a major part of Britain's shrinking manufacturing base. They are major British exporters. Their performance, not least in productivity growth, can be compared favourably with any other part of our manufacturing industry.
Unless the multi-fibre arrangement is strengthened, the loss of jobs within the industry will be intensified. Only last year 200 textile workers went on the dole queue every month. Most of these jobs will be lost in areas where there is already high unemployment—in Yorkshire, Humberside, the east Midlands, the north-west, Scotland and in some parts of the south-east. Many of those men and women are the only wage earners for their families. Already in some areas unemployment is as high as 60 per cent.
This is a valuable debate. I hope that the Government's indication that this industry's trade is being renewed will be followed up by a full-hearted and determined commitment. I am worried about some of the comments on transitional arrangements and about the hint that the MFA may be only a temporary measure. For the sake of the industry, of the men and women who depend upon that industry and of the world economic community, I hope that a strong and effective MFA will be negotiated. Anything less than that will be a gross betrayal of a British industry and of the men and women who have devoted their lives and energies to it.
6.52 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: In the last Parliament there were several fairly gloomy debates, most of them initiated by the Opposition, on or related to textiles. This

949
is the first major debate on textiles in this Parliament. To some extent this reflects the more confident state of the industry—at least of the wool sector of the industry. Confidence, however, is relative. Today, the industry is very much leaner, albeit fitter, than it was and employs far fewer people, but its future remains extremely uncertain.
Some people, among whom I include my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), have portrayed the multi-fibre arrangement as a means of rigidly restricting textile and clothing imports. In fact, it is a framework for gradual liberalisation. This can be illustrated by pointing out that the present MFA—MFA3—allows for an annual growth rate of imports of up to 6 per cent., which in the event has been very nearly four times the growth rate of clothing sales in this country over that period.
Free trade in goods and services must be the ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world. The reality is that many countries have erected barriers to trade which are far less liberal than our own. This factor applies to both developed and underdeveloped countries. The United States must come high on anybody's list of protectionist nations. United States tariffs on woven wool fabrics at 45 per cent. compare with the 13 per cent. tariff applied by the European Community. Australia, too, could hardly be counted in anybody's book as underdeveloped, yet its tariffs of between 70 and 100 per cent. on woven outerwear are ludicrously high, compared with that of 16 per cent. in the European Community.
Of the developed countries, Europe cannot be expected alone to accept responsibility for imports from low-cost countries. If we did, it would have disastrous results. The United States is a much more self-sufficient country than the United Kingdom, and a much smaller proportion of its gross national product is devoted to trade. Britain depends to a much greater extent than almost any other nation on trade. It is not in our interests that there should be increasing restrictions. The United States cannot be allowed indefinitely to use high tariff barriers as a means of protecting its own industry from exchange rates which are largely the result of its own economic policies. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will increasingly take a tough line with the American Administration.
The MFA is not, I believe, a restrictive measure but a way of allowing international trade to develop in an orderly way. It should also be a means of enabling trade to develop more liberally, but this is a two-way process. It depends just as much on those with whom we trade as ourselves. Reciprocity is the principle for which we should aim. When we negotiate the bilateral agreements a tough line should be taken with those countries which have made no effort whatsoever to open up their markets to exports from the European Community, but in no way can any guarantee be given that MFA 4 will be the final MFA. That depends upon others as well as ourselves.
If we were to give away our bargaining hand, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), there would be little hope of persuading other more restrictive states to adopt freer policies. The hon. Gentleman said that Silberston had got it just about right. I presume that he was speaking as the official spokesman for the Liberal party. I challenge the hon. Member to come and say that on Liberal platforms in west Yorkshire, both now and in the future, and see what the result is.
Non-tariff barriers and other distortions of fair competition should also be considered when we conduct bilateral negotiations. Some Governments provide
950
massive aid to their own industries. The social conditions of workers are often quite unacceptable, even allowing for the much lower standards which we would expect to prevail. These are factors which we cannot afford to ignore. Therefore, one would wish there to be in the new MFA a social clause which deals with such issues as working hours and conditions and guarantees against the exploitation of children.
We are entering upon a period of even greater charges in trade patterns than existed in the past. The expansion of Chinese exports in textiles is something of which our own industry is very fearful. If orderly trade development was needed before, it will be needed even more in the future.
It is often suggested that we should relax all barriers in order to aid the Third world, bearing in mind that many poor countries are better able to contemplate the development of a textile industry with the use of low technology than other enterprises which require much greater capital investment. However, without the existence of a framework for orderly trade development it is likely that the most underdeveloped countries will be squeezed out by those who already have a track record. The best hope for the most underdeveloped nations is the existence of reasonable quotas which give them a chance to have some access to the market.
Although we are discussing the renewal of the MFA, this must be viewed in the context in which it appears. In the past, several European Community member states gave various forms of financial assistance and other aid to their textile and clothing industries. One can point notably to members of the Community such as France, Belgium, Holland and Italy. All have extended massive aid to their textile industries. For years complaints were made about this by companies in this country, but the Community failed to act. When, at long last, the British Government proposed a relatively modest scheme, known as CLOFT, involving only £20 million, compared with the hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds which had been extended to industries abroad, the competition policy of the Community was tightened up. It is of little comfort to companies in this country, which have had to face very unfair competition over a number of years, that schemes put forward by other countries will be subject in future to the most rigorous examination. In the meantime, many firms have disappeared and many jobs have been lost. The textile and clothing industries in Britain now look searchingly to the Government to protect their interests in the future and to ensure that genuinely fair competition prevails.
Today's statement by my right hon. Friend is encouraging as far as it goes. The wool textile industry, which is so important to the economy of west Yorkshire, will give one cheer tonight. It will give another cheer if a satisfactory MFA 4 is negotiated, and it will cheer even louder if the subsequent bilaterals are fair to all sides.
6.59 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East): I cautiously welcome the Minister's statement that the multi-fibre arrangement will be renewed. I am not convinced that the Government have expressed a clear determination to put up a strong case during the negotiations. The importance of the MFA to Northern Ireland in particular can be demonstrated by a simple reference to my constituency of Antrim, East.

951
At present more than 20 per cent. of my constituents are unemployed. Despite what Professor Silberston says in his report, that high level of unemployment arose directly from the collapse of the synthetic fibre industry several years ago. It has not been possible to create new jobs for those constituents of mine who were formerly employed by Klingers in Larne and by the international companies such as ICI and Courtaulds. Those companies pulled out putting thousands of people on the dole and then made a cosmetic gesture in attempting to attract small businesses to those huge plants.
The MFA, which has been designed to control and restrain the growth of cheap imports into the United Kingdom, must be renewed and renewed in such terms that we do not precipitate futher decline in the textile industry. I believe sincerely that failure to renew the present arrangements would cripple the Northern Ireland textile industry and seriously damage employment opportunities in the textile, clothing and knitting industries in Britain. It could turn the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, into one big shop for cheap imports from the rest of the world and simply put our people into unemployment.
In 1984 the Northern Ireland economic council reported, and nothing really has changed since then, that:
"There are no measures to show exactly what effect cheap imports have had on local producers but it is clear that this has been an important factor in the decline of the industry over the past ten years. Furthermore, import penetration has been greatest in those products in which Northern Ireland industry has tended to specialise—carpets and the down-market end of fabric production."
The textile industry, excluding man-made fibres, is one of Northern Ireland's largest industrial sectors. The decline of that sector and the loss of jobs there has been almost continuous in the post-war period. Since 1959, 54,000 people, representing 34 per cent. of the manufacturing labour force, had declined to 20,430 people, or 14 per cent. of the manufacturing labour force, by 1979.
Yet output continues to increase due to the productivity of the labour force and the modernisation which occurred as a result of the uptake of capital grants to industry. But even since 1979 decline in the industry has continued. By 1983 the Northern Ireland textile industry provided employment for 13,000 people, representing only 13 per cent. of all persons in manufacturing in Northern Ireland.
We are all well aware of the former dependence for employment in Northern Ireland on the linen industry. I trust that the Government will give every assistance possible to foster the rebirth of that industry, to encourage the development of new products and new composite materials based on linen. It has been clearly shown that these are in demand by high fashion designers throughout the world. Finding markets for new products is still a problem. All those engaged in searching for new markets and promoting exports merit greater support and encouragement from the Government.
Northern Ireland industry has also been dependent on the United Kingdom market but there again growth has been low and demand has been slow. We are well aware of the need to export to survive, but how can we compete, especially when there are high tariff barriers elsewhere? There must be greater incentive and assistance for those who wish to export.
952
Import penetration by cheap imports from low-cost producers in the developing countries has also caused serious job losses for our home produced products. I am sure that hon. Members are well aware that imports of textiles increased from 21 per cent. of total United Kingdom sales in 1973 to 40 per cent. in 1982.
It appears almost ridiculous for hon. Members to advocate at every opportunity that consumers should buy British when there is inadequate and insufficient protection by the Government for the textile industry and the products that are produced in the United Kingdom to enable fair competition against cheap and subsidised imports.
I remain concerned about the recommendations of the Silberston report. I urge the House and the Government not to accept its main recommendations and strongly to defend the interests of the United Kingdom's textile, clothing and knitting industries to take account of the economic and social importance of those interests in Northern Ireland and in other regions in Britain which are equally depressed.
I wrote to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office requesting that the interests of the Northern Ireland textile industry should be adequately protected in the forthcoming negotiations and that the MFA should be renewed on such terms as would prevent further decline in jobs. I recognise and appreciate the Minister's awareness of our problems in Northern Ireland. In his reply he said:
"We have examined the Silberston Report on the economic effects of restraints on trade in textiles and clothing and share your concern over the recommendations in the report on the future of the Multifibre Arrangement. The textiles and clothing sector makes up almost 30 per cent. of the total employment in manufacturing industry in the Province and I am well aware that the erosion of the Textile Industry has contributed substantially to the high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland today. It is our intention to ensure that the renegotiation of the Multifibre Arrangement will not jeopardise NI companies."
I hope that the Government will back up that assurance and the Minister's statement that the United Kingdom will not be a soft touch in the negotiations. I also hope that no date will be agreed for the final phasing out of the MFA and that incentives to the textile and clothing industries will mean that we shall quickly modernise and be able to compete internationally with every other producer.
7.9 pm
Mr. Gerald Malone (Aberdeen, South): It is always an interesting and curious parliamentary occasion when those of my hon. Friends who occasionally tend to run like lemmings with the free trade argument suddenly draw themselves up on the edge of the precipice on a night such as tonight having doubtless been confronted by the reality of their parliamentary majorities. Perhaps we should be a little courteous to those of them who have the courage to go over the edge tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) has already leapt, and, judging by the noises on the Benches behind me, some others may also leap.
Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Malone: I do not intend to give way.
Although I have some sympathy with those of my hon. Friends who may take that step, I believe that their courage is misplaced. If there is any debate in which a fair grasp of reality must be the touchstone from which we proceed, this is it. Indeed, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the

953
Minister on what he said in his initial remarks and on having a very realistic approach to an extremely difficult issue. My right hon. Friend's approach was different from that of Opposition Members. He has demonstrated that he is prepared to consider some form of renewal of the agreement while working towards freer trade, but Opposition Members are more than happy to have protectionism and to see the present agreement set in concrete. That is the difference between us.
This debate is extremely important for Scotland. Scotland employs about 14 per cent. of those employed overall in the textile industry. But perhaps more importantly, those people are employed in areas where there has already been a massive rundown in the industry, and they have already faced massive sacrifices. In some of those areas it has proved possible to create new jobs through fresh industries, but there would be a grave risk if anything happened to prejudice those jobs still further.
We must try to balance the interests of those employed in the industry with the interests of the consumer. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln rightly mentioned the consumer. However, in another context my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy pointed out that there is more to matters than simply the consumer. There are, after all, consumers and producers. It is perhaps another interesting parliamentary curiosity that my right hon. Friend's speech has been endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from the Dispatch Box. Thus, the Government presumably accept that the interests of consumers cannot be considered on their own.
Those who believe that the agreement should simply be scrapped should ask themselves whether it has badly affected consumers' interests. There are three questions to which hon. Members must address themselves. First, has the agreement made the textile industry softer? The answer is that it has not, because the textile industry, almost uniquely in this country, has increased its productivity by 30 per cent. since 1980. Secondly, has the agreement made the textile industry less keen to invest? The answer is, of course not. After all, £200 million was invested last year by the textile industry. Thirdly, has the agreement made the industry complacent about its products? Has there been a shortage of goods in the market place? The answer is no. The industry has diversified and has moved with the times. It has added value to its product to the extent last year of £3·9 billion.
If we had been faced with a complacent industry that had hidden behind a protective shield, I would have agreed with those of my hon. Friends who say that the agreement shoud be thrown over. However, that is not the case. The industry has responded to the challenge set out in 1974, which was that this was a time for change and should be used as an opportunity for change. The industry has taken that opportunity.
It is too simple to state that the agreement should simply be renewed. That is not sufficient. In the past few years it has become tighter and more, rather than less, protectionist. I had hoped that over the period of its development the degree of protection provided would become less restrictive than at the outset. One of the principles guiding the negotiations leading to renewal should be that, although some protection is necessary, it should not be static and should not become sharper and tougher as the years go by.
In attempting to renegotiate the agreement, my right hon. Friend the Minister should move slowly towards a
954
free trade position. That must be the inevitable and long-term consequence of our endeavours. But it is not something that can be achieved instantly; it must be a long-term objective. It is not quite proper tonight to suggest, say, that the agreement should last for five or 10 years. However, the textile industry in this country has taken substantial investment decisions on the basis of the current MFA. Those investments must be given a chance to bear fruit, and the industry must be given a chance to see clearly where its future investment opportunities lie. If my right hon. Friend has that as a guiding principle, he cannot go too far wrong in the renegotiations.
There are some details that it would be helpful to incorporate in any new agreement. We must, of course, move towards a less restrictive approach than we have had during the past few years, which would benefit the developing world. I think that there is a broad consensus tonight on that point. We now have an ideal opportunity to get rid of some of the abuses in the present system. I have always thought it reprehensible that a system of quota renting—a method of passing quotas round—should grow up. That problem must be tackled in the negotiations, and stopped. In addition, we must develop a much less blunt instrument than the unilateral sanctions that exist under GATT as a response to those who abuse the free trade that we wish to see. As hon. Members have already said, such abuses certainly exist.
If my right hon. Friend the Minister pursues that course, he will set a mood that shows that, although we are in favour of renegotiating the agreement on a reasonable basis, we are not in favour of protectionism as a creed. That is the mood that he must set in the talks. It is a difficult mood to create, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend has made a very good start this evening, and I am also certain that the whole House wishes him well in his efforts.
7.18 pm
Mr. William McKelvey: I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate, because, as many hon. Members have said, the issue before us is crucial for the textile industry. I accept that hon. Members have the right to talk about constituency matters, but on this occasion I should like to underline the importance to Scotland of renewing the agreement.
The economic importance to Scotland of the textile industry is often ignored and almost invariably understated. The industry in Scotland employs about 60,000 people—almost as many as the steel, coal and shipbuilding industries combined, and more than half as many again as the electrical and new electronic engineering industries employ. That means that the industry is responsible for 14 per cent. of manufacturing employment and for about 3 per cent. of total employment in Scotland. Consequently, I need not underline its importance to Scotland.
The threat of job losses if the multi-fibre arrangement were liberalised or abandoned is viewed not with hysterical anxiety but with genuine concern by those engaged in or employed by manufacturing industry. The problems would be exacerbated if the agreement were ended because of the geographical locations involved. Unemployment would result and the effects upon the Scottish economy would be disastrous.

955
The high unemployment in Scotland seems to have escaped the attention of the media recently. The latest figures show that more than half of the United Kingdom total rise in unemployment during April took place in Scotland. Last month 2,785 souls in Scotland joined the dole queue, bringing total unemployment to a disgraceful 354,692. The Government's policies are responsible.
In 1982 the textile and clothing sector accounted for nearly 8 per cent. of manufacturing output and nearly 2 per cent. of Scottish gross domestic product. In real terms output per head in textiles rose by nearly 14 per cent. between 1979 and 1982. That compares favourably with the 13·5 per cent. increase in manufacturing industry as a whole. Manufacturing industry in Scotland cannot be said to be Victorian, Luddite or old fashioned. Manufacturers in Scotland, like their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom, have modernised their machinery and cut costs.
The Scottish textile industry is export oriented. About 90 per cent. of total sales in 1976 went either to the rest of the United Kingdom or abroad. In Scotland we regard sending goods to England and Wales as an exercise in exporting.
The Minister said that a great deal of money had been put into the textile industry to alleviate the problems in areas of high unemployment. I hope that the Minister will take my remarks into account when such moneys are doled out in future.
Strathclyde covers about one third of the geographical area of Scotland and supports about two thirds of Scotland's population. It unsuccessfully claimed a share of the £58 million allocated to the United Kingdom under the EEC non-quota programme to assist textile closure areas. Representations were made in respect of the Kilmarnock and Paisley travel-to-work areas where there is a concentration of that type of work and where heavy losses in employment have occurred recently. The EEC Commission and the Government adhered strictly to the 20 per cent. "regional dependency ratio" which works against such a large region because of the pockets devoted to textiles in that region.
The districts certainly lost over 20 per cent. of manufacturing employment but they were denied the grant which could have alleviated suffering in areas with some of the worst unemployment in Britain. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the needs of that large region. Perhaps he will be able to change the system so that grants are more equitably distributed.
In Kilmarnock and Loudoun the textile and clothing industries provided 4,500 jobs in 1981—almost half of all manufacturing employment in textiles. Because of the many job losses in the BMK carpet factory, that figure has shrunk, but we have managed to hang on to our lace knitting industry. The knitwear industry has experienced a slight improvement in terms of jobs. Once 40 small knitting firms existed in the area but now there are only four. Any further depletion of that industry would be disastrous for an area with no alternaive employment opportunities.
The factories distributed throughout Scotland are not usually large. Mackinnons in Coatbridge employs about 500 people. It was returned to the private sector by the Scottish Development Agency as part of the Dawson international group. Queen of Scots in Irvine employs about 400 people, is part of Courtaulds and produces "cut
956
and sew" knitwear. Cumnock Knitwear employs about 300 workers, Macdougalls of Lanark employs between 200 and 300 and Mansfield Hosiery Mills in Glasgow employs about 200. Any loss of jobs in those areas could be devastating.
There is a modest caution about the way in which the Minister approaches the problem. That is not because he is not sincere, but I should have more confidence if he were more dynamic and forceful in his attitude to the negotiations. If he needs any assistance, I know several shop stewards in the textile industry who are fully aware of what it means for the MFA to be continued. They want to sleep easy in their beds. All the representations made to me on the subject have been made jointly by the trade unions and management. I support them.
7.27 pm
Mr. John Watson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate, particularly as two key issues of principle must be discussed before the House can consider the MFA itself. The first is the simple definition of the word "unfair".
Some people are confused about what we mean when we talk about unfair competition. If what is meant is competition from imports which are subsidised by the Governments of the countries from which they come, I would enthusiastically agree with the definition. However, some colleagues take the definition further and apply it to imports which they regard as unfair simply because they are unwelome, inexpensive or based upon pay levels which are lower than levels here. By no stretch of the imagination can I believe that the word "unfair" can be applied to such competition.
Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, what exactly do we want industry to provide? Do we expect industry in Britain to be the provider of jobs or of wealth? The prevailing political fashion is to say that it can do both. In the 150 years since the industrial revolution, successful industry has indeed done both.
However, it is unrealistic to expect manufacturing industry to provide both jobs and wealth as the 20th century draws to a close, for two reasons. First, to provide jobs and wealth it is necessary for production each year to exceed productivity by a considerable margin. That can be done only if our share of world trade escalates considerably from its current low level. Second, it means that the employment provided by manufacturing industry, which has been falling consistently for over 100 years, must be reversed and so begin to increase.
Those might both be laudable objectives, but they are unrealistic as assumptions upon which to base an economic policy. I appreciate that, faced with a choice between jobs and wealth, it is consistent that many Labour Members should believe that the correct role of industry is to provide jobs. That is a valid and logical choice, but I ask Labour Members to consider the consequences of opting for it.
It is self-evident that an industry whose task is to provide jobs must be overmanned and will not be competitive in world markets. If it is to exist, it must do so behind a barrier of trade protection, from which a number of consequences inevitably flow. The choice available to domestic consumers will be smaller and the prices enforced on them will be higher. If experience around the world is a guide, our currency would be higher in value, thus making exporting more difficult, apart from

957
any retaliation that might be indulged in by our trading competitors. Our raw material imports would be more expensive.
Any policy that is based upon industry assuming the role of a provider of jobs must be accompanied by a lower standard of living for Britain, not least for those who have the misfortune to be unemployed. The standard of living would, I believe, be lower than the majority would be prepared to countenance.
My preference is for the alternative. I believe that industry should be regarded as a provider of wealth rather than of jobs. That brings problems as well, for we must decide how to distribute the wealth thus created. As a policy that is based upon the creation of wealth cannot be one which offers full employment, we are presented with the problem of how to distribute the burden of unemployment. If unemployment is bound structurally to exist, should it fall upon those who, by default, are currently unemployed, who are largely those entering the working population for the first time, or should we make adjustments to the age or retirement, for example, so that the burden of unemployment, under-unemployment or enforced leisure falls upon those who would find it rather less unwelcome?
It follows that, in principle, I do not like the multi-fibre arrangement. It is clearly a protectionist measure. It fails to distinguish between imports that are unfair and others that are merely unwelcome. However, I shall disappoint those of my colleagues who believe that I should say that the arrangement should be chucked into the Indian ocean. My argument is not based on constituency interests because I do not represent a textile constituency.
I am always suspicious of some of my colleagues whose principles are reinforced by naivety. If it is in our interests to give something away, we should not give it away if instead, through a process of bargaining and negotiation, something can be gained in the other direction. Concessions with the United States and newly industrialised countries could be gained if our ultimate objective were the liberalisation of the arrangement.
It must be acknowledged that some benefit would be provided to some countries if we were to open up our markets in a more liberal way. If we provide that benefit, it is surely only logical that we should have some say in determining the beneficiaries. If we were to throw the arrangement into the water, the principal beneficiaries would be Taiwan, Korea and other newly industrialised countries which are not among the most needy of the developing nations. Some discipline must be maintained to protect the role of the most poor and most needy.
I also support the limited maintenance of the arrangement, at least for the time being, because of the nature of the employment which textiles provide. Professor Silberston's report included the almost notorious assertion that consumers are paying £500 million more for their goods than they would pay if we did not have the arrangement and that 50,000 jobs would be lost if we did not have it, so that the consumers' subsidy per job is about £10,000.
First, I challenge the assumption that all of the £10,000, if that is a true figure, would instead be spent within the United Kingdom. It is arguable that half of that sum would be spent upon other imports into the United Kingdom that had been manufactured in other countries. Secondly, the nature of the employment that is provided by the textile industry is one that is peculiarly difficult to replace. It
958
employs an above average number of women and members of ethnic minorities. Overwhelmingly, it employs those who are not based in the south-east. If we were to devise a job creation programme to fill the gap potentially to be left by the demise of the textile industry, I have no doubt that it would cost the taxpayer more than £5,000 or £10,000 per job.
Therefore, I support the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. I hope that the arrangement will not be a feature of British industrial life in the long term. However, until we can have some control over who gets the benefits, until we can be sure that we shall receive adequate concessions from our trading partners, and until we have some realistic policies to deal with the unemployment that would undoubtedly result in certain areas, I hope that the arrangement can be maintained for the time being.
7.37 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to take up some parts of the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson), which went beneath some of the superficialities on which some Conservative Members have dwelt. I shall not be joining what amounts to a consensus in welcoming the Minister's announcement on the arrangement, because I shall adopt a rather different approach.
I am sure that the people of west Yorkshire will be intrigued when they learn that the Liberal party's spokesman on these matters has adopted a philosophy that will sell down the river the textile interests of west Yorkshire and other areas. The Liberal party has taken a signal decision and we shall ensure that those in west Yorkshire and elsewhere hear about it, including those who live in Lancashire.
Many Conservative Members are guilty of hypocrisy. There are known to be slavish admirers of the Prime Minister and the free market philosophy. However, when it comes to constituency interests, such as jobs in the areas which they represent, and, most important, to the fear, which interestingly enough was expressed after the results of last Thursday's elections were announced, that they might lose their seats, they depart from the free market philosophy and the belief that the Prime Minister is absolutely right on every occasion. Instead, they start calling for some support for the industries that provide jobs in their constituencies.
There is common ground between us in welcoming the Minister's statement on the arrangement. However, it seems that he has been waving his commitment to the arrangement rather like a figleaf that disguises the terrible damage that the Government have done to the textile and clothing industries over the past five or six years.
In my constituency, the jewel in the crown of the textile industry, we have seen mill after mill closed because of the Government's policies on interest rates and the exchange rate. Against that background, the arrangement has offered a little help. We have seen what the Government's policies have done to the textile industry. To pretend that the Government are concerned about the arrangement, the textile industry and the people who work in it will not go very far to convince Labour Members that the Government are sincere in their professed concern.
There would be a loss of jobs if we abandoned the MFA. Indeed, some 25,000 jobs would be lost in west

959
Yorkshire. It is also fair to say that retaining the MFA might mean a loss to consumers. Yet the figures show that the cost of clothing has risen less rapidly than any other component of the retail prices index. The proponents of the MFA would play up its advantages, and its opponents the converse.
The MFA is part of a much wider picture, and if that is understood the role of the MFA becomes clearer. I want to sketch it in two parts—the key structural problems, and the framework of policies that could tackle them. Manufacturing industry and its part in international trade is not something that can be comprehended by the accounting techniques of the grocer's shop; nor by anyone whose intellectual boundaries do not extend beyond those techniques. First, the pressures and turbulences of international markets are quite capable of putting paid to a domestic industry in a short time, especially in labour-intensive sectors where low-wage economies have enormous potential price advantages. Secondly, international trade in that area is heavily dependent upon exchange rates, and the absence of a stable system since the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement has accelerated the fluctuations and increased the turbulences in the trading environment. Thirdly, the domestic conditions of production may create special difficulties. All those factors have conspired to cripple the textile industry in this country.
The Government have delegated to international speculators the job of determining the sterling exchange rate, and the wild see-sawing of exchange rates has been responsible for many of the casualties among textile firms and workers in west Yorkshire and elsewhere. Domestically, the Government have capitulated their responsibilities for economic management to the monetarist mystics and their myopic measures of money supply. By deflating demand and jacking up real interest rates to historic heights, they have caught yet more firms in a dreadful pincer movement, which even the willingness of the textiles work force to take cuts in real wages has been unable to thwart.
On top of all that, there has been the relentless pressure of developing nations wanting to improve—and who can blame them?—their foothold in our markets. They have, quite naturally, built on a price advantage because of the low wages employers pay in those countries. That is where the MFA has played a part in regulating the pace at which market penetration has increased. It has been a modest part in defending the interest of the industry and those who work in it, but the strong consensus is that it has been useful. The underlying structural problem remains that wage differentials between the United Kingdom and the developing nations create a substantial price advantage in the labour-intensive areas of textile production for the developing nations.
This is the point at which to sketch in the framework of policies that are needed. They clearly differ a great deal from the policies of this Government, who tell us that the answers lie not with manufacturing but with the service industries. That is their rationale, if such it can be called, for their cool unconcern at the destruction of Britain's manufacturing capability, both in textiles and outside, and its grossly underused capacity.
The Government tell us that the future lies not with high wages but with workers pricing themselves back into jobs.
960
That is the rationale for the attack on the wages councils—pitifully low though the wages are that they set. They also tell us that the future lies not with skills training for industry but with basic training more appropriate to the low-skill, low-tech, low-wage service industry of the future that they want to see. That is the reasoning behind the abolition of the industrial training boards—and the one covering the textile industry went three years ago—the closure of skillcentres and the crucifixion of our national training system on the cross of market forces.
If that be the framework of policies, the MFA has little or no place, the Government tell us; so an investment policy for the textile industry has no place, so the Government tell us; so an education and training policy geared to textile production has no place, so the Government tell us; and so the industry itself, in the long term, has no place.
However, as some of our captains of industry recently pointed out to the Government—I refer to Mr. Harvey-Jones and the chairman of GEC, Lord Weinstock—to seek salvation in the service economy is an inspiration based on an illusion. There can be no thriving service sector in the absence of a manufacturing sector to service and without the wealth that production and exports generate to purchase those services. Nor should anyone be surprised that Lord Weinstock and Harvey-Jones actually told the Government that they had to begin investing in our manufacturing rather than our service industry.
The truth is that the Government have destroyed the textile industry and are now waving the MFA at the British public to try to show that they care. I believe that people working in the textile industry generally and those manufacturing in that industry—both in management and on the shop floor—will not believe the Government. That is not to say that I do not welcome, in some measure, what has been said, but there is now a need for a further strategy to reinvest in the textile industry, in training, in the infrastructure, in modernisation and in high-tech and to get the textile industry booming again so that it creates more jobs.
7.46 pm
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister said and hope that he has more to tell us later. We all await his reply to the debate. He is well aware of my interest in this matter as I have made representations to him many times during the past 18 months on behalf of my constituents.
The attractions of free trade—an ability to trade in goods without the influence of authority, be it local, national or international—have to be considered as, in theory, they at least have merit in any free society. The replacement of the current MFA for textiles must be considered in the light of continuing experience and a basic consideration of whether it is really possible to conduct international trade in any commodity on a wholly free basis. I have to say that I cannot find a single internationally-traded commodity that is traded without the influence of some authority or Government.
In that context, virtually all agricultural commodities are traded under EC and world understandings, and in that I include such items as sugar and cocoa. There is no real free trade in metals and minerals—while prices may, on the face of it, monitor supply and demand, the markets are underpinned by international understandings that stabilise

961
them. That stability of markets is what we essentially have now with the MFA for textiles, and it is something that we should maintain.
In this great competitive world, we are often tempted to throw open the markets for many of our products to the complete influence of supply and demand. That has serious dangers of cyclical production and little confidence to invest, and in the longer term it does not benefit the consumer. This year's cheap product is next year's dear item.
I have heard a great deal today about consumers. We are all consumers and must not forget that. As a housewife and mother with two boys, who have recently grown through their teens, 1 know a little about the purchase of children's clothes, and it is something that continues to interest me.
Consumer organisations have said that the MFA has raised United Kingdom market prices by restricting access of low-cost imports. They say that choice has also been restricted. I have never noticed any real shortage of the cheaper imported ranges of clothes, nor have I noticed any restriction of choice.
Undoubtedly, if the MFA was suddenly abandoned there would be a flood of cheap imports and prices would fall—but, I suspect, for a short time only. The market would find a level—its own level. Certain manufacturers would be put out of business, jobs would be lost and the overall availability would be in balance. Some retailers might see an opportunity to get slightly better margins and prices would move upwards again. In the longer term, the consumer would not benefit.
I suggest that, also in the longer term, the British market is looking for better quality products than some of those generally available from imports. All things being equal, the British housewife wants to buy British, but the value must be right. She is often willing to pay that little bit more to buy British and to have quality—not just in the cloth, but in the finish and the presentation, which are important. I would go as far as to say that the MFA has worked in the consumers' interest, because it has maintained quality in British goods and allowed only part of the market to imported goods.
On an international scale, we are looking for competitive trading within carefully structured constraining rules, such as those provided by GATT and the Lomé convention. For the international textile trade, the MFA umbrella provides the structure and constraint that I maintain are necessary.
At a national level, there is still room for individual initiative. It does not offend my sincerely held Conservative principles to demand controls on international trading, as I believe that there is still plenty of room for competition.
The Yorkshire textile and clothing industry desperately needs a renewal of the MFA, and I call on the Government to acknowledge that they support an MFA 4. We were told earlier that some of us have narrow constituency interests. That is why I am in the House; if I did not reflect that narrow constituency interest in debates such as this, I would have no right to be here.
The EC Commission, which has the job of carrying forward MFA 4, must be told firmly by the Government that the British textile industry needs an MFA 4 and that we should have one. Britain as a whole needs a new agreement and we should make it clear to the EC where its duty lies.
962
The current MFA may not be perfect—multilateral agreements rarely are—but the overriding factor is that it has achieved its objective:
"The aim of the MFA is to allow for orderly growth of world trade in clothing and textiles."
That overall objective is often lost in the complexity of the arguments.
The developing countries' share of world textile trade rose from 30 to 38 per cent. between 1973 and 1982. Their share of world clothing trade rose from 47 to 59 per cent. in the same years.
In contrast, the industrialised countries' share of textile trade fell from 59 to 49 per cent., and their share of clothing trade fell from 34 to 23 per cent. Between 1977 and 1983, EC demands for textiles and clothing increased by 2·5 per cent., with imports from MFA supply countries increasing by 16 per cent.
The MFA is clearly allowing for a growth in imports to the EC that is well in excess of demand. Experience has shown that, while the excess of imports is unhealthy, it has been tolerated by the industry—a fact which should not be overlooked. The industries in the United Kingdom—I have some in my constituency—are leaner and fitter than ever before, and many have invested in new technology and new techniques, which fit comfortably alongside traditional machinery in a traditional industry. Output per person has increased by 22 per cent. since 1980, a fact of which the industries should be proud.
With the current MFA production, order books are about in balance. The industry is stabilised, and it is stability for which we are looking. It appears, particularly in Yorkshire, that companies are able to grasp market opportunities, but they can and will do so only if they have confidence in the future. In addition to providing stability, we have to provide confidence. Stability and confidence are provided by the MFA umbrella and all its related agreements. Therefore, I call on the Government to renew the arrangements in the form of MFA 4. What is more, I call on them to do so now, to provide the continuing confidence that our industries need.
Throughout the world recession, developing countries have increased their share of world markets. We must have some thought for the poorest countries, and they have been guaranteed access to world markets which, in the absence of an MFA, they would have been denied by the larger, dominating supply countries. They must realise that the MFA brings order to international trade in clothing and textiles, and that must be preferable to the disorder that would ensue without an MFA 4.
I clearly support the retention of an MFA system and the introduction of an MFA 4. The Yorkshire textile industry, and others throughout the country, demand just that from the Government and from the EEC.
7.55 pm
Mr. Cyril Smith: I start by telling the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that, whatever has happened in Yorkshire, textile mills in my constituency and other parts of the north-west were closing long before 1979.
This is the fifth Parliament in which I have served and there have been few, if any, textile debates during those 12½ years in which I have not taken part. I cannot think of a debate on any of the MFAs that have been negotiated over that period in which I have not taken part. I used to work in the textile industry and I have close relatives who

963
still work in it. In the metropolitan borough of Rochdale, 35 per cent. of manufacturing workers are employed in the textile industry and there are 147 companies in the textile industry.
I say that merely to show that I have a deep interest in the subject, and I hope that it will not surprise the House if I take a different line from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I try to deal with my hon. Friend kindly, so I say simply that it might have been better if my party had decided to leave the speech to someone who knew something about the textile industry.
I make the strongest possible plea for the MFA to be renegotiated and for a fourth such agreement to be reached. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I are both officers of the all-party textiles committee and we, with the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), appealed for a third agreement. Perhaps it is not surprising that we are now appealing for a fourth.
The Minister told us about things that will happen tomorrow, but we were told 10 years ago that those things would happen tomorrow—there would be stability and everything would be all right. I have heard it all before. Until we see all the promises translated into reality, hon. Members who show some common sense in representing textile constituencies will remain detemined that the industries should be protected not from competition. but from unfair competition. That is what the MFA is all about.
The Minister's speech got better as it went on. At the beginning, I wondered what conclusion he would reach. In the end, the conclusion was all right. However, I was intrigued that he told us all about the existing situation in the textile industry, but did not say what it would have been if we had not had the MFA to protect the industry. He may say that a small percentage represented imports, and so on. But that percentage would have been much greater had there not been a multi-fibre arrangement to protect the industry from those imports.
In the metropolitan borough of Rochdale, which covers Heywood, Middleton and so on, 35 per cent. of the population are engaged in manufacturing work in textiles. In the same area we have an unemployment rate of 17 per cent., even after the local authority has taken off 2 per cent. by indulging in Manpower Services Commission schemes, job creation schemes, and so on. To subject my constituents to a higher level of unemployment as a consequence of allowing the textile trade again to be flooded by imports is unthinkable.
The Prime Minister has talked recently about a bridge in Turkey. I ask hon. Members to consider what happened when we experienced a flood of imports from Turkey. At present, one of the greatest threats to our textile industry is China. We have heard little about China today, but it is likely to be a major threat. If we do not protect our industry from such threats—threats which often are based on the experience of other countries—we shall be doing our constituents and our textile industry a gross disservice.
I must stress again a matter which has been mentioned already by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), because it is especially relevant to my constituency, as it is to constituencies such as Bradford which are also heavily engaged in textile
964
manufacturing. A great many of our constituents are immigrants, and a large number of them work in the textile industry. If we did not act to protect jobs in the textile industry, we should be putting more and more immigrants on the dole—paid for, incidentally, by the taxpayer, whatever this clown Silberston says. In his view, 50,000 would be put on the dole, never mind the 100,000 that we see accruing from a failure to renegotiate the arrangement. I understand that it costs a minimum of £5,000 to keep a man on the dole, so how he arrives at his economic statistics I fail to understand.
But we have some experience of academics fiddling about with industry. They know nowt about it. They come into industry and start telling us how to run it. They have never got off their backsides and out of their universities, so they know nothing about it. If I were advising the Government about the Silberston report, I should tell them to put it in the wastepaper basket and forget it. It is written by a man who may be a brilliant academic, but I doubt whether he has much industrial experience.
I was saying that more and more immigrants will be put on the dole. That is an additional reason for protecting the textile industry. Whereas in the past we may have been able to cope with redundancy because other industries were more buoyant, that is not the position today. That is another reason for developing and maintaining the multi-fibre arrangement.
I do not believe that it is a protectionist arrangement. How can it be protectionist when it allows for a greater measure of imports than the growth of our industry? That must mean that our industry gets a smaller share of the home market or itself exports, so how can it be described as a protectionist measure?
What is more, it should not be forgotten that the MFA helps less developed countries by protecting them against a swamping of western markets by goods from industrialised countries such as Hong Kong, Korea and, in the future, China. At least they know that under the MFA they have a guaranteed level of imports on which they can rely. If they were openly competing with some of the more industrialised nations, their own trade in the developed nations might suffer as a consequence.
In my political life, which has not long to run now, I have always tried to be a realist. I like idealism. It is all right for those who have nowt better to do to indulge in it. For our textile industry and for British industry generally I do not believe that free trade is a realistic option. The trouble with free trade at present is that it is all one way: it is all one way coming in, but it is not one way going out.
We have heard tributes paid to Hong Kong, and I join them. It is one of the few nations which allow in a fair measure of imports. But that is not the general pattern. The trouble with free trade is that, although it may be a glorious ideal, it is not realistic, and it is time that some of my colleagues recognised that.
If MFA 4 is not negotiated, it is certain that thousands of people will be added to the dole queue in my constituency, and they will be added to the 3 million people who are already unemployed. That is why as both a realist and the hon. Member for Rochdale I reject free trade as an alternative and strongly urge that a fourth multi-fibre arrangement should be negotiated. When it is negotiated, I hope that the new arrangement will contain effective mechanisms to react quickly and positively to unfair practices.

965
The industry generally—and that includes both employers and the trade unions—want to see the arrangement renegotiated, and I for one welcome the Minister's statement and congratulate him. It does not matter how long it has taken him to make it. What matters is that he has made it and said that this Government are committed to negotiating a fourth MFA. I welcome that. I wish him well in the negotiations. He can rest assured that many of us will be watching him and judging him on the results that he achieves.
8.7 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I hope that all of us who start from a totally different position on free trade from that of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) will not be accused of not trying to put forward the best interests of our textile industry and to maximise employment in the industry, both here and overseas. I hope that today's debate is about expanding the textile industry and protecting it from unfair competition, but making certain that it is subject to proper and fair competition.
I believe that that is common ground, even though some hon. Members look at the position differently. I do not agree with many of those who support the existing MFA or a tightening of it. However, there is one notable exception to what I say, and that is the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who clearly was reiterating normal Labour party propaganda and in no way relating his remarks to the debate. The rest of us are all concerned with the way in which we can expand opportunities in the textile industry.
It has been calculated that if our textile industry output stands still but it continues to increase productivity there will be some 60,000 job losses in areas of high textile concentration. Therefore, it seems to me that if we are to look at a static position in terms of the output of our textile industry, we have to make provision for diversifying the economies of the areas in which the textile industry is located. That will have to happen, anyway, if we are looking at the static position.
I hope that, through the policies which my right hon. Friend enunciated earlier, we shall see Britain's textile industry expand and that the fears which have been expressed will prove to be groundless. Therefore, the hon. Member for Rochdale and I have reached the same conclusion—that my right hon. Friend is right in supporting a renegotiation of the MFA, but that we should look for additional ways of inducing better marketing worldwide and domestically in Britain.
I pay tribute to some considerable achievements by many companies in the textile industry. Gents of Barnsley is able to manufacture clothing which it can sell over tariff barriers of every kind, artificial or otherwise, in Japan. A company in Leicester has been set up with the most modern machinery to produce hosiery. It is selling hosiery domestically and has expanded by over 250 per cent. in the past three years, but it is also selling hosiery in Asian countries, such as India, Hong Kong and Japan. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that if our domestic industry invests in the most modern machinery, and is flexible in its response to market demands, it can be the equal of any in the world. We do not need protection so much as expanded markets, and that is what I hope we shall get from the renegotiation.
966
Mention has been made of the developing countries. Their position is to some extent being used as a sop to our better feelings in relation to the developing world, and to justify a protectionist measure. There is no doubt that the MFA, in the way that it has developed, operates against the interests of the poorest of the less developed countries.
Most speakers in the debate have talked almost exclusively of four countries which are now tabulated as newly developed countries. They are Singapore and Hong Kong in our own Commonwealth, and Taiwan and South Korea. This is the conclusion in the derided report of Professor Silberston, which we should bear in mind when renegotiating the MFA if we wish to improve it. He concludes:
"The MFA does not have negative effects for all textile and clothing firms in developing countries. The long-established successful firms are protected from competition from new firms in their own countries, at least to some extent, through their continuing access to quotas."
That is very important. Therefore, it operates against competition even within those countries.
Professor Silberston continues:
"As has been noted, certain countries are protected from competition from other developing countries, since they historically have had large quotas, and attempts to curb the 'dominants' have had only limited success. It may be that countries such as Hong Kong would do as well as they do now in a completely free market, in spite of their high real wages, but the present system does not allow this to be tested. As it is, the poorest countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, where low real wages favour clothing production, are prevented from exploiting"
that advantage and exporting their product to other countries.
That is the considered opinion of the Silberston report and it accords with my experience in the developing world. That anomaly has to be put right when we renegotiate the MFA and its future.
Indeed, it should be remembered by all those who argue that the MFA now helps countries in the less developed world with low wages that the real wages in Hong Kong per head are now higher in many cases than they are in the United Kingdom. For example, it is not generally known that the driver of a double-decker bus in Hong Kong takes home more in real wages than his equivalent in London.
Hong Kong cannot be categorised as a low-wage economy needing the protection of a multi-fibre arrangement. Hong Kong is an example of what I hope we shall become—a highly efficient country which can compete in textiles with anybody in the world. A modernised and technically advanced industry can be successful and pay high wages, as industry in Hong Kong has managed to do. That should be our objective.
We have to eliminate the protectionist element of the MFA and introduce serious qualifications so that access can be given to the less developed countries. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do that when he helps to renegotiate the MFA. We must ensure that the quota system, if we are to have it in the same form as before, is fair and does not favour certain countries. I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend will pursue robustly a policy of opening the markets of the world to ensure that the developing world will in turn open its markets to us. I hope that my right hon. Friend will help to ensure that our textile exports can get into the United States of America.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about Brazil?
Mr. Wells: And into Brazil. They do not now.

