Sitting of 20 May 1985

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

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are unemployed in Wales and in Clwyd; what were the figures for 1979; and by what percentage each of the totals has increased.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): On 11 April 1985 there were 180,031 unemployed claimants in Wales and 24,186 in Clwyd. In April 1979 the claimant-based figure for Wales was 78,383, an increase of 129·7 per cent. A comparable claimant-based figure for Clwyd is not available, but in April 1979 the number of registrants unemployed was 12,070.
    Mr. Jones: My luckless constituents at P.D. Cans of Deeside lost their jobs last month and are still shocked and angry. Why did that company fold up so speedily and mysteriously ? Is it perhaps a classic case of management error and over-extension of financial resources ? Did the company use Welsh Office grants to buy another company from receivership ? Does the Secretary of State agree that the closure of a factory with a 90-strong work force is just as important in human consequences as much bigger closures ?
    Mr. Edwards: The company received grants. I do not believe that the amount of grant that it received can have been critical in the decision on whether it went ahead with the acquisition of another company. But it was regrettable that that company failed. I find it hard to believe that the hon. Gentleman is criticising the fact that an application for selective financial assistance at an earlier stage was granted to the company after the application had gone to the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the serious concern of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) over unemployment is to be taken seriously, he will have to have Labour's policy document "Work for Wales" independently costed and tell us exactly how much his party will put up taxes to pay for it ?
    Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree. Any higher rates or taxes would be detrimental to jobs.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: How many nurses, doctors and front-line staff will be made redundant in west Wales due
    716
    to 90 beds being taken out of use at Llanelli, Carmarthen and Aberystwyth ? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position of the East Dyfed health authority, and give it the extra £1·5 million required to make sure that the services remain intact ?
    Mr. Edwards: There are more nurses, doctors and front-line staff in the Health Service than there were when the Government came into office. Considerable funds have been allocated to the health authorities in west Wales to deal with the problem of under-funding. Recent recalculation of Dyfed's requirements shows that further attention may have to be given to its particular under-funding problem. We are considering that matter at present.
    Mr. Foot: When will the Secretary of State announce a full expansion of the Welsh Development Agency programme, with the money and resources to make it possible, to deal with those appalling figures ?
    Mr. Edwards: The Welsh Development Agency has carried out a massive programme under the Government since May 1979. It has spent some £270 million on factory building and related activities. It has built over 200 advance factories in Clwyd alone. At the moment about 12·5 per cent. of its factory space is vacant. It is also carrying out a substantial programme to encourage investment, particularly by the private sector.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Keith Best to ask question No 2: this is an open question.
    Mr. Best: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to ask it.

    Courtaulds (Plant Closure)
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to complete his consideration of Delyn borough council's development strategy for Courtaulds' Greenfield plant following the announcement of the proposed closure of the plant.
    Mr. Harveyasked the Secretary of State for 'Wales if he will introduce further measures to alleviate the impact of job losses resulting from the closure of Courtaulds' yarn factory at Wrexham.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My officials are discussing urgently with the local authorities, the company, the Manpower Services Commission and the WDA the contribution which each can make to tackling the situation. Those discussions will cover the Delyn borough council's development plan and the county council's action response.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider extending the Delyn enterprise zone to include the No. 1 site at Greenfields when that site is transferred to Delyn borough council ? Is he aware that the council will have great difficulty in attracting substantial private investment to develop that site without the financial advantages of an enterprise zone, particularly the 100 per cent. capital allowances for new buildings ?
    Mr. Edwards: We are having detailed discussions with all the authorities about their proposals. It would be wrong to anticipate the outcome of those discussions, especially as we are also still awaiting a full response from Courtaulds about the contribution that it can make.
    Mr. Harvey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to consultations, but will he also bear in mind that, if the closures go ahead, the extensive public funds invested in Courtaulds over the past few years should be clawed back ? Will he see that that is done ?
    Mr. Edwards: Clawback is always considered in such cases and I confirm that it will be on this occasion. However, I should tell the House that Courtaulds has agreed to second a senior executive and support staff to provide management expertise for the development of local business in the Delwyn area. I welcome that proposal, but it is, of course, only one of the many aspects of the problem that we have been discussing with Courtaulds. We shall continue to hold detailed discussions with the company.
    Mr. John Morris: In view of the reports that the Prime Minister has intervened personally with Sir Christopher Hogg about alternative employment, will the Secretary of State also intervene personally with the chairman of BP International in order to obtain a stay of execution for Llandarcy so that the work force may be given a decent period in which to work out alternative plans, instead of a mere month ?
    Mr. Edwards: I will certainly draw to the attention of the senior management of BP what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but, as I told the Welsh Grand Committee last week, BP has set a notable example to other companies, including Courtaulds, with regard to the contribution that can be made in such circumstances. BP has committed itself in a number of ways to help create future jobs. It should be congratulated on the initiatives that it has already announced.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the question refers to Courtaulds Greenfield plant. I am afraid that I was confused by the names of Welsh towns.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: What is the Secretary of State's reaction to the decision of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs to launch an inquiry into the job losses both at Courtaulds and at BP Llandarcy ?
    Mr. Edwards: I am always most interested to see the work of the Select Committee.
    Mr. Anderson: When the Secretary of State congratulates BP on its initiative—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No, that will not do —Courtaulds.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the Secretary of State that over 13,000 people are unemployed in the Deeside travel-to-work area and that there is a male unemployment rate of nearly 20 per cent.? The prospects for Flint, Holywell, Bagillt and Greenfield are very grim. The male unemployment rate in Flint and Holywell may approach 30 per cent. before long.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman visit Mold and organise and chair a conference of county and borough leaders, together with the Welsh Development Agency and the Manpower Services Commission, with the objective of producing a rescue package.? What has the right hon. Gentleman done, with his Prime Minister, to see the chairman of Courtaulds in person in order to persuade him to retract these brutal decisions ?
    Mr. Edwards: As I have said before, I have seen the chairman of Courtaulds and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has corresponded with him. I have initiated with the local authorities discussions of the kind that the hon. Gentleman seems to want. What is required at present is not another meeting chaired by me, but a conclusion of the detailed discussions now in progress.
    I am sure that, at least, the hon. Gentleman will welcome the significant announcements affecting the area made by Sharp and Data Magnetic in particular since the Courtaulds announcement was made.