967
I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure, as a condition of modifying the present MFA, that those markets will be open as well. In that way, by using the MFA in a bargaining sense to open up the markets of the world, the textile industry in the United Kingdom will be able to employ more people and create more wealth. It will be able to operate as a market for other countries wishing to export here, thus expanding the whole of the world economy and benefiting all our people.
8.16 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: Like many hon. Members before me, I welcome the debate, but I trust that the Government will act in accordance with the views of the House and of the industry. In the industry everyone—management and trade unions—is in favour of the renewal of the MFA. Across the political divide, there is an almost unanimous agreement—apart from one or two eccentrics on either side—that the MFA should be renewed. Although there will not be a vote on the motion tonight, I hope that the Government will receive loudly and clearly the instructions of the House, and there is no doubt as to what they should be.
Much has been said about job protection, and a great deal has been said about the Silberston report. I quote a passage from page 42 of the report, in relation to jobs:
"At the worst, employment might be unchanged."
That is a reference to technical changes and differences in the MFA. It continues:
"In other words, the fall in employment of 166,000 in textiles and clothing—as well as the subsequential unemployment in associated industries, such as man-made fibres—could be offset, or more than offset, by an increase in employment in other industries. What is more, earnings in these other industries would probably be higher than in the low-paid textiles and clothing industries, so that workers moving from one to the other might benefit from the point of view of earnings."
That shows how much Professor Silberston is in touch with the reality of the situation.
The need to renew the MFA is not related only to job protection. If we were dealing with a dying industry, we might argue that it was purely job protection, but in global terms the textile industry is a growth industry. There may be arguments and questions as to how and where the growth is to take place, but there is great worldwide potential for the textile and clothing industry.
Indeed, the report of the secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development points out that the value of world trade in textiles increased over the decade 1970–80 by an annual average of 16·1 per cent. Over that decade, the annual growth of clothing manufacture worldwide was 20·1 per cent. Although the figures may vary from time to time, if there is an upsurge in world trade, there is room for an upsurge in training, and even greater potential for the industry.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to a renewal of MFA 3 and a new MFA 4. However, he did not satisfactorily answer the crucial point, which is the period of renewal. The renewal of MFA 3 into MFA 4, simply phasing it out, is not good enough. We need an MFA 4 with a commitment to renegotiation, either in the middle of the period or at the end of it, over 10 years. The need for stability demands that we should know where we are going. The Minister said that some people within the EEC favoured a phasing out, but that he would not accept that
968
as a precondition for discussions. That statement does not fill me with confidence. The Minister has left the back door ajar for phasing out MFA 4 if the opportunity arises. He has left himself an escape hatch. We do not want him to make use of it.
If the industry is to be competitive, we need modernisation and investment. There will be investment only if there is a long-term future extending over at least 10 years. We need investment, but we also need Government help. Change must be fostered. We must recognise that great changes are taking place in various parts of the world. I believe that the People's Republic of China is poised to invest massively in the most modern type of computer technology, by-passing the technology that many of our industries have adopted. We must be prepared to follow suit.
The omens are not good. A year ago, the Government put forward the CLOFT scheme, which involved a sum of £20 million over four years. The scheme was blocked in the EEC. I believe that the Minister of State was as astonished as anyone when the scheme was blocked. A fortnight before, he had written to me stating that he expected the scheme to be approved in the near future because, after discussion, adjustments had been made to the original scheme. I do not know what the adjustments were, but I believe that the Government did all that they could to have the scheme adopted, and yet it was blocked. Does the Minister intend to accept the situation, or does he intend to take a more active line and vigorously pursue a new investment package? We need to know his intention.
The Minister said that he will press for equity of treatment and ensure that other countries do not get away with behaviour contrary to the strict EEC rules. However, the door is being closed after the horse has bolted. Other countries have had investments and preferential treatment. They have had their grants and subsidies, while this country has not. Belgium, Italy and various other countries have enjoyed such treatment. They are listed in the much-maligned Silberston report.
We need to act positively, especially in terms of the so-called social clause. Trade unionists and Socialists are certainly not opposed to development in developing countries. We want development for people, and decent pay and conditions. We understand the importance of textiles to such countries. The UNCTAD report notes that textiles and clothing represent 33 per cent. of the manufactured exports of developing countries. However, in developing countries, textiles and clothing also probably represent the greatest area of exploitation. That is graphically shown in the TUC booklet entitled "A fair balance in textile and clothing trade". Table 7 on page 31 gives the hourly labour costs in some major producing nations in 1984. Seventeen countries are listed. In 14 of them, labour costs were below $2 an hour. The lowest rate is paid in Indonesia. I do not have the precise figure, because the graph does not give it, but the average labour costs in Indonesia were below 50 cents an hour. In the United Kingdom, the figure was about $5·25 an hour, in Italy over $6 an hour, and in the United States $8·50. Clearly, there is great exploitation in Indonesia.
There may be exploitation in terms of conditions as well as pay. On page 31 of the TUC booklet we read that:
"The widespread appearance of free trade zones in these countries over the last five to ten years, in which companies receive considerable tax concessions from host countries and in

969
which workers are frequently denied employment rights laid down in ILO Conventions on Minimum Labour Standards, is a worrying phenomenon."
We take that matter very seriously. I hope that we shall see a change in the sneering attitude of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and of some Conservative Members who have cast doubts on our credibility and our concern for those who live and work in the Third world. Among other things, the Minister must take seriously the strengthening of the social clause.
There is a need for proper labelling. Under the system known as outward processing, without proper labelling, one does not know what one is buying, where it comes from or what quality it is. Labelling applies to goods from inside the EEC as well as outside. I am very concerned about the decision taken by the European Court on 25 April which made it clear that article 2 of the Trade Descriptions (Origin Marking) (Miscellaneous Goods) Order SI 1981 No. 121 is in contravention of article 30 of the EEC treaty. That decision means that our domestic legislation on labelling, especially with regard to countries of origin, is out of court and cannot be applied.
I believe that the Minister said in his speech that the Government were considering the implications of that judgment. I am no expert in EEC matters, but I understand that there is no appeal against the decision. We are stuck with it. However, the Minister should try to get round it. Fair competition demands fair and accurate labelling.
I certainly do not constantly espouse the cause of the employers. I have spent too much time arguing with them about employment practices. However, I take the employers seriously when they tell me that they want proper and fair competition and believe that they can live with it. That, too, must be part of the new MFA.
I come from the north of Scotland, where there are many companies at the top end of the clothing market, such as Crombie's of Grandholm. They are world-famous companies. They argue for reciprocity or equivalence of tariffs. In South Korea, Brazil and Australia, the tariffs are astronomical. In some cases, imported wools and textiles are subject to tariffs of 205 per cent. Such matters must be resolved in detail. However, what is most important is that the MFA should be renewed and that the Government should state specifically that there is not to be a transitional or phasing-out agreement. I understand why Ministers say that we cannot declare our hand now but must wait for negotiations. However, unless the Minister states specifically the principles on which he will not budge, he will be railroaded into a transitional arrangement and, in the end, that will mean a phasing out.
We want an agreement that lasts at least 10 years. We are prepared to accept a break clause to see how things adjust. We want stability. Phasing out must not be allowed. Far too many people in Britain and in Third world countries depend on textiles for jobs. The issue should be examined properly and the Minister for Overseas Development should be brought in with a view to creating a combined aid package concerning imports, jobs and investment. In those circumstances, we should all be satisfied. I dare say, however, that none of us will be entirely satisfied with the final package. I understand the reality of negotiations, but the House is clearly instructing the Government that it wants an MFA 4 and no phasing out in any form, no matter how others might try to smuggle it in through the back door.
8.30 pm
Mr. Lewis Stevens: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister's assertion that the MFA will be renegotiated. Any liberalisation should have no significant effect on controls in the present arrangement.
It has been suggested that we can compete in any circumstances and that others should be given a fair crack of the whip. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, the costs in some countries are so low that there is no way in which we can genuinely compete with them. It is therefore essential to protect our industry. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about recognising the special circumstances of poorer suppliers. It is generally agreed that the MFA has helped the textile outputs of those countries.
There have been some important developments in textile companies during the past five years. They have slimmed down and we can admire their updating of equipment, methods and design. All that will be wasted if the MFA is threatened as they need its special support to go through confidently with the required investment.
Our principal fear about imports from countries such as Taiwan is that they are at the bottom of the market. My right hon. Friend referred to our producing higher quality goods. That is good, but we must be careful not to be pushed into having a high quality industry with no base in the cheaper end of the market. Some of our other industries have collapsed because they were forced into ever more specialised markets. The great example of that was the motor cycle industry. To avoid repeating that we need the protection of the MFA.
There have been considerable improvements in the industry in my constituency, but the result has not been many more jobs. If our textile and clothing industry suffers, so, too, will others such as the textile machinery industry. We used to have a highly successful textile machinery industry, but the smaller our textile industry gets, the less the engineering industry can develop. We need the home market for development of high technology. Our share of the textile machinery market has reduced considerably recently, to the detriment of areas such as Leicester.
It is good that some companies are investing overseas. Some of our agreements with Third world countries will lead to our investing there, thus enabling them to enhance their use of the MFA. The MFA has led to co-operation between Third world countries and the EC. Such development can continue. The new agreement should not be short term. It will be a major factor in the protection of our textile industry. Although liberalisation is desirable, it cannot be achieved quickly in the real world. We heard from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) what fairyland is like. Although we must react to a nominally free market, free is a relative term which depends on products, customers and other countries. We do not often work in a genuinely free market and this moderate restriction helps us and the poorest countries of the world.
8.36 pm
Mr. George Park: Coventry might not be a place that immediately springs to mind in a discussion on textiles, but the city has been involved with textiles for hundreds of years and, until recently, they provided thousands of jobs for Coventrians and minorities

971
from Asia and European countries in the aftermath of the second world war. Many people from the Ukraine, Poland and Latvia still work in the textile industry.
It is regrettable that many of those jobs have disappeared. We are now down to a plateau of about 2,000 employees, mainly in one company. There are severe doubts that, if a fourth MFA is not negotiated, we could slip off the plateau and the industry could suffer further job losses, if not extinction.
A new MFA would provide a framework for avoiding large and sudden influxes of imports, many of which are in some way subsidised. The manufacturers of such goods enjoy protection for their home market. That is not often recognised by the advocates of complete free trade. Recent events have shown that the market in textiles is still weak and that home demand is not adequate to cope with the already agreed growth in imports. Some countries such as the United States of America are likely to continue to restrict imports, so there is an even greater likelihood of dumping in Europe if there is no effective organisation to control it.
In Coventry, we have been painfully picking up the pieces in an attempt to return to a viable state, albeit at a greatly reduced level. However, serious uncontrolled inroads into the textile market by producers from outside Europe would be a significant setback to the process of regaining even a few of the jobs that have been lost. I remind hon. Members that unemployment in the area is 34 per cent., not 16 or 18 per cent.
The case for MFA 4 is not entirely based on self-interest. Without it, poorer developing countries would lose the guaranteed access to the EEC market that the MFA provides. Disorder would develop in world textile and clothing trades and spread to other sectors of trade. In that connection, it should be noted that, despite a fall in market demand for textiles and clothing in the United Kingdom, imports between 1978 and 1984 from MFA countries rose by 15 per cent. Although United Kingdom industry has benefited from income growth being lower than it would have been without the MFA, developing countries have increased their market share and export earnings.
Labour Members continually stress the need for increased investment in industry to reduce unemployment. To generate the necessary confidence for investments to be made, there must be reasonable prospects. Without the stability provided by an MFA there would be no restraints on low-cost imports, the confidence to invest would disappear, and with it, the prospect of more jobs.
The textile and clothing industries are gradually picking up the pieces, but they are still vulnerable, and the abandonment of the MFA would expose them to an unrestrained flood of disruptive imports from low-cost countries, and cause a return to beggar my neighbour policies.
I am glad that the Minister in his opening speech said that he was in favour in principle of continuing the MFA. However, several of my colleagues and I believe that the Government should work for a renewed and strengthened MFA along the lines set out in the TUC booklet. That would safeguard the livelihood of those still in the industry, and provide hope for the unemployed through a continuation of orderly adjustment in the industry.
8.41 pm
Sir Paul Bryan: As I was a manufacturer of clothing in the West Riding of Yorkshire for 20 years, I feel at home in this debate. However, the House will be glad to hear that that does not mean that I shall make a long speech. Because of other duties in the House, I had to miss a large part of the debate. It would therefore be inappropriate and unwelcome if I spoke at length.
I shall concentrate on one matter. My hon. Friends will not be surprised to hear that that matter is Hong Kong. I wish to discuss the possible effects of the multi-fibre arrangement on Hong Kong and on our relations with Hong Kong. I do not pretend that a fall or rise of 1 or 2 per cent. in the quota will kill the Hong Kong textile industry. In the past it has shown an amazing adaptability to whatever conditions it faces. My point is that our negotiations could affect our relations with Hong Kong.
At present our relations are good because we have succeeded in negotiating the agreement with China on behalf of the people of Hong Kong. It was not the best agreement for which one could possibly hope, but it was clearly the best that we could manage. The people of Hong Kong could undoubtedly see that we tried hard on their behalf. The Prime Minister took part in the negotiations and we provided a magnificent negotiating team. As a result, there is a general international confidence in Hong Kong.
The agreement is unique in that it is for 13 years. We must, therefore, hold the confidence of that territory for a long time. One can argue that that should not be difficult, that we have a genuine interest in Hong Kong and that we wish to do our duty. However, people in their position are bound to look for signs that we are not as interested as we were or might be.
From time to time we blunder into terrible and needless lapses in our relations, as we did with students' grants. For no benefit to ourselves, we offended Hong Kong terribly and, indeed, did ourselves great damage. I do not want that to happen again.
The manufacturers of Hong Kong are far too sophisticated and realistic to think that we will abolish the MFA, and they would not have been surprised to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister today. However, they would be offended if their quota were reduced further. They expect it to stay where it is. In the early days of the first MFA in 1973 everyone believed that it would increase the opportunities for underdeveloped countries and protect employment in our industry, but the figures do not show that. The developing countries are little better off, but Europe has benefited most. The gap in our consumption has been filled by Europe. To cut Hong Kong's quota further now would have no foreseeable effect and would be offensive to the people of Hong Kong. I hope that we shall be seen to negotiate an arrangement which does not make their position any worse than it is.
Oddly enough, our clothing manufacturers buy a great deal of cloth from Europe when they could buy it from the United Kingdom. That spoils our balance of payments with Europe.
A more severe quota than previous quotas would be offensive. It would be of no practical benefit to our country and it would offend Hong Kong. Indeed, it could do practical damage to our trade. These days we do not believe that sentiment goes far, but from my knowledge of Hong Kong I am certain that we would never have got

973
big contracts such as Castle Peak power station had it not been for our close ties with the territory. With the enormous opportunities in China at hand, we must be careful to deal with these matters with delicacy and good sense.
8.48 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: The vast majority of hon. Members present welcome the Government's intention to renegotiate the agreement. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) presented a minority view. I hope that the Minister will take note of the strong views and ensure that the qualifications and reservations that the hon. Gentleman expressed are not overstressed and that we reach a good long-term arrangement. The majority of hon. Members believe that that is what we should seek, and if a vote were held at the end of the debate that would be the clear result.
It is also interesting to note that that is the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I represent an important cotton manufacturing town in Lancashire. At the turn of the century it had more cotton looms which wove straight white cotton than there were in any other town in the world. Ever since the end of the first world war the industry has been in decline. There was a recession in the cotton industry between the wars, when about 30,000 people left the town to seek work elsewhere. That is one reason why I was born a southerner instead of being born in Burnley. However, during the war, when the textile industry was asked to produce the cotton and textiles that the country needed, it went back into production and produced the goods.
It must be remembered that in the immediate post-war years, when many people foresaw a return to the depression between the wars and wished to move to other industries, the Government of the day pleaded with the people of Lancashire and other regions to stay in the industry and continue to produce cotton. They have earned the right to demand that the MFA should be renewed and that we should have a mark 4 agreement.
As many hon. Members have said, the campaign for the renewal of the MFA has been made by both sides of the industry. I have received letters from the textile workers section of the Transport and General Workers Union in my constituency, the Dyers and Bleachers Union, the Textile Manufacturers Association of North-East Lancashire, Elgin Manufacturing and Grenfell Garments. I take time to name them because, if those letters did not have headings and signatures at the bottom, it would have been difficult to know who was making the case for the renewal of the MFA.
Many hon. Members have stressed the importance of the industry to our economy. Despite its decline, it is still a major industry and a major employer. I am aware of the work undertaken by institutions, such as the Shirley institute in Manchester, in trying to ensure that the industry is at the forefront and can meet the challenge of the 1980s and beyond.
I have no doubt that if the MFA is not renewed, jobs will be lost and there will be more closures. That will hit the most vulnerable areas, including the north-west, Yorkshire, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the inner cities. It will affect especially women workers and the ethnic minorities. The unemployment statistics are interesting. In Accrington and Rossendale, unemployment is 14·3 per cent.; in Blackburn, it is 15 per cent.; in Bradford, it is 15·1 per cent.; in Oldham, it is 13·8 per cent.; in Pendle,
974
it is 14·6 per cent.; and in Rochdale, it is 17·1 per cent. Those figures speak for themselves, and I have no doubt that unemployment would become worse if the agreement were not renewed.
That does not mean that we are uninterested in the future of the developing nations. I am interested in their future, and wish them to develop and improve the standard of living of those who live there. It will not be to their advantage if the agreement is not renewed. The more industrialised nations, such as South Korea, will benefit, not the emerging nations, which we should be trying to help. The renewal of the agreement will ensure that they get the best deal possible and the best protection possible.
The bilateral trade agreements made under the MFA between the EC and its low-cost suppliers provide guaranteed access to the EC, with yearly increases. It is important to remember that there are yearly increases and that growth is not limited to increased demand. Between 1977 and 1983, market demand in the EC increased by only 2·5 per cent., while at the same time the supplying nations covered by MFA bilateral agreements increased their share of the market by 16 per cent. It is obvious that the MFA benefited them, and that advantage must be provided for in any new agreement.
There has been a massive improvement in productivity in the United Kingdom industry in recent years, which is another reason why it should be assisted to move toward and ensure that jobs and companies are protected. I do not accept the argument that we should not protect some of our industries. The role that the textile industry has play ed for many years and the fact that it has such a good record of industrial relations have earned it the right to demand the renewal of the agreement.
8.55 pm
Mr. John Whitfield: When the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) began his speech, I was looking forward to full and informed comment on the welcome announcement by the Minister this afternoon that Britain would apply, with the European Community, to renew the MFA. Unfortunately, we heard the usual Socialist diatribe that is wheeled out so often in the House, and his speech had little to do with textiles.
I represent Dewsbury, and I am by nature a free trader. My inclination was to make a speech similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), but, unfortunately, in Dewsbury we must live in the real world, and the real world is beset by protectionism in many forms. It comes in the form of tariffs, quotas, outright blockades, anti-dumping measures and regional assistance in all countries, including the United Kingdom. It also comes in the form of the multi-fibre arrangement.
I received a rather sad letter from people who describe themselves as,
"All that remain of a work force of over 1,500",
at Wormalds and Walkers Limited, Dewsbury Mills, Thornhill road, Dewsbury. All that remains of that work force are 30 names and addresses attached to a letter urging the Government to proceed with new negotiations, which I am pleased to hear they will do. That is an illustration of what happens in the real world. Wormalds and Walkers were manufacturers of heavy woollen cloth and blankets. The MFA certainly did not help that company.

975
Since other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, I shall restrict my remarks to what I believe the shape of MFA 4 should be. We have heard what the guiding principles behind it should be.
Many people have said that the new MFA must recognise the need for competition in the textile and clothing trades so that bilateral agreements concluded with low-cost supply countries incorporate a social clause that deals with working hours and conditions, freedom of association for workers and protection of women and children. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to this. However, the MFA should not contemplate taking that on board.
The issue of low cost and low wage countries is fraught with difficulty, but such countries should not be penalised for what they are. What may be unacceptable working conditions to us should not be held against low-cost countries as a reason to prevent them from trading with us. Subsidisation takes place in all countries, including ours, and if low-cost countries indulge in it, that should not disqualify them from taking part in world trade.
An important principle is reciprocity, which has been referred to several times today. This is essential, and I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to push that for all that it is worth. There is no doubt that there are serious omissions. Japan is the obvious case in point. Another firm in my constituency, Hinchcliffe and Sons, of Denby Dale is a successful company—by contrast to the previous example that I gave—of fine woollen spinners. Among other things, it spins cashmere yarns, for which the raw material is £82 a kilo. However, its competitors in the Scottish borders are able to purchase the raw materials for the same yarn at £70 a kilo from Japan. That is a typical example of the difficulties of protectionism, for what is protectionism for one is a cheap supplier for another.
Japan denies us access to its markets. Therefore, reciprocity is important. I urge my hon. Friend to change the rules for such countries to ensure that they open the doors so that we can have the same facilities in their markets as they have in ours.
It is also said that there is a need for other developed countries to share the responsibility of accepting imports from low cost countries, and the United States in particular is the offender here because it has adopted an extremely restrictive attitude to textile and clothing imports, while Community tariffs are among the lowest in the world. The relevant percentages for wool fabric are in the EEC 30 per cent. and in the United States 45 per cent. Several hon. Members have said that everybody has to jump when the United States takes a decision. That is an unpleasant economic fact of life, and in these negotiations we should try to change it.
An important point is that in negotiating MFA 4 it is essential, as others have said, that we negotiate arrangements in such a way as to maintain confidence in the textile and clothing industries, to sustain a high level of investment. Such investment is essential to increase the use of new technology and improve productivity so that these industries can compete with newly developed countries on an equitable basis. As part of this process, the European Commission must ensure fair treatment for textiles and clothing firms throughout the Community. We
976
have heard about the unfair arrangements that have existed in the past as between ourselves and Belgium, Italy and France.
I welcome the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It is the start of a long road, with some long and difficult negotiations. We are all against protectionism in principle, but in practice we have to accept it in one form or another. We must roll up our sleeves and compete in the market place. It is no longer good enough for Britain to play cricket and to play the straight bat while letting everybody else get away with murder, which is what has happened in the past.
I have another example from my constituency. S. Lyles is a firm of yarn spinners in Dewsbury. It complains about competition, not from abroad but from Scotland because of the regional assistance in Kilmarnock. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) has spoken today. The firm in my constituency is competing with a yarn supplier called William Dawsons and Sons Ltd., a well-known firm that has set up a factory in Scotland and is manufacturing yarns unfairly because it is competing with an unsupported manufacturer in Dewsbury. These are the kinds of problem which have to be wrestled with both domestically and world wide. I wish the Minister every success.
9.5 pm
Mr. Stuart Holland: If the House is honest with itself, and to a considerable extent I think that it has been so during the debate, it is faced with a dilemma over the multi-fibre arrangement, a dilemma which in some cases poses the conflicting interests between the less developed regions of this country and the less developed countries of the world economy. But the issue is not that simple. The panacea offered by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of a golden dawn, as though he has the answer whereas other hon. Members have not, is misleading and mischievous. The multi-fibre arrangement is not a perfect instrument. In fact, it is rather blunt. It may not even be an instrument which can be perfected for the regulation of the textile and clothing trade. It is a means of coping with particular circumstances in the industry, and it should be varied over time in accordance with changes in trading conditions and other policy priorities.
Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that the increase in imports to this country has been especially from European countries rather than from the less-developed countries. It is also important, as several Opposition Members have stressed, that the overwhelming share of the imports from so-called less-developed countries come from the newly industrialising countries and that up to four-fifths of those imports are from the newly industrialising countries. It is understandable that many hon. Members feel that we do not owe some of those countries a permanent living, not least in view of the fact that in terms of gross domestic product per head the real earnings of a bus driver in Hong Kong are higher than the real earnings of a bus driver in London. This point was made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) who was foremost among Conservative Members in arguing the case for the less-developed countries. Gross national product per head in Hong Kong and Singapore is higher than the GNP per head in Portugal and is more or less the equivalent of that in Greece. Therefore, we are not referring to the least and lesser developed countries. We are referring to intermediate, modernising countries which

977
do not enjoy the liberal political or trade union conditions which are enjoyed in Greece, after the colonels, and in Portugal after half a century of dictatorship.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Holland: No, it is very late in the debate, and although I should be perfectly willing to give way, may I point out, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman has only just come into the House.
The problem over the case for liberalisation, as argued by the hon. Member for Yeovil, is that it can in no way guarantee a shift of imports towards the lesser and least developed countries. We simply could not guarantee a shift towards the lesser and least developed countries by liberalisation. It is not only a question of a new international division of labour. Reference has already been made to the very low labour costs in some of the countries concerned, which are one-fifth, or less, of those in Europe. But we also have a multinational division of labour in which many enterprises are using production platforms in some of the least developed countries of the world and combining them with modern methods of production. Therefore, competition is not on wage costs alone.
That is a special problem in the case of Bangladesh. It is right that we should be concerned about Bangladesh, which is one of the half dozen poorest countries in the world, but now is having a certain amount of success in some categories of textile imports to this country. I do not believe that Bangladesh can be included in the same category as Hong Kong. They are poles apart. Also, a problem may be posed for the authorities in Bangladesh as to the terms and conditions upon which multinational companies are allowed to operate in Bangladesh.
There is therefore a case for a development dialogue with the lesser and least-developed countries, with a view to achieving trade agreements with them which safeguard their interests to a greater extent than would a simple automatic renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement, granted especially that the MFA is an unbrella agreement which allows for a series of bilateral agreements and deals within it.
The harmony of interest case through liberalisation is a fantasy. Free trade is not automatically fair trade. Nor do equal conditions for competition mean competition between equals. Unqualified liberalisation would mean that the weaker, less developed countries helped the stronger as production platforms, while stronger, newly industrialising countries help themselves to final markets in the developed countries. That is why we need not only a renewal but also a reform of the MFA to help the lesser and the least developed countries.
9.10 pm
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I join in the cautious welcome for today's statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that we can press him to firm up over the coming weeks and months. I also declare an interest—32 years of interest in the industry in my constituency and area of Nottingham.
As never before we must speak for employment and jobs in the United Kingdom in general. We must speak up for employment in the broad sweep of our own textile
978
industry. I do not mind being parochial. I would he more than happy to speak for employment in the east midlands, which is so heavily dependent on textiles.
I know that the original perception was that the MFA should not be a permanent mechanism. Like so many ideals we have to say that perhaps it seemed a good idea at the time but much has changed and we must address ourselves to this matter against a level of unemployment that did not exist at that time. It would be madness not to recognise that. Our people would not forgive us if we did not. They would be justified in not forgiving, and we must take the matter on board.
There is a common misconception of the industry—a misconception light years away from truth and reality. The industry is not a single one but is many; it is spinning, weaving, knitting, dyeing and finishing, printing, narrow fabrics, lace—all industries in their own right, long before the public perception of the industry, garment manufacture, even begins.
There are legions of secondary industries that do not readily spring to mind as being connected with textiles, but they exist and they depend on it. They may be interrelated. Without a garment trade there would be no need for the fabric trade, unless some well-meaning theorist—the House has many on both sides—imagines that the whole structure could somehow sustain itself and survive solely on exports. If people believe that, they will believe anything.
I am well aware that it sometimes suits a garment manufacturer to buy fabric from abroad in order to meet the demands of an ever-changing market. By so doing he is at least retaining the main labour-intensive part of the cycle. It is because I believe in flexibility of choice within the cycle of the manufacturing process retained in the United Kingdom that I feel so strongly about the retention of the MFA.
In emphasising the manufacturing side of the equation, it would be wrong to ignore the role to be played, for good or ill, by the retail trade. The retailer cannot be blamed for seeking to buy in the best market. If that advantage is passed on to the customer, I acknowledge the benefits, certainly in the lower prices. But what is the long term cost in employment or in ultimate price?
The recognition of responsibility to British-made goods and what that means for jobs and spending power cannot be greater exemplified than by our largest retailer, Marks and Spencer, without which it is no exaggeration to say there would be no textile industry in Britain. But for it and other retailers who operate policies of varying degrees of loyalty to their suppliers there is a mutual need to preserve a manufacturing base. It is no rare thing to budget for shared purchasing between imported and home-based products for the protection of lines of supply, or just to have a home-based supplier to turn if, as they say, the sun shines, and economics be damned, the cash registers will tinkle away like mad.
On the manufacturing side of this industry the giant names in the trade are well known. In coming to the House I gave up an executive role within our own parent group, Readson of Manchester. That group, with units all over the United Kingdom, employed approximately 3,500 people in 1979. It now employs just over 3,000 people. Thus there has been a drop of 14 per cent. as compared with the industry average of 26 per cent.
Notwithstanding the climate, the group proudly claims a turnover of £85 million, and last year put £1·75 million

979
into new equipment. I say to the Minister that that investment must not be put at risk. Investment in computer design and fabric utilisation—which sadly had to be imported—amounted to a mere £100,000 and went to assist a group of three units employing 450 people. A simple matter such as the installation of mechanical cutting equipment for a team of 150 people meant an investment of £65,000.
I have given those two simple examples not merely to bang the drum for my own group but to try to illustrate that we have not sat on our bottoms, cried our eyes out or demanded handouts or massive protection from the Government. We have responded to the stiff breeze that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly caused to blow through British industry. We say to my right hon. Friend the Minister today, on our own behalf and on behalf of the rest of our industry, that we have done our bit. We are still doing our bit, and the Government must now play their part in the renegotiation of a good MFA agreement. This vital industry has been slimmed down to such a point that we cannot allow it to be slimmed down further. In a climate of full and flexible employment there might—I say "might"—be a case for less protection. In the present climate, our greatest duty is to our own. We must have this agreement and we must reserve to ourselves the right to do what is in the best interests of our people in the circumstances, and as the future unfolds.
9.16 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I begin by giving credit to both workers and management in an industry that has experienced major upheavals in recent years, and that has as a result surfaced leaner, more highly productive and much more competitive.
I intend to concentrate briefly on the fallacy that the MFA has raised prices on the United Kingdom market by restricting access to low-cost imports with the result that retail clothing costs are higher—some wrongly claim by as much as 20 per cent.—than they would be if the MFA no longer existed. It is also claimed by some that the MFA has restricted choice in the United Kingdom market.
But it is essential to consider the situation from the consumer's point of view in any reasonable discussion of the future of the MFA. Contrary to the false claims of those who suggest that the United Kingdom textile market is over-protected, the evidence shows that textile and clothing prices in the United Kingdom have been subjected to an effective restraint through a combination of competitive pressure and the effects of the general recession.
Between January 1974 and December 1984 the retail prices of all goods rose, on average, by 267 per cent. For clothing, textiles and footwear, the corresponding increase was only 118 per cent. In no other group of products or services have prices risen less quickly than in textile and clothing. Such reductions in real prices have been brought about despite the rising charges for raw material and fuel that have been experienced by industry as a whole.
There have been staggering job losses in the industry with wholesale factory closures dealing further blows to the north and north-west regions of the country, which between them account for 39 per cent. of all textile employment, with the east midlands, partly represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr.
980
Brandon-Bravo), accounting for a further 20 per cent. But the north and north-west desperately need renewal of this orderly marketing agreement if they are not to be left reeling under a still greater burden of unemployment and economic hardship.
But the industrial recession has not just cost jobs in the textile industry; the suppression of price increases has had a similar effect on the earnings of those employed in that sector of our economy. Such workers must look with envy at the massive pay rises, superlative redundancy payments and cast-iron guarantees of life-long employment that have recently been given to workers in the nationalised sector. I refer, of course, to the coal industry. The earnings of those employed in the textile industry have fallen in real terms, and in relation to the earnings of groups of other workers. Clearly the MFA has not led to inflationary wage settlements. The opposite is the case.
In the context of falling prices, reductions in real wage levels, increases in per capita productivity and better marketing techniques, we must ask whether the removal of the MFA would reduce prices much further. It is difficult to believe the accusation that the consumer's choice of textile products is restricted in the United Kingdom. No evidence of market scarcity in any United Kingdom product category has been produced. Indeed, the British market is renowned for its wide range of choice and the flexibility with which it adapts to changing fashions and demands.
In addition, it is claimed that families are disadvantaged by the MFA because they spend a higher percentage of their income on clothing and because supply countries prefer to fill their quotas with adults' clothes rather than children's clothes, for which they receive less revenue. Figures produced by the Department of Employment in the family expenditure survey suggest that low-income families spend less on clothing than other households and tend to spend less of their income on MFA products than better-off families.
It is said that adult clothing is exported in preference to children's wear. The evidence is not compelling. Prices for children's clothing have risen slightly faster than the prices for all clothing and footwear, although they have risen much slower than prices overall. It is unfair to suggest that the increases are a result of the MFA.
The MFA has not limited choice for the consumer. It has not restricted quality or the volume of supply. It has not artificially raised prices, and it has not adversely affected poor income groups.
For the British consumer, for the British textile and clothing industries and for our economy, renewal of the MFA is essential. I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and his commitment to the renewal of the MFA. I urge him to nail his colours firmly to the mast in the forthcoming renegotiations.
9.22 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) said, the number of hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and the depth of concern which has been demonstrated illustrates strikingly hon. Members' recognition of the industry's importance.
A number of pertinent statistics have been repeated several times. I make no apology for referring to them again. The industry employs 500,000 people. Employees often live in regions which are disadvantaged and belong

981
to social groups which have problems finding employment. The industry provides 9 per cent. of all employment in manufacturing. The industry's foreign exchange earnings were £2·7 billion last year—almost as large as the highly regarded earnings by the financial sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, the industry's sales of £10·891 billion last year are worth more than a third of the earnings of the aerospace industry and its value added is more than that of the motor vehicle industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and others said that the textile industry has suffered substantially in recent years with the rest of manufacturing industry. It has suffered from a range of Government inspired factors such as low demand, high interest rates and, most damaging, an over-valued exchange rate. As a consequence the balance of trade in textiles has deteriorated sharply. The deficit last year of £2·2 billion was 35 per cent. worse than in the previous year. Output has fallen, employment has halved in 10 years, and import penetration has increased substantially and was up 8 per cent. in 1984 over the previous year. There are those who say—this has been suggested in muted tones during the debate—that the past has been sold and that there is no future for Britain as a manufacturing nation in general and in textiles in particular. The Opposition firmly reject that view, and I am glad that we have the support of so many Conservative Members. We believe that textiles are an important part of our manufacturing base. We shall depend on that base and the textile industry for our national wealth once North sea oil is depleted.
We do not believe that textiles are a sunset industry. Indeed, the industry has done a great deal to improve its own productivity and has invested substantial sums to that end. The industry has remarkably good labour relations and it can hardly be said to overpay its work force. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, the real wage of the male worker in the textile industry has fallen by 4·7 per cent. since 1979. That provides an excellent test of the current theory that if we were only to reduce real wages employment would miraculously appear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said—
Mr. Peter Thurnham rose—
Mr. Gould: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as my time is limited. My hon. Friend observed that the textile industry and textile workers especially have tested the theory to destruction.
The textile industry has not languished behind a protective barrier growing rich and lazy. We need now the clearest possible commitment to the industry's future. As well as the Minister's welcome statement this afternoon, we need resolute action. We need a Government who will fight as hard for the interests of our textile industry as every other Government will fight for the interests of their textile industries. This is no time for unilateral trade disarmament, on which we sometimes hear worrying observations. This is no time for a free trade theology. That must not be allowed to override hard, practical considerations. We need the most robust attitude from the Minister. We need an industry that is protected and consequently strengthened, and nothing else will do.
The argument about the MFA is sometimes presented as a clear choice between the arrangement or something
982
approaching free trade. Many of those who have contributed to the debate have said that that is a fallacy. That is not the choice. If we were to withdraw from the arrangement, or if it were to disappear altogether, we would not arrive miraculously at free trade conditions. The United States would remain strongly protectionist and the state trading nations would not play the free trade game. What I describe as the predatory trading nations would press home what is in some instances an unfair market advantage. If we were to weaken the MFA or bring it to an end, the result would be the very antithesis of free trade. If that were to happen, we should enter a jungle. The issue is not confined to the arrangement or free trade.
We have a choice of chaos or regulation, and the Opposition will opt for regulation—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about article 19 of the GATT?"] My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) dealt with that issue extremely effectively earlier in the day. That remains a major threat to the very trade that presumably Conservative Members are interested in maintaining.
Even if free trade were an option, it is doubtful whether some of those who advance the free trade argument would take it up. It is argued that, if only we were to get rid of the protective barrier, British industry would become more efficient and would match competition more easily. It can be said with some confidence that that view is to be rejected. It has been tested because we have some experience of an industry which has been opened up to competition. We know the consequences of that in the textiles industry because it has been opened up to that competition. We have no protection against the textiles industries of the EEC. The consequence has been that EEC imports have risen by 70 per cent. in the last few years. As has happened in many other industries, that has meant substantial losses of production, output and employment.
The record shows that, faced with such powerful competition in the real world rather than in the comfortable theoretical world, British industry does not become more efficient. That is an awkward fact, but it is true. Instead, large chunks of it simply go out of business because they cannot match the competition. That is what would happen if the MFA were abandoned or weakened, and we do not want that to happen to an even greater extent than it has already happened.
This is hardly a matter of controversy, because so much is frankly admitted by Professor Silberston. It is extraordinary that the Government should have been so tactically inept as to publish the report now and make absolutely inevitable the opportunity for their opponents across the negotiating table to quote happily from it whenever the Minister seeks to defend British interests.
It is important to understand what the Silberston report says. The professor does not dispute that there will be job losses, although he is in some doubt about the number. The Liberal party also accepts that point, judging by the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made a valiant effort to claw back that position. However, as I understand that he does not take the Whip, we must assume that the position stated by the hon. Member for Yeovil is that of the Liberal party. We shall study that with some interest.
Silberston says that there will be some job losses but that in some miraculous way they will be transmuted into job gains elsewhere. It is an improbable deal that he offers

983
to the textile industry—in return for immediate, direct and certain losses of jobs, output and investment, there may be some highly theoretical possibility of a diffuse gain somewhere or other in the economy at some unspecified time in the future. That is hardly a deal to commend itself to a textile worker in Bradford or Huddersfield.
It takes leave to doubt the Silberston report and its conclusions. The methodology employed is extremely unconvincing and has rightly attracted censure from many objective commentators. Indeed, even Professor Silberston was prudent and cautious and he wrapped his conclusions round with a whole range of caveats and qualifications. He said that he had considerable reservations about his conclusions.
The report substantially understates the jobs losses that may flow from the abolition of the MFA because it takes an unduly pessimistic view of the job losses that would occur in the industry even with the MFA. I do not believe that the future of the industry is as bleak as the professor maintains. Certainly, when the Labour party returns to power it will create a climate that is much more favourable to manufacturing industry, and the textile industry will be part of that increased prosperity. Therefore, there is no ground for such pessimism.
As many hon. Members have said, the professor overstates the fall in prices that might flow from the ending of the MFA. The scope for a fall in prices is extremely limited. The industry produces a range of commodities whose prices have shown the smallest increase of any item in the RPI during the past 10 years. During the decade from 1974, whereas prices generally rose by 267 per cent., textiles, clothing and footwear prices rose by just 118 per cent.
There is no margin for further price cuts. If the imported price fell because of the ending of the MFA—which is doubtful—all that would happen is that margins would rise. The effect would be so small as to be meaningless, and the notion that it might have a macro economic effect on the economy is ludicrous. Even if it were to have such an effect, the stimulation to the economy would be more than offset by increased unemployment and reduced demand in the short term.
Professor Silberston substantially misunderstands what would happen to the exchange rate in such circumstances. The Cambridge econometrics group derived most of its favourable consequences of what was proposed from its view of what would happen to the exchange rate. However, the exchange rate will not be so sensitive to a worsening of the balance of payments because of the removal of the MFA as to fall substantially and thereby increase our competitiveness, so that we suddenly start selling exports all over the world. The exchange rate does not operate like that, as we have all seen in recent years. It does not reflect such matters in the market place; it reflects monetary practice, interest rates, capital flows and so on.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gould: No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.
It is significant that the industry—both employers and trade unions—is united in condemning the Silberston report and in supporting the case for a new and effective MFA. We accept that argument and strongly support that case. We need a new MFA. What matters is
984
not that, but what shape the new MFA will take. We need an MFA that operates better, not necessarily because it is more restrictive, but because it serves the interests of this country more efficiently.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) pointed out, an effective MFA would not only serve our interests. It would be the best means of guaranteeing the interests of less developed countries. Countries without the guaranteed access that an MFA provides would not be able to compete with dominant suppliers. The less-developed countries would find that, without that access, their industries would be destroyed.
Therefore, we are looking for a new MFA that guarantees that access and provides more generous quotas for countries that need access to our markets. We also need a social clause to protect workers in those countries against exploitation and low wages, so that as their industries develop, on the basis of that guaranteed access, the workers, and not foreign providers of capital, will derive the benefit.
We recognise that countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore have opened their markets to produce from around the world, including this country. It would be right to try not to discriminate against those newly industrialising countries.
There is some justice in the Hong Kong claim that the effect of restrictions has simply been to make room in our market for more EEC imports. That is indisputable, but the problem is that the rise in EEC imports is a consequence not of the MFA, but of our inability to take measures to deal with that flood of imports.
In textiles, as in other areas, a Labour Government will have to grapple with that problem when we return to office.
This is not the time to look at the detail of the negotiations, but I ask the Minister to note carefully the fact that we want a longer term for MFA 4 than I believe he is contemplating. A renewed MFA that expired when the GATT talks came to an end would not be good enough. We want an MFA in which import quotas are fixed at 1985 levels. If that were the case, we could do away with the anti-surge mechanism. We need a more effective mechanism to replace the basket extractor mechanism. We also need at home more resources devoted to dealing with fraud and quota evasion.
We do not expect the Government to reveal fully their negotiating position. But we want a clear and strong statement. We are worried by what appears to be a lack of firmness and conviction in what the Minister said. In our view, he showed too great a readiness to make concessions in advance of the negotiations. We shall watch very closely what he does in these negotiations because we believe that, after all the damage that his Government have wreaked upon the industry, any failure of conviction or determination in pursuing these negotiations would be a further and quite unnecessary blow.
We want a stronger statement. We want strong action. I hope that the Minister of State will take the opportunity to dispel the remaining doubts about the Government's firmness of purpose and make clear their determination, in which they will have the Opposition's full support, to maintain this vitally important British industry.
9.41 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): This has been an extremely lively debate in which there has been a certain amount of disagreement but not necessarily along party lines. We have had some notable constituency speeches, and some notable speeches from hon. Members who have represented the consumer interest, with no specific industrial interest in their constituencies. We heard a splendid speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) reminded us of the slogan, "By Lancashire's thread hangs Britain's bread", which was the answer to the single hon. Member who sought to imply that the problems of the textile industry were only of very recent origin.
There has been a certain amount of tilting at windmills in the debate. As soon as my right hon. Friend said that there was to be another MFA. I fear that some of the speeches prepared by Opposition Members did not quite have the perorations intended.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that we wanted another MFA, albeit a more liberal one, and that we wanted the longer term future of the MFA to be examined in the context of the GATT negotiations.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield about the importance of the textile industry. I shall not go over all the statistics repeated again and again about exports and the proportion of manufacturing employment. This is a huge manufacturing industry and an extremely important one. No Government could be indifferent to its enormous employment. The Government do not regard it as a sunset industry. It employs so many people that it has to compete. By using modern technology, concentrating on good design and perhaps moving up market, I am sure that there are many areas of the industry where we can be fully competitive without protection. That has been said to me again and again by industrialists. There are areas where they are competitive in world terms.
Such disagreement as there has been has not been about whether there should be a multi-fibre arrangement. It has rather been about the tightness of a future MFA. My right hon. Friend made his view clear that we would like a more liberal one. We cannot accept that it should be longer than four years. Four years has been the life of MFAs in the past.
A number of hon. Members contrasted the theory of free trade with the practice in the real world. I emphasise what was said by my right hon. Friend and underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Fox). Only if we get concessions in the GATT negotiations will we go further with liberalisation. We have a great deal to gain by getting concessions from other countries, but we shall not offer them in advance. We are using them as a bargaining counter.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton about distinguishing between unfair and unwelcome competition. Not all competition from low-cost countries is unfair. Industrialisation is a rough business, and it is by exporting to us that the poorer countries will make themselves richer and improve themselves.
986
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was one of the few Members who mentioned what might have been thought to be an extremely important question—that of China. China is a huge potential supplier overhanging the market and is a subject of enormous worry, but I can at least give the assurance that China, a member of the MFA although not of GATT, will continue to be treated as a state trading country. Therefore, regardless of what happens in the MFA negotiations—or GATT, while she is not a member—China will continue to be subject to special negotiations and arrangements such as those applied to state trading countries.
My right hon. Friend said that we favoured some liberalisation of quotas. An important question is whether different sectors of the industry merit different treatment under the quota arrangements. The industry has said that each sector contains a range of products of enormous variety and that the different sectors are interdependent. As my right hon. Friend said, we take the view that some quotas should be dispensed with and others substantially relaxed. We intend to concentrate liberalisation on those areas where the cost to the economy as a whole of protection is greatest, but we shall be consulting the industry and hon. Members about the details.
It has already been made clear to us that quotas on textiles can damage the prospects of our clothing industry. One example that came to my attention recently was that of a leading United Kingdom garment manufacturer which had to close one of its factories after quotas were imposed on imported yarns which it used substantially. A dyeing and finishing plant shed jobs because import quotas meant that it was unable to obtain sufficient quantities of undyed fabrics. Examples of that sort demonstrate that restraints on textiles can hurt our clothing industry. In many instances our clothing, weaving, dyeing and finishing industries are less competitive than they could be, and are operating below their potential because of the restrictions on textile imports.
Several hon. Members mentioned the practices of the United States of America. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) referred to the high tariff on woollen goods, which we regard as quite unsatisfactory. One cannot, in making comparisons, do so product by product or industry by industry. The United States in general is a relatively low tariff country but, like every country, it has some areas of anomalously high tariffs. We have said publicly that it is our intention on the GATT round to seek a reduction in the anomalously high tariffs.
A crucial factor in the renegotiation of the MFA will be the attitude of the United States. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) and others that if the United States is restrictive there is a danger of a diversion of goods from there into this country. We have to take account of that in the negotiations. In discussing what sort of quantitative restrictions and what sort of quotas there might be, we have to take account of what the attitude of the United States is likely to be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield made an interesting point about the diversion argument—whether the effect of the MFA was to cause diversion and increase imports from the EEC. The hon. Member for Dagenham also pursued that point. I agree with my hon. Friend t p to a point, but it is an argument that can be much exaggerated, and probably many of those exports from Europe would have increased anyway because there were

987
other factors tending in that direction. However, there is undoubtedly an area of overlap between some of the MFA countries and some of the European countries. For example, Hong Kong is moving up-market and competing to an increasing extent with European countries. There may have been an element of diversion, but it should not be exaggerated.
I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who have referred to the consumer lobby in slightly disparaging terms. Of course we must represent constituency interests, but the national interest includes consumer as well as industrial interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) said, we must strike a balance between consumer and producer interests. It was necessary that the consumer's voice should be heard in the debate, and I was very pleased that my hon. Friends spoke out for the consumer loud and clear.
On the question of the Silberston report, we were diverted by the two speeches from the Liberal Bench. We are accustomed to hearing the alliance speak with different voices, but on this occasion the ranks of Tuscany themselves were divided.
Mr. Ashdown: The Minister should look behind him.
Mr. Lamont: The Liberals really resembled the mugwumps, with the mugs on one side of the fence and the wumps on the other. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a brave speech, but it did not seem to slip down like a dozen oysters with his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale.
I listened with interest to some of the comments made about Professor Silberston. Professor Silberston is far from being a doctrinaire free trader. His background is in industrial economics. I listened with interest to what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said about Professor Silberston, especially as a Labour Government appointed him to the board of the British Steel Corporation. Presumably that Government did not consider him so very wild. We should not lose sight of the fact that Professor Silberston concluded that we needed another MFA. It is not wrong for the Government to ask someone to examine and attempt to quantify the costs of the MFA. If people have confidence in the case for their industry, they should not object to an examination of it and an assessment of the costs.
In one sense, this is history. The Government have made their decision. We have announced that there is to be another MFA. I would not wish to get hooked on any particular statistic from the Silberston report. However, Professor Silberston estimated the cost of protection per job at about £10,000 to £40,000 per annum. He compared that with our ceiling of £10,000, once and for all, in our regional policy. If Opposition Members are right to say that Professor Silberston has underestimated the employment protection effect of the MFA, the cost per job must be far greater than is suggested in the report.
Opposition Members may believe that it is right to pay the price of having an MFA. They may believe that the MFA is worthwhile. However, it is surely right that we should examine it, and attempt to calculate the cost. If there is a cost, it seems likely that there will be an effect on employment. That was one of the central points in the report. However, Professor Silberston recommended that there should be another MFA because of the hardship and
988
the degree of adjustment that the clothing and textile sector had already faced. That has been a major consideration in the Government's decision to have another MFA.
We want to move in a more liberal direction. We recognise that the industry has suffered enormous pains of adjustment in the past few years. We want to examine the MFA in the context of GATT, and, provided that we can win real concessions from other countries, we will try to make it even more liberal. That prize is well worth pursuing. No country has more to gain than us from the further liberalisation of world trade. We hear much about restrictions on trade, but our managing to export about 30 per cent. of gross domestic product, which is probably a higher proportion than that of any other country, shows that we are pretty good at overcoming many of the obstacles.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) said, there are many countries which are no longer among the poorest, such as Korea and Taiwan, which have high tariffs and considerable restrictions, although their economies are becoming strong. As the hon. Gentleman said, gross domestic product per head of population in those countries is close to ours. We ought to use our position in the MFA to get concessions from those countries.
Decisions on the MFA are likely to be of key importance for world trade. If we do not have liberalisation in textiles in the forthcoming negotiations, it is difficult to see how we can achieve any worthwhile results in the round of GATT negotiations. Textiles and clothing account for one quarter of the exports of manufactures from developing countries. We can hardly expect them to make concessions in trade if we start by blocking the goods which are most important to them.
I hope that part of what I have said is the answer to those who have asked why the process of liberalisation starts with textiles. The industry has enjoyed the protection of the MFA for some years.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
Mr. Lamont: It was always implicit that that protection should be temporary. The industry has had a lot of time to adjust. Indeed, it has adjusted recently. There has been a fantastic restructuring. Companies such as Illingworth Morris, Vantona Viyella and Courtaulds have done a remarkable job and dramatically improved their profitability so that they are now among the strongest companies in the world.
There has been some argument about the impact of the MFA on developing countries. It is sometimes suggested that, because some of the quotas under the MFA have been under-used, the MFA does not harm developing countries. However, any country will have a spread of quotas, some of which might be used more than 90 per cent. and some of which might be very much under-used. A country such as Bangladesh might well prefer to export a much larger volume of some goods and not have quotas on some other goods in respect of which it is not competitive. In that way the MFA has done some harm to developing countries. We believe that an MFA should help the poorest countries. Whatever the pros and cons of the argument might be, there is no doubt that the developing countries think that it damages them because they continue to press for the ending of the MFA. In Mexico last month, the countries

989
representing them again confirmed their commitment to the full application of the normal rules and principles of GATT to textiles and clothing.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade set out the Government's view of what our initial stance in the negotiations should be. I have already referred to the GATT round, in which context we believe these matters should be considered and tackled. But first we must negotiate MFA 4. We accept that some quotas should go and that others should be increased significantly. The details will receive careful analysis later, but one important factor should be the extent to which industrial users of products subject to quota are inhibited by current quota levels from taking full advantage of their international competitiveness and expanding accordingly. That will help the consumer too.
As for the exporting countries, we want to be especially liberal towards the poorest and those which accept their GATT obligations, but much less so to the better-off developing countries unless and until they recognise their obligations to open up their markets. The Community must arrive at a common view on the MFA and GATT. The matter must then be negotiated with the other signatories. We are only at the beginning of the process. The MFA does not expire until July 1986. The bilateral agreements that the Community have negotiated need to be renegotiated by the end of 1986. We intend to keep the House informed of major developments in the negotiations as they progress. We shall also keep closely in touch with the textile and clothing industries and all other interested parties.
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
That the draft Weights and Measures (Liquid Fuel carried by Road Tanker) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  Miss Thi Minh Bui
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I wish to draw the attention of the House to an important and moving human problem because Britain and the Government can help many refugees in Hong Kong and other areas. I shall give some of my time to my hon. Friend the Member for, West (Mr. Clarke). The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) asked to be associated with the debate, but for good reasons, I am sure, he is unable to attend.
  The question relates to the reunification of families of Vietnamese origin in the camps in Hong Kong and other parts of south-east Asia. The case came to my attention because two sisters, Miss Thi Nga Bui and Miss Thi Minh Bui, aged 23 and 19 respectively, live in my constituency. They arrived in the United Kingdom in 1981.
  I recognise that no country, and certainly not Britain, which has a relatively small land space, can solve all the refugee problems of the world. However, we have a duty to act where we have particular responsibilities and if we can do something important both for humanity and to persuade other countries to act. I am supported in that view by a recent Select Committee report, from which I shall quote generously.
  The two sisters left Vietnam, were picked up by a British freighter and taken to Brunei. From there they came to the United Kingdom. Their father, mother. three brothers and one sister—the children are aged 20, 18, 10 and eight respectively—left Vietnam about a year later and sailed directly to Hong Kong, where they were admitted to a closed camp.
  Hon. Members without exception are disturbed by the existence of the closed camps. We recognise the pressures that there were on Hong Kong in 1979 and 1980 when 200,000 refugees left Vietnam. However, none of us can be anything but deeply disturbed by the camps. People in those camps cannot leave them, or go out to work. They rely on money sent to them by relatives and friends overseas and they own little or no property. My hon. Friend visited the camps more recently than I did, and he may wish to add to that.
  We hear a great deal about the importance of family life, and we all accept that it is important. It is especially important to Vietnamese families, who are extremely close and rely greatly on each other for support. We should remember that we are a signatory to the Helsinki final act. Although it does not apply throughout the world, the spirit of it is what counts. If our commitment to it is true, we should allow the principles on which we signed it to guide us on family matters.
  Until May 1981 families were reunited, but the policy was changed and brought into line with general refugee policy. The Select Committee and others, including myself, contend that that is unjust and unnecessary. It is generally accepted that verbal undertakings were given, although perhaps not by Government officials, that members of families would be reunited.
  Mr. Barber, who is the director of the British Refugee Council, said this when he gave evidence to the Select Committee:
  "In seeking to fill the quota, I think there is no doubt…that from the voluntary agency side…efforts were made to

  991
  say that 'Of course, if close family members join you and come to Hong Kong later when you are already settled in Britain, then Britain will accept them."
  The Select Committee concluded:
  "Secondly, it is clear that many Vietnamese were given assurances in Hong Kong that if they came to Britain family members would be allowed to join them. When the quota of 10,000 was announced, there was some difficulty filling it, because refugees understandably preferred countries with larger Vietnamese communities and better job opportunities, and some Vietnamese may therefore have been persuaded to come to Britain by assurances of family reunion. We accept that no such undertakings were given with Government authority, but at the time when selection was taking place to fill the quota, Britain had wide criteria for family reunion and it would be extraordinary if the selecting teams had not mentioned this."
  Lord Ennals, who is the chairman of the British Refugee Council, said this in evidence to the Select Committee:
  "There is, of course, as the Committee will know, a continual policy of family reunions from those whose close relatives are still in Vietnam, and some of those who fled and went to Hong Kong now find themselves in the invidious position that had they stayed in Vietnam they might have been able to have been brought to Britain under the 'Orderly Departure' policy; having now arrived and taken all the risk of going by boat, they now find that they cannot be admitted to Britain."
  The second important reason why we must reconsider the policy—it was emphasised by the Select Committee—is that if some family members are in Britain, no other country will consider other members of their family, who are trapped in the camps in Hong Kong or elsewhere. The Select Committee states in paragraph 16:
  "Thirdly, and most importantly, Vietnamese who have close relatives in Britain will not usually be considered for resettlement by any other country…the problem should have been foreseen when the family reunion criteria were narrowed. These people are likely to remain in refugee camps indefinitely unless they are allowed to join their families in Britain."
  That powerful point was emphasised and given more power by the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) who, alas, but probably for good reasons, is not here tonight. When he questioned the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he said:
  "Because it is a fact, is it not, that unless we accept that liability, these people are destined to remain virtually indefinitely in these camps, because in view of their links with those already in the United Kingdom, no other country is going to come anywhere near to accepting responsibility for them? So that they are in a very special compassionate situation, are they not?"
  The Minister of State replied:
  "I think I would have to say yes to that. I agree with you."
  That is a powerful argument for acting in the way that I have suggested. Given that the Minister of State, the Select Committee and a growing number of people inside and outside the House are saying that, we are obliged to take it seriously.
  The third reason why it is important to reconsider the policy is that it is essential to bring together these families if they are to cope with the real problems of settling down to life in Britain. Divided families inevitably have greater problems than do united families, who can rely on each other. I have already said how especially important that is to the Vietnamese, although all of us would accept that it is important to everyone, regardless of race, colour or creed.
  The inability to reunite the family makes resettlement difficult. I am supported in that by the Select Committee, which said, talking about the stress-related problems that some refugees have experienced:
  992
  "The principal cause appears to be the cultural shock of life in the UK after Vietnam; the realisation that return is impossible"—
  I wish to emphasise the next part—
  "the sense of loss, concern and guilt for those left behind; the lack of an established indigenous group here to provide support, and the difficulties of communication."
  These are three good reasons why the House needs to reconsider this policy.
  Britain must give a lead. Another important argument for that is that there is good reason to believe that Australia and the United States and probably Canada, West Germany and France, would act to help us clear the 11,000 or 12,000 refugees left in the camps in Hong Kong. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said on behalf of the Department:
  "It is our responsibility to take the lead, as the Department in the Government responsible for Hong Kong, and to try to find a solution to it…it must be a priority in terms of our responsibilities."
  The Select Committee said:
  "We are convinced that a new intake of Vietnamese from Hong Kong by Britain is indeed a 'pre-condition' to resolving the problem, and that no substantial progress can otherwise be made in emptying the camps."
  I accept that Britain, and Hong Kong in particular, have made gallant efforts to help in the Vietnamese refugee problem, but we are talking about a relatively small number of people, probably only about 500. If we took the lead in their case, other countries would follow our example and help us to resettle these people. That would ease the burden on Hong Kong.
  Britain has not been ungenerous, but the closed camps disturb all of us. The Select Committee called for the closure of these camps, and I identify myself strongly with that call. I ask the Minister to allow this family to settle in Britain. Will he reconsider the policy and change it? He could begin by allowing my constituents to have their parents, three brothers and sister come to live with them here.
  It is deeply moving to think of people who have managed so well here on their own but who are in contact with their family only by letter. They are trying to send money to their relatives, but they have only a limited amount, as one is a student and the other is working as a waitress. It is extremely difficult for them and they are an example of the Vietnamese families struggling to manage here. We should be doing everything that we can to help.
  I support the Select Committee recommendation that family reunion criteria should be relaxed in respect of Vietnamese in camps in countries of temporary asylum. I have said that this is why we should change the policy. The fact that they are in these camps means that they cannot be settled anywhere else if they have relatives in the United Kingdom. I support the Select Committee's call for the closure of the camps and the transfer of the inmates to open camps.
  The Minister said that if Britain committed itself to a modest resettlement programme we would have a good chance of a reasonable response and good reason to expect it. We also have the help of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who would be more than willing to put pressure on other countries if we took this initiative.
  I wish to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West to speak, and I see that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn is here as well. I urge the Minister of State, Home Office to give this matter full consideration. I

  993
  should dearly like to tell the two sisters that they can have their family here to resettle with them. The least that I ask is that the Government urgently look at this policy again and consider changing it along the lines recommended by the Select Committee. They could take away the agony that has been going on for years for some people.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), and the House will want to express its gratitude to him for the eloquent, lucid and dedicated way in which he presented his case.
  Just over a year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and I had the opportunity to visit these camps in Hong Kong. To get to them, we had to go by helicopter, land on a prison site, go through the prison site, and eventually we found ourselves at our destination. We found there something which reminded me of factory units in my constituency. People had been there for a very long time, in some cases for four or five years. One little boy of seven is probably still there. Although we have endorsed the Hong Kong agreement and will be relinquishing sovereignty in 1997, we still have a responsibility for these refugees.
  I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has provided the House with an opportunity to debate the matter, because I believe that the House wishes to support the reunion of this family. The Minister will wish to he reminded of recommendation 4 of the Select Committee on Home Affairs:
  "A considerable degree of ministerial discretion should be retained in the granting of family reunion applications."
  In that spirit I appeal to the Minister to respond positively to my hon. Friend. This case calls for consideration, compassion and concern. The Minister is capable of responding in that way. For that reason, I invite him to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the determination with which he has pursued this admirable cause.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Keith Best: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) for having raised this matter. It is particularly appropriate because the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is visiting south-east Asia and Hong Kong. I speak as chairman of the British committee for Vietnamese refugees and receive very many family reunion applications which I pass on to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I pay tribute to him for his hard work in trying to help these refugees, wherever possible. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who did such sterling work on the Select Committee and in the preparation of its report, is in the Chamber.
  I had the privilege of visiting these centres in January of this year. I visited Chi Ma Wan, referred to by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), which is a closed centre. I met a woman who had been there for two years. She was unable to join her husband who is working in an open centre. That is a measure of the tragedy that is posed by this closed centre policy. It splits families in Hong Kong, let alone those who wish to come to this country to join their families. I visited also the Kai Tak and Jubilee centres. Hong Kong is doing the best that it can in the circumstances, but this country needs to make a gesture. It has already done so much to help refugees.
  994
  When I went to Hong Kong I found that only 434 people need to be accepted by this country. This means that 112 cases have close family links with people in this country. We appeal to my hon. and learned Friend to show humanity towards these people in the Hong Kong centres, many of whom have no chance of going to any other country. They can be accepted only by this country because they have close relatives living here who may be outside the normal immigration rules criteria. This plea for humanity is one which I know that my hon. and learned Friend and this Government will not reject.
  10.19 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on securing this Adjournment debate. Before I turn to the details of the case of Miss Bui and her relatives I think that I should set it in context by saying a few words about the camps in Hong Kong, how the present situation has arisen and about how British policy towards refugees has evolved in recent years. it is also appropriate for me to say right at the start that we as a country have nothing to be ashamed of in the way in which we have accepted refugees. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best), who said that this country has already done much for refugees. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that we have not been other than generous. It is necessary to bear that in mind right from the start. We have no historic links with Vietnam, yet we have done a great deal to help to resolve this human tragedy.
  When the Vietnamese boat people first began arriving in Hong Kong in the 1970s, they were settled in open camps and they were able to move freely within the territory and take employment. That remains the situation in the open camps today. However, because of the continuing large numbers of refugees arriving in Hong Kong and the pressures therefore imposed on a small crowded territory, closed camps had to be introduced in July 1982. They were set up by the Hong Kong authorities as a humane means of discouraging other Vietnamese from coming to Hong Kong and all refugees arriving in Hong Kong since July 1982 have been placed in them.
  The result is that at present about half the 11,200 Vietnamese in the camps are in the open and half in the closed camps, and inevitably in the camps are relatives of people who have already found permanent refuge in Western countries, including Britain, separated perhaps from the other members of their family by the very circumstances of their escape from Vietnam.
  When the number of Vietnamese refugees entering the United Kingdom was small, we operated a generous family reunion policy. Spouses, unmarried children under 21, parents and unmarried brothers and sisters under 21 were all allowed to come and join the person who had been admitted originally. But the House will remember that in 1979 we agreed to take a quota of 10,000 Vietnamese and by 1981 there were going on for 16,000 in this country.
  Furthermore, that number was going to grow pretty quickly because of our obligation to accept boat people rescued by British ships and our willingness to take others direct from Vietnam under the orderly departure programme.
  On top of that we had our commitments towards refugees of many other nationalities. It was in those circumstances that in July 1981 we announced new criteria

  995
  for the admission of relatives of those Vietnamese already accepted for settlement, and those new criteria meant in effect that people could come if they would have qualified to do so as dependants under the immigration rules.
  That is the position today. We look carefully at all applications on an individual basis, but, unless there are exceptional circumstances, we apply what might be thought the not unreasonable and not unfair policy of admitting spouses and minor children and parents who can show the degree of dependency required under the immigration rules.
  Now I come to the case of Miss Bui. She came here, it seems, in 1981. She is not alone in this country. She lives in a council flat with her sister and a cousin. But in a closed camp in Hong Kong are her parents, her three brothers and a young sister. She has applied twice through the British Refugee Council for those relatives to come here, but clearly they do not qualify under the criteria that I have mentioned.
  Miss Bui's three brothers and her sister are certainly not dependants under the immigration rules, and her parents, both of whom are under 65, would also not be admitted if Miss Bui were an ordinary immigrant. They are not wholly or mainly dependent on Miss Bui and her sister, and it is doubtful whether, if they were to arrive in this country, Miss Bui and her sister would be able to support and accommodate them. I need not remind the House of the sensible maintenance and accommodation provisions which for long have been in the immigration rules.
  I have every sympathy with Miss Bui's wish to be reunited with her relatives, but, as I have said, the difficulty is that they clearly do not come within the present criteria. However, there have been two developments since I last wrote to the hon. Member for Hammersmith about the case, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that as a result my mind is not closed on this case.
  The first development to which I am referring is the recent report of the Select Committee of which the hon. Gentleman spoke. I heard him on the radio this morning making the point, which he repeated this evening, that if we were to take, as he put it, a percentage of people from the camps, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany and France would take significant numbers also. Many of those countries have already taken refugees from Hong Kong and I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that the Canadian Government have recently decided that this year, as part of their annual refugee programme, they
  996
  will be taking 500 refugees from Hong Kong in addition to the 600 which they had already agreed to take. That means that this year they will take the same number as they took last year.
  But no country has yet declared that a special gesture by this country would persuade them to take extra numbers to clear the camps. That must be borne in mind.
  It must be remembered that other countries already have commitments to take Vietnamese refugees from other parts of the world apart from Hong Kong. The obvious example is Thailand.
  However, the Select Committee's recommendation is that we should relax the family reunion criteria and that our willingness to do so should be used as a bargaining counter to attract offers of additional resettlement places from other countries, the the aim of reducing drastically to size of the Hong Kong Vietnamese refugee population. The fairly cautious way in which this recommendation is framed is, I think, a recognition that things are not necessarily quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman has said.
  But we are now considering the Committee's recommendation very carefully and will be responding in due course. We hope to have the support of the international community in alleviating the plight of the Vietnamese refugees who are in Hong Kong and we shall maintain a continuing dialogue with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other countries with the aim of helping all these victims of an oppressive regime.
  Clearly the hon. Gentleman will not be expecting me to respond to the Select Committee tonight, as a detailed response will be given in due course. But he obviously recognises that our response, when it comes, will have a direct bearing on the case of Miss Bui's relatives.
  The other development that I should mention is that, before the Select Committee reported, I gave an undertaking to the BRC to review those cases in which applications for relatives in Hong Kong have been refused but where the BRC considers there exist exceptionally compelling compassionate circumstances. The BRC has provided us with details of a number of cases and Miss Bui's case is among them. Again, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a decision tonight, but I can assure him that I shall review the case very sympathetically in the light of the BRC's representations and of what he has said so eloquently tonight. Once again, I am grateful to him for raising this most important matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Merchant Navy (Consultants' Report)
  Merchant Navy (Consultants' Report)
  Leadenham (Bypass)
  Leadenham (Bypass)
  Roads (London)
  Roads (London)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Civil Aviation Bill
  Civil Aviation Bill
  Marine Pilotage
  Marine Pilotage
ENVIRONMENT
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Holiday Play Schemes
  Holiday Play Schemes
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Unfit Dwellings
  Unfit Dwellings
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Housing Waiting Lists
  English House Condition Survey
  English House Condition Survey
  Housing Improvement Policy
  Housing Improvement Policy
ENERGY
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Ministerial Cars
  Ministerial Cars
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Advanced Supplementary Level Examinations
  Advanced Supplementary Level Examinations
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Women Prisoners
  Women Prisoners
  Asylum
  Asylum
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Prisoners (Rape and Murder)
  Prisoners (Rape and Murder)
  Nottinghamshire Constabulary
  Nottinghamshire Constabulary
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Nationalised Industries (Consultation Note)
  Nationalised Industries (Consultation Note)
  Income and Taxation
  Income and Taxation
  Wholesale Prices
  Wholesale Prices
  Woodlands (Taxation)
  Woodlands (Taxation)
  Taxpayers (Inquiries)
  Taxpayers (Inquiries)
  Overseas Private Investment
  Overseas Private Investment
  EC (Budget)
  EC (Budget)
  Consolidated Fund (Unused Balances)
  Consolidated Fund (Unused Balances)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Origin Labelling
  Origin Labelling
  "Think British" Campaign
  "Think British" Campaign
  Banana Imports
  Banana Imports
  P and O Ferries (Take over)
  P and O Ferries (Take over)
  Taiwan (Trade Mission)
  Taiwan (Trade Mission)
  Alvey Fund
  Alvey Fund
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Leipzig Trade Fair
  Leipzig Trade Fair
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Centaur
  Centaur
EMPLOYMENT
  Trade Union Act 1984
  Trade Union Act 1984
  Trade Union Funds
  Trade Union Funds
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Manufacturing Industry (Jobs)
  Manufacturing Industry (Jobs)
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
WALES
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Staffs (Hours)
  Hospital Staffs (Hours)
  NHS (Ancillary Services)
  NHS (Ancillary Services)
  Cancer (Nuclear Power)
  Cancer (Nuclear Power)
  Equipment (Costs)
  Equipment (Costs)
  Doctors (Salaries)
  Doctors (Salaries)
  Islington Health Authority
  Islington Health Authority
  Homeless Persons (Removal Expenses)
  Homeless Persons (Removal Expenses)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Community Nursing Services
  Community Nursing Services
  Homeless Families (Removal Expenses)
  Homeless Families (Removal Expenses)
SCOTLAND
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Forestry Grants Scheme
  Forestry Grants Scheme
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Strathclyde Regional Council
  Strathclyde Regional Council
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Foreign Compensation (Czechoslovakia) Order 1982
  Foreign Compensation (Czechoslovakia) Order 1982
  European Commission of Human Rights
  European Commission of Human Rights
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Chile
  Chile
  German Democratic Republic (Embassy Staff)
  German Democratic Republic (Embassy Staff)
  Drugs
  Drugs
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Meat (Refund Payments)
  Meat (Refund Payments)
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Hill Farming
  Hill Farming
  EC (Spending)
  EC (Spending)
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Apple Intervention Scheme
  Apple Intervention Scheme
  Rural Estate
  Rural Estate
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Security
  Security
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Magilligan Prison
  Magilligan Prison
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Homoeopathy
  Homoeopathy
  Castlereagh (Grant Aid)
  Castlereagh (Grant Aid)
  Water Service (Unpaid Bills)
  Water Service (Unpaid Bills)
PRIME MINISTER
  Tax Credit System
  Tax Credit System
  Scotland (Visits)
  Scotland (Visits)
  Foreign Tours (Cost)
  Foreign Tours (Cost)
  Entertainment Costs
  Entertainment Costs
  Private Office (Cost)
  Private Office (Cost)
  Economic Summit
  Economic Summit
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Council of Ministers (Decisions)
  Council of Ministers (Decisions)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

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

Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act,

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act,

Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Act,

Gosport Borough Council Act,

National Bank of New Zealand Limited Act,

Lloyds Bank (Merger) Act.

Marine Counter-pollution Exercise
3.2 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what lessons have been learned from the recent marine counter-pollution exercise in the North Channel between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this annual exercise was one of a series to test the response of Government to oil spills at sea. This confirmed the ability to deploy rapidly available dispersant spraying aircraft to a forward operating airfield and validated assumptions on the amount of dispersant which could be applied at sea. It also provided practical experience of operating the recently acquired remote sensing equipment on an aircraft, and it exercised, tested and improved working relationships between the Marine Pollution Control Unit, HM Coastguard and other involved agencies.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging Answer. Is my noble friend able to say how many aircraft and what aircraft are available to the Marine Pollution Control Unit, and what other means of pollution dispersal are available to that body?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government have seven dedicated aircraft on contract. In addition to that, we also have contracts on 35 tugs which are fitted with spray dispersant equipment.

Gibraltar Airport: Airspace Restrictions
3.4 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 whether all Spanish restrictions on the use of airspace by aircraft proceeding to and from Gibraltar Airport have now been removed.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Spanish Government have introduced welcome adjustments to the prohibited airspace in the Algeciras region which have removed the previous difficulties faced by civil aircraft in using Gibraltar airfield. We have made clear to the Spanish Government our view that it would be right for them to make similar arrangements for military aircraft.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that moderately satisfactory Answer. May I ask her whether the Spanish Government, particularly remembering that it is the Government of a country which is a candidate for the EEC, have given any explanation of their delay in raising these restrictions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, discussions are continuing with the Spanish authorities about changes to the prohibited airspace for military aircraft. Under the circumstances, I think that it would be better for me not to go into the details of that matter on this occasion.

Ministerial Statements: Questions Procedure
3.6 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 the Leader of the House whether he agrees that there is a need to clarify the procedure under which Lords ask questions and make comments in response to ministerial Statements.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the practice of the House on this matter is set out on page 73 of the Companion to the Standing Orders, which states:
"brief comments and questions for clarification are allowed"
but that Statements:
"should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that my Question was prompted by exchanges that took place following a recent ministerial Statement in which I was involved, the outcome of which was that the correct procedure to be followed on such occasions was not recorded in Hansard? I am grateful therefore to the noble Viscount for having put that matter right in his Answer. However, will he agree that in response to ministerial Statements it would be helpful if we all—and I am not particularly proud of my own performance in this respect—sought to exercise the same self-restraint as the House recently accepted should be exercised in asking questions which are supplementary to Starred Questions?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I appreciate what he says. He is probably quite right—but of course it is a matter for the House—that your Lordships would welcome it if noble Lords paid more attention to the guidance of the Companion that, "comments and questions" should be brief. I am the first to recognise that because I probably repeat as many Statements as anybody else in this House and I am about to repeat another one in the not very distant future. I reckon that my strictures apply to myself just as much as they do throughout the House.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would it not be helpful if Ministers were encouraged to break new ground by actually answering questions?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord thinks that I am deficient in many ways, and no doubt I am. However, I try to answer questions which are properly put and if sometimes I give the noble Lord a glancing blow, I know that he expects it!
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I think that there is an element of confusion as to the extent to which questions for clarification may be asked by Back-Bench Peers after the leading speakers of the various parties have spoken. It might be worthwhile if the Procedure Committee looked at this matter when it meets on 11th June.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord, who has considerable responsibility and experience, I think that it is fair to say that at present the Companion to the Standing Orders makes no distinction between Front-Benchers and Back-Benchers, although I suppose in practice greater latitude, for better of worse, is allowed to the Front Bench speakers. I am not sure that it should go too far, but it apparently does so. However, if the noble Lord thinks that discussion on the matter would be useful, then I am sure that it could be very easily arranged.

The Shire County Councils
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to abolish the shire county councils.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): No, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the need to put down this Question arose from the failure of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to answer the same question in the Second Reading debate on the Local Government Bill, although I put it to him directly. If it is the Government's case that the upper tier of local government should be removed from the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and power returned to the people at a local level, why does that not apply equally in the shire counties?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the shire counties are responsible for 86 per cent. of expenditure on local matters.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am quite aware of that; but that has nothing to do with the principle of removing the upper tier of local government. So far as I understand it, the Government are making the case that on principle this upper tier should be removed. Therefore, why not do so in the shire counties? Would it not have saved the Government a good deal of embarrassment last week in the county council elections if the shire counties had been abolished—indeed, as much a saving of embarrassment last Tuesday if this House had been abolished?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will read the rest of my noble friend's excellent speech in reply to the Second Reading debate, he will see that we had other reasons for abolishing the upper tier authorities than he has adduced.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, would it not be more to the point if Her Majesty's Government began to think about restoring the historic shire counties to the state which they were in before local government disorganisation in 1974?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there has been such comment about the relevance of ministerial Answers and the prolonging of debates that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not reply.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, in any consideration of local government in the shire counties will the Government bear in mind that many of the powers which have gone to the shire counties have gone against the will of the people living in the urban areas, and that there are many towns in the shire counties which could make quite as good a job of local government services as the boroughs in the metropolitan areas?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his view and I shall look at it with interest.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, did not the Minister have some qualms of conscience last Thursday, bearing in mind the results of the elections which took place, at the fact that the Government Bill disfranchised 11 million people from recording a vote in areas which historically are literally the centres of Labour support? Is it not also a fact that they did so badly in their own traditional areas that there would have been a massacre in the areas where they disfranchised the people from voting? Was not that one of the main reasons for the Bill?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my only qualm of conscience on Thursday was that I did not do a good enough job in persuading your Lordships to the Government's view on one or two matters.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on security which is to be made in another place.

Spring Bank Holiday Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess on Thursday, 23rd May, and return on Monday, 3rd June. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 23rd May.

Immigration (Bail) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to make more effective the provisions for the release on bail of persons detained under the Act. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—( Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Rochester and the Lord Kennet set down for 15th May shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix H to the Companion to Standing Orders shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
3.13 p.m.
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.]
[Amendment No. 72A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 72B:
Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Waste regulation and disposal functions.
. The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the functions conferred by
740
sections 74 and 76 of the Public Health Act 1936, Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and sections 5 and 6 of the Litter Act 1983 in Greater London and the metropolitan counties to be functions of the London Residuary Body and each metropolitan county residuary body.").
The noble Baroness said: Waste disposal certainly is not a glamorous subject but it is something which affects the lives of all of us. When it goes well we do not even think about it; we quite naturally take it for granted. But when it goes wrong, reactions are sharp, plentiful, and full of anxiety. I believe that in this increasingly sophisticated society where waste is a growth industry the best structure for its disposal is vital, whatever the party politics of the Government in power.
Of all the clauses in this Bill, those relating to waste regulation and disposal give rise to some of the greatest concerns. In other areas where the Bill goes wrong it can result in delays, administrative chaos, increased costs and a reduction in essential services. But in the case of waste disposal and regulation there is an additional factor: the health and safety of many millions of people could be endangered. In this crucial area we cannot allow the slightest uncertainty to persist. This is why I propose this amendment which will effectively provide for a continuation of a strategic approach to waste regulation and disposal in Greater London and the metropolitan county councils.
Let us for a moment look at the voluntary arrangements proposed by the Government. We do not believe that they will work. They have been tried before and have failed. Voluntary arrangements between boroughs and districts would not enable decisions to be made such as setting the budget, granting site licences, entering into contracts, agreeing a London or county-wide strategy on waste disposal plans; for without the unanimous approval of all the districts and boroughs each decision would have to be ratified by each district or borough council individually. Individual districts or boroughs would be able to contract out simply because they did not like a particular decision.
Voluntary arrangements will lead to endless arguments over the provision of the financial resources required. We have seen this before in other areas. A single strategic authority can spread its costs by raising a precept across the whole area. It seems that to talk of a voluntary co-operation in this context is a retrograde step both in central and in local government. The inclusion in the Bill of absolute powers reserved to the Secretary of State demonstrates that the Government themselves have doubts about the appropriateness and practicality of voluntary arrangements for waste disposal and regulation.
Every significant study has argued the case for a strategic waste disposal authority. Within the last month the Select Committee of this House on Science and Technology, under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has specifically examined the Bill's proposals and their effect on waste disposal. Their findings are unequivocal. The committee concludes:
"We reject the Bill's proposal to transfer waste disposal functions to borough and district councils. These councils are too small to control hazardous waste disposal effectively and voluntary arrangements for co-operation between them have no serious prospect of

741
survival. Single waste disposal authorities for London and each metropolitan county council should be set up before public confidence in waste disposal is undermined".
I do not think there could be a clearer comment than that.
Following the Government's response to the earlier report on hazardous waste disposal by the same Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Gregson, on 3rd April this year they recorded their deep concern at the fragmentation of waste disposal authorities in Greater London and the metropolitan counties:
"The provisions of the Local Government Bill run counter to the Committee's recommendation in favour of large waste disposal authorities and regional planning".
Those are judgments made by a highly expert Select Committee of your Lordships' House. In addition, the chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Sir Richard Southwood, wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment on 14th February 1985, saying:
"We remain concerned that waste disposal should be planned and operated on a sufficiently large scale to ensure that environmental damage is minimised".
This is only the distinguished tip of a large iceberg of grave concern.
It is strange almost to the point of incomprehensibility that the Government do not heed the views of these eminent bodies when they express such deep concern and argue so strongly for the present Greater London and metropolitan county-wide arrangements, and that these should be maintained with the present team of experts and the existing centres of excellence which cover all aspects of waste regulation and disposal. The case for this concentration on the centres of excellence was made strongly in the report of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
The success of the strategic waste disposal authority in Greater London from 1965 was widely recognised, so that when local government was reorganised in 1974 waste disposal responsibilities were transferred to the shire and metropolitan counties in England. These bodies have achieved similar success, and the Government have never challenged this. The by-products of this structure are impressive. For example, both the GLC and the metropolitan county councils have attracted expert teams of specialists which it would be criminal to lose. They have promoted technological advance and recycling initiatives. They are able to take advantage of economies of scale to negotiate favourable long-term contracts with the private sector. There are many more achievements that I could mention, but I will not take up time.
In their consultation paper on waste disposal published in November 1983, the Government stated that the boroughs and districts should seek to ensure, so far as is possible, that the transfer of the service takes place without detriment to existing standards of service. It seems odd that in a Government document they should have to say:
"to seek to ensure so far as possible".
Surely the least that could be expected would be to guarantee existing standards. Why on earth does one change the system unless it is to improve it? One does not just hold on to what exists, but makes it better;
742
otherwise, to go to all this trouble, disruption and expense is quite worthless.
The Government's proposals have also been roundly and universally condemned by all professional, academic and industrial opinion. The private sector, including the CBI and the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, has been among the most vigorous opponents of the Government's proposals. This has been a rare case of both the public and the private sectors speaking with one voice. One would have thought that the Government would take that seriously. I believe the Government would be hard put to it to give the Committee the name of a single professional or trade body which supports the Government's proposals.
Apart from what is generally defined as hazardous waste—all waste is hazardous if not disposed of properly—waste has to be dealt with every working day. The availability of disposal outlets can change hour by hour, let alone day by day, and without a single strategic authority with the power to direct collection vehicles to available disposal outlets the service could well grind to a halt. Individual districts and borough councils, because of their inherent geographical limitations, will not have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. Common standards for pollution control on public and private sector sites are likewise imperative; if not, the public and industry will have no confidence in the regulating authority. If there is no confidence, this can only be bad both for the service and for the public at large.
Unless an authority understands the nature of waste, the disposal options and the variety of site conditions, risks must increase. Unless an authority can employ specialists in the chemical, biological and other essential scientific fields, abuse and failures will be inevitable. We cannot risk a disaster like Love Canal in Britain today. The community and industry are entitled to competent strategic authorities which are committed to the protection of the environment and which employ high levels of expertise to ensure safety and confidence.
Eighteen months after Streamlining the Cities we are still waiting for detailed solutions to the problems that abolition will bring. Dissension and disagreement in the boroughs and districts, concern over costs and lack of expertise and knowledge have combined to produce stalemate. The latest ministerial deadline for post-abolition arrangements is the beginning of September 1985—a date too close for comfort. The obstinate pursuit of this course in a desperate attempt to achieve the unachievable can only jeopardise the future health and safety of the public. It is clear that Greater London and the metropolitan county councils must have an efficient waste disposal service from Day 1 after abolition. That efficient waste disposal service exists now. All that is needed is to retain it as it is.
The Minister for Local Government, obviously concerned about this reaction, issued a note of guidance proposing various groupings of boroughs and districts. But in that guidance note the Government accepted that there must be some common unit to deal with hazardous waste management. They accept the need to co-ordinate waste planning activities, they accept the need for some consultation and liaison arrangements to ensure a reasonable consistency in