    Cynon Valley
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Wales what new plans he has to deal with the unemployment problem in the Cynon Valley.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Within the Government's overall economic strategy, I shall continue to pay special attention to the need to sustain and develop industrial and manufacturing investment in areas such as the Cynon Valley.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that Cynon Valley now has the highest male unemployment in Wales ? Is he further aware that at least two pits in my constituency are in jeopardy and that, if they close, male unemployment will be pushed up to 50 per cent.? In view of that horrific possibility, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring alternative employment to my besieged constituency ?
    Mr. Edwards: I am aware of the possibility of further pit closures in the area and of the level of unemployment there. That is why I devoted a considerable part of my speech at last Wednesday's sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee to spelling out our commitment to the valleys of Wales, including the Cynon Valley. I am sorry to say that I do not think that the hon. Lady was able to be there to hear my speech. Perhaps she will find time to read it.
    Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most damaging action for the Cynon Valley, and any other part of the country, would be espousal of the Labour party's economic policy, which includes hostility to the European Community, control of pension funds, increasing Government borrowing, renationalisation and higher personal taxation ?
    Mr. Edwards: And the establishment of yet another talking shop to preside over the affairs of Wales.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Cynon Valley faces serious problems, as does the valley of Ogmore and Maesteg—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall do my best to call the hon. Gentleman on a later question on that part of Wales.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the number of unemployed people in Gwynedd; how this compares with the corresponding figures for 1979 and 1974; within the latest figures how many have been unemployed for over 12 months; and how many are under 25 years of age.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 11 April 1985 there were 14,494 unemployed claimants in Gwynedd. Comparable

    719
    figures for the same period in 1979 and 1974 are not available because of the move to claimant-based figures. In January 1985, 5,182 claimants had been unemployed for over a year and 5,713 claimants were aged under 25 years.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that his refusal to give figures for 1979 and 1974 shows how the Government are cooking the books to avoid the consequences of their policies ? Is he further aware that his statement last Wednesday in the Welsh Grand Committee about an increase in the number of people in employment has no relevance for Gwynedd, as the Government's only policy for that county appears to be to build an east-running road to take young people out of the county as quickly as possible ? When will he have a commitment to Gwynedd such as he mentioned in connection with the valleys ?
    Mr. Edwards: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman and members of his party must be the only people in Wales who seriously believe that the building of a modern dual carriageway across north Wales to Gwynedd is bad for jobs and not good for economic prospects of the area. I hope he will proclaim that message to his electors, because I think that most of them will dismiss it as the rubbish that it is.
    Mr. Best: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dualling of the A55 is the measure which is most likely to open up north-west Wales to greater employment prospects, just as the M4 has done for south Wales ? Does he further agree that construction work on highways is a good way in which to provide extra employment ? Will he ask our hon. Friend the Minister of State carefully to consider bypasses around the fine villages of the A5, as that would be an excellent means of producing greater employment ?
    Mr. Edwards: I shall do all of that. I cannot promise that we can get ahead immediately with all of the bypasses that my hon Friend requires. As he knows, we are conducting a massive road building programme for the general good of the area. I hope that he will draw the attention of local electors to the fact that Plaid Cymru believes that it should not go ahead.
    Mr. Barry Jones: This is the forgotten county. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, as long as Clwyd is wracked by high unemployment, it will be difficult to get major job projects into Gwynedd ? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to get work to the beleaguered community at Holyhead, where male unemployment is nearly 25 per cent. ? Why does he not acknowledge that Wales needs the expansion of the Welsh Development Agency budget ?
    Mr. Edwards: As Holyhead is a port on a main route to Ireland, I should have thought that it would be perfectly obvious that improvement of road communications to it is about the greatest single contribution that we can make.

    Juvenile Offenders
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals for increasing the funding of intermediate treatment schemes for juvenile offenders in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): member, Sir. The response to the
    720
    intensive intermediate treatment programme has not so far matched the funds we have set aside. The decrease in the 1985–86 provision compared with that for 1984–85 is merely a reflection of our estimate of likely take-up grant.
    Mr. Carlile: Is the Minister aware that the rising rate of some types of juvenile crime in Wales is causing real concern and that statistics show that detention centres, whether by short, sharp shock or otherwise, are failing to prevent youngsters from committing crime ? Is it not high time that the Government responded to the initiative of the intermediate treatment programme and provided proper funding for a real and successful alternative to custody, through intermediate treatment ?
    Mr. Roberts: The Government are in favour of non-custodial treatment, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. To make the position absolutely clear, I must say that although we have allocated £724,000 since 1983–84 for this particular programme, only £190,000 has so far been taken up in Wales. Nevertheless, two applications worth £206,000 are being considered and we shall announce the result of our consideration shortly.
    Mr. Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that last Saturday I visited Holyhead mountain and the scheme run by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders in the community programme, and saw the work that is being done there ? Will he welcome the addition of 100,000 new places to the community programme, as it is an excellent way of helping ex-offenders to be rehabilitated back into society and to find work, and of finding work for the long-term unemployed in general ?
    Mr. Roberts: I welcome the developments to which my hon. Friend referred. It is not simply the Government who are active in this area through their intermediate treatment programme and urban programme, but local authorities. I am glad that Welsh local authorities have forecast that by 1984–85 expenditure will rise to £1 million compared with £489,000, which was committed in 1982–83.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister request local education authorities to attach community policemen to all schools so that the relationship between schoolchildren and the police can be improved ? That could also form part of the drug abuse prevention programme.
    Mr. Roberts: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are worried about drug abuse, and a campaign is being mounted by the health and social services departments. Regarding his point about the police and schools. on both the education and police sides a great deal is being done to prevent crime.