743
site licensing standards, and they accept the need for some joint consultation on research and development. The particular groups of authorities may wish to join together in financing projects of common interest. This is all trying to bring in what is now in operation, but doing it in the most impossible and unrealistic manner. It is not good enough, because the Government's proposals are riddled with common units, joint consultation and liaison arrangements, where once again the real solution is the single strategic authority. The present service will be in danger of disintegration, staff will leave and the service will therefore be unable to be maintained efficiently or at the standards of convenience and health and safety of the Government.
As I have shown, all expert opinion and all available evidence argues that waste disposal must be the responsibility of strategic authorities. It is strange that the Government do not listen even to bodies that they have set up. The inability of Government or the borough and district councils to produce a workable alternative underlines this. In the end I fear that the Government will find that this is the only solution, and if they do not accept this now the uncertainty about this essential service will be disastrous.
Lord Elton: I am not seeking to be difficult, but the noble Baroness did not open her speech with a reference to any other amendment numbers. I believe she intended also to embrace the next amendment in her name on the Marshalled List. If that is so, she should mention it before she sits down.
Baroness Birk: The amendments have been grouped so that most of these major amendments on waste disposal are together. I am sorry.
Noble Lords: Which numbers?
Baroness Birk: I am speaking to the next one on hazardous waste, which is really incorporated in this, and there are other amendments which do not apply to me at all; but I am coming on to that point now.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness is speaking, with the leave of the Committee, to Amendments Nos. 72B and 72C so far, but I think she will declare an interest (though it is really for my noble friend to do so) in Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.
Baroness Birk: Yes; I am sorry. I thought it was for the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): It is nothing to do with me.
Baroness Birk: I am speaking now to Amendment No. 72B and to Amendments Nos. 72C, 73 and 74.
Amendment No. 72C: Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Hazardous waste functions.
. The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the regulation and control of hazardous waste in Greater London and the metropolitan counties to be functions of the London Residuary Body and each metropolitan county residuary body.").
Amendment No. 73: Clause 9, page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("( ) On the appointed day there shall be established in Greater
744
London and each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of the London Waste Disposal Authority or by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Waste Disposal Authority", as the case may be.
( ) Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
( ) The constituent councils in relation to the London Waste Disposal Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
( ) The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan waste disposal authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.
( ) Each authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act and the provisions of that Part shall apply to this section as if this section were included in that Part.
( ) The functions specified in subsection (2) below shall be discharged by the authority in respect of the area for which it is established.").
Amendment No. 74: Page 5, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
I beg the Committee's pardon if this has caused any trouble, but I think they are all together in the same group.
The case is overwhelming. What we now have to consider—and this is what I was going to say when the Minister intervened—differs from Amendment No. 73 as to what form that strategic authority should take. The amendment I am moving favours the residuary body for three main reasons. First, the Bill already provides for residuary bodies, which have diverse functions incorporated in them. When we come to that part of the Bill, the bodies can be made permanent. Then, the residuary bodies would provide direct linkages with other services.
Lord Elton: We must have this clear. Is the noble Baroness saying that the residuary body will be made permanent. Did I hear that correctly?
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk: What I said—and I am sorry that the noble Lord the Minister seems to find me so difficult to understand today—was that the residuary bodies are in the Bill; and I take it that he would agree that that is so. They are in Clause 55. At the moment they are there for five years, but the Secretary of State can prolong their lives. I was saying that they could be made permanent if it is the will of Parliament that they should be. That is what I was saying.
Secondly, the residuary body would provide direct linkages with other services and the essential specialist service could also find its place in these bodies and not be in danger of dissipation. We had on Tuesday the example of transport, which is now being put into the residuary body for London and, so far as the metropolitan counties are concerned, into a joint authority. So already this week we have had a precedent for this.
I do not think that the Minister need be quite so puzzled about this as he appears to look at the moment. The specialist staffs would be preserved and not be in danger of dissipation. The residuary body could then become an elected or an appointed body according to the wishes of Parliament. If we stay with the system as it is in the Bill, the Secretary of State will then be forced to use his reserve powers to bring about a further reorganisation, with all the consequential disruption that that will involve. This subject of waste disposal should not be used as a political football.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Birk: Noble Lords may laugh; but it is something that affects everybody and it has to be undertaken by whoever may be the Government or the local authority. What I am saying is that if a system is working well, you should change it only if you can improve upon it. All that we have seen so far are the plans in the Bill which would make it a far worse and more ineffective system. I quoted very distinguished expert sources to support the point of view that you should change it only if you can improve it. This is an outstanding example of the importance of this Chamber using its revising powers in the interests of millions of people in this country who will be gravely affected by whatever is decided in this very important area and to whom we owe a deep responsibility. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: As a brief intervention I would remind your Lordships that this is Committee stage and that it is perfectly normal for noble Lords to stand up and sit down as they wish. This is not Second Reading. I want merely to ask the noble Baroness whether she will tell us whether it is her intention that the residuary body shall become permanent; or is this something that she is going to decide later after your Lordships have decided what to put in it?
Baroness Birk: This is the Committee stage, but I have always been taught to believe since I have been in this House that when one is discussing an amendment at Committee stage one should try to restrict oneself to the amendment. I am discussing the amendment which is before us, Amendment No. 72B. The Minister knows perfectly well that as Parliament can do anything, it can certainly make this residuary body permanent. We shall hear the Government's view later, no doubt.
Lord Elton: My noble friends and I, and other noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, will probably take a different view about what the noble Baroness is proposing if it presupposes later action to change the nature of the body to which she is giving these functions. It is a perfectly relevant question to ask.
Baroness Birk: Whatever form the residuary body takes, in order to guarantee continuity and consistency there will have to be a permanent body set up. That makes sense. There are powers in the Bill to have a strategic body. There is no point in having a strategic body for a very short time. We believe in a strategic body and if your Lordships decide that a strategic body is necessary, obviously one would expect an element of permanence to be attached to the strategic bodies.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. It is quite clear that she says that this is a strategic function and that there is no point in giving a strategic function to a temporary body and therefore it is the proposal to change the nature of the residuary body until it becomes a reflection of what has been abolished by this Bill.
Baroness Birk: Not at all. The Minister has no right to draw that conclusion. It will go into a residuary
746
body, but this does not for one moment mean—and I think that this was made clear; I certainly made it clear at Second Reading and on the amendments on which we spoke at the beginning of the Committee stage—that the residuary bodies should be mirror images of the present GLC, on the one hand, or the metropolitan counties, on the other. There is nothing that I have said and nothing in this amendment that can lead the Minister to come to that conclusion, unless he is dreaming it up himself.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, does not want any assistance from anybody in this Committee, let alone me, to deal with the cross-examination that is now being pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in this matter. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Elton—I have the greatest respect for him—he gives his case away and the Government's case away by the number of questions which he immediately puts to the noble Baroness. Unfortunately, for other reasons I was not here earlier in the proceedings. But I am dealing only with the question forcefully put; I almost said "hectoringly" put, but I will withdraw the word "hectoringly" straight away—I withdraw that. The impression that one has got is that the Government do not know what to do with these matters.
We all agree on this side that the GLC should be abolished; we all agree for the purposes of this context that the metropolitan counties should be abolished. We are not trying to wreck this Bill.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: We are trying to assist. It is very interesting to me to hear those shouts. We are not trying to wreck this Bill. We are trying to be of assistance. Our function here in this House is to assist the Government as to the future policy they are to adopt on such very important matters as waste disposal. I am very sorry indeed to find that noble Lords on the other side of the Committee with whom I have had a lot of discussion on matters relating to defence, science and all that sort of thing should feel that the noble Baroness is trying to wreck this Bill when she is trying to get going a procedure which will assist not only your Lordships but also the community at large which is concerned with waste disposal.
Lord Elton: All that I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is that I have not yet made my case on these amendments. But I thought that your Lordships should know what it was that the noble Baroness was proposing. She was kind enough to illuminate that, so that we now know.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I hesitate to intervene, but I understand from the few remarks now made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that he is trying to withdraw those questions which he was putting—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Irrespective of whether the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is trying to wreck the Bill or not, the plain fact of the matter is that an amendment such as this has that effect. If I may say so, she is always frank; and I think I got down correctly what she said. She said: residuary bodies, temporary,

747
yes, for five years; and that they could be made permanent if the will of Parliament should say that they should be so. But that is precisely what is contrary to what has come from the other place and it is contrary to the principle of the Bill. There is no use beating about the bush for then one merely wastes the time of your Lordships. This is a challenge to the principle of the Bill. It is nothing other than part of the declared strategy to load up the residuary bodies with functions so that it can be said, in relation to, I think, Clause 55, that they should be elected because they have so many functions. This is precisely the principle of the Bill which is under challenge, as I understand it.
Baroness Birk: I really must intervene, otherwise words that I have not spoken will be put into my mouth; and I really cannot allow that. I said that the residuary bodies would then become, as they would have to, permanent bodies, and whether they were appointed or elected would be a matter for your Lordships.
Lord Ezra: If I may, I should like to talk on the subject of waste disposal, and in that connection I should like to support the proposition put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the waste disposal services, having been so much of a success since they were last reorganised in 1974, should be kept in that state for the benefit of the people they serve. I believe that since that date subsequent legislation, particularly relating to hazardous waste disposal and monitoring, site licensing, waste disposal strategies and siting, make it imperative that county-wide bodies deal with this subject. If we were to change this system not only would we get back to the unco-ordinated system that was present before 1974 and was then corrected, but it would be worse, because the whole question of waste disposal has now become very big business and requires considerable expertise.
That expertise has been acquired and has been brought together at the GLC and the metropolitan county levels. A number of your Lordships have no doubt seen the evidence of their work. I personally have spent some time at the Edmonton incineration and power generation plant. This is symptomatic of the new, imaginative and highly technological thinking that is going on behind waste disposal. It is inconceivable that a small grouping of local authorities could carry out, plan and operate a project of that kind. Other projects of that kind for the London area, I was reliably informed, were in hand. Would they, and could they, be carried out under the new totally decentralised arrangements?
Your Lordships are no doubt aware—those of you who follow this subject—that Messrs. Coopers and Lybrand brought out a report last year on this whole subject in regard to the proposals contained within the Bill. They said the following:
"Voluntary co-operation is presently the Government's preferred solution. If it is allowed to proceed we can envisage the experiment failing in many cases and the Governmert being compelled to establish joint boards, as indeed provided for in the Bill. Thus, two reorganisations could in practice be the consequence of the Bill as presently drafted, and not one. This cannot be a sensible proposal".
That is the conclusion reached by Coopers and Lybrand. I think it shows that this idea of going back
748
on a sector of very successful operation in regard to waste disposal is one that is inevitably putting the clock back.
It is important, in working our way through this Bill as a revising assembly, that we should pay particular attention to what now works efficiently and successfully, with the highest degree of technological expertise behind it, which is testified to by the many foreign visits that are paid to these establishments. We should not, for the sake of the convenience of fitting everything into what the Bill intends to do, go back on what has been so successful. Therefore I strongly recommend to your Lordships that the present arrangements for waste disposal on a county-wide basis should be maintained and should be incorporated, as these amendments suggest, either in the residuary body or as a separate body on their own. We are taking all those amendments together; these alternative proposals are put forward. But, either way, I would strongly press, on the basis of the clear achievements in this area, that the waste disposal authority should continue on a county-wide basis.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, takes an unduly pessimistic view of the capacity and efficiency of the boroughs, to which, under the Bill as it stands, these functions would be transferred. This is after all throughout the country essentially a local government function and I see no reason—apparently some noble Lords do not agree; but of course it is a local government function—
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord has kindly allowed me to intervene. In fact the shires handle this and therefore there would be a discrepancy in the way that this is handled, if it were to go through.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is, as I said, a local government function—
Noble Lords: No!
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Noble Lords say no, but it is a function at the moment of the GLC, which is at the moment a local government authority. I do not really see why noble Lords make such heavy weather of that. It seems to me to be the most elementary of propositions. What I was trying to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was that his speech, no doubt unintentionally, carried a real reflection on the efficiency of the boroughs, to which, under the Bill as it stands, these functions would pass. Experience has shown over the years that authorities of this size—and in London, for example, we are talking of authorities of the size and significance of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden—have been perfectly capable in handling these matters. Indeed, with the growth of the policy of putting out waste disposal to private contract they have proved themselves extremely flexible in adapting to that situation. Therefore I start with the proposition that there is no reason whatever to assume that the authorities to which under the Bill these functions would be transferred would be other than capable of administering them. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that I think most of the local authorities concerned would very much resent any imputation to the contrary.
Lord Ezra: As the noble Lord has suggested it, may I say that I was in no way impugning the capability of the local boroughs. I should like to say that was not my intention. I believe that he has in fact made a mistake in talking about these local boroughs putting waste disposal out to contract. What they have done is put waste collection out to contract. The waste disposal function since 1974 has been in the hands of the metropolitan counties and the GLC; and because it has now become so complex and because we have the hazardous waste problem that we have, there is no suggestion that the boroughs are not capable of handling whatever they handle at the moment. However, what we have seen over the last 10 years is the very efficient handling of this very big and hazardous business, and the one thing this country has suffered from is continual chopping and changing. Once we have got something working well, why do we not leave it working well?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I admire the conservatism of the last part of the noble Lord's speech, particularly as delivered from that Bench. However, I admire rather less his clarity of thinking, because having got very excited about waste disposal, which he argues is not a local government function, he then went on to point out that it was in fact handled by local government authorities, which he named. Therefore we really come back to the question of whether both waste collection and disposal are beyond the capacity of the authorities to which, under the Bill, they would go. Although I am naturally obliged to the noble Lord for indicating that his speech did not convey any reflection on these authorities, it seems to me that for this Committee to take the view that they could not manage this would be a quite serious reflection on large, important, responsible and experienced bodies such as these are.
I am so glad that noble Lords opposite agree with me on that point, because it is a refreshing experience for me on this Bill and I express my gratitude to them. Having dealt with that point, we start on the basis that there is no real reason to believe that the authorities to whom the Bill would transfer these functions would be incapable of discharging them. We then come to the much narrower argument as to whether or not they would be discharged better or worse. That I suppose is the point which noble Lords opposite would seek to argue. There one must look on this amendment, as on all others, not only on its intentions but on its effect. I am not concerned to attribute any motive to the noble Baroness; she was already touchy enough earlier this afternoon and I do not want to touch her off again.
We must look at the effect of her amendment, if it were carried, because after all it is a presumption, is it not, of law that the sane person intends the natural consequences of his act. This is a permanent function; waste collection and disposal will both go on as long as urban life continues. This is a permanent function, and to transfer it to a body which under the Bill is temporary raises two possible questions. Either it means that the noble Baroness is proposing to transfer these functions to the residuary body for five years, and then under further legislation they should be transferred elsewhere—and this goes dead against Lord Ezra's argument against change—or we are
750
assuming that somehow the residuary body will be continued indefinitely.
The noble Baroness wishes to intervene; but if she will permit me to continue, it may be relevant. I do not know how many of your Lordships saw the television broadcast today by Baroness Seear which throws literally a good deal of light on this situation. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to intervene now?
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble Lord. I am certainly not very touchy; I quite enjoyed the exchange, it livened things up. But I did not think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was very courteous. I do not like being told to sit down and wait for a moment, I would not have treated him in that way. I just want to say, before this point gets lost in a rather lengthy debate, that I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is a debater of almost Olympic standards. However, this is not the Oxford Union, it is not a debating society. We are discussing the future of a very important function which affects everybody's lives. If I may say so, it seems to have become confused between the collection responsibilities of the boroughs and districts, and the waste disposal responsibilities which, although in a wide sphere are part of local government, were in fact set up as waste disposal authorities. I do not know if the noble Lord is aware of that.
I should also draw his attention to Clause 65 which allows, without changing the Bill at that point, the residuary bodies to continue if they still have work to do after five years. Perhaps the noble Lord would be a little more temperate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Let me say at once that I should regret it enormously if the noble Baroness thought I had been discourteous to her. That is the last thing I should wish to be. I think, however, she would agree that the noble Lord in possession of the Committee can at least select the moment at which he gives way and not subject his grammar to undue strain by giving way in the middle of a sentence. I would remind the noble Baroness that if she is seeking to lecture me on courtesy, I very quickly gave way to her, which is very much in contrast with the conduct of her noble Leader on the Second Reading who, declined three times to give way to me when he had mentioned me specifically by name. So I am not really very inclined to take lessons in manners from the Bench opposite.
I am perfectly aware of the distinction between collection and disposal; obviously, everybody is. But I am not sure that it is of very great significance to the point which I was making. That point is that it is proposed to transfer a permanent function—the noble Baroness does not dispute that this is a permanent function—to a body which it is contemplated by the Bill shall be temporary. If that be so, this raises the question whether the purpose of this proposal, or if not the purpose, its effect, will not be both to add weight to the argument for making this body permanent, but loading so many functions upon it that then noble Lords opposite will come forward and say, "Oh well, of course, it must be elected, it must have precepting powers". We would then be back to reversing the

751
decision which the Committee took only a day or two ago against an elective precept-levying body. This is what this amendment, if adopted, is a step towards.
Now I come back to the question of the television broadcast by the noble Baroness who leads the Liberal Party which seemed to indicate a complete appreciation of the consequence of these kinds of amendments. Therefore I ask your Lordships to consider this not only as a question of the ideal method of performing a useful function of local government, and whether we can work out better methods when the GLC withdraws the ban on its officials having conversations about the new setup with the incoming authorities. At the moment the GLC are doing their best to make those difficult by forbidding their officials to talk on these matters. It is as well that that should be stated plainly in this Committee.
However, one comes back to the fact that if you pile additional functions on to this residuary body, it could well be part of a strategy for seeking to reverse, by the back door, a major decision which this Committee took a little time ago. I suggest it would be quite wrong to achieve that by this method.
Lord Parry: I am a naif and an innocent in these matters; I tend to believe that this Committee sets standards that it cannot always keep. I feel at the moment we have fallen below the level of the Committee approach. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has led over the past seven or eight years the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign, which has contributed more to the understanding of the importance of this subject than perhaps any other body. He has been chairman of that campaign which has focused attention on waste disposal matters, and he knows a very great deal about the subject. Surely, the point he was making was not a matter of the technology of this debate but that we here could consolidate the very real progress that has been made among all the bodies concerned with cleaning.
I happen to be the president of the British Institute of Cleaning Science and chairman of the British Cleaning Council. Systematically there has been built up in the country over the past seven or eight years a new approach to cleaning. There has been a new platform which has given the opportunity for those in contract cleaning to talk with those in the public services. We do not even need any longer to fall out publicly over the matter of who cleans what or when and why.
However, the real point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as I understood it in this debate is that there has been real progress. To set it all back now would spoil the progress that has been made.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I agree absolutely with nine-tenths of what the noble Baroness said, and I think the Committee on all sides would do so. The importance of looking at the matter of disposal and collection of waste is very important to the nation's health and general wellbeing. The Committee will remember we went through a period when, as a result of the dustmen's strike, we saw rats running all over Leicester Square as a consequence of waste disposal not being carried out.
752
I should like to make it absolutely clear, so far as I can, that there is no difference of view at all on either side of the Committee as to the importance of getting these things right. It is important; and I do not think the impression ought to be given, whether from the Government side or the Opposition side, that there is anything flippant regarding these things being properly dealt with. So I accept the major part of the speech of the noble Baroness, which I know will be acceptable to everybody.
4 P.m.
However, we ought to confine ourselves to what is the issue. The issue on these clauses is clearly this. Certain noble Lords have the view that we can get the efficiency which would bring about the safety of waste disposal only by leaving the present conditions, where the big authority is responsible for it and has to handle it. We on this side believe that the big authority, which encompasses this as part of its functions, is an unnecessary tier of government which is costly and which in the long run is inefficient as regards giving service to the people of this country. That is what the Bill is about. It is to remove an unnecessary tier of government because it is costly and, in many respects has proved to be inefficient. In removing it the Bill suggests alternative authorities to carry out the functions which that big authority now performs—alternatives which will be more efficient and satisfactory.
The noble Baroness and those who support her have virtually said that there are no alternatives and we must carry on as now. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, produced evidence which was meant to show that we have now reached a state of perfection and that we must never think of altering the present situation. His words could certainly give that impression—
Lord Ezra: May I say that I have no intention at all of suggesting that anything we do now should last forever. All I said was that what we are doing now is totally different from what we were doing before 1974; it is a great improvement on what we were doing before 1974 and what noble Lords opposite are suggesting is that we should go back to that situation.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord was perfectly clear. He said that we must not have all these changes. He said that we had made a lot of advances and that the present position is satisfactory. If that does not mean that he feels we have reached the position where we need not bother and that there are no alternatives, I do not know what it means. I have had experience in local government over very many years and I believe that the alternatives which are envisaged under this Bill, of the local authorities, the boroughs, taking back the powers and being able to take decisions on these matters, are better.
The Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness have all seemed to say that you cannot rely upon the smaller authorities voluntarily arriving at a position which is as efficient as the present one. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool used similar words on another amendment. I am prepared to suggest to my noble friends that this is something which will be better done

753
under a voluntary arrangement, and that, if we give local authorities a chance voluntarily to come to a size which could give proper attention to these important matters, the result will be infinitely better than the position we now have. That is the decision which we have to make on these amendments.
But this Government have brought in extra safeguards, as any sensible Government should do. Just in case the voluntary method which I find so attractive does not work in certain areas, the same Bill gives powers to the Minister to step in and say that they have to do things which will work. That is the whole purpose of leaving the special powers in the hands of the Minister, so that he can fill in the gaps. I do not think that there will be many gaps and—I know that it may annoy some noble Lords opposite when I say this—I believe the only gaps that are likely to occur will be as a result of certain local authorities putting their political ideology above carrying out their functions as proper local authorities with the powers of local authorities. We find that happening now. On the occasions when local authorities are not carrying out the law of the land, the Minister steps in in order to see that there is a continuity of service.
So the only decision that we have to make on these amendments is: are we satisfied with the voluntary arrangement which worked for very many years, and in which many noble Lords sitting in this Chamber have played a part as local councillors, on the joint committees which dealt with health services and on all sorts of matters which need the co-operation of several authorities? The system worked for very many years before 1974 and I have every confidence that given the chance it will work again.
But having said that, I do not think that we ought to run away from the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made. There is a certain feeling behind these amendments—
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord said that the arrangement was working satisfactorily before 1974, but is he taking into consideration the serious problems that arose particularly in the West Midlands, which he knows as well as I do, regarding the dumping of toxic waste, the cyanide scandal and all the other things which went on? Is that the satisfaction that he wants us to have in the future, that we had prior to 1974?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Baroness and I come from the same parish. Her experience is almost identical to my own. Any evidence that I could call would be the evidence that she would be in a position to call. My answer very clearly, from my experience in the West Midlands, is that I am satisfied that the joint authorities made up of the smaller local authorities were efficient before 1974 with the knowledge that was then available to all of them, as it is with the present metropolitan boroughs, and there is no reason after all these years to start throwing mud at the excellent service that those local authorities gave before 1974 and would be in a position to give in 1986 and beyond. I believe that of the two alternatives, the local authorities are most likely to produce the best results.
754
But I want to come back to what is behind all of these amendments. There is more to this than the terms of the amendments themselves. This is quite clear from the number on the Marshalled List and reasonably clear from the speeches that have been made. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suddenly to get the applause of the Committee, which he did, by saying that he wanted to go back to discussing waste, rather suggesting that all of the other talk was unnecessary and out of order. But only a few hours before the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that from the Liberal Bench, his Leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was saying to the nation on television pretty much what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested was behind all this.
It has been made crystal clear, and by no one more than the noble Baroness, on television, that part of the strategy behind all these amendments is, first, to get a good answer if they can to the problem of waste; and, secondly, to use these amendments as a vehicle to get through the side door the principle of not ending the county boroughs' extra tier of government, which the Government were given power to do in a mandate, which the other place has agreed to do and which we in our decision on the Second Reading agreed to do. It is no good pretending that there is any other suggestion behind the words used by the noble Baroness in the broadcast and behind the general tenor of the amendments.
This is a matter where the only issue, wherever we sit, on the Cross-Benches, or on either side of the Chamber, is: are we going to adhere to the main principle of removing an unnecessary tier of government, or are we going to leave one little ingredient in the powers of the metropolitan boroughs to damage the whole of that great march forward? It is upon that issue that we ought to make our decision, and in doing that we ought to have confidence that the elected members of the boroughs, and the smaller authorities, are just as capable of coming to the right decisions in the interests of their constituents as are members of county boroughs or even Members of Parliament.
The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him why, if the local authorities were working so perfectly prior to 1974, it was necessary for a Conservative Government to bring into being the metropolitan authorities and the new shire counties?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: If I gave the impression that I thought local authorities were working perfectly before 1974, I should say that I have never found any authority, local or national, which I think works perfectly. All of them leave room for a lot of improvement. That is the whole point of debate in Parliament: to find out where it is not working perfectly and to try to move a step towards improvement. In removing this unnecessary tier, I think we are doing just that. What I am saying is that from my personal experience, which covered 15 to 20 years, where joint authorities made up of nine or ten local authorities got together to make decisions which covered a wide area it worked, and worked well. I defy the suggestion made by the Select Committee, by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra,

755
that the local authorities are not capable of getting together and will not do it as efficiently as this authority—and I say that on the basis of my own experience as one who worked in it, although it never was as perfect as I should have liked it to be.
Lord Gregson: I want to talk about waste disposal and in particular about hazardous waste disposal. Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology is very considerably concerned regarding those aspects of the Local Government Bill that deal with the arrangements to be made for the disposal of both domestic and industrial waste when seven of the present waste disposal authorities are no longer in existence. The Committee do not believe that the arrangements outlined in Clause 9 and elsewhere in this Bill are desirable or even viable. That is the reason for Amendment No. 73.
In 1981 the Select Committee conducted a long and detailed inquiry into the disposal of hazardous waste. The report of that inquiry is now accepted throughout the world as an authoritative and unbiased report. For the benefit of your Lordships, perhaps I may point out that it is now in its third edition. It is recognised as one of the most important reports on hazardous waste ever produced. At the end of last year the Select Committee commenced an inquiry into local government scientific and technical services which by definition included a review of the handling of all classes of waste. The passage through Parliament of this Bill obliged the committee to produce an interim report and I shall quote to the noble Baroness the recommendations in the committee's report:
"They consider that voluntary arrangements have no serious prospect of survival or even of providing the proper degree of control which hazardous waste disposal requires. They therefore recommend that the Bill be amended to provide that single authorities should be established. Furthermore they consider that establishment of those authorities should not wait on the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts, nor run any risk of reducing public confidence in waste disposal, but should be established before the abolition date. Delay would necessitate two reorganisations of waste disposal rather than one and thus an unjustifiable degree of disruption".
It is important to understand what lies behind the original recommendations in the committee's report on hazardous waste, which was endorsed on review by the present report. Hazardous waste is a very complex, highly technical subject, and with the almost daily introduction of new materials and chemical compounds the complexity is multiplying. The control and monitoring of hazardous waste therefore calls for a highly qualified multi-disciplined staff. This requirement is further compounded in this country because the great bulk of liquid hazardous waste is co-disposed with domestic waste on the principle of dilute and disperse.
4.15 p.m.
The United Kingdom is almost unique in this method of disposal but it is a most cost-effective route. The Select Committee considered that co-disposal could be a satisfactory procedure but (and it is a very big "but") only if control, monitoring and support research is of the very highest standard and is carried out on a continuous basis.
Two of the issues that concerned the committee on hazardous waste, from the very considerable evidence
756
it received, were, first, that many of the existing authorities—that is still post-1974; I am talking of all the county waste disposal authorities—were too small to have an effective expertise and this gave rise to fragmentation and very uneven performance. I believe that the first report of the new inspectorate for hazardous waste is critical of this situation, and I should be interested to learn from the Government spokesman today why that report has not been laid before Parliament in time for the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. It is ironic that among the better waste disposal authorities are the London and metropolitan county councils; which is just as well because the great bulk of hazardous waste arising in this country is in the areas covered by them. The other issue which became apparent was that before 1974 many attempts were made to bring about voluntary groups of the smaller authorities in order to form the size of authority that was necessary to gather together the expertise to deal with this very difficult problem. The outcome was a miserable failure.
The Select Committee has received a great deal of evidence and correspondence regarding the subject we are discussing today, and within my knowledge not one comment supports the concept of voluntary organisations for this most vital area of activity, although many of the bodies commenting strongly support the rest of the Government's Bill. To underline this, I shall quote briefly from the comments that I have received.
The first comment comes from the CBI:
"We have considered very carefully the Government's proposals that responsibility for waste regulation and disposal should be transferred to individual district and borough councils. The overwhelming majority of members consulted were of the view that voluntary co-operation is unlikely to work and that statutory joint arrangements should be made from the outset".
The National Farmers' Union, which I do not think supports this side of the Committee, said:
"There is considerable evidence of an inability of districts to co-operate in the allocation and management of waste disposal facilities or to employ sufficiently technically competent staff".
The Institute of Waste Management, the professional body said:
"It is clear to this Institute that the most satisfactory alternative option on the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils is to transfer their waste regulation and disposal functions to statutory joint boards".
The industrial side in the private sector, the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, is already on record as having expressed the opinion that in the event that Parliament passes the Local Government Bill abolishing the GLC and metropolitan authorities:
"the standard of scientific and technical services in Greater London and the metropolitan counties will fall drastically in the waste management industry. It remains our strongly held view that statutory joint boards should replace the GLC and metropolitan authorities".
It goes on:
"'Co-ordination' and 'voluntary joint arrangements' are words regarded by management in both sectors as mere pious hopes. They are rarely effective. As to the guarantee that the Secretary of State has reserve powers where the proposed scheme does not work, one wonders how long a period of chaos will exist before that radical step is taken".
It is very important. The insidious danger arising from the land fill disposal of hazardous waste is the possible contamination of our water supplies. That must never, never, be allowed to happen.

757
Perhaps I may quote from the evidence given by those charged with safeguarding our water supplies—the water authorities:
"The Water Authorities are concerned that abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils could lead to greater pollution by waste disposal sites of underground and, to a lesser extent, river waters. The investigation of proposals for waste disposal, the specification of tipping arrangements and the subsequent monitoring and enforcement require a high level of scientific and technical expertise. Such expertise is generally found in Greater London and the metropolitan counties but it would hardly be practical for it to be provided at a similar level in the London and Metropolitan Boroughs to whom responsibility for waste disposal would pass. Some form of co-ordination or control of waste disposal appears to be essential if the advances made under the Control of Pollution Act are not to be reversed through abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils".
Voluntary organisations have been tried before, under much more favourable circumstances. To attempt to create them with the battle lines drawn up between the borough councils, from the extreme Left to the extreme Right, is surely to invite mayhem. Given this emotive subject, with public confidence at stake and with the potential for the most horrendous disasters, I cannot understand why the Government should be so irresponsible as to risk this crucial service descending into a shambles. I say to the Government, "You must not do it". Your Lordships' Select Committee urge the Committee to support this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, sits down, may I ask him a question? He was a distinguished member of the Select Committee; did the Select Committee consider the reserve mandatory arrangements in Clause 9 of the Bill? If it did consider them, why did the Select Committee find those provisions inappropriate, if indeed it did?
Lord Gregson: I will first correct the noble Lord. I was not a member of the Select Committee of review. I was chairman of the Select Committee on Hazardous Waste. It was in that capacity that I spoke today. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was the chairman, and no doubt he will be delighted, during his comments on this amendment, to give the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, the answer to his question.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It may be appropriate at this moment if I intervene and draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to the fact that the amendments which are in the name of the Select Committee do precisely that which he has suggested: take note of the reserve powers. I should like formally to bring before your Lordships' consideration the Motion in my name relating to Clause 8 and Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.
As has been said, I was the chairman of the sub-committee of the Select Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, is also a member; I was the chairman responsible for the slim blue volume which has been circulating. The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, is a member of the same Select Committee in whose name that report appears; that is to say, of the full Select Committee. I was very grateful to the noble Lord when, with his long experience of dealing with
758
hazardous waste, he agreed to introduce the subject of the amendments of the Select Committee.
I should like once again to draw your Lordships' attention, before I start dealing with the matters in the Bill, to paragraph 4 of the Select Committee's report, in which we made it very clear that in discussing these issues—the issues of science and technology in respect of local government, metropolitan county councils and the GLC—we genuinely abandoned our political stances. As is usual with a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, we were a cross-party Select Committee. There was the appropriate number of Members from all sides of the House. The membership was selected by your Lordships' Committee of Selection. It was very genuinely a cross-party, objective review.
When we discussed this matter, members of the sub-committee said to me, "You must excuse us but we cannot remain neutral when we come to discuss this subject on the Floor of the Chamber". As chairman of that sub-committee, I am very grateful for the restraint that was displayed in our meetings. I do not expect the Lord Chairman to try to exert his influence in a similar fashion here and now because obviously we have reached the moment when people are taking political sides. While thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, for introducing this matter I draw his attention to the fact that he regretted any arrangement that would require two reorganisations. So would I. If the noble Lord chooses to vote for the amendment of his noble friend Lady Birk, it is highly likely that there will be two reorganisations. One reorganisation would put the waste disposal authority with the residuary body, and then the residuary body, in the terms of the Bill, would be wound up.
At all costs the Select Committee—and now I speak as chairman of the Sub-Committee—was concerned to avoid any disruption or hiatus in the arrangements not only for the collection of waste in the urban areas, in the conurbations of England and in London but, more seriously, in its proper treatment and disposal. As the Committee will realise, waste is not nowadays simply dumped into a hole in the ground or put into the sea. We all know that local authorities at whatever level—whether they are shire counties, metropolitan counties or the Greater London Council—have invested in sophisticated equipment in order to dispose of waste in a responsible fashion and thus safeguard, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has said, future generations.
Mention was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution which is currently undertaking a study of the whole process of waste disposal in this nation. I do not believe it is necessary formally to declare this as an interest, but I am a member of that Royal Commission. This has given me a remarkable opportunity, while I was simultaneously chairman of the sub-committee, to travel around the country and see waste disposal facilities and consider the whole matter of waste disposal.
I will now explain the purpose of the amendments that I wish to bring before the Committee. First, the Motion on Clause 8 stand part is not, as some noble Lords may fear, a wrecking Motion or anything of that kind. It is simply that the Select Committee, in order

759
to safegard its amendments to Clause 9, wished to dispose of Clause 8 purely because it introduces terminology which, it might be suggested, could make our amendments to Clause 9 impossible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was rather more clever in the placing of her amendment; she placed it before Clause 8. We would have done so if we had thought of that artifice; we would have placed our amendment before that of the noble Baroness. Then we would, perhaps, have had an opportunity of voting on ours before voting on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. That is why my name stands to the Motion that Clause 8 should not stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 taken together fall back on the reserve powers which are already in the Bill. They do not set up a new authority. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, may have misled the Committee in suggesting that these two amendments have the same purpose as previous amendments. They do not. They merely require the Secretary of State to take up the option that is already in the Bill and to exercise it from a stated day; that is to say, to start the process of holding together the present waste disposal functions before abolition day.
At about the time we produced our report we also had the benefit of Department of the Environment guidelines. Mention has already been made of these and of the guideline on hazardous waste which, I would remind your Lordships, reads as follows:
"There is a strong need for close co-ordination of such controls and for maintaining existing centres of specialist staff, facilities and equipment—especially computer-based records. It has accordingly been concluded"—
and the Committee will realise that I am quoting the government guideline—
"that some common unit to provide these services will be essential in each metropolitan area".
The Select Committee heartily supported that approach to hazardous wastes. From experience that I have gained lately, in seeing a great deal of non-hazardous commercial and domestic waste, I am perfectly convinced that one cannot separate the two processes. As the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, said, under our present system it is essential to have a firm deposit of non-hazardous commercial and domestic waste in order safely to co-dispose hazardous waste. That is the system which has evolved in this country. It is a peculiar system and one which may be open to criticism, but it is an essential system for the present functioning for the disposal of hazardous waste. The two go together, and cannot be separated.
4.30 p.m.
There are other reasons why they cannot be separated. The laboratory facilities which support a hazardous waste disposal system are equally essential for commercial and industrial wastes. One cannot have two sets of laboratory facilities for different kinds of waste, or one ends up with an awkward situation.
As long as our present system of co-disposal continues, it is essential we have one common service supporting the waste disposal function. I choose my words rather carefully. I am talking about services that
760
support functions, and this is a distinction which has been made by the Government, and which was made by your Lordships' Select Committee.
I am perfectly aware, as are many of your Lordships, that in Scotland and Wales it is the districts which handle waste disposal. But I have visited Scotland and talked to public analysts in public laboratories there, and I realise the concern which exists over this situation. Quite recently, the Blue Paper, the Stoddart Report, appeared, and the present system which exists in Scotland was supported. It was decided that the district powers to dispose of waste should be maintained in Scotland, but when it comes to analysing the hazardous waste presented to them the districts at present have to refer to the regional councils in order to obtain the laboratory services they require. I have spoken to the Strathclyde regional public analyst. He has outlined to me certain difficulties, which ultimately we shall be dealing with when we have the opportunity to produce our final report. The sort of difficulty which arises is that he receives from districts nasty material—sometimes very nasty material—for analysis. He analyses it; but his authority does not then have the control of the subsequent disposal of those materials, nor is his authority the authority which produces analyses and publishes reports on the disposal of hazardous wastes.
I realise this is not what we are talking about, but I must raise the point that, subject to considerations which will be made clear in the Select Committee's final report, at the minute I have anxieties about the system which exists in Scotland. I am not at all sure that it would be wise to perpetuate that system in the metropolitan areas of England.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl on that point. Those who have the authority and the power to dispose always have the benefit of the expertise that the laboratories give to them. If they disregard the expertise and make no note of it, that it questioning their acumen in being able to carry out their disposal powers. I am saying that the fact that they dispose does not mean that they cannot engage the expertise. They therefore have the knowledge which the experts make available to everybody, including the people who dispose of it.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am not sure of the purport of that intervention. The system I am trying to maintain—if I can make it clear—is that the laboratory facilities which support the waste disposal service in Scotland are under authorities which are not the authorities having the waste disposal function. It is important that the laboratory facilities should be kept together with the waste disposal.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: But their knowledge is made available to those who have the disposal powers. So it comes to the same thing. That is what I am saying.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Indeed; but the capacity to analyse and treat the data is limited.
The existing metropolitan county waste disposal authorities and the Greater London Council waste disposal authority, as has been emphasised by other

761
speakers this afternoon, are genuine centres of expertise to which other countries and other authorities in this nation refer. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the Edmonton site, and I shall not say anything about that. But I would draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the one piece of expertise which has not been mentioned so far, the experiments on derivation of oil from waste by the Greater Manchester Council. This is very important scientific research which is being carried out. It has now reached the stage when it is on the verge of practicability. This is technically referred to as cellulose liquefaction using either refuse or biomass as the cellulose feedstock. It is potentially an important method of recycling energy from waste and is one which the new Minister in another place will doubtless be considering. It has been developed by a metropolitan county and is research fully supported by universities, research institutes and public funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, just now referred to the West Midlands where there is a plant for the recovery of energy by combustion. Each of these centres has developed the most important research into such subjects and it is extremely important that this expertise should not be lost.
Under Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 I would wish to follow the Government in separating what in the guidelines paper has been called "non-operational functions" and "operational functions". I do not find this terminology particularly clear. But as I understand it the system operates perfectly satisfactorily; that is to say, the function, the power, the duty of collecting and disposing of waste resides with the districts or the boroughs. They jointly combine in a joint authority in order to obtain the services and the facilities in order so to do. The services are the laboratories, the sites, the transfer stations, the chemical treatment plants, the energy recovery plants, the ferrous waste recovery plants—these are in the nature of the facilities.
I would stress that the amendments to which I have put my name go only a very little bit further than the present Bill. In the Bill, the Secretary of State is required to wait until he sees disruption looming before he acts. Quite objectively, quite calmly, and non-politically, without waving any particular banner, I am absolutely convinced that it is essential that the smooth transition should be ensured without argument, without risking what everyone in this Committee has recognised as being an essential function of local government.
If I may speak to my noble friends on the Front Bench, on Tuesday the amendments for which I stood, and for which a modicum perhaps of avuncular approval was indicated, fell because the alternatives were voted on, and the amendments in my name thereby could not be considered. Without seeming unduly arrogant to my noble friends, may I say that if they suggest that the amendments put forward by the Select Committee are broadly acceptable they may carry with them a very large proportion of noble Lords from all sides of the Committee. I believe there are people on all sides of the Committee who have listened to what I have tried to say, and I have tried to say it as briefly and tersely as possible. I do not support the removal of the waste disposal function first to a
762
residuary body, then leaving it in a limbo of total uncertainty until the Bill is passed. That uncertainty will continue until it is known what will be its final destination.
I favour action now. There should be a clear message going from this Committee to the professionals (who, as we have said, are in the forefront of their field), and to the citizens of the conurbations of England that there will be continuity in the collection and disposal of waste, and that a system will be perpetuated which has provided for genuine innovation and which has given a lead forward to a confident future so that the hazards which have been aired, perhaps rather rashly in this Committee, will never arise.
Lord Molson: Before my noble friend Lord Cranbrook sits down, will he answer an important question? I am not happy about the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It is essential, however, that the disposal of waste should be maintained at a centralised level. Will my noble friend Lord Cranbrook make sure that we have an opportunity of taking the views of the Committee on his Amendment No. 74 if we vote against the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on this occasion? It really is a matter of great importance. I much prefer his proposal which is, I think, far better and is supported with all the authority of the Select Committee. Will my noble friend give that assurance?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I do not believe that such an assurance is in my hands. I have outlined what I see as being my dilemma. I stand liable to correction by those who know more about the procedures of the Committee.
Lord Elton: I do not know whether I know more than my noble friend. I know, however, that it is open to him, after we have disposed of, as I hope we will, the first set of amendments, to move his own if he so wishes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend sits down, was he saying that the system for disposal of waste in Scotland—including Strathclyde, which he visited—carried out by the lower-tier district councils is unsatisfactory and dangerous? I have never understood that there was any problem at all. It may be that the analysts whom he mentioned would have liked this to be a regional council function. However, I have never understood that there was any problem.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with his great experience of Scotland, did not think that this was a satisfactory way of conducting the operation. I have always understood that it worked perfectly well. I also understood that the Liberal Party was committed to doing away with the regional councils in Scotland and would presumably want to leave the disposal of waste in district hands. The noble Lord said, I think, that the Stodart report has reviewed the whole of local government overlapping functions in Scotland and has confirmed the disposal of waste by district councils as satisfactory. Is my noble friend saying that Scotland's arrangements do not work and that they should be altered?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I believe that it is myself rather than my noble friend Lord Elton who has not sat down. I would say to my noble friend Lady Carnegy that, clearly, I did not say that. If she reads what I said, I hope she will find that I said what I meant to say. The matter is subject to our final report. It will be considered in the final report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on local government. It is a small issue involving a small area of concern over the analysis of hazardous materials submitted for disposal as hazardous waste that was brought to my attention in Strathclyde. I made nothing like the broad generalisation that my noble friend has put in my mouth.
Lord Gregson: When we carried out the detailed study of hazardous waste disposal, at the time in 1981, some of the more difficult waste to be disposed of was transferred to England for disposal. I do not think that I am giving away any secrets in saying that. I do not think that it has differed since. I would ask your Lordships not to misunderstand this. There are some very good facilities for doing this in England. That is how some of the more difficult material was dealt with.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It was not sent necessarily to England. It was sent south of the border and conventiently forgotten.
Lord Elton: Will my noble friend enlighten us on one matter? Is he saying that in Scotland it is broadly all right for ordinary waste but there are reservations about hazardous waste so that as regards ordinary waste we have an effective model before us? Is that what he was saying?
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: The Select Committee on Science and Technology report is not dealing in detail with the disposal of domestic and commercial waste. The Select Committee has not looked at the disposal of domestic and commercial waste anywhere. The concern raised with me, as I have stated, was a small point in relation to the disposal of hazardous waste in Scotland. Hazardous waste, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has made clear, has been a major concern of the Select Committee on Science and Technology for a long time. I do not anticipate that the Select Committee will make any firm recommendations on the disposal of household and domestic waste anywhere in this country in its final report.
Lord Elton: My noble friend is therefore accepting the view of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour on commercial and domestic waste without testing it within the Select Committee, and is not casting aspersions upon it?
Lord Gregson: There is a difficulty here. The system of co-disposal in this country means, in effect, that you cannot deal with household waste as a separate issue. Having put down the household waste on the land fill sites, you then pour in the hazardous waste which the household waste helps to digest and dispose of. You cannot really discuss as separate issues household
764
waste and hazardous waste. As soon as you co-dispose, every single household waste site that is used for co-disposal purposes becomes a hazardous waste site.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: We are urged not to take a pessimistic view of the ability of the London boroughs to come together to deal with bulk waste disposal. For those us who have been in local government for a long time, I can safely say, I believe, that we have seen it all before. It did not work then, and it will not work now. Before the formation of the GLC, waste disposal was the responsibility of the London borough councils. The result was chaotic. A hotch-potch of arrangements deriving from a multiplicity of diverse standard small authorities proved that it was costly, inefficient, haphazard, environmentally unsound and unplanned.
Waste did not go to the most appropriate disposal point. Routes criss-crossed. For instance, waste from Lambeth went north to Buckinghamshire, crossing waste from Hammersmith going south to Surrey. There was a total lack of, and absence of, strategic planning. There was no long-term assessment of future needs and requirements. In an effort to sort these things out, the boroughs in 1947 formed into voluntary groups much along the lines now proposed in the Bill. The groups failed. They collapsed in disarray and disagreement. I believe that the same will happen again if the operation is handed over to these groups of boroughs.
Every significant study of waste disposal in London has argued the case for a strategic waste disposal authority. The success of a strategic waste disposal authority in London was so evident and so widely recognised that when local government was reorganised in 1974 waste disposal responsibility was transferred everywhere to the upper-tier authority. I say "everywhere" but it was not quite so, in fact. In Wales, for instance, the responsibility remained with the district councils. The results in Wales, it can I think be safely said, have been unsatisfactory—so unsatisfactory that in October 1982 this Government issued a consultation paper on a possible reorganisation. What did that consultation paper say? It said:
"The Welsh Office are aware that the small size of waste disposal authorities in Wales is causing problems. The system in Wales tends to mitigate against waste disposal authorities employing specialist staff and causes problems in providing sites".
It goes on:
"There is certainly a lack of waste disposal expertise. The Welsh Office have recognised these problems and have encouraged the district councils to combine into three regional waste disposal study groups".
What happened to these voluntary groups? They failed. So what did the Government propose for Wales? The Secretary of State for Wales, when presenting the results of the consultation in February last year, said:
"There is considerable room for improvement in the way in which the waste disposal function is carried out in Wales and the criticisms which led to the review were in general fully justified. … The transfer of the function to the County Council, which consultation has shown to be the most satisfactory of the alternative options … would require legislation".
But of course the Government have not yet introduced this legislation, because at the very same time as they were highlighting the inadequacies of the Welsh system they were proposing to introduce that