    Building Land
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what conclusions he has reached in relation to the recently published studies by the Land Authority for Wales on the availability of building land in South Glamorgan and in West Glamorgan; and what steps he now intends to take.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): . The publication of the two studies marks a successful start for the new system of housing land availability assessments introduced in the Welsh Office

    721
    circular 47/84. My officials are now studying the two documents and will be discussing the findings with the Land Authority for Wales.
    Sir Raymond Gower: As the studies of the Land Authority for Wales seem to substantiate the complaints of the House-Builders Federation and other builders' organisations, does my hon. Friend consider that those complaints of shortages of available building land are without foundation, or with considerable foundation ?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: The land availability studies are a great step forward in getting the balance right. The land authority conducts them in conjunction with the local authorities and builders. I am sure that a better balance can be achieved by that method.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister be wary of special pleading in this area in favour of building on green field sites ? Will he try to ensure that wherever practicable existing sites in older industrial areas are built on ?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is no doubt about our commitment in that respect. We wish to conserve. We have a good example in the redevelopment of south Cardiff, and I pay tribute to the redevelopment that is taking place in Swansea.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present level of unemployment in Newport, Gwent at the latest available date; and how this compares with the figure in May 1979.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 11 April 1985 the number of unemployed claimants in the Newport travel-to-work area was 12,838. Comparable figures for May 1979 are not available because of changes to travel-to-work area boundaries and the move to claimant-based figures.
    Mr. Hughes: Bearing in mind those horrific figures, will the Secretary of State say whether there is any truth in the reports this week that the Secretary of State for Transport proposes to increase tolls on the Severn bridge by 150 per cent.? Would that not be another serious blow to the economy of Wales, and would it not be especially riduculous, since the bridge is still afflicted by all manner of delays and restrictions ?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there has just been a public inquiry and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decision soon. It is ludicrous to suggest that the proposals put to that public inquiry would have the economic effect that has just been described. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman shares my view about the importance of the crossing, and does not agree with Plaid Cymru, which believes that it is yet another communication in Wales that should be destroyed in order to isolate the Welsh people.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it yet possible to estimate the number of jobs that were lost, or potential jobs that were forfeited, as a result of the miners' strike, which was so enthusiastically supported by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) ?
    Mr. Edwards: I can give no estimate. It clearly caused great damage to the Welsh economy. It cost the British Steel Corporation a large sum of money and, therefore, held up decisions on the investment for which the hon.
    722
    Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) keeps asking. In economic terms, there is no comparison between a small increase in the toll charge for the Severn bridge, which has not been increased since 1979, and the sort of damage encouraged by the hon. Gentleman during the miners' strike.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The Severn crossing is Wales's most important industrial artery. Has the Secretary of State fought against the proposed increase in tolls ?
    Mr. Edwards: I have not fought the policy. A reasonable increase in tolls for the first time since 1979 is a sensible proposal. I am pressing on—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Barry Jones: More costs.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We often hear things that we do not like in this place.
    Mr. Edwards: This is a Government proposal, and I do not apologise for it in any way. I am ensuring that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport, with me, press on speedily with the study into a possible second crossing and improvements in road communications generally in Wales, which remain a high priority.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Although, as my hon. Friend must recognise, no one in Wales will be pleased if there is any increase in tolls, does he agree that it is much more important to complete the feasibility study quickly and to provide an adequate crossing to ensure good communica-tions across the Severn ?
    Mr. Edwards: I assure my hon. Friend that the consultants are getting on well with the feasibility study. They have announced the first stage, and are now investigating the detailed options. It is absurd to suggest that the increases proposed for charges on the Severn bridge will have a significant effect on transport costs along the M4.

    House Repair Grants
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide details of house repair grants paid in (a) the city of Cardiff, and (b) Wales for the financial years 1974 to 1979 and 1979 to 1985, respectively.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Between 1974–75 and 1978–79, expenditure on housing grants of all types in Cardiff totalled £2·7 million. For the period between 1979–80 and 1984–85 the figure was £23·5 million. For Wales, the equivalent figures were £58 million and £283 million. Information about repair grants alone is not held centrally in the form requested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures improved staggeringly under the Conservative Government as compared with the Labour Government ? Does he further agree that those sums, with council house sales, represent a massive transfer of public funds into the hands of the lower economic groups in society ?
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We as a Government have a marvellous housing record. I can highlight the difference, in terms of expenditure, between the Government and the Opposition. During the last three years, total local authority spending under this Government was about 60 per cent. more than it was

    723
    during the last three years of the Labour Government. As my hon. Friend has said, the tremendous transfer that council house sales involve is confirmation that we are satisfying the inherent desire of the Welsh electorate to own their own homes.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister confirm that the purpose of the new Green Paper is to reduce public expenditure on housing by three quarters ? Given the relative poverty of Wales and the quality of its housing stock, would he not say that Wales should be exempted from the suggestions contained in the Green Paper ?
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Green Paper. It does not deal with the amount of housing finance that will be available in future. As I made clear, the purpose of the Green Paper is to target rather better the grant system so that more grants are made available for houses that are in need of improvement and for people who are in need. The object of the loan system is to enable people to improve their homes to a higher standard and to enable them to borrow according to the Green Paper system—that is, from authorities rather than from building societies if they are unable to command credit from the building societies or the banks.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Opposition are plagiarising not only the council house sales policy of the Conservative part but also our policy on home improvement grants ? Has my hon. Friend read the Opposition's latest policy document in which they pledge themselves to reverse their policy of running down improvement grants, a policy which they so successfully implemented when they were last in office ?
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Opposition can learn a great deal from our example. To revert to the key question which sparked off this discussion, I highlight the fact that in 1978 about 296 grants were given in Cardiff. This has to be compared with 1984, when about 2,745 grants were given in Cardiff. As for the comparative figures for Wales, 5,931 grants were made in 1978, whereas grants totalled 29,978 in 1984. Those figures speak for themselves.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that his means-tested loan proposals, which are outlined in the Green Paper, are not regarded as a serious attempt to tackle the deteriorating standard of housing in Wales ? It is yet another attempt to take Wales back to the 1930s. If an imaginative scheme is not produced shortly, the worst fears of the chief officers group will be realised.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to produce a more imaginative scheme than is put forward in the Green Paper. It provides a method to deal with both dereliction and the need for improvement in Wales. As the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends know, the dereliction and the need for improvement existed long before the Government came to office. It is this Government who have taken this initiative over renovation.

    Smith Houses (Defects)
    Mr. Gwilym Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the incidence and nature of defects in former council houses of the Smith type in Wales.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: There are about 70 Smith houses in private ownership in Wales. All are in Cardiff. It has been known since 1948 that Smith houses could be subject to minor cracking. The Building Research Establishment recommended periodic inspection, but said that there was generally no need for urgent action so long as good structural condition was maintained.
    Mr. Jones: May I quote one phrase from a letter from my constituent, Mr. Evans of Gabalfa, the owner of an affected home ? He said:
    "Smith houses are now not mortgageable and will remain so until appropriate action is taken."
    Will my hon. Friend give urgent and positive consideration to the request of Cardiff city council for a local dispensation under section 12 of the Housing Defects Act 1984, so that Smith houses in Cardiff can be dealt with under that Act ?
    Mr. Roberts: In a letter dated 14 May I told my hon. Friend how Cardiff city coucil could seek a designation under section 12. It has to give 28 days' notice that it proposes such a designation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has two months in which to object.
    Mrs. Clwyd: If the Government's record on housing is so good, can the Minister explain why half the houses in my constituency are unfit for human habitation ?
    Mr. Roberts: Yes. It is because no action was taken before this Government came into office. The hon. Lady will know that, as a result of our initiative, there were about 141,000 applications for improvement grants in Wales. We know only too well that the problem existed long before we came into office in 1979.
    Several Hon. Members rose —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was referring to Smith houses. I call Mr. Best and I hope that he will refer to Smith houses.
    Mr. Best: I acknowledge that there are difficulties about the sale of Smith houses, but will my hon. Friend welcome the somewhat ungainly, but well-practised, posture of the Labour party in standing on its head over the sale of council houses ? Does he think that there is any possibility that the Labour party may yet become a party that champions the individual instead of always championing local authorities ?
    Mr. Roberts: There is always hope for Labour Members, but I understand my hon. Friend's despairing feeling.

    Job Creation
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he proposes to take as a result of the continuing rise in unemployment in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Our policies for promoting industrial investment are creating significant numbers of new jobs in Wales. For example, as I reported to the Welsh Grand Committee last week, over the previous 12 months, investment decisions have been announced for Wrexham which are likely to produce some 1,500 new jobs, including the Sharp project, which was announced after the news of the Courtaulds closure.
    Dr. Marek: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that unemployment keeps rising. In view of the

    725
    staggering job losses that Wales has had to endure in the past few weeks and the fact that local authorities have great difficulty in attracting industries to Wales and in partaking in industrial development, will the right hon. Gentleman consider seriously whether he can disregard, for target expenditure purposes, money spent by local authorities for bona fide industrial development ?
    Mr. Edwards: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the role of local authorities. They have an important role, though he was wrong to claim that the Sharp investment was the result of an initiative by his local council, which visited Japan after I discussed the subject in October last year. I cannot hold out any prospect of a special exemption, but local authorities have a good deal of scope for investing in the new industrial estates and new building as part of their general ordering of priorities.
    Mr. Foot: As the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues are always boasting about the housing programme, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many building workers in Wales are unemployed ?
    Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on that subject, I will answer it. I does not arise directly from the question on the Order Paper.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that the record of the Welsh Development Agency in this area has been extremely good ? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to assist the agency and similar bodies ?
    Mr. Edwards: As I have already pointed out, the agency has carried out a massive factory building programme. Its emphasis is now switching to purpose-built factories, which are more and more in demand, rather than advance factories, and to stimulating private sector investment. But yes, there are a large number of vacant WDA factories and our task is to get them fully occupied.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Secretary of State admit that his policies are creating more and more unemployment in Wales ? Does he not realise that there are now 250,000 people out of work in Wales ? Does he know that today the House received a deputation from St. John's colliery in Maesteg, where 830 jobs may be lost ? We are already suffering from a male unemployment rate of 25 per cent. How can those people find jobs, given the policies that the Secretary of State is pursuing ? Last weekend my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) presented a document on jobs and industry to the Wales TUC meeting in Llandudno. The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to read it and to take a leaf out of my hon. Friend's book.
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because there are not 250,000 people unemployed. Thankfully, I can say that the figure is 180,031. However, unemployment is, of course, a serious problem and that is why we are making so much effort to encourage new investment. I am glad to say that a very considerable part of that new investment is going to the Bridgend area and that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are benefiting from it.
    Mr. Raffan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the WDA's current building resources are fully committed ? Will he seriously consider allocating extra funds so that it can erect more purpose-built factories and so that it can implement the plan to provide six business counsellors in different parts of the Principality ?
    Mr. Edwards: I have already announced that we will carefully consider the WDA's plans in the light of the Courtaulds closure. However, my hon. Friend will know that 58 units totalling 321,000 sq ft are vacant and available for letting in WDA factories in the county, and that its advance factory programme for 1985–86 includes several factory projects in the county.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: If the Secretary of State believes so strongly — as he said earlier — that the A55 road improvements will have the effect of reducing unemployment in north and north-west Wales, when will he announce a north-south road route in Wales as well as an east-west route through central Wales, as that would presumably have a significant effect on reducing unemployment throughout the Principality ?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. and learned Gentleman must use the route frequently, and he will agree that the new road link across to Telford represents a notable improvement in the links with the motorway network. As he knows, there are further plans to link mid-Wales into that motorway network. That must have a higher priority than the north-south road.
    Mr. Rowlands: When the Secretary of State last attended the Welsh Grand Committee he said that several thousand jobs would be lost in the mining industry in the next year or two. Will he tell us what the figure is ? After all, there are only about 20,000 jobs left in the industry. Does that anonymous and invisible body, NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. intend to create several thousand jobs as well during the same time scale ? I should like to know what progress that organisation is making in creating jobs in our mining community.
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows that that organisation has already started work. I understand that one new industrial concern has already been committed as a result of its operations in Blaenau Gwent, and that a significant number of first applications under the scheme have been made in Wales. Instead of criticising such a welcome initiative, I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would be praising it and would be glad that it has been established.
    Mr. Wigley: For several years the M4 has run through Glamorgan, yet the adjacent valleys suffer from high and increasing unemployment. Furthermore, the A55 has been modernised in many parts of Clywd, yet that area too suffers from chronic unemployment. What possible basis can there be, therefore, for assuming that the A55 alone will solve the unemployment problems of Gwynedd ? Is it not a fact that this policy is the only one that the right hon. Gentleman has, and that he is using it to camouflage his lack of a solution to the problem of unemployment ?
    Mr. Edwards: I am not for a moment suggesting that that road is the only factor in encouraging industrial development. However, if the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to make the slightest study of what has happened along the M4 he would know that many new, modern, high-tech industries are establishing themselves along that link. Everyone who has looked at the problem seriously recognises that the construction of modern roads can make a major contribution. The hon. Gentleman is apparently the only person to think otherwise.
    Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend mention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer two further measures which