765
same inadequate system in London. At the very same time as they were recognising the need for strategic waste disposal authorities in Wales, they were proposing to dismantle the most successful of all strategic waste disposal authorities in London.
The Government's proposals for waste disposal in London have been roundly and universally condemned. All opinion—professional, academic and private sector—is so concerned at the provisions of the Bill that the national association delivered two letters of objection during the Committee stage of the debate in the other place. All opinion is unequivocally damning of the Government's proposals. In another place the Government were unable to name a single independent organisation that supported their plans.
I shall not weary your Lordships' Committee with the details of the lack of progress since the publication of the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities. All I would say is that the state of affairs really cannot go on. Over a third of the London boroughs have taken no part whatever in the attempt to reach agreement. Here we are, under a year away from the proposed abolition, and we have not even reached the starting tape. New deadlines have been set and passed without significant progress. The latest ministerial deadline is now the beginning of September 1985.
As I say, this state of affairs really just cannot go on as it is putting the health and safety of Londoners at risk in a desperate attempt to achieve the unachievable. London must have an efficient waste disposal service from day one after abolition, and that efficient waste disposal service exists now. It must be retained on a London-wide strategic basis.
Just over a month ago the Minister for Local Government issued a note of guidance in a last ditch attempt to get things moving. He proposed seven voluntary groupings of boroughs in London. The proposed groupings are as unrealistic as anything that has been produced in this area so far. Indeed, I would say that adversity makes strange bedfellows. Apart from the operational, financial and other inadequacies of the proposed groupings, it is, I think, stretching credibility to expect voluntary agreements between Lambeth and Wandsworth and among Barnet, Islington and Hackney.
What was interesting and important about the Government's latest paper was what it did not say about costs and savings and what it did say about non-operational functions. The Government apparently now accept that as a last resort there must be a single strategic body to deal with hazardous waste management. They accept that there must be centralised, co-ordinated action on waste planning. They accept the need for a central organisation to deal with the licensing of waste disposal sites. They accept the need for centralising co-ordination of research and development. En short, they accept the need for a single, strategic waste disposal authority but choose not to satisfy that need; yet the only function the Government seem prepared to trust the voluntary borough groupings with is the operational side of waste disposal.
All expert opinion and all available evidence argue that waste disposal must be the responsibility of a
766
strategic authority for London. The inability of the Government or the borough councils to produce a realistic, workable alternative emphasises the point. I believe that the Government will in the end have to accept that; so why do they not accept it now?
This is not a political matter. I never found politics in waste disposal while I was a councillor. It is lust a good management matter. Control over the management of hazardous waste in particular, as has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, must continue efficiently and effectively, and the only way that that can be achieved is in the continuation of a strategic authority.
The Minister in another place failed in any way to make any sort of case for altering the present arrangements for the planning, regulation and disposal of waste in London. He was unable to point out any savings in costs from the changes proposed. He was unable to guarantee even the same level of service, the same capital investment or the same innovation. There are no clear plans for the future and, even if there were, there is inadequate time left for a smooth transfer.
As I said, no one in the waste disposal industry has any confidence in the proposals for joint arrangements. I say again that only a single waste disposal authority for Greater London will be capable of safe, effective and efficient control over waste disposal and regulation in the capital.
Lord Ingrow: It may be surprising at this time to find the Committee a very comforting place. One can leave and come back; an amendment is before the Committee, and the same sort of arguments are being advanced. One has to inquire what the particular Motion is, but the arguments are much the same as we go down the list of amendments. But the air of plausible verisimilitude is being dissipated, and we are left with the bald and unconvincing narrative. This is not an individual matter of waste disposal. It is part of a policy, as was said earlier today.
I make no complaint about that. I am full of admiration for those who dream up a way such as this to defeat the intention of another place and the decisions of this House. I am full of admiration for that. I greatly respect the professional attitude, but I am not conned by it and I do not want to see a decision taken in this Committee by those who may be conned into thinking that this is an illustration solely on its own concerning waste disposal.
Lord Gregson: Is the noble Lord also implying that the Select Committee deliberately cooked up some sort of plot?
Lord Ingrow: I shall come to the Select Committee in a minute. The trouble for those who have dreamt this up is that the gaff has been blown rather earlier than they would have wished at this particular stage.
I must confess with the greatest possible respect that my admiration for the deliberations of the Select Committee falls little short of adoration in this respect. I listened with great care to the speech of my noble friend Lord Cranbook on Tuesday. I got an impression—and it may be quite unjust—that here was a body that had decided that this was right and this

767
was what was going to be imposed. I could be wrong. I have not yet had time to read that. But the impression came out, "We have considered this. We are the Select Committee, and we have decided". I did not really think that that was the way modern thinking went. But even then at the end of the day I thought actually that Governments took decisions and not Select Committees.
I do not have to disagree too much with my noble friend Lord Plummer because I am more concerned with the metropolitan boroughs and not the London ones, but he said that there was no politics in waste disposal. With the greatest respect to him, he does not have the qualities that I know he always has had if he believes that and if he looks at how the voting goes tonight. However, it is the kind of remark I might have made had I wished to carry out his kind of argument. It has been said earlier, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, "Why make a change?". I remember that being said about a dozen years ago when it was proposed to give to the borough authorities in the metropolitan districts the power over education. Education in West Yorkshire has been substantially better since it was run by the county boroughs and not a large part of it run by the West Riding County Council. It is possible to change and improve matters. The other method is entire ossification. It is said that there were problems in the past about getting authorities to run together. However, the authorities we are now talking about are much larger than they were before 1974.
5 p.m.
I come back to the point that "democracy" is a word frequently used in this Chamber. The one place it must not apply is where it is nearest to the people, where the people actually elect borough councillors as opposed to county councillors. The borough councillors are the ones who have to levy a rate. They are the ones whom the local representatives know. Nobody knows the county councillors. They know the borough councillors. These are the people who, throughout discussion in this Committee, are being steadily traduced. I think it is wrong.
The CBI were mentioned. Not everybody in industry would agree with all the observations of the CBI, because many of us think they are getting quite a number of them wrong. However, they are among the biggest complainants about the very high rates charged by authorities such as the GLC and others.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to come in. I should have come in earlier. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, quoted the CBI as being in support of this amendment. I have been briefed by them. There is no suggestion that they are behind this, and I think that was a misquote.
Lord Gregson: If it is, I will apologise to the Committee at the right time. However, as far as I am concerned, I have it in black and white.
Lord Mottistone: I have been in touch with them constantly throughout this. At an earlier stage they may have made some statement, but in an up-to-date briefing they are not concerned at all about this point.
Lord Gregson: I understand there is considerable support for the rest of the Bill except for one issue, and one issue alone; that is hazardous waste.
Lord Ingrow: Perhaps I may join in the battle again. I am not very bothered whether they are or not. I am not briefed by the CBI, and if I think the CBI are talking nonsense I am quite happy to say so. However, in this case they are very concerned, as they are very concerned about the antics of the GLC in organising transport and roads in London. Thus what we are doing, or trying to do, may be very damaging if some of these amendments are passed. I hope very much that it will be realised that this important amendment, as it is, can perfectly well be carried out by the proposals of the Government. For me, it is not a question of preferring one amendment to the other. I personally shall vote for the one which I think is right and sensible, the one the Government have produced.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: I want very briefly to make only one point. Listening to my noble friend Lord Plummer and to noble Lords on the other side, anyone would think that when local government reorganisation took place the decision to separate collection and disposal of waste was unanimously agreed as being a step in the right direction and making for efficiency. As I am sure my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls will remember, it was one of the most bitterly contested and controversial items in the entire legislation. As I recall, it was only by a comparatively narrow margin that the Government came down on the side of splitting these two functions and giving waste disposal to the upper-tier authorities.
The fact of the matter is that the upper-tier authorities then did not particularly want it and the lower-tier authorities were perfectly confident that they would continue to deal adequately with it. It really is nonsense to say that this was some great universally agreed reform at the time. It was not. The local authorities, in concert or by themselves, were getting on reasonably well and were perfectly happy to keep the disposal function. If they could do it then, I, like my noble friends, believe they can do it again.
Lord Beloff: I should like to return for a moment to one of the alternative proposals before us, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It seems to me that that incorporates not so much a threat to the pollution of the environment but a pollution of the English language. A residuary body is not a body upon which, in the normal meaning of the word, new functions can be conferred. Indeed, I was so surprised that I thought at first that it was just that the noble Baroness had been brought up in a very polite way and was taught to use the word "residue" rather than the word "waste", so she thought residue could go to a residuary authority. However, I understand that that was not her intention.
A residuary body, in the normal meaning of the English language, and as expounded in relation to this Bill at some length in subsequent clauses, means a body which is constituted in order to take over responsibilities that continue when a particular body has ceased to exist. It might be compared to a receiver in the case of a company which has gone into

769
liquidation. The receiver collects moneys due and does his best to meet the needs of creditors in a way which the law demands. When he has concluded this, his functions naturally come to an end.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps the noble Lord will kindly forgive me. He is teaching the Committee English and fact. A receiver is not a liquidator of a company. He means the word "liquidator". A receiver is appointed for a secured creditor or debenture holder. I would not have interrupted the noble Lord, but I noted his desire to be so precise.
Lord Beloff: I, too, thought that there was such a distinction, but the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers have rather confused this distinction in the public mind.
However, perhaps I may return to the Bill. A residuary authority, whether the comparison with a liquidator—as apparently the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would prefer—is a correct one, would still be with a person who is appointed for a limited term, for a precise set of functions which are then to disappear. If the liquidator of a company manufacturing bicycles were to think it part of his possible duties to see whether the company could not now start up in the manufacture of stockings, I think he would be going beyond the normal use of the word "liquidator". Similarly, a residuary body cannot possibly take on or be asked to take on functions which do not directly arise out of the residuary matters left over in abolition. Whatever the solution to the problem of waste disposal or any other issues that may come before the Chamber, it is impossible that they should be entrusted to a residuary body which, by its nature, is evanescent.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Because we seem to have gone backwards and forwards so often from Amendment No. 72, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to Amendment No. 73, I think a degree of confusion is arising in the Committee. I should like very firmly to oppose Amendment No. 72. I should like also to draw attention to the fact that the movers of Amendment No. 73, or those who have spoken to Amendment No. 73, have made very effective points against Amendment No. 72, in particular their statement that a function requiring a long-term and assured future should not be handed over to a body that has only a life of five years. Therefore I think that anyone who is seriously interested in the long-term future of waste disposal must be very clear on that point: that it is no good handing it over to a body whose life is limited to five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, quoted a number of different authorities which would support a statutory joint board. However, in no case did he say that they wanted the residuary body to be the authority to take this on. I have been a representative of both a borough council and a regional council. I have noticed that in this Chamber there is always confusion when people refer to a local authority when they mean what we now think of as a regional authority. In fact, it is still a local authority, but it does cause confusion. I noticed the other day that when the Minister was defining parks
770
and open spaces the same confusion arose because he kept defining them as an area owned by a local authority and people were thinking of that authority as a regional authority. Therefore, we do sometimes get ourselves into difficulty as regards terminology.
However, as someone who has been involved at both levels of local and regional government, I take the view that we cannot afford to underestimate the ability of the local boroughs to cope with the problem of waste disposal. They deal with waste collection perfectly effectively; I do not think that it is a very major step forward for them to deal with waste disposal.
The point has been made repeatedly in this Chamber that great expertise has developed in this field over the years since the reorganisation of local government and that that expertise would be equally available to the local boroughs as it is available to the GLC. I believe that the scientific branch at County Hall will remain as a cohesive whole, wherever it goes. Therefore, it will still be in a position to hand out the necessary advice. Stories have been put forward again and again in this Chamber, but strangely enough they have not been put forward with an unnecessary degree of alarm. However, the people who read them may be alarmed that the people of London or of other parts might be poisoned. That was a rather frightening tactic that we could happily disregard.
Expertise and knowledge are growing all the time. As regards savings, examples have been given of boroughs that might not work together. Let us consider some of those boroughs which have made enormous savings and which have still carried out a very cost-effective and satisfactory (from the point of view of the ratepayers) waste collection process. I would very strongly oppose Amendment No. 72.
Baroness White: I do not want to come between the Committee and the Minister for too long, but I am deeply concerned about the confusion into which we have brought ourselves. I am so sorry that the scientific expertise of my colleagues on the Select Committee on Science and Technology has led them into a parliamentary procedure which has put us into great difficulty. I am not quite clear how we shall vote upon Amendment No. 73 and the accompanying Amendment No. 74 if by any chance Clause No. 8 is accepted by the Committee. The two are incompatible, as has been indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. I hope that we shall get a little guidance from the Minister as to how we are to deal with the situation. Personally, I hate to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I am not entirely happy that her solution is a better one than the one contained in the proposals of the Select Committee.
What worries me so much is that so many Members of the party opposite in particular—although by no means universally, I am happy to think—are living in what one might call the "horse and buggy age", but in what I shall call the "hole in the ground age". As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, indicated the other day, he thinks that holes in the ground are the beginning and end of waste disposal. With great respect, those who have had an opportunity of discussing these matters on a scientific and technological basis know, on the one hand, of the advances that are being made

771
in the techniques of disposal and in the use of waste for energy and so on and, on the other hand, of the increasing dangers that are arising from our mixed disposal of waste—a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, made very clear. We cannot really dissociate one from the other, except in a very few instances. The chemical hazards to which we are being exposed and the biotechnological hazards which are increasing year by year really make it essential that we view the matter not just as a question of expert advice but also as a matter of expert operation of plants, equipment installations and techniques for dealing with these matters.
I do not wish to labour the point, but I hope that we may get guidance on how those of us who might wish to support Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 may do so. I also plead with those who, quite frankly, are behind the times. You cannot go back to pre-1974. A great deal has happened since 1974. Everything that has happened since 1974 has been in the direction which was so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, on one side of the Chamber, and by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on the other. They really know what they are talking about and, with great respect, some of the "horse and buggy" or "hole in the ground" brigade do not.
Lord Shinwell: I should—
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I have been asked a question and I shall be only a moment. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. As regards the Question that Clause 8 stand part, my noble friend has put down that he will resist that because it paves the way for Amendment Nos. 73 and 74. Therefore the discussion will take place on clause stand part. If your Lordships were to decide that Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 were what you wanted in the Bill, you would have to declare that by voting that the Clause do not stand part of the Bill. Therefore, the decision would be taken at that stage.
The noble Baroness also asked how she and her friends could support Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. The other prerequisite, of course, will be to defeat Amendments Nos. 72B and 72C because they are inimical to it. I hope that we shall have the help of the noble Baroness in that regard.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: Obviously there is some confusion in the minds of those Members of your Lordships' Committee who are not experts in matters of local government. We have to follow the experts and as there is a variety of them most of them adopt different lines of thought and so it is very difficult to come to any conclusion. My purpose in rising to intervene before the noble Lord the Minister makes some observations is that I feel that the noble Baroness was justified in indulging in what has been a moderate criticism that has developed in the course of this debate. That criticism should not be levelled against Members of your Lordships' Committee. If it has to be directed at all, it should be directed against the Government. I shall give one example. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton—if I may have his
772
attention for a moment—in the course of a very short speech in reply to my noble friend Lady Birk, said words to the effect, "I am quite unable to come to any decision until I know what decision will be reached about some other amendment". The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I understood him to say. That, indeed, surprises me. The Government are introducing a measure which calls for the abolition of an organisation. You can regard it as either responsible or irresponsible; it is a matter of judgment or point of view. It matters little because you have to face the fact that the Government want to abolish it. The general feeling of the Committee is that it has to be abolished simply because it is unsatisfactory and inadequate in some respects. I shall leave it at that for the moment.
When the Government decide to embark upon an adventure of this nature, introducing legislation so complicated and so inadequately prepared, and when they have not looked ahead, considered the consequences of every possible amendment and every proposition which they themselves may make in the course of presenting the various aspects of legislation, there is bound to be some confusion. I cannot understand why the Government rushed into this adventure. It is a kind of exploration in uncharted seas, uncharted land, areas which have never before been explored. The result is that the Government find themselves in a measure of confusion. They are not sure where they stand. The very fact that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asks my noble friend Lady Birk not to come to a decision about one amendment until we decide what we do about another amendment indicates that there is confusion in his mind also. That ought not to happen.
I make a suggestion. The Government should decide now, or after some consideration which would take a little while, that in the circumstances and because of the confusion and the criticism which have emerged they do not intend to pursue this legislation until there has been more adequate preparation and will leave it over for a month until after the Recess, and come back again before the autumn and reintroduce the legislation when there has been adequate consideration of all the consequences. If they did that, I think the House would accept it and there would be less confusion in our minds.
It may well be that the confusion exists only in my mind. I confess that I know little about local government. My first association with local government took place in the year 1916 when I became a member of the Glasgow Town Council. I was a member for seven years until I managed to get a parliamentary candidature which was successful. That was the end of my knowledge of local government and, quite frankly, I know nothing about it since them. Foreign affairs, I know a little; shipping, a little; defence, a little. I know a little of everything and perhaps not very much of anything consequential, but nevertheless I do my best in the circumstances. But about local government I know very little, and I find myself even more confused than anybody in your Lordships' Committee.
The best way to remove my confusion is not to proceed with this legislation for, say, a month or two. I say to the Government: come back again when you

773
are better prepared and you are refreshed after your summer holiday. After that we shall meet you with no desire to criticise, but a desire to help to make this legislation well worthwhile in the interests of London and the shire counties, and all the rest of those involved. I make that suggestion. I hope that it will be accepted.
Lord Elton: I am deeply touched by the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for my welfare. If he is offering me a long and paid holiday, I can think of few things that would be more difficult for me to resist at the moment. But if he is doing that because he believes that I am in a state of confusion, all I can say is that I am not aware of it.
We have two simple propositions before us. The first one comes from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and her supporters in the form of Amendments Nos. 72B and 72C. That would transfer responsibility for either all waste disposal and regulation functions or just the regulation and control of hazardous waste in London and the metropolitan counties to the residuary body for that area.
Your Lordships have quite properly perceived that it is a totally different suggestion from that of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who has advanced another one from behind me, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, who sits opposite me. There is a degree of ecumenism here which your Lordships will find agreeably unfamiliar. That is a different proposition. I propose to address myself to the first, so that we can dispose of it. It is inimical to the second. Then we can address ourselves to the latter.
As currently drafted, the Bill provides for responsibility for waste disposal and regulation in London to be devolved in the boroughs and in the metropolitan counties to the district councils. Your Lordships will know of course that the boroughs and districts are already waste collection authorities for their areas, and you will probably know that another Select Committee from the other place on trade and industry reported last December.
The report of that Select Committee, which was called The Wealth of Waste, clearly identified as one of the major obstacles to waste recycling in England the separation of the responsibility for collection and disposal. Our proposals to create unitary collection and disposal authorities in London and the metropolitan counties will mean that, for the first time in a long while, those authorities can receive the full benefits from recycling in terms of both reduced disposal costs and income from the sale of recyclable material. This will give greater impetus to recycling initiatives.
The appointment of my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry as Minister with special responsibility for co-ordinating Government initiatives on recycling was in direct response to that Select Committee's report. Your Lordships will wish first of all to think carefully before striking out of our hands the first fruits of that committee's work and the benefits which they can offer to all of us. That is the first thing I ask your Lordships to remember.
The creation of unitary collection and disposal authorities will greatly help my honourable friend in
774
his task, and these amendments would separate the functions, contrary to the advice of the Select Committee, and thus forgo those benefits. In London they would do so by transferring them to the London residuary body. That body will be made up of members appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State subject to his direction. The same is true of the metropolitan residuary bodies. In each case their role will essentially be an executive and technical one. It will also be limited by Clause 65 to a life of five years. It is a transitional home, and the permanent transfer of waste disposal and regulation functions would scarcely be suitable to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—and I cannot refrain from calling him my noble friend ever since he did me the honour of inspecting me at the parade at Sandhurst in honour of the end of the last World War when I was a cadet and I had something else to celebrate—has said that it was odd that I asked what position the Opposition would take on this question of the final form of the residuary body. But it was a necessary question, and the confusion was not in my mind. The confusion was evidently in the mind of the Opposition because they had given a permanent function to a temporary body, which was an obvious mistake unless they intended it no longer to be temporary, which was an obvious stratagem. It was a stratagem which was endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she spoke on television last night and again earlier today, and I was lucky to see her, when she said, "There would be logic, wouldn't there, in giving an elective nature to that body as well".
Baroness Seear: May I intervene, since I have keen quoted at least three times in connection with my television appearance, which I think nobody can have seen? I had forgotten my exact words, and I am glad to be reminded by the noble Lord the Minister that what I said was a simple statement of fact. The logic of the position would lead in this direction. What I was saying was that experience of what we were proposing would mean that you would find that this was the optimum size for operating these services. If the Minister and his supporters think that what they are doing now is absolutely fixed for all time regardless of the experience of the next four or five years, all I can say is that they have no knowledge of history and no sense of the future.
Lord Elton: I compliment the noble Baroness on the elegance of her reply. But what she said on the air was: if you find that you need to have a larger authority for an accumulation of special services—and if your Lordships look down the Marshalled List, you will find that this is not by any means the only service which is to receive this treatment—if you find yourself in that position, the logic of that is surely that sooner or later you are going to have to have an elected body.
Therefore, the logic of the position of the united Opposition parties is that we transfer enduring functions to a temporary body, in the sure knowledge that the intention stated by the noble Baroness was that she should be able to exploit the possibility of making them permanent, and bearing in mind the probability expressed by the noble Baroness that they would also become elective. I am thus tempted to

775
launch into what I thought was the most telling part of my speech last Tuesday, but I shall refrain from doing so because I am sure that it is etched on your Lordships' memories.
We are not in the business of recreating a lesser form of the authority that we are now abolishing, and your Lordships have decided that. It is to the decision of the Committee in that respect that I principally appeal. Your Lordships will want me to fill out—I knew that the noble Lord would wish to rise.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: One has to rise because the noble Baroness made a perfectly sensible statement. She said "if" we find that a thing does not work we shall have to do something else. That was the essence of it. If the noble Lord does not agree with that he should say so.
Lord Elton: It was not if it does not work. She said that if there was an authority for an accumulation of special services the logic is that it becomes elective. I do not want to make much of this.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Elton: I shall make as much of this as your Lordships wish.
Baroness Seear: I am extremely flattered that my broadcast is becoming a substitute for the subject of the debate. I really believe that we should get back to the subject of the amendment.
Lord Elton: The subject we are debating is the body that is to discharge the various functions that have to be discharged after abolition has taken place. One of these functions is the collection and, more particularly for our purposes, the disposal of waste; both the common domestic and commercial waste, and the hazardous waste to which the Select Committee addressed itself. The question to which I shall revert was the one I outlined: whether it was proper that that body should be both permanent and elective. I do not want to give the noble Baroness any more publicity than she wants for her broadcast, though I hope the ratings go up in future because I thought she was very good! I want to revert to the subject in hand because the Committee will want to know more about what we propose.
Noble Lords have stressed the need to ensure joint working between the boroughs and the districts particularly in relation to hazardous waste. As your Lordships will know, we invited the authorities concerned to submit statements of the arrangements they proposed for carrying out their waste disposal and regulatory functions after abolition. We asked them to include arrangements for co-ordinating action where that was appropriate. So far we have received initial responses from 21 London boroughs embodying an outline plan for the discharge of these functions across the whole of London. Those proposals envisage seven groups of authorities for disposal and other purposes with arrangements for co-ordinating some regulatory and other non-operational functions and the creation of a separate unit to deal with hazardous waste.
776
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Local Government met the co-operating boroughs in March. He was impressed by the positive and constructive approach they have adopted to planning for the takeover of functions in London. For the metropolitan counties no comprehensive proposals have yet been put forward; but the issues there are generally less complex than in London and the task correspondingly simpler. Some six district authorities have sent statements setting out their own individual proposals. The forward planning which has already taken place and which is continuing is therefore encouraging. Much more must be done of course. In particular, I hope that those authorities which have so far refused to co-operate with us will do so. I must point out to my noble friend Lord Plummer that it is all very well to say that waste disposal is not and never has been political; but in that case it is difficult to understand why the Socialist-controlled proposed waste disposal authorities have refused to talk to us on political grounds about waste disposal. It seems to me that it has become very political, and that is to be regretted.
I hope that those conversations will take place for the sake of the staff as well as for the sake of the service. To assist this further planning, the department in March issued a guidance note to authorities offering advice on the practical arrangements which might be appropriate in each area. Further discussions are already in hand with boroughs and districts on the basis of that guidance.
I should mention in particular two of the criteria that we have made clear by which we shall judge authorities' proposals which I hope will further reassure your Lordships. The first concerns arrangements for hazardous waste on which one of the amendments focuses and which is of great interest to your Lordships, not only to the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, and my noble friend but others. I assure the Committee that the Government fully share those views about the importance of proper and effective arrangements in this area. The Government totally accept the need for effective application and enforcement of standards in this field. Early in June my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be publishing the first report of the Hazardous Waste Inspectorate. The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, alluded to this. I assure him that there was no intentional delay. The report is being printed now and we hope to have it in print in the first week in June when this Bill will still be in your Lordships' Committee.
Lord Gregson: By rumour and another sort of suggestion, that report has been hanging around for a long time.
Lord Elton: I have not, so I do not know whether it is true. While the Bill will not indicate any evidence of damage to health from the disposal of hazardous waste, it will indicate (I think the noble Lord expects this) that basic site management practices on the part of waste disposal management are in many cases inadequate and that site licensing, inspection and enforcement by waste disposal authorities varies throughout the country. That is not a problem

777
confined to London or to the metropolitan counties. I must allude to it because it touches both. The solution has to be wider It calls in the first instance for action by site operators themselves to apply recognised best practices. We look first to the industry and its representative bodies to put their house in order. Secondly, we look to waste disposal authorities to impose the right licensing requirements and to check on and enforce their application. We also look to authorities to apply full and economical charges for disposal of commercial and industrial waste on their own sites.
But we think it right to legislate when opportunity permits to charge on waste, on disposals, the costs of the central system itself. That is consistent with the polluter pays principle; and, secondly, we have recently published the report of a review of the regulations dealing with control of special wastes. That report discussed various possible measures to secure more effective and consistent applications of control. We are now seeking views on that report and welcome those of noble Lords and of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. But I make this clear: the question is not whether we shall act on this report, as the noble Lord may think it is, it is what action we shall take, because act we shall.
I have much more I could say on hazardous waste, but your Lordships wish to get on. We accept the need for close co-ordination of controls over hazardous waste and for the maintenance of existing centres of specialist staff, facilities and equipment especially computer-based records. The boroughs have already proposed a separate unit to provide these services for London. The guidance note makes clear that we wish to see such units in each metropolitan county. The creation of the separate units will mean that there will he no need for any involvement of the residuary bodies in these arrangements. There is no more case for transferring responsibility for hazardous waste to the residuary bodies than there is for transferring to them responsibility for waste disposal and regulation generally.
I said I would refer to two criteria. The second is the need for consistency in site licensing standards. I have said already what we propose to do in the light of the HWI report. I believe the best way we can do that is by keeping existing expertise together.
In conclusion, your Lordships are anxious on three counts: the first is that the provisions already in the Bill for voluntary co-operation may be inadequate from the start. The second is that they may prove adequate to start with but, following the predictions of my noble friend Lord Plummer prove inadequate subsequently. The third is that in either event there should be satisfactory obligatory arrangements in their place. The Government believe that the voluntary arrangements can and should work from the start and that they can and will continue to operate satisfactorily in the future, and I sought to persuade your Lordships to that view. If I have failed or, if I am wrong, I entirely accept that there is a need for something other than hope deferred. This is why we already have Clause 9 in the Bill.
My next purpose therefore is to put it firmly on the record, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, clearly would
778
wish me to do, that my right honourable friend is fully seized of the importance of establishing systems which really work and give real protection to the environment and to health. They must be in position before 1st April next year and my right honourable friend is seized of that as well and he undertakes to use the reserve power under Clause 9 to establish a mandatory system, if that is what the public interest demands. He will not take that decision at the last minute; he will take it in September.
If the effective cover is not then visible, we shall use the reserve power; and I also assure your Lordships that if voluntary arrangements start out in a satisfactory way and then deteriorate, as has been suggested, my right honourable friend will again be prepared to use the Clause 9 powers promptly to protect the public interest. Those of your Lordships who fear that the supply of voids to fill the waste may atrophy under district supervision should realise that the Secretary of State will have this power should circumstances require him to use it.
I have suggested that your Lordships should reject these amendments for a number of reasons; the proper time to introduce compulsory arrangements is after voluntary arrangements have proved unattainable—and they have not so proved yet. Both of these amendments are therefore premature. It is not right to pre-empt the decision on the use of the reserve power. It is not right to use this occasion to water down the devolution to districts, which they fully expect, of the functions of the abolition body. And it is not right to go against the clear recommendation of the Select Committee of another place in order to satisfy those of our own Select Committee when all that they wish to protect can be protected; as I believe I shall be able to demonstrate to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook when we come to his later amendments in the Bill directed specifically at protecting the specialist and technical support services.
I do not wish to broaden this debate now because your Lordships will want to come to a conclusion, but I would say that the central thing that noble Lords on the Select Committee as I understand it, want to preserve is the support and technological service. They have other points, but this is the principal one; and that, I believe, we can take care of. I do not think that it is right to insist on changing the Bill to provide prematurely a compulsion that is already provided for in the Bill as it now stands for use at the right time.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that this is not an ad hoc, irresponsible, short-term, pro tern solution. This is a solution which transfers to the lower-tier bodies the functions which they properly expect and have been promised from the upper-tier bodies. It is being done in a framework of co-operative consultation which they are free to use voluntarily, but if they fail to use it voluntarily, they can be given an answer by my right honourable friend under compulsion. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook will ask me what sort of an answer that might be. I can tell your Lordships that in Clause 9 there is provision for the Secretary of State to provide the sort of joint authority which my noble friend has on the Marshalled List. It need not be exactly the same, but it can have all the same elements that he requires, and the difference between my noble friend and me is only a matter of

779
two months; but there is a world of principle because the Bill becomes a statute at the end of this Session and I have undertaken that the compulsory power will be used in September.
My noble friend wishes to pre-empt that through an amendment which says, "Use that power now and produce this body in exactly this form". Between now and September we wish to test the voluntary principle and we expect, at least in part, to have perfectly adequate areas. We do not want to sweep up those good, workable, safe, hygienic voluntary arrangements into a compulsory arrangement with other boroughs and other districts who have refused to co-operate. We wish to leave them. Therefore I ask my noble friend to defer the compulsion that he seeks to put on the Secretary of State so that he can tailor it to the situation which exists in September.
Your Lordships are not a democratic House but you believe in the democratic principle. We propose to transfer to elected authorities important functions—and not on political grounds. I say to your Lordships: just look at the political complexion of the people to whom we are giving these functions before you tell me that this is a Tory bonanza. This is a practical, sensible thing endorsed by your Lordships at Second Reading and endorsed last Tuesday; and I hope that it will be endorsed again in a minute.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gregson: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, may I ask him to clarify something? I would not like it to stand on the record as I heard it. I seem to understand from his words that he gave more priority to the commercial possibilities of waste recycling than to the urgent necessity of a proper control of hazardous waste. That is how it came over to this side of the Committee. I should like the Minister, please, to explain that point.
Lord Elton: It was certainly not intended. My experience of my speeches is that most of them are forgotten but that the beginning is forgotten quickest and therefore I put in the least important bit then. I started by saying that the first thing that I would like your Lordships to remember was that this was in accordance with the other Select Committee, that of another place, and that if this amendment went through, that fruit would be struck from our hands. That would be a pity. It is not a trivial matter. Waste recycling affects closely the way people look at the environment. It has a great deal to do with the way we live. It is important commercially. The questions noble Lords have been addressing are wider than that; and I concluded on those.
Baroness Birk: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in reply to this quite lengthy and interesting debate. I must confess that I did not find his arguments convincing to any degree at all. He said that he was looking forward to receiving views on paper which will be put out by the Government. It is hard to understand why the Government need any more views on any more papers when they have had the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. They have also had the report of my noble friend Lord Gregson's Select Committee on hazardous
780
waste. Those noble Lords have spoken in the debate this afternoon from a tremendous depth of experience and knowledge; and the Minister is saying, in return, that what we should do is to go ahead with the proposals in the Government Bill and then, if they do not work, try something else. If one ran a business on that basis, it would go bankrupt, and one would then have to decide what should have been done before, and then start all over again.
Apart from the political points that have been made, quite fairly, on all sides, I think that the basis of the informed opinion has been expressed in this Committee from the administration side of it in London, from the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, and from the scientific people, from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, my noble friend Lord Gregson and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I feel very strongly that the wish of the Committee would be to support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
Therefore, I intend to withdraw my amendment, No. 72B. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 72C and I ask my noble friends to support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I ask that, too, of other noble Lords in the Committee who obviously are unhappy and uneasy with what is in the Bill and feel that a strategic body is necessary. That is the most important thing today—not the method by which we get it. That is why we shall be supporting the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72C not moved.]
On Question Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Cranbrook: I have given notice of intention to oppose the Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill? In my speech I have already made it clear that this is simply paving the way to the two amendments, Nos. 73 and 74, on which I have already spoken and to which my noble friend has referred. My noble friend has stated that the difference between us is a matter of two months. I think that this speaks for itself; that he also lacks confidence in the system and he believes that in two months' time it will be necessary to take the step that I hope your Lordships will take now.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, if that was his conclusion—no, the noble Earl has not concluded—I think I ought to disabuse my noble friend—
A noble Lord: He has concluded.
Lord Elton: I think my noble friend should understand that I did not say I expected it to fail. I said I expected it in large part to succeed but that we could not be certain whether it would succeed altogether. I therefore said that we thought the power he proposed should properly be used when we could see whether it had succeeded in part or whether it had wholly succeeded. If it has succeeded in part then that power should be applied only in those parts where it has not succeeded. I hope that my noble friend is aware of

781
that. I had one or two other things to say about the proposed amendment, but I understand that the Committee is anxious to come to a decision, and so I shall only say that I hope your Lordships will stand firm.
5.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 170.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Greenway, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Annaly, L.

Annan, L.

Halsbury, E.

Arran, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Astor, V.

Harvington, L.

Auckland, L.

Hood, V.

Barber, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Howe, E.

Beloff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ingrow, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ironside, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kemsley, V.

Brentford, V.

Killearn, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Caithness, E.

Kitchener, E.

Caldecote, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carver, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cathcart, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Cawley, L.

Long, V.

Chelwood, L.

Lothian, M.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Luke, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Crathorne, L.

Margadale, L.

Croft, L.

Marley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marsh, L.

Davidson, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

De La Warr, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Digby, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Melville, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Dundee, E.

Mersey, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Elles, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyola, L.

Ferrier, L.

Munster, E.

Fisher, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gainford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norwich, Bp.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glanusk, L.

Onslow, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Orkney, E.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Grantchester, L.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Penrhyn, L.

782

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Reading, M.

Swinfen, L.

Reigate, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Renwick, L.

Teynham, L.

Rochdale, V.

Torrington, V.

Rodney, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Romney, E.

Trenchard, V.

Rugby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vestey, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sandford, L.

Weinstock, L.

Shannon, E.

Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Soames, L.

Windlesham, L.

Somers, L.

Wynford, L.

Southborough, L.

Young, B.

Stockton, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Alport, L.

Galpern, L.

Amherst, E.

Gifford, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Attlee, E.

Glenconner, L.

Avebury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L. [Teller.]

Bancroft, L.

Grey, E.

Banks, L.

Hampden, V.

Barnett, L.

Hampton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hankey, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birkett, L.

Hayter, L.

Blyton, L.

Henniker, L.

Boothby, L.

Hooson, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hunt, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ilchester, E.

Brockway, L.

Ingleby, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Jacobson, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Jacques, L.

Caradon, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Chitnis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kagan, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Kearton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kissin, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Leatherland, L.

Listowel, E.

Denington, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Longford, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ennals, L.

McCarthy, L.

Esher, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McNair, L.

Ezra, L.

Mais, L.

Falkender, B.

Mar, C.

Falkland, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mayhew, L.

Fitt, L.

Melchett, L.

Flowers, L.

Milford, L.

Foot, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mishcon, L.

783

Molloy, L.

Serota, B.

Molson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Shinwell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Simon, V.

Mulley, L.

Stallard, L.

Nicol, B.

Stamp, L.

Northfield, L.

Stedman, B.

Ogmore, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Oram, L.

Stone, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Parry, L.

Strauss, L.

Peart, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Walston, L.

Reilly, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Salmon, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Seear, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Seebohm, L.