    727
    would help to stimulate employment in Wales ? The first is to give greater access to finance to the smallest of businesses, and the second is to build on the welcome cut made in the Budget of the cost of employing people in unemployment black spots such as Holyhead.
    Mr. Edwards: I shall draw those remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the measures announced in the Budget, although we have not yet seen the benefit of them. I share my hon. Friend's view.
    Mr. Anderson: Earlier, the Secretary of State commended BP for its local employment initiatives in the Llandarcy area. Will he consider those initiatives in the context of the record quarterly profit figures announced last week by BP ? Does he agree that those profits were made at the expense of jobs in the area ? Does he further agree that the sums involved at Llandarcy are peanuts and an insult to the local community ?
    Mr. Edwards: A successful company that makes profits does not do so at the expense of jobs. If companies are to continue to provide jobs they must succeed in making profits, because that permits investment. The measures already announced by BP are welcome. They are exceptional and I hope that Courtaulds and other companies will follow its example.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The Courtaulds and BP closures and the colliery redundancies are a grave development for the Welsh economy. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it was foolish of him to agree to cuts in regional aid for Wales ? Will he reconsider that policy ? Does he recognise that his policies are now in ruins and that he should come to the House with plans to help the Welsh economy ?
    Mr. Edwards: Our changes in regional policy concentrate help where it is most needed. The hon. Gentleman must explain how his policy document, which calls for greater selectivity and yet makes the whole of Wales a development area, can be reconciled with the needs of other areas in England and how it can avoid severe knock-on consequences which will blow his policies out of the water.

    Welsh Development Agency (Building Programme)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many new factory units and how many square feet of factory space have been built by the Welsh Development Agency in the past five years.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Between April 1980 and March 1985 inclusive the Welsh Development Agency completed 928 advance factory units, 11 bespoke factory units and 45 bespoke factory extensions, totalling over 6·4 million sq ft.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend think that sufficient factory units have been built to meet future demand ?
    Mr. Edwards: A delicate balance has to be found between the need to build factories in special areas where the private sector might not be involved, and the need not to destroy the attractions of building factories for the private sector. The current vacancy rate is about 121/2 per cent., which is not unreasonable at this stage in the
    728
    programme. The Welsh Development Agency, sensibly, is concentrating on priority areas and on the need for purpose-built factories to meet the needs of particular companies.

    Labour Statistics
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the registered labour force in Wales were employed in coal mining, iron and steel manufacture and textiles in 1975 and in the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In September 981 the percentages of the civilian working population employed in coal mining, iron and steel manufacture and textiles were 2·7 per cent., 2·5 per cent. and 0·7 per cent. respectively. The corresponding figures for 1975 were 3·4 per cent., 6·2 per cent. and 1·3 per cent. Up-to-date figures from the 1984 census of employment will be published in the November Employment Gazette.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon? Friend accept that, futile though it would be for the Government to attempt to arrest the process of conversion from traditional to more modern industries, it would be wrong for them to leave the provision of replacement jobs in the new technologies solely to market forces ?
    Mr. Edwards: No one can say, after hearing the figures for expenditure by the WDA, or the figures that I have given to the House frequently on selective financial assistance, that we have left such matters solely to market forces. Massive Government expenditure has taken place in Wales on building new roads, improving infrastructure and attracting inward investment. I agree that a proper balance must be struck. However, we must be careful that Government expenditure is not so high that it increases taxes and the burdens on the private sector, which creates the wealth.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what specific plans he now has to reduce unemployment in the county of Dyfed, and in Ceredigion and Pembroke, North in particular; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Prospects for the areas concerned will benefit from the continuing work of the Government and the statutory agencies in infrastructure development, from regional industrial assistance and from aid from European Community sources.
    Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State is well aware that the number of people unemployed in the Teifi Valley is the highest in percentage terms for many years. As so many people are unemployed in the Teifi Valley catchment area, will the right hon. Gentleman consider including north Pembroke down to Fishguard in the mid-Wales development area ?
    Mr. Edwards: On a number of occasions we have considered the extension of the mid-Wales development area — established under my predecessor — but have concluded that it would not be of benefit. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the various agencies are working together on the development of the Teifi Valley initative, which was launched last year, and work is well advanced

    729
    on the provision of a business centre at Newcastle Emlyn that will involve counselling in business training. Of course, Mid-Wales Development will continue to attach priority to the needs of that area.

  THE ARTS

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if the Minister for the Arts will increase the allocation in the Arts budget for Welsh language activities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Welsh Arts Council and not my right hon. and noble Friend determines the distribution of the grant it receives from the Arts Council of Great Britain. That grant was increased to £7·14 million in 1985–86, an increase of 3·2 per cent. over the 1984–85 figure.
    Mr. Carlile: Does the Under-Secretary not realise that an increase of just over 3 per cent. is wretchedly mean ? Is he aware that the consequence is that many groups and companies wishing to perform plays in the Welsh language are now having to cut their programmes, which is causing real, widespread and justified resentment throughout Wales ?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I know that the figure is not as high as many people would like. However, I also know that the public funding of the arts should be a matter of seeking priorities and giving the money to the most valuable activities, and there is no escaping that.
    Mr. Best: Does my hon. Friend realise that a large number of monoglot English-speaking people living in Wales wish to learn the Welsh language ? Is not one of the most attractive and encouraging ways of doing that by seeing the arts performed in the Welsh language ?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Primarily the Welsh Office budget supports the Welsh language qua Welsh language, and does so generously. The principle behind support for the arts has always been that they should not be supported simply because they are in Welsh, but because they are of outstanding quality. I think that there has always been a great deal to be subsidised on that basis.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that, with inflation running at 5 or 6 per cent., an increase of only 3 per cent. means a reduction in real support for Welsh language productions ? Does he further accept that there is a universal feeling on both sides of the House that such productions are worth supporting ? Will he inquire whether more funds can be made available for that purpose ?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall report what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. and noble Friend. There is no question but that arts funding is tight. At a time when all programmes are under pressure, I think that my right hon. and noble Friend has secured a reasonable settlement this year.

    Tobacco Sponsorship
    Mr. Proctorasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what
    730
    representations the Minister for the Arts has received from tobacco product manufacturers about tobacco sponsorship of the arts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: None, Sir.
    Mr. Proctor: Can my hon. Friend confirm that he welcomes sponsorship for the arts from tobacco product manufacturers ?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government's decision is that the arts are entirely free to seek sponsorship from wherever they can find it. It is very welcome if public or other companies wish to support the arts, and much valuable activity is supported in that way.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not this begging-bowl approach to sponsoring the arts based on this Government's almost malicious contempt for culture ? Is that not to be rejected by the British people ? Why do the Government not rescind some of the tax reductions that they have given in capital transfer and capital gains tax during the past few years and channel that money into supporting the arts, thereby dealing with the contempt and disrespect for the Government felt by many people who perform and support the arts ?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I thought that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair man, was having some difficulty in keeping a straight face as he asked that supplementary question. Labour Members often criticise the Government for not cutting taxes enough, though when it suits them they criticise us in the opposite direction. There is no contempt for culture on the part of the Government, and real term support for the arts has increased since 1979.
    Mr. Buchan: I suggest that there is a great deal of contempt for culture when the Minister can say that it does not matter which bodies provide money for the arts so long as money comes forward. Is it not a fact that, were it not for the cuts that the Government are imposing on the arts, and the absence of proper public funding, we should not require this additional fl million or so from cigarette and tobacco advertising ? Is it not also a fact that total public expenditure on the arts, compared with the amount coming to the arts from tobacco advertising, is as 100,000 to one ? An increase of only one hundred thousandth in public expenditure would enable us to do without such meretricious advertising.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is taking a different position from that which he normally takes on this issue, because we are normally agreed that the search for additional sources of funds for the arts — from businesses and anywhere—represents a useful addition to the pluralistic source of funds. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that his party would make it illegal for tobacco companies or companies with interests in tobacco—which covers a wide range of companies—to support the arts, or to support other things, he should say so.

    Foreign Currency Earnings
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if he will estimate the amount of foreign currency earned by the performing arts both from tours abroad and from performances within the United Kingdom during the last financial year.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The information is not available. However, my right hon. and noble Friend is commission-ing a study of the economic impact of the arts by the Policy Studies Institute, which should provide a relevant assessment.
    Mr. BakerDoes my hon. Friend accept that the foreign currency earnings of such tours are, in the opinion of everyone connected with the arts, very substantial indeed ? Will he do everything possible to encourage the benefits for the nation, which are both financial and cultural, from tours of the performing arts ?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, and I can confirm that the great majority of such tours turn out in the end to be money-spinners as well as important cultural activities, which is their fundamental purpose. The study, which is being jointly funded with the Gulbenkian foundation, is aimed at providing some measurement of the scale of the money involved, and that will be useful.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: We look forward to seeing the results of the study. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is important to bear in mind the number of tourists who come to this country — as anybody can see when queueing at box offices—to enjoy our cultural heritage ? It is vital for us to retain and advance that.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, though, as I have sometimes made myself unpopular in the House by saying, I do not believe that we should try to defend the arts primarily as a source of tourism. The same applies to any economic activity. Tourists come to see the commercial theatre just as much as the subsidised theatre. Down that route lies an argument for the withdrawal of subsidy from many minority, specialist and fringe artistic activities.

    Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
    Mr. Fauldsasked the Parliamentary-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts whether it is policy of the Minister for the Arts to discourage tax debtors from making applications in excess of an overall token figure covering annual discharges in kind of capital transfer tax liabilities which had previously been established administratively, for the statutory provision to be brought into effect whereby pre-eminent objects may be accepted in satisfaction of such tax liabilities; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: There has been no recent change, but, as my right hon. and noble Friend said recently in
    732
    another place, the Government are looking again at the arrangements whereby the cost of acceptances in lieu of tax is met from the Votes of our respective Departments.
    Mr. Faulds: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the reason for so prolonged a delay ? Has his noble Friend consulted the Museums and Galleries Commission, which adminis-ters the scheme ? If not, can the Under-Secretary give an explanation for that unhappy omission ?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I will check and write to the hon. Gentleman as to exactly who has been consulted. I hope that there will not be a long delay. I believe that the studies should be completed within the next month or two. It is an important matter to get right.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that his last remarks are not reassuring, because a month or two can soon become three or four ? Is he aware that it is vital that the pledge that our noble Friend gave in another place should be redeemed at the earliest possible opportunity ? Does my hon. Friend agree that as our noble Friend is also a Treasury Minister, he should be in a happy position to resolve this quite difficult problem ?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I note the remarks of my hon. Friend, who, I am sure, will wish to pay tribute to the Government for again this year finding a large sum, £25 million, for the rescue of the three great houses and for finding additional funds the year before for the support of Calke. In other words, I am sure that as well as pressing my noble Friend, he will want to give credit where credit is due.
    Mr. Buchan: Surely much of the tax arrangement is purely notional and has the effect of restricting the possibility of works of art passing into public hands. The time has come to stop this nonsense. The traffic in art is becoming positively obscene. Is the Minister aware that the National gallery could afford only about one third of the canvas area of the last Turner to be sold because of the level of its annual grant ? One way forward, even for this Government, would be to remove the ceiling and to alter the restrictions.
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is a new degradation of language to apply obscenity, which is often misused, to trade in works of art. We are not talking about notional money. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) argued that the cut in taxes was a disgrace. If taxes are cut by the giving of tax allowances, it is real money and not notional money that is not taken in tax.