Resolved in the negative, and clause disagreed to accordingly.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Elton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Security: The Bettaney Case
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on security which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on security.
"On 22nd February I received the report of the Security Commission on their inquiry into the case of Michael Bettaney, the former security service officer who was tried for offences under the Official Secrets Acts and was sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment in April last year. The report is being presented to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon.
"The Commission have fully examined Bettaney's career in the security service, with the object of identifying any errors on the part of management in relation to Bettaney's employment.
"The Commission find that the process of recruiting Bettaney was carried out consistently with the procedures at the time. There is in fact no reason to doubt his loyalty at that time, or to suppose that he had at that stage ever contemplated the possibility of turning spy.
784
"The Commission make a number of serious criticisms of the errors by the security service in relation to the management of Bettaney's career. In particular, they conclude that there came a point in October 1982 when there should have been, but was not, a very full investigation of Bettaney's lifestyle, which would probably have led to the removal of his positive vetting clearance and the cessation of his employment in the security service.
"It remains the case, however, that Bettaney's attempts to get himself recruited as an agent of the Russian intelligence service were not successful.
"The security service's investigation which led to Bettaney's eventual conviction was effective and conclusive. Although in the course of his attempts to get himself recruited Bettaney did communicate some secret information to the Russians, he was arrested before he was able to pass over the major proportion of the secret information that he had collected and the grave damage that would have ensued by such communication was averted.
"In the light of their investigation, the Commission make a number of recommendations for changes in positive vetting procedures in the Security Service. The most significant of these is that, at quinquennial review, special and separate reports should always be called for from all those who have supervised the subject since clearance was last given. The Commission also recommend that the revised and improved arrangements which apply at present only to the more senior grades should now be extended to all staff. These recommendations are being put into effect.
"In the course of their investigation, the Commission received evidence of a more general character which was critical of various aspects of the internal organisation and management of the security service. They did not attempt to pass judgment on those criticisms, but have recorded their impression of aspects of organisation and management which seem to them to require examination and reassessment. The last chapter of the report makes some suggestions for changes in management attitudes and arrangements, and indicates a number of matters which in the Commission's view call for particular consideration.
"These criticisms and suggestions are being thoroughly examined and my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary and I are determined to see that action is taken to remedy management weaknesses.
"The new director general is giving the utmost care and attention to the Security Commission's criticism of errors in relation to Bettaney's employment, as well as to the general management criticisms to which I have referred. He will make the changes which are judged to be necessary to improve the organisation and management of the service and will report to my right honourable and learned friend and me later this year. I shall arrange for his conclusions and measures to be reported to the Security Commission for any further comment they may wish to make.
"Honourable Members, on both sides of the House, have expressed concern about the handling

785
of members of the service who are troubled over particular matters and activities within the service. The director general has been asked to consider, and to report to my right honourable and learned friend and me, what developments he proposes by way of internal outlets for the expression of grievances or anxieties of individual members of the service.
"Finally, I emphasise that the criticisms of management do not extend to operations or overall efficiency. Indeed the Commission say that:
'nothing in this report is intended in any way to call in question the professional and operational efficiency of the security service, which we believe to be of a high order.'
"Nevertheless the criticisms the Commission make of the handling of Bettaney's case are serious and every possible effort will be made to see that the shortcomings they describe do not occur again."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement, which deals with matters of the utmost importance. It is to be noted that several serious criticisms of mistakes by the security services in connection with the Bettaney case have been made by the Commission of Inquiry. We are glad that the report of the commission is being published as a Command Paper today. May we assume that it is being published in full and also that all of its recommendations are to be implemented?
We note that the revised arrangements are now to be extended to all members of the service, but it remains important that senior members of the staff should be most carefully vetted both on recruitment and regularly thereafter, and that they should be drawn from all sections of the community and from all parts of the United Kingdom. We welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that she and the Home Secretary are examining the criticisms and the proposals of the commission with a view to remedying matters. Can the noble Viscount say whether a further Statement will be made about their conclusions in due course, after they have completed their studies? Further, is the noble Viscount able to say whether there is to be any amalgamation of MI5, MI6, and the number of other agencies connected with them, and will the Joint Intelligence Committee in the Cabinet Office continue to filter information to the Prime Minister?
Can he also say a word about the use of polygraphs within the security services? This has been discussed—I have not had time to read the report myself—and is there not a considerable doubt about the value of these? Can he say whether the possibility of a high level committee of, say, Privy Counsellors and including senior judges and former chiefs of staff, has been considered? Otherwise, who is to vet the vetters? Finally, does the noble Viscount have confidence that the new proposals will stabilise the morale of the present serving officers which has, as we know, been shaken in recent years?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement—this, in many ways, very disquieting Statement. One cannot but be
786
anxious about it. It is by no means the first report of this kind in view of the number of cases of this type which have occurred, and there must be a widespread feeling that all is not well with the security services.
That said, we welcome the appointment of the new director general who, we have reason to suppose, will be able to do a great deal to change matters for the better inside the services. We also note the recommendation that there should be improved provision for members of the service to express their grievances and anxieties about the way in which the service is run, or about matters which come to their attention. It cannot be for the good of the service that there are members within it who have doubts about what is going on and who feel grievances to which they cannot at present give adequate expression.
As things are at present, security matters are, I understand, in the hands exclusively in the last resort of the Prime Minister. In a democratic society such as ours, and having full regard to the obvious importance of high security in these matters, is it not possible that the time is coming when it will be advisable to have a joint committee of both Houses and of all parties to which security matters of this kind and reports of this sort would be referred?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their comments on this Statement. First, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the Government, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, all fully accept the very serious nature of the criticisms in this report and we are all determined to make sure that everything is done to put this right.
I should make clear for the avoidance of any doubt that some of the appendices—Appendices C, D and E—of the report are not to be published for operational reasons, and as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, mentioned publication of the report I think it is correct to make that further point. As for the implementation, yes, I think I made clear that that will most certainly happen. We are determined to do so, of course, in the first instance through the new director general of the security service, who will be charged with deciding what further measures should be taken; and indeed what further measures should be taken—in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—about grievances among the staff. It will depend on his report as to what further action might be taken after that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether my right honourable friend will make a further Statement. The director general will, of course, make a report direct to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Naturally, I could not commit her to that at this stage, but I shall certainly make sure that she appreciates the view that has been expressed in this House, and that I think was expressed in another place, to which she did not wholly commit herself, but she understood the position. I suppose I have to say that that was nearly three hours ago now, but that is what I understand she said at that time.
So far as the question of amalgamating the security services is concerned, I do not know of any proposal to do that. Equally, of course, so far as the Joint

787
Intelligence Unit of the Cabinet Office is concerned, its position will continue, as I understand it, as before. A polygraph was not, of course, in operation at the time when Bettaney was being positively vetted. However, the first phase of the polygraph pilot study is nearing completion. It was expected from the outset that the whole scheme would take at least two years. The earliest date for completion will therefore be some time in 1986.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the possibility of a senior committee, and I think that the noble Baroness went somewhat further and asked about a joint committee of both Houses. I think that the first need is for the director general to make his report. He is the new director general and he should be allowed to make his report both on what improvements he sees in the service and, indeed, on how he sees the grievances being dealt with. Until that report is made, I think it would be premature to make any further comments. If I were to venture just one from my own experience of four years as Home Secretary, one has to consider very carefully what value such committees have—and I accept that it has to be considered at a later date—in view of the fact that there is a very limited amount that anybody can be told on some aspects of intelligence work.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, while it is clear that it is very important that the errors that were made should be very carefully studied, does my noble friend accept that the security service consists of men of great distinction, who have over the years worked with great ability on matters which can rarely be made public, and that there have, of course, been times when there have been errors, and indeed more than errors, in their service? As one who first came into contact with them as a Law Officer as long ago as 1962, may I ask whether it is not right that they work in a field in a fundamentally free society which makes their work intensely difficult and which does not have the resources which are given to the Soviets, their opponent services, for them to do the work that they have to do? Generally therefore, does my noble friend agree that we should have great confidence and great respect for those who presently work in the security service?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend. From my own limited experience—though, I suppose that four years is some time—I strongly confirm what he has said. I think perhaps it would be best for me to quote again to the House what the commission said in their report, because it bears entirely on what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson said:
"Nothing in this report is intended in any way to call in question the professional and operational efficiency of the security service which we believe to be of a high order".
I think that that is something which would be endorsed by many people who have had experience of our security service in this country, and it is a very important statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while all of us in this House—and that was made very clear by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition—take a very
788
serious and responsible attitude towards the security services, which are so vital to the safety of the nation, does the noble Viscount agree that there is very considerable disquiet not only because of the Bettaney case, but also because of the disclosure, if that is the right word, of Cathy Massiter, an employee of MI5 for some 14 years? In the light of our experience over the past months do the Government really think that a quinquennial review of vetting reports is sufficiently frequent?
Lastly, with regard to the report called for by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary specifically from the director general as to his recommendations for dealing with internal complaints and concerns, will the action taken on those recommendations by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary be brought to the attention of Parliament?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has certainly on these matters always adopted a most responsible attitude. Indeed, there was disquiet, and the other disclosures, together with this one, naturally have led to anxieties. On the question as to whether the quinquennial review is sufficiently frequent, I must say that it would be a matter in the first instance for the director general to report about that to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary, and then for that particular point, as indeed with the others on which he will report, to be considered most carefully by them.
I have said that naturally my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will consider very carefully the views expressed both in another place and here as to the need for a further report to Parliament. I do not think that I can commit her any further at this stage.

Local Government Bill
6.22 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 72D not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Waste regulation and disposal]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Question is that this schedule be the sixth schedule to the Bill.
Lord Elton: I am not sure whether the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman should put the Question and we should negative it, or whether he should of his own motion take cognisance of the fact that, having no clause to depend upon, the schedule presumably crashes to the ground.
The Earl of Cranbrook: If the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman is in a dilemma, I so move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that this be the sixth schedule to the Bill.
Schedule 6 negatived.
Clause 9 [Joint arrangements for waste disposal functions]:
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 73:
[Printed earlier: col. 743.]
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 73A and 73B not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 74:
[Printed earlier: col. 744.]
The noble Earl said: This amendment also has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 74YA, 74YB and 74YC not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74ZA not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 74ZB to 74ZN had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Local valuation panels]:
[Amendment No. 74A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 74B to 74J had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 74K:
Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Trading standards and related functions.
. Schedule (Trading Standards and Related Functions) of this Act shall have effect for transferring functions under the enactments there mentioned from metropolitan county councils to the residuary bodies established under Part VII of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 75B:
Amendment No. 75B: Before Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
TRADING STANDARDS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS
1. In section 201(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 for the words "county and London borough, the council of that county" there shall be substituted the words "metropolitan county, the residuary body for that county, and for each non-metropolitan county and London borough the council of that county".
2. In section 71(a) of the Food Act 1984 for the words "county and London borough, the council of that county" there shall be substituted the words "metropolitan county, the residuary body for that county and for each non-metropolitan county and London borough the council of that county".
3. In section 67(1) of the Agriculture Act 1970 after the words "the council of a county" there shall be inserted the words ", or (in a metropolitan county) the residuary body".").
In doing so, I wish to say that we are speaking about a highly efficient and sophisticated consumer protection service which has developed out of the former weights and measures departments that were there before 1974. This debate is solely about the metropolitan counties. There is nothing like the trading standards officers and the departments anywhere except in the metropolitan counties. These services might have been in London, because there was the opportunity in 1965. The formula was there in the Local Government Bill. The suggestions the
790
Government are now making that the boroughs should take on the powers are well illustrated in the London area.
In 1965 the 32 London boroughs became local authority trading standard function officers. Twenty-three of the authorities formed seven consortia, ranging from three to five authorities. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that of these consortia only one remains in the London area. If he suggests later that these services be devolved to the boroughs I feel sure that he will not use London as an example.
If one looks at the trading standards officers, the departments and the work that they undertake, one sees that a real proliferation of consumer law has gone on to the statute book during the past 10 years. For those to be effective, one has to have enforcement. There is no use in Members of this House or of the other House discussing things which ought to be done, making recommendations, putting forward Bills that become Acts of Parliament and then leaving them there. Most of the consumer protection laws have to be enforced and that enforcement comes through these trading standards officers.
It is true to say that much more work has been done by the metropolitan trading standards teams. They have effectively rooted out a very wide range of national consumer scandals. There is no need for me to remind the Committee of some of them. At Christmas time one is always warned not to buy cheap, shoddy electrical goods to hang on one's Christmas tree because of the great danger of fire. Members of the Committee will realise as well the great campaign that had to be undertaken to make sure that children's nightwear was not in a category which burnt very easily. These are the kinds of campaigns in consumer work that the trading standards officers undertake.
One of the most important campaigns at the present time is making quite sure that loan sharks do not tear off the people. Because of unemployment many people are facing serious problems in making two ends meet. They borrow money but they do not have the resources of bank overdrafts or the opportunities that some members of the Committee have, and therefore they have to resort to what are called the lending societies, who tear off people by the very high interest rates they charge. This is one of the areas that is being tackled at the present moment by trading standards departments.
6.30 p.m.
If we have a fragmented service, as suggested in the Bill, we are likely to see a downgrading of the importance of the trading standards function. That means that there will be a downgrading of Government legislation, because if there cannot be enforcement it is no use having legislation on the statute book. In my view, it will also downgrade the importance of the Ministers who answer on consumer affairs for the Department of Trade and Industry. If one considers the re-organisation of local government in 1974—and one must keep returning to that reorganisation—it was the Redcliffe-Maud and Wheatley Reports on local government which influenced the local government Acts of 1974 and 1975. Those reports concluded that any particular unit administering trading standards must be large

791
enough to administer them effectively. We therefore see the splintering of this function as having a detrimental effect on trading standards.
It is easy to lose sight of the fact that an efficient trading standards service is just as important to business as it is to the ordinary consumer. The business community—including the CBI, the Retail Consortium and the National Consumer Council—emphasise clearly the importance of trading laws. They emphasise that the law should be implemented in a consistent way. If the administration of trading standards is broken up and brought down to district level, then this will be bound to increase the problems of uniformity.
I remind the Minister that the Government have published a new booklet entitled Burdens on Business. Chapter 5 draws attention to the complaint which small businesses make about inconsistencies. Managers of small businesses complain about the variations and the different practices policed by local authorities. The Government very wisely say that such complaints are well founded and that there must be more consistency between local authorities. Yet, on the other hand, the Government are being thoroughly inconsistent in getting rid of trading standards departments, which are the very bodies that can ensure consistency.
I turn now to the ways in which trading standards departments help industry. Many noble Lords have a great knowledge of industry, and some of them, perhaps, are actually involved in the areas about which I shall speak. First, in a speech in another place on 19th December 1980 the right honourable Cecil Parkinson stressed the damage which uncontrolled counterfeiting of United Kingdom goods of high international reputation would wreak on the United Kingdom firms concerned and on the job prospects of those employed in such firms.
Counterfeiting is a multi-million pound racket. I will give the Committee one or two examples. As noble Lords will appreciate, I perhaps know the West Midlands better than many other parts of this country. The trading standards office for the West Midlands serves a population of nearly 3 million people. It used to cover—and we wish it covered more now—the heartland of the manufacturing industry. One noble Lord who I do not see in his place has, I know, a great interest in the lock-making trade. The lock manufacturing industry in the Black Country, as we know it, which covers Dudley, Walsall and the surrounding area of the West Midlands, has traditionally produced the highest quality products. In recent years it has almost completely gone out of business because of cheap, inferior imports into this country. That kind of counterfeiting completely destroys British industry.
Exactly the same is true in the case of a large firm manufacturing motor accessories in the West Midlands. Not only were their products counterfeited but also the actual packaging which contained them, so that it appeared almost identical to that used by a brand name known throughout Europe and the rest of the world. That firm, also, is suffering very much from counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is not only bad for business but is bad for employment, too.
Dunlop—another famous firm—is my third example. Everybody knows of Dunlop sports equipment. Again, that company is suffering very badly through counterfeiting of their products. I could give similar examples for South Yorkshire. The Sheffield cutlery industry has been almost completely demolished because of counterfeiting. The same is true in West Yorkshire in the case of textiles. Wool traders are constantly having to battle against counterfeiting. I could go on to give examples for all the other metropolitan counties. If there are no trading standards departments and offices, there will continue to be counterfeiting—and that means tragedy for many businesses and manufacturers who may be well known not only in this country but throughout the world.
I want to stress the point that trading standards departments do not deal only with the lady who discovers a maggot in a loaf of bread. It is important to recognise that businesses are themselves a great beneficiary of the trading standards function. If noble Lords had attended a seminar arranged last week, they would have heard that not only are the local authorities in the London area not doing anything about trading standards but that the same is true elsewhere. A trading standards officer from one of the metropolitan counties stated publicly (and I shall use his words): "I don't know what we shall do if the trading standards authorities are fragmented in the metropolitan counties because the shire counties have not the specialist services and they ride on the backs of the metropolitan counties". So if the metropolitan trading standards departments are abolished, we know very well that the difficulty then will be with individual local authorities.
I can give your Lordships an example of one individual local authority. It is very well known in the West Midlands; it is the authority for a place called Solihull. I suppose that most noble Lords on the Benches opposite have, at some time in their lives, visited Solihull. It does not have a very good polling record in the case of my honourable friends.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We will change that.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: A leading councillor for Solihull is on record as saying that after 1986 trading standards expenditure will be at a minimum in his local authority, and that this function is regarded as a necessary evil. So anyone who lives in Solihull will have to get onto the backs of other authorities if they want their trading standards protected. I give both of these examples because the shire counties rely very, very much on what the metropolitan councils do. I give one example which is an example of a local authority which said it would not be doing anything.
In my view, the Government must find ways to preserve the scientific role of the metropolitan county services in the trading standards departments and their centres of excellence. If anyone wants to visit a trading standards department, I am giving them an invitation. You can always come to the West Midlands. We are always pleased to meet anyone there. One can see the centres of excellence not only from the scientific side but also from the practical side dealing with people who have been "ripped off" on car servicing and all the

793
kinds of things which are commonplace when people discuss how we operate.
These centres of excellence and the scientific role provided by the metropolitan county services are referred to in the report of your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology. We have to say again that they are reported as centres of excellence.
It would seem to me that the Government have not so much an open mind on the trading standards department as a blank one. The Government do not have a clue as to what to do with this very important part of local government which serves not only the ordinary consumer and voter but the retail trade and industry. Therefore, I am moving the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend to give the Government time in order to make quite sure that they make the right recommendations about trading standards. Of course, I would say the best move would be to accept wholeheartedly the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and to put the scientific part of trading standards into the residuary body.
I conclude by saying that the comprehensive, fair and consistent service provided by the trading standard service within the metropolitan areas is the only proved way of enforcing the law, giving advice and assistance to trade, industry and the consumer. Necessary specialisation, adequate staffing and resources and other important factors come with large authorities, not small ones. To break up these units would be tragic. It would be against the consumer, it would be against business, and it would put us back 30 years. I ask for the support of your Lordships in these amendments, and I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn: If it is convenient for the Committee, I should like to speak now to Amendments Nos. 75, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82.
Amendment No. 75: Clause 15, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
("(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient, he may, after consulting the constituent authorities, by order dissolve any joint committee established in relation to trading standards by virtue of Schedule 8, paragraph 15(4) and establish a single authority whose duty it shall be to carry out all of the enforcement functions conferred on the constituent authorities by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 8.").
Amendment No. 78: Schedule 8, page 132, line 39, at end insert ("not later than 1st September 1985").
Amendment No. 79: Page 132, line 41, leave out ("to seek") and insert ("from the abolition date").
Amendment No. 80.: Page 132, line 44, leave out (", so far as practicable,").
Amendment No. 81: Page 132, line 45, leave out ("and") and insert ("by").
Amendment No. 82: Page 132, line 47, at end insert—
("(5) The joint committee established by virtue of subparagraph (4) above shall before the abolition date co-ordinate the making of preparations by the constituent district councils for the transfer of functions relating to trading standards to the constituent district councils.").
If we were speaking in the other place, I would now say that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, made an excellent speech, but unfortunately said all the things that I was about to say. She probably said them better than I can, except that when she came to the end, her solution is not the same as the solution I am going to propose. However, that will come with the
794
next series of amendments. The solution I am going to propose is that the same kind of arrangement that applies in the shire counties, where the trading standards authority works together with the fire authority, would meet the case that arises from the abolition of the metropolitan counties.
This set of amendments in my name is taken first not because it is the one that I prefer—I prefer the one to which I have just referred—but because it is reached first. The amendments I prefer are found in Clauses 25 and 36 and Schedule 11 which, as I have said, would create a joint board shared with the fire services in the metropolitan counties. That is the solution which I say right away (and this was not mentioned by the noble Baroness) is preferred by the CBI, the National Consumer Council, the Retail Consortium and the British Standards Institution.
But I am hoping that my noble friend Lord Elton, who appears to be going to reply to this debate, will be able to convince your Lordships that the joint committees to be set up in each metropolitan area will develop into satisfactory bodies despite their inherent handicaps. But I am bound to say that the noble Lord is going to have a job to convince the Committee of that.
Turning to Amendment No. 75 to Clause 15, may I read it to your Lordships so we know where we are. It says:
"Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient, he may, after consulting the constituent authorities, by order dissolve any joint committee established in relation to trading standards by virtue of Schedule 8, paragraph 15(4) and establish a single authority whose duty it shall be to carry out all of the enforcement functions conferred on the constituent authorities by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 8."
Clause 15 of the Bill does two things. It transfers functions mentioned in the first three sub-paragraphs of paragraph 15 of Schedule 8 from the Greater London Council to the London borough councils. This need not concern your Lordships at all at present, so that gets rid of paragraph (a) of Clause 15.
What does concern us is paragraph (b) of Clause 15 which transfers the trading standards functions from the six metropolitan county councils to the 36 metropolitan district councils.
Perhaps I may put in a question here which does not arise otherwise. Clause 93 of page 66 requires the councils of the districts in each metropolitan county not later than 1st September 1985 to establish a joint committee to discharge the function specified in that clause, including trading standards functions. The districts vary in population from Birmingham, with over 1 million, Leeds with 700,000 and Liverpool with 500,000 at one end, to Bury with 175,000 and Calderdale with 192,000 at the other end. These last two are in the Manchester metropolitan council area and West Yorkshire.
Plainly the resources of the constituent districts vary very widely. It cannot be easy for districts with majorities of different political hues, different economic interests, different traditions and different geographical characteristics within one county to agree among themselves or with their neighbours on priorities, methods and so forth. It would be a miracle if all these committees were invariably to accept the wishes of the majority on each committee, let alone

795
those of the majority in the neighbouring committees. Yet uniformity of enforcement is a cardinal requirement, if not the cardinal requirement, in trading standards administration.
May I remind your Lordships that a similar system was tried—this was mentioned by the noble Baroness opposite—in London following the 1965 reorganisation of local government. As the noble Baroness said, 23 London boroughs combined to form seven groups, and, as she also said, there is only one left. Why?—because there was, so to speak, no cement in the structure, nothing to bind the members together. Without that the joint committees are unlikely to be either efficient or consistent. Indeed, they are prone to break up entirely, as happened in the London borough groups.
On the other hand, when a number of councils in the same county form a joint committee where, before, there was only one county authority, the great disadvantage to all relevant interests, trade, industry and the general public, lies in the subsequent fragmentation—another word used by the noble Baroness opposite—of the previous comprehensive service. There will be, in each county on average, six times as many authorities loosely combined instead of one authority. One very experienced chief executive of a trading standards and consumer protection authority put it to me this way:
"Different authorities create different structures. Professional and political preferences place different emphasis on different duties. To promote fair trading and free competition becomes difficult if not impossible especially in trading activities geographically related".
I should add that it also becomes more expensive. The cost of the service per 1,000 population in the shire counties in 1983–84 was 99·5 pence, in the metropolitan counties 89·5 pence, but in the London boroughs 169·5 pence. Who is to say that the cost to the metropolitan district councils will not rise to, or at least approach, that in the London boroughs when the metropolitan counties are broken up and their trading standards systems fragmented among the districts?
I turn more directly to Amendment No. 75. A single authority in place of a joint committee would, or at least should, secure continuity and uniformity of enforcement. I suggest that it is necessary to tighten up other proposals in Schedule 8, paragraph 15(4). I hope that your Lordships will not think it sufficient for the councils to have a duty to seek to co-ordinate the exercise by them of their enforcement functions with a view to securing uniformity in the exercise of those functions throughout the county.
Their duty should be, should it not, to achieve uniformity and not merely to seek to do so. That is covered by Amendment No. 79. There should be no nonsense about securing it "so far as practicable". That is Amendment No. 80. It seems to me absurd to lay on a council a duty and to qualify that duty with the words "so far as practicable" when the duty, as I have said, is cardinal and basic. If that cannot be done—here again, the noble Baroness opposite referred to this—would it not be better to have a single authority? As I understand it, this sub-paragraph does not envisage a single authority. It requires district councils to establish a joint committee of each metropolitan county whose duty shall be to co-
796
ordinate or rather, in the terms of the Bill, to seek to co-ordinate the enforcement functions of each district council with a view to securing that those functions are exercised, so far as is practicable, uniformly throughout that county.
It seems to me that the Government have little confidence that this co-ordination arrangement will work any better than the grouping of the London boroughs. The councils' joint committees are given the duty not to co-ordinate but to seek to co-ordinate with a view to securing so far as practicable uniformity throughout the county. The Government do not expect them to secure uniformity. They hope apparently that uniformity will be secured to some extent.
Uniformity in the exercise of trading standards functions is a "must". The Government must therefore adopt that which must secure uniformity. The metropolitan counties have been aiming at uniformity and have already, in 10 years, gone a long way towards achieving it. Moreover, our European commitments, in many cases, require uniformity. In regard to Amendment No. 75, we must plainly continue to aim firmly at uniformity in the exercise of trading functions throughout the county and at co-ordination or at least co-operation between counties. But there may be a failure of co-ordination. In that case co-ordination must still be somehow secured. The obvious way is to dissolve any joint committee that is failing to co-ordinate, and to establish a single authority whose duty it shall be, in the words of the amendment,
"to carry out all of the enforcement functions conferred on the constituent authorities by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 8".
That is the point of Amendment No. 75.
Amendment No. 81, at page 132, line 45, proposes leaving out "and" and inserting "by". This is an interesting point. As drafted, sub-paragraph (4)(a) and (b) seems to have two separate objects; first, to co-ordinate the enforcement functions so as to secure uniformity in the exercise of those functions through-out the county and, secondly, to secure the employment, provision or the use of staff, property and facilities by those councils for the purpose of those functions.
It is not perhaps the most felicitous of drafting. If I am wrong, my noble friend, I am sure, will be glad to put me right. The substitution of "by" for "and" would make a significant change in the sense, since "by" would restrict the method and ways by which councils are to secure uniformity in the exercise of their functions throughout the county. I should like to ask my noble friend whether this is what the Government intended.
As to Amendment No. 82, it is not clear to me what is the relationship between Clause 93 and paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 8. Is the joint committee established in Schedule 8 the same as that established by Clause 93? That, I think, covers the various amendments to which I am speaking. The major issue is to ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to replace any committee that fails in its duty. I hope very much that my noble friend will accept that.
Lord Ingrow: We should, I think, consider this question of uniformity. It is generally held to be—
Lord Sainsbury: This side.
Noble Lords: Lord Sainsbury.
Lord Sainsbury: I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. The great variety of purposes that the enforcement of trading standards serves has already been shown. The first is to protect the consumer by, for example, ensuring the accuracy of petrol pumps, ensuring—and this is coming near home—that cooked meats and poultry do not contain excessive water, and ensuring that the lead content of products does not exceed the safety limits. The second is to promote fair competition for the retailers and the manufacturer. It is necessary to prevent reputable businesses from being undercut by unscrupulous competitors. The third is to interpret the law. The law is broken more often by failure to understand than by evil intention. Trading standards authorities assist local industry by giving advice on legal matters and in product development, as with, for example, the manufacture of weighing and measuring equipment.
7 p.m.
In my opinion those are very important functions which affect a large section of the population. It is therefore inappropriate to devolve responsibility for the administration of trading standards from the metropolitan counties to the districts. First, as has already been mentioned, the problems of maintaining consistency will be increased. Secondly, there will be a loss of efficiency. County administration benefits from economies of scale. District administration would need much duplication of expertise and initially would break up existing teams. Thirdly, districts will not have the resources large enough to finance special investigation teams to work on particular projects as they exist now in the metropolitan counties. It is by virtue of their size that the metropolitan counties can afford the necessary resources to finance projects such as investigation into product counterfeiting, which has already been mentioned, especially in the clothes and video trades, and investigation into credit abuse which is very important from the consumers' point of view. It is for those reasons that I conclude by expressing hope that the Government will accept this and related amendments.
Lord Ingrow: If one is in business, possibly one may somewhere be involved with trading standards, and so I should declare an interest; but I want to speak on the question of uniformity. I can see a case for uniformity if one wishes to have it over the whole country, but there is no specific merit in having uniformity, say, within the boundaries of the West Yorkshire County Council and a totally different uniformity across the border in North Yorkshire. If it is to be uniformity throughout the country, by all means let us have it. But really one of the most deadening things that people talk about today is uniformity.
The metropolitan districts are not the same. They are composed of different people, with different ideas. They do not necessarily want to be run in entirely the same way, and in fact in practice it is not possible to achieve that. At the end of the day if prosecutions occur, they will be dealt with in a court; in the case of
798
West Yorkshire, say, a dozen or more courts. They will not necessarily get the same sort of decision. Different people take different views as to the importance of particular crimes. If they are serious crimes and they go to the Crown Court, there could be about three different Crown Courts. We shall achieve informity only on the basis that standards are the same in a given area but not in contiguous areas.
My next point is this. I do not know the noble Lord's full experience of local government, but very few people would agree with him that the second tier authorities are more efficient (and take full advantage of economies of scale) than the first tier authorities. Those directly answerable to the public for a rate demand are usually much more careful and precise in what they do. That is one of the reasons why so many people want counties: they are much easier to get money out of because no one takes the responsibility. But that is not a particularly democratic argument to use.
The enforcement policy may—indeed, will—vary from time to time. It seems to me that districts of the size of half a million or more are well and truly capable of dealing with these matters. It may very well be that no one would run a trading standard better than the city of Bradford, for example, looking after its wool problems, but it may have its efforts dissipated by neighbouring authorities which did not attach the same importance to wool and might consider other things more important. I think that we are in danger of going backwards into a craze for making bigger and bigger, and the Government quite rightly have been trying to do exactly the opposite. I would very much hope that the districts, which are large, substantial bodies, run by able people, would be well capable of running such activities, and they should be allowed to do so.
Baroness Lockwood: I come from the same parliamentary constituency as the noble Lord, Lord Ingrow, and I take an entirely different view from him. A lot was said in the earlier debate this afternoon and in previous debates about the efficiency of district councils compared with metropolitan counties. I think that the facts speak for themselves. If we look carefully at the facts, I think it can be seen that a number of services are much more efficiently and effectively carried out at metropolitan county rather than district level. I certainly think that that applies to trading standards.
To take the metropolitan county of West Yorkshire as an example, in 1983–84 the number of staff was 108, compared with 173 when the metropolitan county took over from the then reorganised county boroughs and district councils. So we have a decrease in the number of staff employed by the metropolitan county; yet if we look at the scope of the work over the past 10 years, we find that it has increased enormously. I understand that in the space of 10 years there have been something like 375 Acts of Parliament or regulations passed which have increased the responsibility in the whole area.
I should like the noble Lord, Lord Ingrow, to go with me to visit the centralised department in West Yorkshire which operates throughout the county to see that it can operate at a more economic rate than

799
the individual districts simply because it has teams of specialists. I should like to give an example. Reference has been made to the problems of finance within West Yorkshire. There is one specialist officer who deals with consumer credit. Were there to be a dispersed service there could not be one-fifth of an officer in each of the five districts, so presumably there would have to be five officers dealing with that particular problem. Thus one could replicate the different specialisms that have been developed in this whole area.
Another very important problem is this. Again, in West Yorkshire the metropolitan county has become a leading authority in the effort to reduce the incidence of overloaded heavy goods vehicles. In this connection, the metropolitan county works with the West Yorkshire police and with the regional transport department. One has an economic and neat unit, the three bodies working together on this problem of overloaded vehicles. This is a very serious problem. When one thinks in terms of trading standards, one tends to think of the smaller areas of work. Yet, in many respects it is now a very technical and highly mechanised service. Thus I suggest that in the interests of economy and effectiveness it is important that there should be this centralised service.
I was going to say something about the textile industry and about uniformity. Again I am taking an entirely different view from that of the noble Lord opposite. The textile industry in West Yorkshire works very closely indeed with the trading standards department. When there are problems, as there have been in recent years, with the increasing number of imported commodities which go under the title of "woollen commodities" but are found not to be so, it is very important that there is not only an efficient and effective service in the metropolitan county area but that it is also a uniform service; in other words, that Bradford is applying the same standards as Kirklees and Calderdale. It is important to have this uniformity. I think that is one of the reasons why the textile industry itself is very concerned about the move to fragment this service.
Therefore I support the amendments which have been moved by my noble friend Lady Fisher. I support them in preference to the amendments which have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. That is for the simple reason that there would be certainty. If we in this Chamber can establish that we will keep the service together, then there will not be the problem that we could run into if the service is dependent on coming to some agreement between the districts. That is the problem of losing some of the specialist officers, and that is something which we can ill-afford to do.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: Very shortly, I should like to support Amendment No. 75. My mind goes back to the very early start of the Consumers' Association movement. I was chairman of the first committee. One of the first things we had to do was to try to establish standards that were comparable throughout the country. Of course we had the Board of Trade, and so on, to help us. However, we were dealing with people; we were dealing with the different counties and with the different industries producing
800
goods. What the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said was absolutely true. I agreed with everything he said. We have to have a standard. We have to have standards which cover the whole country. I simply do not know whether it can be done as the Government hope to do it. I feel that it would be much better if there was a standard which covered a wider field, where it was not split up so much. I feel that one should really concentrate on what noble Lords have already mentioned. I shall not repeat it all. I entirely agree also with what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said. There has been a tremendous step forward in these matters, and one wants to see that that continues. One does not want undercutting. One does not want under-selling.
Both noble Lords have spoken about the West Riding. I have here a letter from the wool textile and clothing industry saying that all they want is to be quite sure that their standards are kept up and that people do not import cheap woollen goods into this country which are below standard and which we cannot stop. This is vital to the whole aspect of production, selling and so on. I very much hope that the Government will take this very seriously and, if necessary, will say that they will consider this again in order that one can have something. It is not a political subject at all. It is simply a matter of whether or not one can obtain the right methods and the right standards. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, it is a matter of finding the right way to do it. It is not necessarily a matter of politics. I hope the noble Lord, who is very wise in these matters, will look at this with an unjaundiced eye and see whether something cannot be done which will fulfil what has been spoken about tonight.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Jacques: I submit to the Committee that there is a very strong case for keeping this service on something like a county basis. There are three reasons for that. First of all, in the past decade, there have been enormous changes in testing. Those changes have given rise to the use of a very much greater amount of technique and expertise. Secondly, they have also given rise to the use of improved testing equipment. It has now reached the stage when more or less the only people who can afford to employ the expertise and use the equipment are the metropolitan counties because of their substantial rateable value base. Those changes have taken place since the last change in local government. I believe the Government are losing sight of that. At the present time it is recognised in the whole profession that the metropolitan counties are ahead of everybody else, so much so that the other counties are using the metropolitan counites' service in many of the checks that they are making.
The second reason why I suggest that it should be retained on a county basis is this very important question of consistency. I spent the whole of my working life in retailing. Therefore I have a very great knowledge of the need for consistency. When one is operating in several towns and each of those towns has its own service, one has no consistency at all. There is a different attitude according to the personality of the officer in charge, or the facilities that he has available, or his particular committee.

801
On a county basis one can even move towards the national consistency which was pleaded for. That is because one can give guidelines. If one has to give guidelines to a restricted number of counties rather than to hundreds of district councils and boroughs, then one is likely to have more adhesion to the guidelines. Thus I submit that by keeping it on a county basis and by using national guidelines, there would be a possibility of far greater consistency on a national basis than there is now.
Finally, there is the question of costing. Here I am astonished at the Government. They are either working purely on political dogma or they are unaware of the figures that are available. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, submitted the authentic figures. In relation to their rateable value, the metropolitan counties have a lower cost than the shire counties. In proportion to their rateable value, they have a substantially lower cost than that in London where it is done by the London boroughs. I cannot understand the Government, purely on dogma grounds, doing away with a service which has proved itself to be economical and to have the lowest costs in the country.
Lord Mottistone: I shall not detain your Lordships for long on Amendment No. 75, to which I have also put my name. I should like to begin by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, has covered a great deal of the ground that I would have covered and I agreed with a great deal of what she said. However, I do not agree one little bit with her amendment and I hope that your Lordships will not consider it.
It is significant that the earlier amendment—Amendment No. 72B—which referred to the "residuary body", was withdrawn. I hope that the opposition will withdraw this amendment also so that we can concentrate on the amendments of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn; namely, Amendment No. 75, and Amendments Nos. 78 to 82. My noble friend has explained the effect of those amendments and therefore I shall not repeat it.
However, there are just two points that I should like to make. First, there is the question of uniformity, upon which my noble friend Lord Ingrow commented. From a manufacturer's point of view—and I have been working with manufacturing for a long time—the fewer centres for applying the law relating to trading standards, the better. My noble friend said that if it were national, it would be all right. To have it national would be too difficult. One cannot administer nationally so well. We have certainly found that a county basis in England and Wales and a regional basis in Scotland is the right type of level.
In fact, there is something in between. I cannot remember exactly, but I think that there are about 460 districts throughout the country. If we were to put it at district level throughout, we would find that there would be a whole range of different measurements as regards how the law should be put into effect and a whole range of advice given to courts and so on.
We want to have something in between. About the right level at which to co-ordinate the districts is covered by my noble friend's Amendment No. 75; namely, a single authority. The Government have recognised that, because in Schedule 8, paragraph 15(4) they talk about the establishment of a joint
802
committee which would provide that co-ordination. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and I do not think that that goes quite far enough; hence the amendments about which we have been talking. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept some of those amendments or, if he does not like their wording, will be able to accept them in principle, so that if need be, we can come back at Report with something else. It would seem to me very reasonable to accept these amendments. I hope that no further consideration will be given to Amendment No. 74K.
Finally, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some reassurance as to what plans there are for the scientific resources for the metropolitan county trading standards officers and their laboratories. Are they to be handed over to the joint committee? If so, would perhaps a single authority do the job rather better? I hope that we shall be able to get on with this matter nice and quickly because I expect that we are all getting hungry.
Lord Ezra: I should like to ask for clarification. Are we also at the moment discussing Amendments Nos. 110 to 114? They propose another possible solution.
Lord Mottistone: They will be moved later.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I was very impressed by the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. He said how important it was to be consistent. "Consistency" was the great word that he used. There is a lot in it, and I was very impressed. This House must be consistent. When we gave a Second Reading to this Bill we said that we wanted to get rid of these intermediate tiers. If we start by dealing with little bits and if we do the opposite to the message that came from the Second Reading debate, we shall not be very consistent. I would beg the Committee to pay attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said and to be consistent with its own decision when the principle was discussed and voted upon on Second Reading.
As regards the noble Baroness and her Amendment No. 74K, as I have said we come from almost the same village and so we ought to have similar outlooks. We have had the same type of evidence to form our views. I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the sudden magic which has started to surround the residuary bodies. Why has this become so wonderful all of a sudden? It is a new word. It has a new attraction. As far as I can see, the attraction of the residuary bodies is that they are a backdoor way in which to do the very thing that on Second Reading we said we would not do. I must say that it seems to me to be in keeping with what I could call "political tactics".
I do not see why the colleagues of the noble Baroness should have withdrawn their two previous amendments in which they wanted to make use of residuary bodies to keep alive something that is not at all in keeping with the principle of the Bill, and why the noble Baroness should think of pursuing this amendment.
Every now and again in the language of party political battle words suddenly have a special meaning. I remember at one stage it was "solidarity". One had never heard of "solidarity" until it suddenly carried with it some type of message. As a trade union

803
leader the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will remember the new word that the trade unions suddenly produced—"parity". They said, "We must have parity with this and that". There is a fascination for new words. The "residuary body" is exactly what it means. It is intended to remain in being for the transitional period during the overlap. Of necessity it should be for only a short period, or a shorter period if possible. There is no question of it being permanent because otherwise, as my noble friend said, we would be misusing the English language.
Therefore, following the theme of consistency of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I would suggest that the noble Baroness should be consistent with her colleagues and should say that she will not proceed with her amendment for exactly the same reasons as her colleagues withdrew the previous amendment.
Lord Jacques: Before the noble Lord sits down and since he has mentioned my name, I should like him to reply to this comment. The Government by this Bill are abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. They are suggesting in the Bill that the functions which they performed should go partly to the boroughs, partly to quangos, partly to joint committees, partly to central Government and so on. The Committee is suggesting improvements and different ways in which that can be done. That is a function of this House.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Of course it is, and the noble Lord, as I have said, made a most effective speech. However, it was on the wrong basis; that is what I was trying to say. The object of this Committee stage is to share minds. We are sharing minds and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said that we should be consistent. I am saying the same—be consistent, and make the amendments consistent with the message which we gave on Second Reading.
Lord Jacques: We are being consistent in continuing to seek improvement of the Bill.
Lord Avebury: It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has seen fit to introduce a party political note into what has been an entirely independent and unbiased debate with from both sides contributions from such distinguished noble Lords and noble Baronesses as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who has such a distinguished record in consumer protection. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would have paid more careful attention to what she said and to what his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said rather than accuse those who have spoken in the debate of being party politically inspired.
Moreover, the noble Lord would have done well to refresh his memory on the wording of the Long Title of the Bill which provides for functions to be transferred from the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils, in some cases to other bodies.
7.30 p.m.
What the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is arguing is that if we cannot achieve an objective which is shared
804
by everybody except the noble Lord, Lord Ingrow, then he has proposed a workable solution. The noble Lord, Lord Ingrow, is the only one who suggested that we should not aim at any kind of uniformity and that it was a positive merit if, as a result of these functions being devolved on to the districts, we had variations in the enforcement of consumer legislation as we cross from one authority to another even within the space of, say, West Yorkshire where it would be extraordinarily confusing, I believe, for the consumer, the manufacturer, and the retailer if different standards were imposed in an area as small as that.
He could have argued, had he wanted to—but he did not—that these functions should have been taken away from local authorities altogether and that they should be administered by central Government, and I do not think that anybody is advancing that point of view. We all believe that the responsibilities we are talking about in this group of amendments should be administered locally. The question is how best we can secure that uniformity about which everybody else has spoken.
Even in the schedule at paragraph (4) we read that the aim is to secure uniformity in the exercise of these functions throughout the county only "so far as practicable". I think that is the crux of the matter. Are we going to leave the Bill in this unsatisfactory state where we are saying, in effect, that we want to try to achieve uniformity, but if we do not, that is too bad, we can only go part of the way towards it; or are we going to provide in a wise and far-sighted way, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is attempting to do, for the eventuality that what is contained in the Bill will not achieve what Parliament as a whole is trying to do?
Then we should have a fall-back position which is extraordinarily sensible and which ought to commend itself to the Minister. If it does not, I believe that the views of consumers, retailers, and manufacturers which have been outlined in the course of the speeches so far ought to prevail against the stubbornness, if I may say so, of the Government.
Lord Elton: If the debate continues much longer, I shall begin to become confused and so I hope that your Lordships will allow me to reply now. Perhaps I may start by clearing up a small point simply because it is on the top of my pile of papers. My noble friend asked about the difference between what I shall call Schedule 8 committees of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and Clause 93 committees. These are not the same creature. Schedule 8 committees are for one purpose only; that is to say, on trading standards, and they are post-abolition bodies. Clause 93 committees can be created for a number of purposes, and the intention is that they shall start work at least pre-abolition, though I believe that they may be continued thereafter.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and cogently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, have the intention of transferring responsibility for the enforcement of trading standards and related legislation to the residuary bodies. I pause merely to remind your Lordships of the role of the residuary bodies as it is now planned and as we believe it may be planned for the future, and I say no more on that acrimonious subject; but let us not forget it.

805
The first group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn would retain the devolution of these functions to district councils but would strengthen the co-ordinating role of the joint committees proposed in the Bill and introduce a reserve power for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to establish joint authorities to take over these functions from the districts.
The Government's proposals under the Bill are to devolve trading standards and related functions to the districts, but with the safeguard of joint committees in each metropolitan county, whose role it would be to co-ordinate enforcement work. Noble Lords have mentioned that some people object to this. I ought to mention that others support it. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, for instance, in a commentary on the Bill circulated during Committee in another place, wrote:
"The main concern of industry and commerce relating to trading standards is the possibility that district councils could operate varying standards of advice and enforcement, and that centralised units such as exist in West Yorkshire might be disbanded when control is passed to districts".
It seemed to the association that what they call the clause, but which is, in fact, paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 8 which,
"establishes a statutory joint committee allays that fear and should be supported".
My right honourable friend drew attention during the debate on these provisions in the other place to the close links between trading standards and environmental health. These, I am sure my noble friend will accept, are of great importance. It is therefore of interest to notice that the Institution of Environmental Health Officers in a policy paper issued on 29th April make clear their belief that food standards, composition, and labelling duties in particular would be performed to a higher standard and with a greater understanding of health implications if, as we propose, the metropolitan districts become responsible for both trading standards and environmental health. The institution goes on:
"There is a determination amongst the environmental health departments in the metropolitan districts to achieve a uniformity of approach by adopting a proven co-ordination scheme".
That should be some reassurance to noble Lords who are anxious about diversity of standards. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers are important and influential bodies. I urge your Lordships not lightly to disregard their views. The noble Baroness would have us transfer trading standards to the residuary bodies. As they are now constituted of course that would not be an approriate role for them.
My noble friend alluded briefly to a subject which I know is of great interest to him, though he did not quote his amendments on the subject of the fire authority. I do not know whether he is going to allude to it again. If not, I shall merely say that I see considerable difficulties in that approach because the affinity between the two services does not seem to be close enough to justify a pursuit of that subject. But he has not spoken to that amendment and so I shall leave it at that. I understand that he will speak to it later.
806
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, was concerned about counterfeiting, as are a number of your Lordships. This is a national problem. The metropolitan county councils do not have a monopoly of dealing with it. The joint committees proposed in Schedule 8, paragraph 15, for co-ordinating enforcement of trading standards will be able to mobilise action against counterfeiting just as the MCCs have done, and I hope with more success.
That brings me to what my noble friend proposes in his amendments. He proposes first that paragraph 15(4) should be strengthened in a number of ways. He wants to insert into the first line a date,
"not later than 1st September 1985".
We were intending that the operation should be carried out in a timely way, and I am perfectly happy to accept that amendment and that date.
He also wishes to remove the words "to seek" from line 41, which is a weakening expression and suggests there may be a failure, and I am prepared for him to do that to the Bill. He next wishes to remove another hesitating phrase, "so far as practicable" in Amendment No. 80, and I am content for him to do that. He then wishes—and I think this is only probing—to substitute "by" for "and" between heads (a) and (b). I can tell him that the drafting, as it is, is I believe as we intended it to be and seems to me to read as plain English. I would ask him therefore not to press that amendment because I should like to look at it more closely.
My noble friend then asks us to add a new subsection (5) at the end of line 47. I hesitate about the wording of what he proposes, but if he will allow me to look at it between now and Report, I shall hope to bring back an alternative form of words for a similar purpose.
There remains therefore Amendment No. 75. It may be that the drafting would need further attention but for the greater comfort of my noble friend I am prepared also to accept that amendment provided it is agreed that we may have to revise it at a later stage. It seems to me that we have everything to offer to those on this side of the Committee who wish to improve the situation as they see it in the Bill as drafted and nothing to offer noble Lords opposite who pursue a different aim which is inimical to the Bill. I hope that my noble friends will assist me in persuading them; or, if not, voting that other view out.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I simply say thank you to my noble friend for accepting these amendments and thank Members on both sides who have supported what I have had to say. One or two did not support, but the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of the tenor of the amendments. May I also say thank you very much to the noble Baroness opposite who saved me quite a bit of speaking by covering most of the points that I had in mind.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, the debate has been good. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood and others have said, trading standards is not a party political matter. It is of grave importance not only to consumers but, as has already been said, to traders and manufacturers.