Agriculture Council
3.30 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting in Brussels on 13 to 16 May 1985. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom.
The meeting was devoted entirely to negotiations on the 1985–86 agricultural prices, and an agreement was reached last Thursday covering all commodities other than cereals and rapeseed.
Decisions on prices were overdue and, while decisions on all commodities would have been preferable, I was not prepared to give in to German insistence that there should be no meaningful reduction in prices for cereals.
They felt so strongly on this issue that their Minister made it clear, using the words of the Luxembourg compromise, that very important interests were involved for his country and that the Germans were not prepared to agree to a vote. This represented a significant change in the attitude of the Federal Government towards the use of the Luxembourg compromise.
Turing to the decisions which were taken, the co-responsibility levy for milk was reduced by 1 per cent., backdated to the beginning of April. This is linked to the reduction of 1 per cent. in the national quotas. With the 1·5 per cent. increase in the support price for milk, this means an improvement of 2·5 per cent. in the level of support for milk. Now that these decisions have been made, we can go ahead and notify producers of their individual quotas for 1985–86. Letters to producers will start to be sent out later this week.
The Council agreed that supplementary levy will be collected annually at the end of the milk year. This avoids problems over quarterly or half-yearly payments which may bear unfairly on producers if they change their seasonal pattern of production.
The Council did not agree to the Irish Government demand for a permanent addition of 58,000 tonnes in their quota allocation on account of a statistical error in the Irish production figures on which the Council based its decisions last year. An adjustment was made only for 1984–85 and 1985–86.
As I foreshadowed in my statement on the implementation of the report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, I accepted that the special United Kingdom butter subsidy should be discontinued. Taken together with other adjustments affecting butter, this will mean over time a small increase in butter prices of about 1p per 250g pack.
I secured the continuation of the beef variable premium scheme in an unchanged form, against very strong opposition from most other member states. This will be welcome to producers and consumers alike, and will reduce the quantity of United Kingdom beef going into intervention. The guide price for beef will remain unchanged, but United Kingdom producers will benefit —by approximately 1 per cent. —from an increase in the intervention prices under the second stage of the carcase classification grid which was agreed last year.
For sheepmeat, there will be no price change this year. But, for the next year, when the marketing year will start on 6 January, the basic price will increase by 1 per cent.
734
I successfully resisted pressure from the Commission and some member states for changes in the regime which would have been damaging to our interests, including a proposal to impose a ceiling on variable premium and a related bar to the recovery through the ewe premium of any money forgone. I resisted also pressure for an immediate end to the special export certification arrangements which facilitate the export of ewes from Great Britain. Instead, there will be further discussions about these arrangements over the coming months. The Commission has undertaken to bring forward proposals to enable annual premium to be paid from next year on certain sheep in especially disadvantaged mountainous areas which cannot be tupped until their third season.
I secured agreement on the modification which the farmers' unions and the trade had sought to the sheepmeat seasonal scale which will promote more orderly marketing. I secured also an extension until the end of 1987 of the exemption from clawback for our sheepmeat exports to third countries, which should enable our exporters to develop that trade with more certainty.
Agreement was reached on measures that should bring about a better balance for Mediterranean products and establish a greater control over the regimes in these sectors. In particular, significant price reductions were agreed for tomatoes, citrus fruits and some varieties of tobacco.
Overall, the changes which were agreed will have a negligible effect on food prices in our shops.
Throughout the negotiations, I have attached great importance to the Council continuing with the task, which was started last year, of bringing greater realism into the common agricultural policy within the budgetary constraints laid down. The Commission stated clearly that it would ensure that the measures agreed, with the decisions yet to be reached on cereals and rapeseed, will be financed within the budget provision recently approved for 1985 by the Budget Council. The cost of the compromise package under discussion, of which this settlement forms part, was within the financial guideline for agriculture in 1986.
The Council will meet again on 11 June to continue its discussions on cereals and oilseed rape.
This package, agreed last Thursday, meets our objectives. In particular, I was determined to resist measures which would discriminate against British interests, and that we have done. I consider it a good agreement for the United Kingdom and for the Community as a whole. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Brynmor John: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Although it contains some good points, overall this year's endless round of meetings is probably one of the most disastrous ever for the Council of Ministers. I hope that we shall have a debate on it in the near future.
If the Secretary of State was reflecting the unanimous views of those hon. Members who participated in the recent debate on agriculture and price proposals, he must be disappointed. Because the right hon. Gentleman is the only Minister of the Council who comes before us, it is incumbent upon us to criticise the Council through him. To say that agreement has been reached when, in fact, for the first time the main component in the agreement has been removed, is like "Hamlet" without the prince.