807
The Minister gave information relating to environmental health officers and I should perhaps tell him that there are two arguments to that view. The food responsibilities of the MCC's account for only 15 per cent. of the work of the trading standards department. To use that as a justification for transferring the whole function of the work of standards officers in the districts is to ignore the other 85 per cent. of the work which is not related to the work of the environmental health officers. That is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog: the small amount of work which the MCCs do relating to food opposed to what the environmental and trading standards officers do on the larger scale.
The work of the environmental health officers is at a local level. They were the old sanitary inspectors; therefore their work involves investigating hygiene in shops and seeing whether food is fresh.
Lord Elton: I think the noble Baroness will accept that her argument is susceptible of appreciation in two directions. There is all the work of the environmental health officers to consider as well as the rest of the work of the trading standards officers. With recent events in mind I am sure she will not underestimate the importance of ensuring that food sold to the public is in good condition.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am not underestimating. I was explaining the different functions that these officers have. It is true to say that environmental officers were the old sanitary inspectors. Therefore they visit shops. They see whether food is fresh, and if it is mouldy, for example, they take action. The trading standards officers also do that, but they cover the wider field of food composition which the environmental officers do not do. They also deal with labelling. Everyone is concerned with labelling to ensure that what is in the bottle or in the tinned goods is shown; and, for example, if a product contains salt that is shown. Therefore they work closely with the manufacturers. That is the point I was trying to explain and I hope now that the noble Lord sees that there is a distinct difference in the functions. The environmental officers could take over only 15 per cent. of the functions. That would be my reply to the Minister.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said and I would go so far as to say that there is not much difference between what I have said and Lord Drumalbyn's view. He is trying to achieve exactly the same as those of us on this side of the Committee inasmuch as we want to keep the standards that have already been set up. We wish to improve on already good standards. I go all along the line with the noble Lord on that.
Before I continue, will the Minister explain whether he has now accepted the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, because at a later stage there is a debate on whether the trading standards should go to the fire service as is operated in the counties. Are we accepting now that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, substantially will be the Government's policy?
Lord Elton: I have said that if your Lordships reject, as I hope you will, the amendments proposed by the
808
noble Baroness, we shall accept my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80 as they stand, consider Amendment No. 81, assist him in redrafting Amendment No. 82 and accept Amendment No. 75, subject to a possible minor amendment at the next stage. That would then be our policy.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: With all those assurances, I agree with the point of view that has been put forward. I have listened to what the Minister said, I am satisfied and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 74K, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 75:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 75A and 75B not moved.]
Lord Denham: In moving that the House do now resume I think that, with the leave of the Committee, I should say that we shall not be returning to this Bill before 8.45. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hospital Complaints Procedure Bill
7.50 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Colwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Hospital complaints procedure]:
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("Regional Health Authority") and insert ("health authority in England and Wales and to each Health Board in Scotland").
The noble Lord said: As currently drafted the Bill covers only regional health authorities and, therefore, applies only to England. There are no regional authorities in Wales or in Scotland, and the Bill is intended to apply to both. In addition, regional health authorities in England are not the authorities directly responsible for the management of hospitals. The amendment will ensure that the directions which the Bill requires to be given are addressed to all authorities having hospital management responsibility. Clause 1 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his existing power to give directions to health authorities so as to require arrangements to be made for establishing and publicising specified procedures for dealing with complaints in all NHS hospitals. The amendment extends the categories of authority to whom such directions will have to be given to district health authorities in England and Wales, health boards in Scotland and special health authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I think I can make one of the briefest speeches on record. All the amendments that are to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, are ones that we recognize, and that he himself recognised on Second Reading. He promised that he was going to bring them forward, and he has brought them forward entirely satisfactorily. I want to say that as far as these Benches are concerned, we totally support the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not know whether or not we have the SDP with us at the moment. I stand up briefly to say in respect of all my noble friend's amendments that we give them very warm support and hope that the Committee will accept them as they are. I think that they improve the Bill substantially.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after ("1977") insert ("or section 2(5) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment—a technical amendment which includes the necessary reference to the relevant legislation governing health boards in Scotland—is to permit equivalent Scottish legislation to be applied in issuing directions to the health boards. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, after ("Authority") insert ("or Board").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to provide for references to health boards in Scotland to be included. This amendment is consequent upon previous amendments and ensures that Scottish health boards are referred to in the Bill as necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) arrangements are made to ensure that complainants do not suffer any disadvantage as a result of making the complaint: and").
The noble Baroness said: As your Lordships know, this Bill came about because of some serious negligence in the treatment of a very ill Member of another place. The amendment which I bring before the Committee now would, I feel, improve this Bill, as I know that some people who may have very genuine complaints will not come forward as they will fear that they may be victimised for so doing. I have asked many people about this, including doctors and nurses working in hospitals. They feel that the message should be clearly made known to patients that they will be at no disadvantage if they have genuine complaints. I believe that this could improve the care, comfort and consideration of patients.
Last night, the wives of two noble Lords who sit on the Government Front Bench told me that they had had babies at a hospital not far from here. After giving birth, both these ladies had been left lying as they were, covered with sweat and feeling exhausted, for a considerable time without being cleaned up and made comfortable. One of them was very angry, the other
810
became very cold and was sick. It may be that if there had been a clear channel of complaint this practice of neglect would have been rectified for other patients.
A member of the staff in your Lordships' House told me that a friend of his was lying very ill in a South London hospital. One of her legs was in plaster and she could hardly move. She felt something crawling up her good leg. It was a cockroach. She was so frightened that she made no official complaint. I think that this amendment would improve the Bill if it were accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who has presented the Bill and is piloting it through your Lordships' House, will accept this amendment. I warmly supported the Bill, support it now and will support it at every stage because I think that in our Health Service, while it is on the whole extremely efficient, there are cases where people are not treated as well as they should be. The purpose of Lord Colwyn's Bill is that people should have a way in which they can make their complaints.
It is not that we are wanting more complaints than are necessary. We want there to be a clear, open, understood channel through which people who feel they are not getting the right treatment, or that someone is being rude to them or lacking in consideration, or that the Health Service seems to be impersonal, may make their complaint. That is the purpose of the Bill. There is a danger that that fine purpose can be undermined by the fact that some people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said, although they have what would seem to be a legitimate complaint, will say, "I'm not going to bring it forward".
I speak from a different sort of experience. Some years ago I spent nearly three years in hospital. There were times when there were patients who, I thought, were, I will not say "mistreated", but not treated in the way they should have been. I can think of occasion after occasion when I have said to one of my colleagues in the ward, "I think you ought to make a complaint about that". They said, "No, I will not make a complaint. They will take it out on me". That was their fear. The vast majority of people in the Health Service would not conceivably take it out on someone who complained, though there are some who would.
I think this is simply to deal with that situation and, as Lady Masham has said, to strengthen the Bill, so that there are no inhibitions against people who feel that they have a genuine complaint bringing that complaint forward without any fear that as a result of doing so they will suffer a disadvantage. I support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness and hope that both the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will support it, too.
Lord Auckland: I should like to associate myself with the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has moved, and with the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. There is always the danger of frivolous complaints being made at times. One accepts this; it happens in all walks of life, in the services or in the Health Service or anywhere else. But there should be a definitely laid down procedure here, and, in the Bill as I read it, the procedure is not convincing enough.

811
I think that the amendment is particularly important in relation to the long-stay hospitals, where patients are in hospital, very often unavoidably so, for long periods of time. One accepts the fact that the nurses and all those working in these hospitals have an extremely difficult task to perform. Of course, there are times when harsh treatment of patients takes place and this can seldom be justified. So I would hope that my noble friend will take on board what has been said.
8 p.m.
Another problem also is that since the reorganisation of the Health Service there are no longer house committees and hospital management committees. In the days of the house committee—I myself served, as many of your Lordships will know, for 18 years on the house committee of a mental hospital in Surrey—there were sometimes complaints, although they were mostly small ones. Although the house committee could not deal specifically with the complaints themselves, they were able to move them to the hospital management committee, and very often complaints could be dealt with quickly in that way. However, since the reorganisation I believe it to be true that these complaints cannot be dealt with so quickly. Speed is of the essence, because a small complaint, if not dealt with, can inevitably grow into something larger. Therefore, I believe that the Government should accept this amendment; and even if they cannot accept it as worded I hope they will study it very carefully because the essence of the amendment is all-important.
Lord Prys-Davies: I, too, should like to support this amendment; and I apologise to the noble Baroness for not being here when the Committee began work on these amendments. I would wish very much to support the noble Baroness. I think it is important that there should be a complaints system which allows people to make complaints without fear of victimisation. I recall how, 16 years ago, the Howe Report on the allegations of ill-treatment in certain wards in a hospital for the mentally handicapped in Cardiff found (and here I quote from the report) that:
"an atmosphere had come to exist in those wards where it was useless or positively hazardous for staff to complain of matters which disturbed them on the wards."
Two members of the staff who did so complain had to leave the hospital. The late Richard Crossman found this to be the biggest single deficiency which the report exposed, and in my view it would be optimistic to believe that this mischief has been completely eradicated by 1985.
I therefore consider that the noble Baroness is absolutely right to press for the Bill to include an amendment along these lines. I would not necessarily agree that the wording is perfect—indeed, it may be imperfect—but I hope the Minister will take this on board and, if need be, will introduce it in another form. But the principle I heartily support.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble kinswoman Lady Masham seeks by this amendment to protect a patient pursuing a complaint, or the subject of a complaint by a relative or friend, from any possibility of reprisals by
812
hospital staff. I can understand her intentions in this. In order for patients and others to feel confident about bringing their concerns to light, it should be made clear that patients will not suffer any lessening in the care and attention they receive as a result. As I told your Lordships in our Second Reading debate, on 17th April 1985 at col. 790:
"we must be sure that we give patients and their relatives and friends the opportunity to voice their legitimate concerns freely and without fear or favour".
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Mr. John Patten, speaking on this Bill in another place, referred to a procedure,
"which commands the confidence of patients and staff."
That is what the Government want, and I believe it is what your Lordships and my noble kinswoman want.
The Government recognise that this question of possible victimisation of patients making complaints is an important one, but it is an area for which it is very difficult to legislate. The main element is staff attitudes, and those we cannot change by a stroke of the legislative pen. What we can do is to provide the framework for complaints to be made, heard and evaluated, to be replied to and acted upon.
I submit—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, with his very wide experience, would agree—that it would be manifestly impossible to "ensure" (to use the words of the amendment) that patients do not suffer. I am confident that in the great majority of cases no such problems are experienced. There are instances, of course, where patients fear, and very occasionally suffer, some subsequent hostility from hospital staff. Such reactions are regrettable, and they should not occur. Where they do, disciplinary or professional misconduct procedures may be warranted. What we must do is to train staff to adopt a positive, objective attitude towards dealing with patients' complaints, and to reassure patients and to remove any fears they might have about talking over their concerns directly with the hospital staff at the time. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would not be, in our view, the right means of tackling this sensitive and difficult issue.
That is the bad news. The good news is that in view of the very great concern expressed in this Committee by your Lordships—and we do appreciate your Lordships' feelings in this matter—we will ensure that suitable provision is included in any new guidance which will be required under the directions following the consultation which we are going to have as a result of this Bill. We believe that is the proper place for it to be dealt with. We feel it can be more flexible and can be adapted to suit the circumstances. Having taken account of all the views of the professional bodies that we are going to consult, we think probably that is the place in which to put it. I hope that my noble kinswoman will feel able, with that assurance—
Lord Ennals: May I intervene to ask one question? I am delighted with what the noble Earl is saying. I do not know, of course, whether the noble Baroness will be equally pleased, but I wonder whether there will be consultation about the guidelines. I think that is important, and I should like to be reassured about the consultation before feeling myself to be fully satisfied.
The Earl of Caithness: I remember dealing with this very fully on Second Reading, and I think I assured your Lordships then that there would be full consultation to get the guidelines right. Therefore, perhaps I may say to my noble kinswoman that I hope I have reassured her. We have taken this amendment well on board in our thinking, and I hope she will agree, and also that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will agree, that the place to put it is in the directions.
Lord Colwyn: I do agree with my noble friend the Minister that this amendment has the very best of intentions and is quite rightly aimed at preventing possible victimisation of patients after a complaint has been made. However, I must agree with him in not being able to accept the amendment: first, because I do not think that this wording is suitable for the legislation I am proposing; and, secondly, because I would hope that when the Bill eventually becomes law the inevitable extensive consultations with health authorities and hospital staff will without any doubt come up with a complaints procedure which will prevent the very problem that my noble friend Lady Masham and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, are rightly concerned about. With this assurance, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank all noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I myself am not quite sure. We are a very small and select Committee here tonight, but it must be remembered that this Bill may affect millions of people throughout the country, both patients and staff; and, as the noble Lord said, staff do complain on behalf of patients, and members of staff can victimise other members of staff. This is a serious matter.
I also feel that having something written into the Bill is better sometimes, because Bills get consolidated in time and guidelines get lost. I would be happier if my noble kinsman would take away with him everything that we have said and discuss it with his colleagues, and of course with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn; because it is a serious matter, and if it is going to be effective one wants to be sure that one is doing the right thing. I think we all want to do the right thing with this Bill. It is only a small Bill, but it could have a very wide and lasting effect on people.
I should like my noble kinsman to say, if he can, that he will take it to his more senior colleagues to discuss it before the next stage. If they felt it was important to write it into the Bill in a different form, perhaps he would do this.
The Earl of Caithness: Alas, it is not up to me to say; it is not my Bill. It has been discussed. All the amendments down this evening have been discussed at a high level in my department, but I am afraid I cannot answer my noble kinswoman directly. It is not up to me. It is up to my noble friend Lord Colwyn to decide.
Lord Colwyn: I feel sure that I can say to my noble friend Lady Masham that the consultations will cover this point very adequately. I can assure her that if at any stage I feel they do not, we shall see what we can do about it. With that assurance, I would ask her to withdraw her amendment at this stage, and we shall watch to see how it goes.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank my noble friend Lord Colwyn and I shall therefore withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 19, after ("1977") insert ("or Part VI of the said Act of 1978").
The noble Lord said: Clause 1(2) is to ensure that the Health Service commissioners are not precluded from carrying out investigations under Part V of the National Health Service Act 1977 into cases that have been investigated under any procedures laid down in the directions to be made by the Secretary of State. This amendment provides for reference to the equivalent legislation in Scotland.
The directions to be issued by the Secretary of State should not interfere in any way with the work and jurisdiction of the Health Service commissioners. Section 116(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977, which precludes investigation of any action in respect of which a complainant has a right of appeal, reference, or review before a tribunal constituted under any enactment, might bite under the procedures to be laid down by direction if they were not specifically exempted in this way. The amendment ensures that equivalent provision is made for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 21, after ("section") insert ("(a) in its application to England and Wales.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 7; Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
"(b) in its application to Scotland, expressions which are also used in the said Act of 1978 have the same meanings as in that Act.").
These are two technical amendments which flow from the extension of the Bill to include Scotland. They ensure that correct reference is made to the interpretation of expressions in the Bill. These ensure that the interpretations applying to Scotland are included. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("Scotland or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment in Clause 2(3) deals with the extent of the Bill. It deletes the reference to excluding Scotland. This is consequent upon extending the scope of the Bill to include Scotland and is a necessary technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 9:
Line 1, leave out ("Regional Health Authorities") and insert ("health authorities in England and Wales and Health Boards in Scotland").
The noble Lord said: As the previous amendments have been carried, the Long Title of the Bill must be amended to reflect the altered coverage of the Bill. It is consequent on those amendments and the wording reflects that used in Clause 1(1), as amended. The Long Title of the Bill refers only to regional health authorities. The amendment provides for the inclusion of a reference to district and special health authorities in England and Wales and health boards in Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure. I confirm that we will not come back to the Local Government Bill until a quarter to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.17 until 8.45p.m.]

Local Government Bill
House again in Committee.
Schedule 8 [Miscellaneous functions]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur) moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 126, line 17, at end insert ("and in section 22(1) and (2) of that Act for the words "the Council" there shall be substituted the words "a borough council or the Common Council".").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 127, leave out lines 40 to 48.
The noble Lord said: These amendments are necessary simply to take account of the passage of my noble friend Lord Newall's Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill. That Bill, among other things, repeals the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1971, which is dealt with by paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Bill. Paragraph 6(2) may therefore be omitted and that is the effect of Amendment No. 76A. Amendment No. 76B is consequential.
Amendment No. 76B: Page 128, line 1, leave out ("references to the Greater London Council include references") and insert ("the reference to the Greater London Council includes a reference").
I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Did the noble Lord say that these amendments are consequential on the passing of a previous Bill? I am just wondering why they are needed now. Was there an oversight earlier?
816
What has happened to cause them to be brought into the Bill at this moment, rather than originally?
Lord Glenarthur: As I understand it, the Bill has passed. It is my noble friend Lord Newall's Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: When did that pass?
Lord Glenarthur: I think that it has just passed. I cannot give the noble Lord an exact date, but it has passed and that is why it is necessary to effect this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 76B:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 77:
Page 132, line 26, leave out paragraph 15
The noble Lord said: I beg—
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend gets too far with this amendment, may I point out that this is an alternative to the amendments which were accepted earlier this afternoon and, therefore, it would not sit happily with them on the subject of trading standards. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I would advise him not to move it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: May I simply say that we on this side of the Committee saw the position in exactly the same way. If the Minister had been less helpful, and if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had not been satisfied with the reply, then, quite clearly, Amendment No. 77 was an alternative way of making progress in the matter. We shall read very carefully what the Minister has said, but there is another stage when we can, if necessary, return to this matter.
Lord Drumalbyn: I thank the noble Lord. In that case, I shall not move the amendment. But I reserve the right to come back at a subsequent stage.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 are consequential on the other one.
Lord Drumablyn Lord Drumablyn moved Amendment Nos. 78 to 80:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 81:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
The noble Lord said: My noble friend has kindly said that he will look at this point. Therefore I shall not move the amendment and will come back to it at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 82:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord Elton: We spoke to this earlier. I said to my noble friend that the drafting was defective but that if he would be kind enough to withdraw it now we would see if we could produce an agreed text for the next stage.
Lord Drumalbyn: I am much obliged to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 134, line 3, at end insert—
("Weeds
20A. In section 5 of the Weeds Act 1959 after the word "county", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or metropolitan district".").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor and technical amendment to the Weeds Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 134, line 5, leave out paragraph 21 and insert—
(" . The Secretary of State shall by order taking effect on the abolition date make provision for the transfer to the appropriate residuary body of all records and archives held by the Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council before the abolition date.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment in effect deals with the transfer to the appropriate residuary body of all records and archives held by the Greater London Council and by each metropolitan county council before the abolition date. I am aware that in earlier discussions there has been some scepticism about the role of the residuary bodies in the future. Later clauses in the Bill deal very fully with the role of the residuary bodies. It is one of the problems of the order of the Bill that what noble Lords opposite are seeking to do is to ensure a better arrangement for the future of very important services. We on this side of the Committee certainly consider that the archives are very important indeed.
The Greater London Record Office was set up in April 1965, when the long-established record offices of the London County Council and the MCCs were united. At first the two collections had to be maintained separately, but they were eventually brought together at County Hall, until the steady growth in the holding of records made it necessary to find other accommodation. It is of significance that the GLC record office is the largest local record office in England. The holdings are extensive. I have in my notes a statistic that surprised and impressed all noble Lords when it was used by the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, in the debate on an earlier amendment. It is that there are more than 13 miles of shelves, which contain very important records and documents.
The official records, the records of the GLC and its predecessors—for example, of the Justices of the Peace for Middlesex, the Metropolitan Board of Works and the School Board for London—date back not to the last century, or even to the one before that, but to the 16th century. Many of the predecessor authorities
818
were notable pioneers. Such is the reputation of the office that it has attracted more than 5,000 acquisitions by gift or loan from corporate bodies and private individuals, including several Members of the House of Lords who entrust their archives to the GLC so that they can be freely and safely available for study and preserved for future generations.
There are also large holdings of public records from coroners' courts, magistrates' courts, hospitals and regional health authorities, which are administered on behalf of central government under the Public Records Act.
I have said a word or two about the importance of the archives which in this amendment are the subject of discussion as to where their future lies in respect of the GLC. But of course the Committee is aware that the metropolitan counties, certainly separately but in no way in a diminished sense, have their own archives about which they are very concerned. The new metropolitan county councils were established in 1974 and they provided then an opportunity to begin to improve the provision of archive services. Since 1974 some progress has been made in all the metropolitan counties, but development has been very uneven. County archive services have been established and are being developed in five of the metropolitan counties.
A great deal more can be said on this subject but the amendment is moved so that the Minister can at this early stage inform us about the future of the archive services. There are other amendments in the Marshalled List and there will be other opportunities for us to return to the matters later. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, there are a number of amendments on the subject of archives, including Amendment No. 130 which stands in my name:
Amendment No. 130: After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("County archives
. It shall be the function of the county archive service authorities to retain the unity of the county archives and to maintain them in being for the use of public authorities and where appropriate the general public.").
There is also an earlier amendment, Amendment No. 121, relating to the same subject, which was to come after Clause 27:
Amendment No. 121: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("County archive service authorities
.—(1) On the appointed day there shall be established for each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of that county with the addition of the words "county archive service authority".
(2) Each county archive service authority shall consist of one member of each of the constituent district councils appointed by that council and of one member appointed by the county police, fire and transport authorities.").
I think it will be generally agreed on all sides of the Committee that this is a single problem and that we might as well ventilate it.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend will forgive me, for the clarity of the record, I think he has three amendments down, Amendments Nos. 121, 121ZA and 130, of which the first two are after Clause 27 and the latter after Clause 39. I want to get it clear so that we know when we get to subsequent amendments

819
whether or not they have been spoken to. I take it that the noble Lord will be speaking to all three.
Amendment 121ZA: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Greater London Record Office and History Library.
. On the appointed day all persons employed within the Greater London Record Office and History Library shall in accordance with an order under section 50(5) of this Act be transferred into the employment of the successor authority.").
Lord Beloff: That is quite correct. This is only trying to follow the Government's precepts about economy; not taking the new Marshalled List as it comes in order to save money and paper. I do apologise. Nevertheless, I was aware of the content, though not of the placing of the other amendment. As I said, I think it is generally agreed that the whole subject of archives ought to be discussed together because different ways of approaching this subject have occurred to different noble Lords. Some of us have been in contact and some of us have acted independently.
I think it is reasonable to begin by saying that I have considerable hopes of the noble Lord the Minister. As he is a historian himself and, if he will forgive my saying so, the son of an even more eminent historian, he must have a natural sympathy with historians. Although it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, that the archives have current and practical uses, my purpose is to emphasise the natural concerns of the historical profession which have been voiced by the Royal Historical Society, the Historical Association, the Society of Archivists, and I understand also—and I regret this matter is being raised on an evening when my noble friend Lord Blake is not with us—the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts.
9 p.m.
I believe that they would all agree with the thrust of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the important part about archives is their continuity; the continuity of the arrangements made for their preservation, for consultation, and—increasingly with the amount of new material that is added every year to archives, as the noble Lord has said—for modern methods of cataloguing and storing, micro-filming, retrieval operations and so on. It is a large and complex subject.
It varies in the nature of the archives we are concerned with tonight—those of the GLC, on the one hand, and of the metropolitan counties, on the other. The records of local government in London for centuries relate to smaller units than the units at present covered by the GLC or previously even covered by the LCC. Most relate to earlier authorities covering in some cases what are now suburbs or parts of the metropolis at some time having an independent existence as manors or boroughs, and so on.
It has been natural and reasonable to concentrate on that arrangement. The question now before us is this: is a particular authority required or—as I understand is the Government's intention—should the oldest of the bodies (namely, the Common Council of the City of London) be the appropriate authority to look after the archives in general, provided that adequate arrangements are made for the financing of the operation? Obviously this responsibility would be far
820
beyond the normal resources of the Common Council. In particular—and I believe this is the purport of one of the amendments to which the noble Lord referred—can one be assured that the highly skilled staff to which reference has already been made are as far as possible employed and continue in their posts? As anyone who has run even the smallest archive or library will be aware, this is a field above all in which any break in continuity can be very damaging.
With regard to the metropolitan counties, there appears to be—and I speak with no expertise on any of them—a considerable difference in the nature of their holdings and consequently, perhaps, in the nature of the arrangements which require to be made. If one takes, for instance, the metropolitan county of Yorkshire, which is the inheritor among other things of the old West Riding, one finds there historical records of great antiquity and importance. It is understandable that among the representations which noble Lords have received from archivists and others, those from West Yorkshire have been in the forefront.
On the other hand, it is of course true that other metropolitan counties—for instance, the West Midlands—have no such central core: this coming together of authorities whose historical existence and historical records are disparate. There is nothing which gives the same unity as the historical West Riding of Yorkshire. Again, I understand that in Tyne and Wear the long and historical importance of its principal city makes a difference compared with some of the others. So there is a wide variety.
The real question is this: are the arrangements which the Government are proposing for the centralisation to be maintained through the co-operative efforts of district councils (as the inheritors of these powers) sufficient; or is some ministerial intervention required to ensure that they do co-operate and, in particular, give the necessary financial support to whichever district is selected as the appropriate holder? Presumably this will normally be the district covering the current county record office. In the case of West Yorkshire, it is Wakefield. It is important that the arrangements for West Yorkshire should make certain that district authorities considerably larger and wealthier than Wakefield contribute.
The purpose of the amendment I put down, which is a probing amendment, was to suggest that one way might be to take the model for some of the other powers which it has been agreed must be run centrally, such as to the police and the fire service, and to which we seem to have added one or two other powers. Clearly I do not believe that a residuary authority, for the reasons I gave in relation to another amendment, would be appropriate. On the other hand, the Government may have their reasons for thinking that the degree of co-operation which is necessary, and which all admit to be necessary, can be assured without the compulsory powers.
There is a particular difficulty in respect of archives, as in respect of one or two other powers of local government which we are discussing in this Bill, in that the governing legislation appears to be permissive rather than compulsory. As I understand it, it is not the duty of a local authority to have and maintain archives but it is a power that they have. Therefore the language that is now introduced into the Bill would

821
obviously have to take some account of this legal position.
On the other hand, the question has a certain advantage; namely, that in some cases we have been talking about vast sums of money so that a great deal of difference is made by how the money is raised and by whom it is spent. Even the best run archives—all of them that I know—are run with considerable efficiency and it is not a very costly operation. Therefore, it should be possible to find a measure of agreement which would reassure—and I think this is what we mainly have in mind—both those who use these archives for the purposes of historical research and those who are concerned that they are kept fully up to date because of their relevance to the far wider range of services which modern local government provides.
I hope that explains both the amendments to which I have put my name, and the general way in which I think members of the historical profession approach this subject.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I want to pay tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, not least because it came from someone who has been a devoted supporter of the Government throughout the passage of this Bill but also because it came from someone with outstanding professional expertise in this area. I believe that it would be wise for the Government to pay due attention to what the noble Lord has said. Certainly I have no capacity or capability to add to the points that he made.
But there is one general point which arises from his speech, which is that it appears as we go through the clauses of this Bill that whenever there is an issue on which Members of your Lordships' Committee have particular expertise, they appear to oppose the Government; they appear to question the arrangements being made for the disposition of the powers of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council. It seems to me that the evidence is accumulating that the expertise we have in this Committee should be a measure of warning to the Government that this is not a Bill, like some, where there is a stupid Bill with a sensible Bill inside screaming to get out. This is a Bill where there is no sensible Bill inside.
There is a whole series of stop-gap and hasty (despite the 18 month gestation) measures to defend and to maintain the indefensible. It is on that basis that it seems to me the lengthy Committee stage here shows not that this Committee is disposed to oppose the Government on principle—I myself believe we ought not to oppose an elected House on principle—but that it is our duty, time after time, as we deal with these matters where there is expertise here, to take advantage of it. I believe that the Government should listen and bend as appropriate.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may rise in support of our acceptance of the technical amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, which we have just accepted.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I ask the Committee to accept my apology for not being present when the opening speeches were made.
822
I want to make only a very brief intervention. I hope it will not be thought that I am in the habit of opposing the Government; but I must say that Amendment No. 121 really must be more or less right. I note it is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who has considerable expertise and interest in these matters, and traditionally takes a somewhat objective view, although he speaks from the opposite Benches. I note also that it is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton.
I am no historian, but I have a great personal interest in history, in books and in tradition. The county is the natural area for the keeping of archives. Counties have a pride in their regional traditions and in their history. Similar considerations—not exactly the same, but similar—apply to Amendment No. 121ZA. As I see it, this in no way conflicts with the principle of the Bill. Nobody, surely, could have fought harder to uphold the principles of the Bill than I have sought to do, but I really do not see that this does do that.
With reference to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I shall not repeat anything contentious, but I would object to it for the reasons that I gave in discussing Amendments No. 72B and 72C, which were withdrawn. To some degree that objection spills over to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kaberry. I am worried about the offload of functions on to these residuary bodies. But this is not that. This, in no way, impugns the principle of the Bill. It is a sensible derogation of a cultural nature to preserve our heritage. I hope that the Government will consider this a reasoned and even perhaps reasonable contribution.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I do not wish to take up time by traversing the ground already covered by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Beloff. I should, however, like to say a few sentences in support of the principle contained in Amendment No. 121ZA. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, stressed the importance of history. It would be an impertinence to address the noble Lord the Minister on the subject. It is nevertheless worthwhile repeating what Sir Keith Joseph said last year about the importance of an element of national, not nationalistic, history being an inescapable part of any balanced school history course if pupils are to understand how shared values have been developed in their own society.
It is very important, and no doubt the fashionable view, that children should know about distant continents. It is also extremely important that they should make such forays from a basis of sure knowledge about their own society. It is very important indeed that they should be able to start their historical inquiries in their own neighbourhoods and in the cities in which they live. In that sense local archives are an essential foundation for historical study. We disturb them or impoverish them at our peril.
In the case of the record office of the GLC, to which this amendment refers, we are talking about a national record that has an international reputation. This is a record office to which anyone who is concerned with

823
English material is likely to come at some stage of his historical career. We have been told by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Beloff, of the very large bodies of material that it contains already and that are constantly flowing into it. The utility of the archive is to a very large extent a function of the quality and professional skills of the staff who man it.
The staff of the London record office is small—some 32 people. I have no financial material on which to judge how economical this is, as compared with other collections. But it strikes me—I have used it from time to time—as being very thriftily manned. Certainly, it is manned by people whose command of the sources that they are making available is superb. To pass this archive over to another authority without its staff will be greatly to diminish its usefulness and to impoverish its value for historical study.
I hope very much that the noble Lord the Minister, who I am certain will have great sympathy for this point of view, is willing to consider a procedure under which the archive as a whole may retain its value, and that means retaining its present staff when it is transferred.
Baroness Lockwood: For all the reasons which have been expressed by a number of noble Lords, I should like to underline the importance of keeping the archive services together. Although my name does not appear on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, he and I were instrumental in bringing together representatives of the archive profession from the metropolitan counties and I want to support the amendment that he has moved. The framework which the noble Lord outlined is largely that which is operating in West Yorkshire at the moment. However, I would point out to your Lordships that it took eight years for the West Yorkshire metropolitan county to bring the districts together in order to establish a joint service between the metropolitan county and the district councils, and then only four of the districts joined in the scheme. It was not until 1983 that they all participated.
One of the problems of the service being dispersed would be finance. It so happens that the whole of the capital budget for the archive service in West Yorkshire is paid by the county council, plus 50 per cent. of the running costs. One of the reasons why the representatives of the archive services in the metropolitan counties were so keen to bring in the archives of the other bodies which the Government are proposing to set up, such as the police and the fire service, was to continue the comprehensive nature of the archive resources within the county areas. A second reason was so that a contribution can be made from those bodies which will enable the shortfall to which previously the metropolitan counties have been contributing to be made up.
I support the amendment for all sorts of reasons, particularly historical reasons and because of the accessibility of the service. Since it became much more comprehensive all kinds of innovations have been introduced in order to bring it closer to individuals who are interested in history and in the archives and to institutions. For all those reasons, as well as for the economy of scale of the operation, I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the debate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I know that technically we are dealing with Amendment No. 83A, but we have been discussing many other points at the same time. I think that it is very important that the archives should be kept in a comprehensive whole somewhere, but I do not see any reason why that has to be in the residuary body, and I hope that the Minister can advise us of another solution.
The point about the wholesale transfer of staff sounds attractive and I hope it might work out that way, but I do not think it would be correct to write that into the Bill. Until the detail of where the archives are going is resolved one has no way of knowing what staff already in post would be able to carry out the work. So at this stage I do not think that I would support a wholesale transfer of staff. That staff element must be looked at with all other staff elements.
I have always been fascinated by archives. I should be very interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has had any different experience in his time there; but, as a member of the Greater London Council, I never had any sight or sound of them there. I have never been told how one can see them. The recent library there was closed down a few years ago from the point of view of members. Thus I have always found it a most mysterious place. I have seen more archives and learnt more history in places like Cornwall, where the local archivist took one and showed one the local archives, and cared about it. I have always been very disappointed that the archives in the Greater London Council did not seem to be as accessible as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has mentioned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Yes, I will give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to hear of the difficulties that the noble Baroness has had. Of course, it was an all-party agreement on the Greater London Council which led to the saving of the archives from the threat of flooding, as it was a few years ago, and the establishment of a new record office away from County Hall. This has never been a party political matter. Access to the archives has always been available to members of the council and to the public, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has made clear. The noble Baroness should avail herself of the opportunity while it is still there.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord for that point. I certainly am fascinated. For example, when the records office was moved, many of us were never informed why, or where, it was going, though I suppose it is possible that that happened during the brief period while I was not a member. It was really that obscure; it simply vanished. However, I think there is no encouragement to members of the public to go to see the archives. There is encouragement to historians, yes; that point has been made. There is encouragement to serious students if they make an application, but there has never been to my knowledge any encouragement to the general public to go.
However, turning to my original point, I am very interested in archives. I am very interested in the

825
history of the metropolis of London. I think it is most important that these archives should be kept intact somewhere, and I hope that we shall have a satisfactory answer on that point.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am passionately addicted to the preservation of archives. Like I think most noble Lords who have spoken, I think it is frightfully important. I shall not develop that point. However, what I am not clear about is this. Let us take the GLC case for a start. One amendment suggests the residuary body. It has been suggested that it should go to the City of London records office, which I understand already has two of its own. Then the third amendment suggests that in relation to the shires—and this could equally be done in relation to London—a special body should be set up to look after it. Whichever of these solutions is chosen, what evidence
826
is there, what satisfaction can we get, that at least to begin with, they will be given as much money as they are receiving now? This is not very expensive but one cannot do it properly without spending a great deal. From my association with the Institute of Recorded Sound I know that if you ever let it go without proper regulation, it takes four of five years and thousands of pounds to put it into order again.
I see nothing in the Bill to suggest that the Government could not pass it to perhaps the City of London, who are not particularly interested in it because they have their own. No adequate arrangements will be made for the staff to be properly paid and properly looked after or for the documents and whatever other items there are to be properly preserved. That is what I want to know about. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister can make this clear, but without that we shall be getting nothing.
Lord Elton: I shall take up the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on one matter. The fact that anybody has archives does not make him not interested in having more; it makes him acutely interested in having more. At least, that is my experience. Looking at my papers before me, the Committee will realise that I would be the world's worst archivist and I am not quite sure where I shall come out of this debate.
We had a rather longer list of amendments to discuss because the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry of Adel, had some amendments down which he is not now proposing to move. Therefore I wonder whether I may first summarise by saying that the first amendment, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and which was ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and which is the amendment to which technically we are all speaking, transfers this function or responsibility to the residuary bodies.
The first amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff would create a body corporate for that purpose. The second amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff would accept the agreed transfer of the archives of the GLC, the GLRO, to the City of London, for whom I suggest there is an affinity because they already have an archive. The last amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff seeks to make it a duty on those who have the care of archives to maintain what I shall call their "coherence".
I must begin my remarks by saying that it is not necessary to bear in upon me the importance of archives. I am a very insignificant historian and an unpublished one, and I do not make any virtue therefore of my historical past although I have been steeped in history at university and subsequently, and have done my own little researches. My father was enough to convince me that archives are of the essence of history and a very necessary part of the heritage of this country, and indeed the heritage of the localities from which they were collected.
If there was any doubt in my mind as to the efficiency of archivists as a profession and their versatility, it has been dispelled by my postbag. The number of letters that I have received not merely from archivists but from people who have been inspired to write to me by archivists, acting on their own initiative without any of the rather expensive lobbying that I suspect has gone on behind other movements to alter the Bill, does them enormous credit; and that credit is due.
9.30 p.m.
There is no difference between anyone who has put down amendments on the Marshalled List and the Government as to the importance of archives or the desirability of keeping them together. There are incidental shortcomings in some of the amendments and I rather think from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, moved his first amendment that he regards it somewhat as a probing amendment, and I regard this as a probing debate.
If I have it right, the effect of the first amendment is to strike out of the Bill at page 134, paragraph 21 of Schedule 8. That paragraph contains the whole of the
828
archive function. The drawback of his amendment—which I am glad he confirms is a probing amendment—is that it only puts part of it hack. Therefore, there would be a vacuum because it would transfer to the successor body—in this case I think the residuary body—the power to have, hold and maintain the archive. However, it would deprive it—because it has not put it back in again—of the power to service, make use of or indeed add to the archive. I merely mention in passing and in no critical sense that if the noble Lord wishes to proceed on those lines, his amendment would have to be expanded to embrace the functions which it omits.
On the subject of criticisms of amendments, I also welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on staffing as regards Amendment No. 121 ZA, in which my noble friend Lord Beloff asks that the staff of the GLRO should pass in toto, as it were, to the City. My noble friend is right to draw your attention to the fact that, first, we shall be dealing with the transfer of staff as a subject—a whole subject—later in the Bill; and, secondly, that it is not a part of the Government's business to tell a successor body that it must take on staff in exactly the same way as they are now employed. The successor body—the City—must be able to—I do not wish to use the word "recruit" misleadingly—take people on the strength in a way that is in conformity with the people that it already employs. The differences may not be major but I understand that from the employer's point of view it is a reasonable thing to do.
Your Lordships wish that the archives will be transferred intact, that they will be serviced, that scholars will have access to them, and that the collection of archives can continue. The point I want to make is that the powers to do this exist in the Bill, but that I think that your Lordships would wish me to be rather more precise than the lettering of the Bill, as it were, allows one to be if one relies simply upon the text.
The intention now is that if possible there shall be a voluntary scheme. I am sure that that is best. If there is not a voluntary scheme then the intention is that the archives shall be transferred to the residuary body, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Graham, intended; that the staff shall, for the time being also, be with the residuary body; and that the residuary body shall have a duty to find a permanent home for the archives and the staff before the expiry of five years.
What I want to say that is new is that hitherto we have regarded the residuary body in this capacity as being something of a passive body. But in view of your Lordships' concern, and ours, that this shall come to a successful conclusion, we intend that it shall act as a catalyst and that the residuary body shall actively seek to promote a co-operative scheme in the area within the five years.
That is the basis of what I want to leave in your Lordships' minds. I shall read with care what your Lordships have said on the various amendments, and no doubt your Lordships will wish to read what I have said; and we may return to this at the next stage. If, as I understand, these are probing amendments, that seems the proper way to proceed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If I may be so presumptuous as to respond, the noble Lord is quite right. Earlier advice was that the amendment I moved would be taken on the same line, and those noble Lords who have spoken have taken the opportunity of speaking directly to amendments with which they are associated. I liked the spirit of the response of the Minister. Whatever defects and faults there are in the proposals which have been made, there is a common thread that we are not satisfied that the wording and intent of the Bill as they affect archives will meet what everyone, including the Minister, wants, which is the maintenance of the maximum benefit of a service which everyone recognises needs to be kept in as great a unity as possible.
The Minister gave me heart, not least in his intervention to my noble friend Lord McIntosh, where he alluded quite fairly to what one might call the "Drumalbyn solution". The response was, in effect, to agree substantially with the sense of what was being said. But would the Minister be allowed a little time to have a closer look, and in the light of what has been said perhaps come back with a change?
I think that the general sense here is not that boroughs and districts will not be willing to try. There is a doubt, of course, as to whether they will be willing to try, because we have the experience over the last 20 years in Greater London where since 1965 the London boroughs have had the power to create their own archivist services but only 11 have done so. That is not in question in many parts of the metropolitan authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, from a knowledge far deeper than mine, knows the problem; and he mentioned Tyneside. Tyne and Wear is well known to me, and there the metropolitan authority is the archivist for the five districts within it. Then we have other instances in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, where there are blemishes.
It would be a tragedy if the new home for what we treasure in effect means a break up. The Minister has pointed out what he wanted and what we wanted, which is accessibility, service and continuity. I am certainly impressed by the willingness of the Minister to take on board our unease. Solutions have been put forward. The Minister told us that if all else fails—that is, in the absence of a voluntary agreement—there is always the residuary body. I was heartened by the fact that he saw the residuary body in this context—I make no wider point—as being a catalyst, and that it would have the job of promoting and encouraging. That is something which we thought might be lost in the way in which the Bill would be interpreted. Thus we are heartened there.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and my noble friend Lord McIntosh suggested that the substantial alternative was for it to go to joint bodies and to the City. One cannot say that that would be a disaster, but it would be far short of what we already have. We are trying to hold on in some organisational form to what we already have. I am happy and willing to withdraw the amendment. I know that talks are continuing, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood has said, to try to achieve satisfactory arrangements with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and others.
830
I have here a letter written from the county record office in Sheffield from the Society of Archivists. I hope the Minister will allow me to quote from it so as to put into the record the point that,
"professional societies, informed learned societies, historians and other users of archives are seriously concerned by the proposal in the Bill to grant separate archive powers to each metropolitan district council".
I was interested because the letter continued:
"However, as we discussed with you, [the Minister] the Bill contains no provision to require or promote this co-operation".
We could not anticipate, until the Minister said so five minutes ago, that he believes that there is a role for the residuary body to do exactly that. So we are making progress. I am happy to withdraw my amendment. Clearly no one is committed to do other than carefully read what the Minister said, consult those outside the House and perhaps come back to the matter at a latter stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kaberry of Adel Lord Kaberry of Adel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 84:
Page 135, line 10, at end insert
("Reserve powers of the Secretary of State as to archives and records in Greater London and metropolitan counties
.—(1) Where the Secretary of State is not satisfied in the case of Greater London or a metropolitan county that all the local authorities in that area have made joint arrangements for the exercise of such of their functions under the provisions referred to in paragraph 21 of this Schedule as are necessary to secure the control, preservation, management, development and public accessibility of any collection of archives or records which relates to that area or other areas he may make an order under this paragraph.
(2) An order under this paragraph may transfer to the appropriate residuary body such functions of the local authorities in question under that paragraph as the Secretary of State considers necessary to enable him to secure the control, preservation, management, development and public accessibility of that collection.
(3) Before exercising any function transferred to him under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult any local authority appearing to him to be likely to be affected.
(4) The Secretary of State shall revoke an order made under this paragraph in relation to a collection or archives or records in Greater London or a metropolitan county if at any time he is satisfied that all the local authorities in that area have made joint arrangements for the exercise of such of their functions under the provisions referred to in paragraph 21 of this Schedule as are necessary to secure the preservation, management, development and public accessibility of the system.
(5) An order under this paragraph may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions for the transfer of property, staff, rights and liabilities and provisions amending any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment.")
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My noble friend Lord Kaberry, who has been called away from the Committee, has authorised me on his behalf to withdraw his amendment.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Functions under local statutory provisions]:
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 85:
Page 12, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Prior to the implementation of this section, there shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State a report on the implications for people of ethnic minority origin of the abolition of the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils with particular reference to—

(a) the implementation of policies to promote equal opportunities for such ethnic minorities as fall within the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 and to increase the range and level of opportunities open to such minorities;

(b) the promotion for adoption by London Borough Councils, Metropolitan Districts and other bodies of equal opportunity policies and practices; and

(c) the involvement of such minorities in consultation and participation processes.")

The noble Viscount said: The needs of the ethnic minorities will be pursued in a later amendment which is being tabled to Clause 47, and so I do not wish to move Amendment No. 85.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Buckmaster: I realise that Clause 16 is a substantive clause and an essential part of the Bill. Nevertheless I feel I must express my concern, which I know is shared by many of the voluntary organisations, about the implications of this clause, which deals with the devolution of functions to the London boroughs and the metropolitan district councils.
I shall speak briefly. To take one example, I consider it is totally impractical to transfer to the London boroughs lock, stock and barrel the functions now exercised by the GLC on behalf of the ethnic minorities. My reason for saying this is that of the 32 London boroughs one-third are totally unconcerned about the ethnic minorities and half the London boroughs have made no provisions at all to implement the Race Relations Act 1976. Therefore although this matter will be considered in the context of a new amendment to be tabled under Clause 47, I feel that I must register my reservations, and I may revert to this matter at Report stage.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Viscount has raised points particularly concerning the ethnic minorities. If I may, I can respond briefly to what he says by saying rather less than I would have done had he moved his earlier amendment but nevertheless stressing to him that the Government already make a great deal of effort to encourage local authorities to adopt and implement equal opportunities and practices with particular reference to ethnic minorities. Last year, Ministers in the Home Office and at the Department of the Environment jointly chaired a well-attended conference of local authorities precisely for that purpose. In my own department's administration of Section 11 grants, we have required local authorities
832
seeking grant-aid to assist the employment of staff to meet the special needs of minority communities to consult those communities before making application to us.
I am glad to say that many boroughs and districts already do a great deal—and I am sure that the noble Viscount would be aware of that—to help and support ethnic minority communities in their areas. All the boroughs and districts have general powers and these general powers can be applied for the benefit of ethnic minorities. I have to say to him that there is nothing unique about the GLC and the metropolitan county councils in that respect. I could go further and describe in some detail the sort of efforts the Government have been making—financial, under the urban programme, and by other kinds of projects. I hope that, with that, at least the noble Viscount will be aware that not only are we doing quite a lot but also we are prepared to encourage further still the local boroughs and councils to carry out precisely the sort of work which he hopes will be readily adopted by them.
Viscount Buckmaster: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. As I said earlier, there is an amendment which is being tabled to Clause 47 because it is a complex matter. Nevertheless, I am aware of the Government's concern.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Elections]:
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 13, line 15, leave out from ("into") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("twelve electoral divisions each returning the number of members specified in Part III of Schedule 9 to this Act").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 86 on the Marshalled List. I understand that it will be convenient (and I hope that I am right in saying so) for us to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 87 to 96. Although Amendments Nos. 90 to 96 come within Schedule 9, they are quite clearly explanatory and consequential.
Amendment No. 87: Page 13, line 19, leave out from ("constituted") to (", but") in line 21 and insert ("by the Inner London boroughs except that the City of Westminster, the City of London and the Temples shall together comprise one electoral division").
Amendment No. 88: Page 13, line 24, at end insert—
("(4A) At any election of members for the Inner London Education Authority, the election shall be according to the principles of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined in subsection (4B) of this section.
(4B) The expression "transferable vote" means a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's preference for the candidates in order: and

(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

(ii) when owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates.

(4C) Her Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the rules in accordance with which elections shall be conducted and the method of voting and transferring and counting votes at those elections.").
Amendment No. 89: Page 13, line 30, at end insert ("; and Part III of that Schedule shall specify the number of members to be elected from each electoral division.").
Amendment No. 90: Schedule 9, page 138, line 15, leave out ("not less than forty-eight or more than").
Amendment No. 91: Page 138, line 18, leave out ("part or).
.4mendment No 92: Page 138, line 21, leave out ("lie wholly within") and insert ("comprise").
Amendment No. 93: Page 138, line 27, leave out from first ("be") to end of subsection (5) and insert ("such as to secure so far as practicable, that the ratio of the electorate of each division to the number of members to be returned for that division is the same in every division.").
Amendment No. 94: Page 138, leave out lines 29 to 37.
Amendment No. 95: Page 138, line 38, leave out paragraph 3.
Amendment No. 96: Page 139, line 8, at end insert—

"Part III Number of Members of Inner London Education Authority

Electoral Division

Number of Members

Cities of London and Westminister and the Temples

5

Camden

5

Greenwich

5

Hackney

5

Hammersmith and Fulham

3

Islington

4

Kensington and Chelsea

3

Lambeth

6

Lewisham

6

Southwark

6

Tower Hamlets

4

Wandsworth

6".

Clause 18 in the Bill provides for a directly elected authority from May 1986 with two members from 29 parliamentary constituencies, giving a total of 58 members of ILEA in place of the present 48. They would be elected, as the Bill stands, under the well-accepted and well-tried system of "winner takes all" which we have had in this country for so long for parliamentary and local government elections. These amendments if accepted (as I hope they will be) will mean that the members of ILEA will be elected in 12 multi-member constituencies by the single transfer- able vote method of proportional representation, usually called STV.
The constituencies will be formed as shown in Amendment No. 96, based on the boroughs. This seems to be logical as ILEA has close relations with the borough councils and since the Government wish to enhance the central role of the boroughs in London's administration. The number of members from each borough will be from three to six, depending upon the electoral register produced in 1984. This would give 30,111 voters per member, a closer correspondence, I may say, than that proposed in the Bill as it stands. There is therefore, of course, no question of hybridity.
The system envisaged in Amendment No. 88 is exactly the same as is used now for local govenment in Northern Ireland. It is also used for the Parliament there as well. It was introduced, as we all know, by a Conservative Government and my noble friend Lord Whitelaw was then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It would work as follows. Candidates are listed in alphabetical order. Electors can vote for any number of candidates in order of preference. Any candidate who reaches the quota arrived at by a simple and well-tried formula on first preferences is declared
834
elected. Surplus votes are then transferred to other candidates in proportion to all the second preferences for the elected candidate. Any votes still surplus after that are again re-distributed until there are none over the quotas. If enough candidates have still not achieved the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes drops out, and all his or her second preferences are re-distributed, and so on.
I have given a very brief explanation of what is in fact a system which I think is as simple as 1-2-3, and certainly child's play compared with doing the football pools, which I can never comprehend. There is a pamphlet on this subject which I would be happy to let your Lordships see, which explains it in considerable detail; but I think the system is pretty straightforward.
I would suggest that many advantages could and probably would flow from using such a system of proportional representation for ILEA elections First of all, there would be likely to be a higher turnout. The average turnout in May 1981 for the London boroughs was almost exactly 40 per cent.: in other words, three out of five of those entitled to vote did not vote. The average vote obtained by those elected was roughly half of the votes cast; so four out of five of the electorate did not vote for the candidate who was elected. Whether they thought their vote would be wasted or whether they were not interested, no one can be quite sure; but I imagine it would be a combination of both factors. In any case, whatever the reasons, this amounts to apathy writ large.
By contrast, in local government elections run on the STV system in Scandinavian countries, which have had many years of experience of it, on average, three out of four electors vote and between 80 and 90 per cent. of their votes actually count in deciding who should be elected. They influence the outcome in one way or another: that is, between 80 and 90 per cent. of all the votes cast. Incidentally, just on two-thirds of the electorate in Northern Ireland voted in the last local government elections.
Secondly, I suggest that using the STV system for ILEA would result in a much more representative authority. It would be broadly proportional between the parties and would reflect much more accurately than is the case under the present system the views of the electorate. Also, there could well be many more women elected: and do not let us forget that over half the electorate are women. There would be better representation, I suggest, almost certainly of the ethnic minorities, who provide four out of 10 of ILEA's pupils. I was very surprised to find what a high proportion of such pupils is involved, as I do not know a great deal about local government in London. A stronger voice for the Churches would be likely to result as well, and also for parent/teacher bodies, and of course for independents. I suggest all these things are to be welcomed.
Next, I should like to suggest that there would be closer ties with the electorate, between the authority and the voters. This would mean that ILEA would be more accountable to the electorate and more responsive to their wishes. I can see no objection to either of those things; nor do I imagine that any of your Lordships would be likely to do so, either.
Lastly, I suggest that there would be much less risk of violent ideological swings in policies and principles, from which the ILEA has certainly suffered a great deal in the past. Therefore there would be greater continuity of policies and more electoral confidence; and those are good things as well. These are not wild assumptions. I think they are reasonable and I hope that I have not overstated them; I certainly did not wish to do so.
Education is surely the single most important subject in Greater London's local government. I think most noble Lords would agree with that. Therefore, there is obviously a need to get the best possible electoral system and that, I think, is vital. We are talking about more than 300,000 pupils costing about £1,600 a year in more than 1,100 schools and institutions. So we are talking about a lot of people. The present system is manifestly unfair and unrepresentative. In 1982, for example, the Labour Party got four out of 10 of the votes cast and six out of 10 of the seats. All the rest together, all the other parties—the Conservative Party, of course, and the Alliance, Independents and so on—got six out of 10 of the votes cast but only four out of 10 of the seats.
What a dotty system! How unrepresentative can a system be? It could of course have been the other way round, and it has been in the past. Surely it is time to improve the system, and here is our chance. We want a system which is manifestly fair, one that is simple to understand and hopefully one that is popular as well. So far as popularity is concerned, there is absolutely no doubt, judging from all the public opinion polls there have been over many years, that the public at any rate favours proportional representation for this sort of thing and at least has an open mind about it.
The very last question to ask ourselves, I suggest, if we are considering introducing a fairer, more efficient and more representative system is: does it benefit my party? That is not a question that we ought to ask ourselves because it flies in the face of all the three objectives that I have suggested are the correct ones. I have sometimes thought that the first-past-the-post system which we have had for so long leads to the election of those candidates disliked least by the voters. Proportional representation, on the other hand, leads to the election of candidates who are most liked by the electorate. That is a very different thing and I see nothing wrong with it.
Some noble Lords are totally opposed in principle to proportional representation in any form for parliamentary elections. Many other noble Lords—a great many, I think—have open minds about it. I am not myself in favour of STV for elections to the House of Commons, but for ILEA it seems to me to make absolute sense. ILEA is a one-subject authority, and introducing STV, proportional representation, would not be the thin end of the wedge; certainly not so much as it was in introducing it in Northern Ireland, which is after all a parliamentary election.
As for the suggestion that PR would be likely to lead to hung councils, a bogy is made of that. With three major parties now—and there is no denying that there three major parties—we are bound to get hung councils, anyway: witness last week's shire council elections where there are plenty of hung councils.
So the time has come, I suggest, to cast off all old prejudices and think of some new arguments against proportional representation for ILEA, if there are any good ones. For myself, I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton when he said, during the Second Reading of this Bill, at col. 441 of Hansard for 15th April:
"Democracy is strongest where the voter is closest to the seat of power. The elector's … voice will be stronger in 1986 than it has been for many years".
I thought that was unintentionally and very eloquently an excellent argument for proportional representation. I believe in fact that the electors' voice will be stronger in 1986 in ILEA, in the authority, and that will prove to be true, without breaching in any way the principle of this Bill, if your Lordships accept these amendments; voting, I hope, purely on their merits and refusing to be intimidated by the unholy alliance between the two Front Benches. If the Government are not able to accept these amendments, let us call off the Whips. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I beg to support the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. I think that he has presented his case concisely and with admirable clarity. I firmly believe that, if we had had proportional representation as the method of election of the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London Council, we should not be discussing this Bill at the present time. I am absolutely certain in my own mind that the political inspiration behind the abolition of these councils is the way in which at least one of them has been behaving, and we should not have heard about this as an urgent political and parliamentary priority had we not had the eccentricities of the leadership of the Greater London Council publicised so widely and for so long.
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, mentioned in this connection an important point in relation to this amendment; namely, that we are dealing in this amendment with an authority to be elected under this Bill which is unique throughout our electoral system. There is nothing equivalent to the Inner London Education Authority, and I submit to your Lordships that here is an opportunity to begin an innovation with a method of election different from the one we have practised for so long, believing that an experiment would probably prove a useful guide to its consequences and to its value.
At the present time the only system departing from first-past-the-post in our constitutional arrangements is in Northern Ireland. It is time that we tried it somewhere else, and this is a splendid opportunity to do so. There is no reason at all why the ILEA should be such a stridently noticeable political body. It is educational in its functions. There should be a very large degree of common approach to educational problems, and I should have thought that this authority was eminently suitable on which to try this new system, so far as we are concerned, in our constitutional arrangements. I believe, with the noble Lord who moved the amendment, that we should get a better electoral response and a more representative result.

837
How often have we been hearing in recent times about the unrepresentativeness of some sectors of our institutional life? We have, indeed, required by law the use of ballots in our trade unions in order to overcome what the majority of Parliament believe to be the necessity of ensuring more representative government in our unions. It is a pity, perhaps, that in carrying through that legislation we did not become more precise on the methods to be used and the conditions under which those ballots should be taken; but that is a subject that we might go into a little more closely in a debate next week.
In general, it is not too much to say that, if Parliament in Britain is ever defied to the point of a constitutional crisis, it will be because it has become unrepresentative. The authority of Parliament has been challenged in the last 18 months within our vivid recollection. It has been overcome, but one cannot be sure that it will be overcome every time. I do not think our present system, whether nationally or locally is suitable to the lurch that can take place between one political philosophy and another on a marginal turnover in the voting of the electorate. That is the danger.
A government can be unrepresentative and unpopular almost from the beginning, because the electoral system has put power in the hands of a group of people in Parliament who form a government and who do not have adequate electoral support behind them. That is the danger to our Parliament. It astonishes me that otherwise intelligent and wise people should be so indifferent to this potential danger to our system of representative government.
I believe that in this respect, as in others, Britain has gone about in blinkers for the past 20 years. We have not seen what has been coming and we do not see what is coming now. Why should we be so conceited as to believe that what we have is the best in the world? How many times do we claim that something we have is the best in the world? When we look around we see a greater stability in some areas—certainly a greater economic unity and prosperity—where the system of proportional representation is in operation. Why should we think that we have the magic of an electoral system locked away in our historical experience which has been denied to others and which for some reason that no one can explain they have not been wise enough to adopt?
We are behind in the world of electoral systems, and we are unrepresentative in the world of electoral systems. I know that some of my friends on this side of your Lordships' Committee at one time feared that if we changed the electoral system, minorities might become represented in the House of Commons which it would be undesirable to have there. I believe that any electoral system that brings minorities into Parliament is probably bringing them to the point where an outlet for their energies, their activities and their doctrine will prove to be a safety valve in the body politic.
I beseech your Lordships to take this opportunity to begin an innovation in this unique part of our constitutional arrangements which we can observe over the next few years. There is under the Bill to be a
838
review of this authority later. It is a splendid chance, in my opinion, to see how the system can be made to work and whether a more balanced education authority would come out of it. I deplore the divisions that appear to exist on the Inner London Education Authority on doctrinal matters which have little or nothing to do with education but have a good deal to do with political doctrine and which would be softened and eliminated if we had a more representative authority.
There is one further point. The noble Lord who moved the amendment referred to the "hung Parliament" and the "hung authority". Why in heaven's name an elected authority should be called "hung" when it is more representative, I do not understand. After all, democracy is about representatives and it is about representation. There is nothing in the proportional representation system which denies any single grouping or party an overall majority in the elected body. That happened in Austria after many years of so-called coalition governments. Parties came to terms, as they have in other parts of Europe, I think to the better stability of their systems and to the greater prosperity of their people than in this country.
Our adversarial politics are a positive danger to our stability when there is such a large common denominator throughout the political thinking in Britain, when there are so many problems that are generally recognised as being common to us all, and when there are so many aspects of our affairs which are inseparable from our geography and our economic relationship with the rest of the world. Why should a country be so seriously split politically and be prevented from getting that central unity and common purpose which alone will see this Britain of ours through its difficulties?
I take a very gloomy view of the future of this country and of our institutions if we continue to think that politics is a game. Why in Britain are we so desperately anxious to play the game of winners and losers, when there is a combination in politics and in representation which is so important? I strongly urge this amendment upon your Lordships' Committee. Let us try it. Let us have an innovation for once and become more adventurous in trying something new, and see whether the results are better than we have had up until now. We know what the Inner London Education Authority has been up till now: let us see whether we can make it more satisfactory, so that it can face the future with a better degree of unity than it has had in the past.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose Amendment No. 86 and also Amendments Nos. 87 and 96 to which my noble friend Lord Chelwood spoke. Changing the voting system to a form of proportional representation, the abolition of the Temples (in which I declare a slight interest) as a separate electoral entity, and the advent of the constitutional Armageddon prophesied by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, if one looks at the Short Title of the Bill, has nothing whatever to do with the argument.
These are not matters consequential on or connected with the abolition of the GLC and the MCCs, or with the transfer of functions, in any fair or

839
reasonable construction of the Short Title of this Bill. In any event, it is fair to say where I stand as I am speaking; I am against this on its merits.
I for one am not concerned with opinion polls. One is not concerned with the benefits to any particular party. The special case for proportional representation on ILEA but not for the House of Commons I did not understand; but this is a matter with which my noble friend Lord Beloff will, I am sure, deal. However, all this is beside the mark. It is quite outside the context of the Title of this Bill.
Lord Beloff: My excuse for addressing your Lordships a second time this evening is partly to bring us back to the subject of ILEA. Certainly I would not wish to engage in a general debate about the merits or demerits of proportional representation for political bodies, whether national or local. Some regard PR as the plague; some, like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, believe on the contrary that it is a cure for almost any plague—perhaps even the cure we are looking for to get rid of AIDS.
I want to talk about ILEA itself, for this reason. Noble Lords will remember that an elected ILEA was not in the original proposals of the Government. Education in London was to be run by a joint board. Many of us in all parties took some part in persuading the Government that such was inappropriate and that the particular problems of education in London ought to be the subject of a directly elected body. I certainly believe that as a member of the Government party I may have had something to do with persuading my noble friends to accept this change to their original plans.
I did so for a very specific reason; one to which other speakers have alluded. It was the conviction that education, unlike waste disposal, is and always will be a political subject—in the sense that people's general philosophy of the purposes of education differ very considerably and often in an irreconcilable fashion.
On the other hand, for the consumers of education—and we may here take the parents rather than the children—the criteria which they apply to a particular educational philosophy and its results are usually of a more practical kind. What seemed to be necessary if we made another experiment with direct election was to try to insulate education so far as possible not from the interplay of different philosophies—which, in the nature of things, would be impossible—but at least from a direct connection with party policy and party philosophies. It seemed to me that if when people voted for their member for ILEA they were not voting, as they might well do, on general grounds for their member of a borough council or county council or national Parliament, then one concern would be whether the person putting himself forward was most likely to handle better the problem of educating their children, and the chances were at least that this would be an improvement.
10.15 p.m.
If one accepts the view that the elected ILEA which the Bill now proposes is to be what used to be called in this country a school board, which is a pattern of organisation still familiar in the United States of
840
America, one has to ask, what kind of electoral system would we best like? Here, I oppose the amendment in favour of STV, for two reasons. First, it necessitates larger constituencies, and, indeed, the consequential amendment shows this to be the case, whereas it seems to me that an individual who wishes to make an impact as someone who has something to say about education itself, not general political issues, is more likely to make an impact in a smaller constituency where he or she is likely personally to be better known.
My second view—and this was borne out in a way by some of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Chelwood—is that whether or not one likes proportional representation, it is a method of securing what some people would call a more fair representation of political parties. It is a method devised to meet a system of more than two parties. It is a system which parties very early and very easily learn to control to their own advantage. My feeling is that if we had a system of proportional representation, we might get what is called a hung council—I do not know why it should be regarded as so derogatory—a proportion of people representing the various parties in London corresponding more closely to the number of votes cast. I think that would be an argument perhaps for proportional representation in a political body, but if one is trying to insulate education from party strife, it seems to me that on both those counts proportional representation is not the right thing for what we are now discussing.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I rise to support this amendment to which my name is attached, but in doing so I view it with a certain trepidation as it is a very controversial and even emotional subject, as has already been proved by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. However, I do not agree with them that these amendments are irrelevant to this Bill, and I shall come to my arguments in favour of that in a moment.
First of all I should like to stress that, from the way I see them, these amendments do not, or should not, embrace the whole principle of electoral reform. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has put forward arguments for the principle of electoral reform. We are this evening discussing a change in the elctoral system for an education authority. Therefore, the arguments used should not be judged in the context of those arguments used for advocating an electoral system for a level of government because, after all, that is an entirely different question and one which, as I have said before, draws out all sorts of emotions and prejudices.
Today we are really discussing what is the best way of electing an authority which will be most efficient in running London's schools and what is the best way of offering London's children the best opportunities. After all, there are 1,133 schools and other educational institutions under ILEA. It would seem right to introduce a system whereby such a large and very important educational authority is protected from the kind of uncertainty that the present Bill is forcing upon it. For that reason, the amendments are highly relevant.
My first aim is to protect this education authority from having its educational policies interrupted by the upheavals that one has seen result from the rise and

841
fall of different and varied political parties. The argument against continuing with the old system is that one would like a more varied representation on that authority. As my noble friends have already said, this would ensure, in turn, that more candidates representing educational beliefs rather than party political beliefs could be elected. Parents might be better represented on the authority. Who, after all, could show a greater commitment to that authority than the parents of children educated within it? More women might he elected to that authority. Again, I cannot see anything wrong with such a development.
Furthermore, no one can surely deny that London schools cater for a very varied multicultural community. No less than 44 per cent. of children at primary school and 38 per cent. at secondary schools come from different ethnic groups. I am not inferring that there is any discrimination against the ethnic groups. I am a governor of two ILEA schools, one a primary school and one a nursery school, and I know of all the trouble and precautions that are taken to ensure there should never be any kind of discrimination.
However, no one can maintain that these groups are adequately represented on the Inner London Education Authority. The proof that a more democratic representation of voters' choice can be achieved lies in the fact that proportional representation system was introduced for the New York school hoard elections. This was done especially to cater for the very many ethnic groups living in New York city. It was done to involve the black and the Puerto Rican communities in the education of their own children.
This leads me to a situation much nearer home that would be very favourably affected by a change in the electoral system for ILEA. A fellow resident of Kensington and Chelsea has made a strong point for changing the elctoral system. I should like to quote some of the cogent arguments that he has expressed in a letter to me. He writes:
"Kensington and Chelsea is a borough that has among its citizens some of the richest and some of the poorest in the land. It has its own North-South divide with a predominantly rich south whose parents aspire to sending their children to public schools even if their primary education is provided by the local authority. In the north and isolated areas of the south there are large numbers of council tenants of whom something like 75 per cent. receive some form of rent rebates.
"This extreme brings with it great problems for the education service. On the one hand the withdrawal of numbers of secondary-aged pupils into the private school sector means that those electors have very little interest in ensuring that the ILEA schools provide the best education possible.
"On the other hand pressures of their economic circumstances mean that the less well off have little opportunity to participate in the education of their children. For these children the liberating effect of higher education is a distant prospect.
"While any education authority can only scratch at the problems of numbers of their clients I would suggest that the lack of proper representation is one factor that deepens the sense of alienation from the education process. Direct elections are one way in which this can be alleviated, but the current first-past-the-post electoral system will only go to deepen it. For the Borough as a whole the party votes are roughly in a proportion 50 per cent. Conservative, 25 per cent. Labour and 25 per cent. Alliance. Its parliamentary representation is 100 per cent. Conservative. Clearly the proposed system will mean that the views of 50 per cent. of voters will be unrepresented on ILEA until there is a boundary review."
842
He ends by saying:
"For this reason I would urge you to vote for an electoral system for the ILEA elections which would be likely to provide a just and fair system".
I feel very strongly that a change in the electoral system would both produce a wider and fairer representation and at the same time strengthen ILEA. I have every reason to wish to do that. As I say, I am a governor of these two schools, which I think are admirably run, and I have a very great respect for that authority. I shall be speaking about this matter again when we come to Clause 21.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The difficulty of the argument which the noble Baroness has just addressed to your Lordships, I think, is this. If for ILEA a system of PR is so superior to that operating elsewhere in our electoral system, why stop with ILEA? Is not her argument, if it has validity, one of much wider application than merely to ILEA?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I was addressing myself to the Bill that is before us for discussion this evening.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate that the speech of the noble Baroness is wholly relevant to this Bill, but the issue which she has raised, which does not arise necessarily on this Bill at all, has very much wider implications. If one accepts the argument that for ILEA a system of PR is very advantageous, I think that she will appreciate that it must carry implications into a far wider area. That was the point that I was putting to her. Indeed, I suggest to her, as I suggest to all your Lordships, that if it is proposed—as my noble friend Lord Chelwood has proposed—to apply to ILEA a system of election not applied anywhere else in the British Isles outside Northern Ireland, it at least puts the onus of proof on those who propose such a system to show why in the special circumstances of ILEA (as the noble Baroness says, that is all we are discussing) a system not operating in the rest of the United Kingdom should be applied.
The noble Baroness I hope will agree that I am being fair, and I am not suggesting that that is necessarily an argument against the proposal on its merits, but it is an indication, I suggest to your Lordships, of the much wider implications of this amendment generally. What is there that is so peculiar about ILEA that it should have the benefit—if it be a benefit—of this system which is denied to every other electorate in England, Wales and Scotland?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Surely the reply to the noble Lord's point is that this body is distinctive. There is no other electoral body like it under our system. That is why an innovation could be tried in this instance without all the implications that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord says there is no other body like ILEA. Indeed, if one felt like being frivolous one might perhaps say that there is something in that point. But what is so unusual about it—this is the point to which the noble Lord must address himself—that demands an electoral system which is not in fact provided for any other body in

843
England, Wales or Scotland? What are the peculiarities of ILEA that demand this special, exceptional and unusual treatment?
10.30 p.m.
The Committee know that there are a number of people, of whom my noble friend Lord Chelwood is undoubtedly one, who are great exponents of these various forms of electoral system, and of course I respect their views. Indeed, when some noble Lords on the Liberal Benches make a speech some of us make a book as to whether or not they will advocate PR. I know there are people who very sincerely hold this doctrine and who believe it should be a wider application.
However, the only point that I wish to make on this amendment is that, whether they are right or whether those who, like myself, adhere to the view of first-past-the-post are right, it is very difficult to justify just picking out ILEA and picking it out only for the reason that election to it is being provided under this Bill and giving it unique treatment.
I think that the Committee have to face the point that if this is a good system of election, with all the merits to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has referred, then it surely has a claim for much wider application. Therefore, it would be a mistake, in the specific and special context of ILEA and in the specific and special context of this Bill, to introduce a system unique in this country just because of the accident of the fact that the issue can be raised on this Bill. I hope therefore that my noble friend will say that we will give the ILEA the electoral system which we regard as good enough for every other authority in the United Kingdom.
Lord Diamond: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not explain to us, on the basis that Northern Ireland adopted this system, why he himself was not compelled to take the view that this system should apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course, he regards Northern Ireland as a special case. And those who support this amendment regard ILEA as a special case. The Committee are no more compelled to regard ILEA as part of a system of proportional representation for the country as a whole than the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was compelled to regard Northern Ireland PR, which I imagine he supported, as PR for the whole of the country, to which he is wholly opposed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord give way? I hope he is not suggesting that the unique and unhappy circumstances of Northern Ireland, which I think all the Committee profoundly regret, have any relevance or application to the Inner London Education Authority.
Lord Diamond: Nobody is suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has no right to say that because one has proportional representation in a very limited and special case, you must have proportional representation for the whole country. Everybody knows where we on these Benches stand. Of course they do. We support proportional representation throughout.
844
All I am saying is that what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is saying is irrelevant to the issue we are discussing. We are discussing an issue which is much more closely related to local government. The ILEA is very closely related to local government. I beg the Committee's pardon for this reminder (because I am sure that it is in the memory of every noble Lord sitting here) that this Chamber within very, very recent times has adopted unanimously a Bill which gave the opportunity to local authorities to choose proportional representation for the election of their members. We completely support the views which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. There is no need for us to detain the Committee any longer.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I should like to make a brief statement because I know that time is getting short. I wish to address myself in a slightly different way to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised. The noble Lord asked what was special about this. I listened with particular attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was saying because it seemed to me that he was in part supplying the answer. He was pleading for us to recognise the importance of not allowing party politics to dominate the elections to this particular authority which serves only the cause of education. That is something very close to my heart and that is why I have put my name to this amendment.
I recognise that there will be differences of opinion about the merits of this particular form of representation, but it seems to me that it might achieve (a) stability and (b) the representation of certain groups—the ethnic groups and the Churches have been mentioned, and there are others—who otherwise would be less likely to be represented, given the normal party political forces at work.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I interrupt the right reverend Prelate? The suggestion which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, that this system would facilitate the representation of ethnic groups surely ignores the fact that the constitutencies, as proposed in these amendments, would be so much larger, and therfore it is surely much less likely that minority groups would get themselves elected.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I thank the noble Lord for making that point and I recognise that it will be a point of difference between us. I just wanted to make that point, which is an important point, in general terms about the principle.
Baroness David: I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, in two respects: first, that education is perhaps the most important service that any local authority has to provide; and, secondly, that we want a system of voting which is simple to understand. However, I would suggest that possibly STV is not such a system. I agree with my noble friend Lord Houghton that we want to be quite sure that the system to which we move is better than what we have now. I think that the proposals made in the amendment are very likely not better than what we have now.

845
The amendment raises three very important questions. The first is: should there be a different voting system between one local authority and another? In this respect, very much to my surprise, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—and that does not happen all that often.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am very lucky.
Baroness David: Secondly, if this is thought desirable, should the STV system be the alternative to adopt? Thirdly, is amending this legislation the way in which to deal with a major constitutional change affecting our electoral law? In my view the answer to all three questions must be, no.
I should like to make the case against. First, I deal with the case so far as an electoral experiment is concerned. Many arguments have been put forward both in favour of PR and against it. Whatever those arguments, it would seem to be most unfair that the ILEA should be used as an electoral experiment. Education is, as we have said, the most important service of all and it should not be used for experiment. If the proponents of PR wish to see the STV system adopted, they should state their case and win the argument for complete electoral reform. There is no justification for holding ILEA elections under a STV system while all other elections—national, district, borough and parish—remain under a first-past-the-post system. No other education authority will have members elected under the STV system and ILEA should not be made the guinea-pig of electoral reform.
When the House of Lords considered the Local Government (Choice of Electoral Systems) Bill, both in February 1983 and again in March 1985, the introduction of STV for district elections was thoroughly debated. Proponents argued that objections to using PR for national elections did not apply to local elections, since the responsibilities of local councillors were not so great. Personally I would query that, but that is what they said.
Such arguments, however, cannot be applied to the administration of the largest education authority in England. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who moved the Bill in March 1985—and I am very sorry that he is not here tonight—argued against extending PR to county councils on the grounds that:
"it is better, perhaps, to try this experiment with authorities where the size of the newly created districts would not be too large, and also, more importantly, with authorities where there is already a tradition of voting for more than one candidate."—[Official Report, 4/3/85; col. 1163.]
Hence, even the noble Lord, Lord Blake, would presumably be forced to admit that ILEA, a large authority with a tradition of voting for only one candidate, should not be singled out for such an experiment.
There are then the practical difficulties, and I want to say a word on these. The amendment presents practical difficulties since the ILEA elections are to be held on the same day as the London borough elections. This would give rise to the ludicrous situation of electing one authority under PR and another under our existing system, and all on the same day. Such a
846
position is so untenable that it is difficult to believe that it really is being seriously suggested.
It has been argued that in Northern Ireland there is no difficulty in operating the STV and the first-past-the-post system at the same time. However, although these two systems co-exist two elections under different systems have never been held on the same day. Even those who agree the need for electoral reform must ask themselves if it is appropriate for a substantial change in our electoral law, a constitutional change, to be determined by amendment to Government legislation. Clearly, in my view, it is not.
Lord Avebury: Will the noble Baroness give way? Is she suggesting that the people of London are incapable of voting in one election by the first-past-the-post system and in another by the STV, on the same day? Is that what she is saying about the people of London?
Baroness David: It is difficult for the people of London or anywhere else to be presented with two different voting papers in the same polling station and be asked to work those two systems. If one has contested local elections one knows how often people are very confused when they get to the polling stations, anyway; and I think this would really be too difficult.
There are currently within inner London 29 constituencies which under the Government's proposals in the Bill will have 58 representatives to the new ILEA. Although the boundary divisions are yet to be finalised, each constituency is likely to elect two members. The amendment seeks to do away with the constituency boundaries and create 12 electoral districts of varying size based on the London boroughs.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spoke of the disadvantages of larger constituencies. Each of these districts would then elect between three and six representatives depending on its size, and these multi-member constituencies will of course be much larger than existing constituencies. They will have up to 200,000 voters in some districts, compared to an average 6,000 now. Lewisham, for instance, it is suggested would have six members. That is in the amended schedule. There could then be a minimum of 18 names on the ballot paper if just the three main parties all put up candidates, which of course is to be expected; and then there would be many fringe candidates.
Under the STV system voters are requested to list candidates in preference order. A candidate has to reach a certain quota of votes to be elected. Any excess votes that he or she has over the quota are redistributed among the other candidates, according to preference. If there are not surplus votes then the candidate with the least number of votes is removed and his or her votes are transferred. This process continues until the requisite number of candidates reach the quota and are elected, bringing in third, fourth and possibly fifth preferences if necessary.
Our current first-past-the-post system may not be perfect but it is simple, it is familiar, and it is well understood. Personalities play a smaller part than one might wish. The vote is for the party, and under our present system the voter has a clear choice between a

847
set of policies. It is argued that our present system is unfair since it can allow one party huge majorities on less than 50 per cent. of the vote. While this may be the case, the STV system does not guarantee greater fairness. Lord Attlee once said that democracy does not mean rule by the majority; it means rule by the majority with deference to the interests of the minority.
These comments are often quoted as arguments for PR. The STV would not necessarily, however, give minorities a greater say. The ILEA would certainly agree with Lord Attlee's statement; indeed, there are few authorities in England which endeavour to do as much for minority interests as the ILEA already does. Ironically PR does not guarantee proportionality. With all its alleged defects under our present voting system the person or persons elected are those for whom the most electors have voted. That would not be the case with STV. STV could lead, and has led, to a position where the candidate most people want to have as their elected representative is not be elected because of the influence of second, third, fourth or even twelfth preference votes. There is no justification for giving lower preference votes.
Winston Churchill is reported to have aptly commented in 1931 that the decision is determined by the most worthless votes given to the most worthless candidates. STV has been used in only small rural societies. It has never been tried in an urban industrial society, and no sure predictions can therefore be made. To adopt STV would be a risk—a risk to which ILEA, our greatest education authority, our largest, should in no circumstances be subjected.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with great care to my noble friend in moving his amendments. I, too, share the concern of others who speak so keenly about the importance of education in London. It is a pleasure for me at this stage, on more or less my first appearance at the Dispatch Box this evening, to be able largely to agree with what the noble Baroness opposite has just said. The new ILEA will have many of the same powers—and this was the point that she made—and many of the same duties as local authorities, and it would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate for elections to ILEA to be conducted differently from those for local authorities in Great Britain which are held under the simple majority system.
There are very real objections to the use of proportional representation at local elections. One of its main weaknesses is that it enormously increases the chances of a hung council, though I realise that there are those of your Lordships who do not like that particular term. Under the simple majority system electors have a clear-cut choice between various candidates and parties whose policies they know and have been able to evaluate prior to the elections.
Proportional representation, however, almost invariably leads to some form of coalition government based on a programme which the electorate has not had the opportunity to approve or disapprove. Voters can, therefore, only guess what kind of coalition their party might have to enter into after an election, what new policies it might have to adopt and what
848
compromises it might have to make to keep that coalition in existence. There is also a stronger risk of creating a series of shifting ad hoc coalitions than under the simple majority system and, in such situations, time which should be spent in taking speedy and effective decisions is inevitably frittered away on arguments about which party's policies should prevail and the price to be paid for agreeing to a particular course of action. I do not know what that would do to protect those whom ILEA serves from the upheavals which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, so keenly wishes to see the back of. The use of proportional representation for local government elections would therefore be more likely to produce a weak and unstable administration where no single party would be answerable for the authority's record.
Lord Diamond: Before the noble Lord—
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord intervenes I should point out that I am under some constraints regarding time because today is Thursday and the Committee has to be up quite soon.
Lord Diamond: This is a very short intervention. Why does the noble Lord, a Government Minister, keep on referring to what local authorities cannot do when he and his Government in this House have just agreed that they can do it?
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps if the noble Lord listens to the rest of the arguments which I shall put forward, he will be more convinced.
It has been pointed out by others that proportional representation by a single transferable vote as proposed by the amendments is used at local government elections in Northern Ireland. Of course, there are major differences here. I think the noble Lord who proposed the amendment and others who have referred to it—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—fully realise that the situation in Northern Ireland is different. It is one upon which the voting is largely controlled locally by set religious and political lines which makes the single majority system unsuitable in that part of the United Kingdom for all but the election of MPs.
One of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Beloff was that another objection to the amendments before us is that they would involve the creation of large, multi-member electoral divisions which would make members of the ILEA more remote from the people they are supposed to represent. We propose that the electorate of the Inner London Education Area should be temporarily split into 29 two-member divisions containing somewhere in the region of from 46,700 to 71,950 electors for the 1986 elections. These divisions will then be replaced by smaller, single-member divisions containing perhaps half that number of electors for the second and subsequent elections to the new authority, leading very much to the sort of figure which my noble friend Lord Chelwood said that he wanted to achieve under his system.
Under these arrangements, however, the Inner London Education Authority would be split into 12 large divisions comprising 11 inner London boroughs

849
and the combined areas of the cities of London and Westminster and the Temples. The current electorate of these divisions which are to be represented by from 3 to 6 members, according to size, range from just over 98,000 to nearly 201,000. It will therefore be quite clearly seen that the close links which already exist between the electors in inner London and individual members of the Inner London Education Authority would be destroyed and not strengthened in the way that my noble friend Lord Chelwood suggested. With an issue such as education, it is specially important that elected representatives should have close local contact with those that they represent.
There are practical objections to these amendments, too. There are risks of confusion which I think have been ably described just now, and of course there is an increase in cost, too. I share, as I said when I started to speak, the concern about the importance of education in London. I also share the views which were expressed about the emotion of the whole subject of PR. I am sure that none of us would wish to see local government at the mercy of weak and unstable administration. We need local authorities which can act expeditiously but can act decisively and have a governing party in policies which are readily identifiable by the electorate. We also need authorities where each member represents a comparatively small area in order to become fully familiar with its problems and become well known to its inhabitants as a person to whom they can turn for help and advice on local matters. That is why we have proposed that elections to the new ILEA should be held on the same basis as those for local and central government. That is why I ask your Lordships not to accept these amendments.
Lord Chelwood: I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend has had to say. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these amendments, and also those who have spoken against them. I cannot say that I was very impressed by those who argued that these amendments did not come within the Short Title of the Bill. They are quite clearly I think consistent with the principles of the Bill which are for maximum devolution to the boroughs. The time is very late and there is obviously not a meeting of minds, which I much regret. I think therefore in the circumstances the right thing to do is to divide the Committee.
10.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISON NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Chandos, V.

Attlee, E.

Chelwood, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Coleraine, L.

Aylestone, L.

Croft, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Caldecote, V.

Falkland, V.

850

Foot, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Grey, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Hampton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hanworth, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hooson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Kennet, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Simon, V.

Kissin, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Kitchener, E.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tordoff, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Walston, L.

McNair, L.

Whaddon, L,

Mayhew, L.

Wigoder, L.

Meston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kemsley, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Layton, L.

Arran, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beloff, L.

Liverpool, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Birk, B.

Lothian, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnock, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Colville, of Culross, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Norrie, L.

David, B.

Onslow, E.

Davidson, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dormer, L.

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sandford, L.

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Southborough, L.

Gowrie, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harvington, L.

Vivian, L.

Hayter, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Ingrow, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.3 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Inner London Education Authority: elections and electoral arrangements.]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 96 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Consultation with inner London boroughs and the City.]:
[Amendments Nos. 97 to 100 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  JUDICIAL STUDIES BOARD: EXPANDED ROLE
  JUDICIAL STUDIES BOARD: EXPANDED ROLE
  SOUTH LONDON HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN
  SOUTH LONDON HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT REGULATIONS: REPRESENTATIONS
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT REGULATIONS: REPRESENTATIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTORATE
  SOCIAL SERVICES INSPECTORATE
  UK-REGISTERED VESSELS AND SOVIET PORTS
  UK-REGISTERED VESSELS AND SOVIET PORTS
  TYPE 23 FRIGATES: TENDERS
  TYPE 23 FRIGATES: TENDERS
  WILD BIRDS: EC DIRECTIVE 79/409
  WILD BIRDS: EC DIRECTIVE 79/409
  MINESTONE STOCKS OF NCB
  MINESTONE STOCKS OF NCB
  MINESTONE AND ROAD CONSTRUCT ION
  MINESTONE AND ROAD CONSTRUCT ION
  BADGERS: DAMAGE TO GOLF COURSES
  BADGERS: DAMAGE TO GOLF COURSES