735
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the success or failure of these talks and the sincerity of professions to reform CAP will always depend upon the cereal settlement ? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, judged by this criterion, this meeting has been an abysmal betrayal of the people who live in the EC and who have put their faith in the Council's making this type of reform ?
Is it true that over-production of fruit and vegetables was so great that dumping or destruction caused the Community to pay out hundreds of millions of pounds ? Would this not have justified a far larger cut in the threshold of these products ? Is it true that in this and other respects the rest of the Council agreed lower cuts than would have been justified in order to help secure German agreement to cereal cuts ? Is it not true that Germany has pocketed all the benefits of these concessions without agreeing any cereal trade-off ? What will happen on 11 June. now that the German Government have refused to allow any more than a derisory 0·9 per cent. cut in cereal prices ? What will happen now that the Commission, by reaching partial agreement, has capitulated in advance to German demands ?
May I welcome very much the retention of the beef variable premium ? The Glasgow Herald —I do not know whether it is right or wrong—reports the right hon. Gentleman as saying that he has received
"a verbal assurance that it can be extended".
How bankable is that assurance ? Many of us in the House are getting pretty sick of the annual blackmail on the beef variable premium. Similarly, we also welcome the measures on sheep, including the sheep variable premium. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what his justification is for a rising butter price when there are still enormous surpluses of unwanted butter ?
I return to cereals. Has not the talk of budget discipline, which the right hon. Gentleman and others have carried on over the years, and of reforming the common agricultural policy, been shown, in the light of the fiasco that I have described, to be totally insincere ? Is it not a fact that the EC is producing far too much in the form of cereals and that even the Commission's miserable 3·6 per cent. proposed reduction, which was much lower than the Government's proposal, has been halved again during the negotiations ? What, therefore, will be the future of cereal production ? In my view, there will be no reduction of the amount of cereals. Have the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made an assessment, on the 1·8 per cent. proposal, of the amount by which cereal production will fall ? Otherwise, we shall have to take it that we shall continue to add to the millions of tonnes of unwanted and unused cereals in store.
What about the cost ? I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I have also studied what he said in the final part of his statement about it being
"within the budgetary constraints laid down."
Frankly, if that is so, it is remarkable. My understanding is that if there is only a 1·8 per cent. cut in the cereal price, we shall be spending tens of millions of pounds extra this year and hundreds of millions of pounds extra next year on account of only the cereal prices themselves.
In my view—
Mr. Edward Leigh: Too long.
Mr. Eric Forth: Too long.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. John: I am talking about the most serious part of the agricultural year — [Interruption.] To most Conservative Members, it is a matter of pocketing the difference. To millions of consumers, it is a matter of vital importance.
The millions who are offended by the spectre of unwanted cereals will regard the Council of Ministers' ducking of the major issue of this Council as arrant political cowardice. I believe that the complacency that the Council has shown now will give way to blind panic and cereal quotas. If that happens, the farming community will once more have to cope with ministerial shortcomings.
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the continuation of the beef variable premium arrangements. Perhaps I can help him In his question. A date — 6 April — has been put into the agreement, but the Commissioner has giver me an undertaking that, if the marketing years are extended, the beef variable premium will be extended with that. That means that it will be extended on the same basis that it has been over many years.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to talk about annual blackmail. The reason why we have the arrangement annually is that when it was introduced by Lord Peart back in 1975, for the next five years it was renewed only on an annual basis. Therefore, we are left with what his Government arranged during those years.
On sheepmeat, again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. With regard to the other things that he mentioned, he will understand that I heard what he said about the need for a debate. but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in his place, and he, too, will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
On fruit and vegetables, the hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said earlier. There are reductions for fruit and vegetables of up to minus 3 per cent. That is a good move.
On the costs of the package, it is clear from what the Commissioner has told us that he believes that the package will be budgetarily neutral in 1985 and will come within the financial guidelines in 1986.
On cereals, I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman speaks about ducking the issue. The German delegation used the Luxembourg compromise, which meant that the debate could not be concluded but had to continue. The response of successive British Governments to that appeal by a member state, which in the past we have used ourselves, is well known. It is not fair, and shows no understanding of the situation, to speak of ducking the issue.
I understand that all compromise proposals on cereals have lapsed. We must wait and see whether the Commission comes up with new ideas before the Council meeting on 11 June. I have made my negotiating position clear in recent months. I have always believed—I told the House when we debated the matter — that the guarantee threshold for cereals should be properly implemented. I will be ready to consider the new proposals that the Commission puts before us on 11 June.
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the importance of the statement to the House, but I have to have regard also

737
to the fact that no fewer than 42 right hon. and hon. Members are anxious to take part in the subsequent debate. I will therefore, allow questions to continue until 4.5 pm.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep reentment, not only in Northern Ireland, about the special treatment once again afforded to the Irish Republic ? Is he aware that the nominally temporary nature of that treatment is regarded with some scepticism ?
Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I opposed the increase in the Irish quota throughout the piece, as I opposed any extra for Ireland a year ago. The difficulty this year was that, while last year I had supporters in my opposition, this year I had none. Therefore, in the end, it was impossible to resist the increase of 58,000 tonnes. However, I sternly resisted any suggestion that it should be placed on a permanent basis. That is why the increase applies only to 1985–85 and 1985–86.
Sir Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are making heavy weather of a very good agreement worked out after some 60 hours of work and only three hours sleep ? My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on what he has achieved, especially the supplementary levy that will be collected annually at the end of the year. That must be of tremendous benefit.
May I add one note of criticism ? We are getting tired of the Irish Republic getting away with it not only in the last price review but on the subsidies that it receives for exports to this country.
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's generous words. I believe that the payment of the levy annually will help producers who could have found themselves in difficulty if they had altered their seasonal patterns, and so will help a number of our producers. The Irish settlement has been allowed in the belief that a statistical error was made by the Irish Government a year ago. I opposed it all the way through the piece. It is a pity that more states did not take the same view.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Now that both the United Kingdom and West Germany have invoked the Luxembourg arrangement in regard to agricultural prices, is it not clear that the EEC would work a great deal more smoothly if an element of flexibility were introduced into the common agri-cultural policy to allow national Governments to meet the unique agricultural and social needs of their countryside ?
Mr. Jopling: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman's attitude is to use of the Luxembourg compromise, but he will know that the British Government have always taken the view that it is right for delegations and member states to have that weapon. We are all interested to observe that the West Germans have now joined the club.
Sir Hector Monro: I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed for the hard work that he and his colleagues have put in on our behalf in Brussels. May I say how much we appreciate the retention of the beef premium and the sheepmeat regime and the change in the co-responsibility levy ? Will my right hon. Friend and his
738
colleagues try in future to get some continuity so that farmers do not have to hang on until May to know what the year holds for them ?
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I understand the problem of continuity. Matters have been made a good deal more difficult this year because a new Commission came into office on 1 January and it could not produce its proposals as early as usual. There were some delays in discussing the matter, which I opposed at the time. I have continually told my colleagues that we must try to settle earlier. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in the past, the settlements have had to wait until June.
Mr. Geraint Howells: As the Minister has just said, six months is too long to sort out the annual price negotiations. What can the Minister do in future negotiations to ensure that they are finalised within a few weeks ? I welcome the decision for beef producers and sheep producers, but it is only short-term. I wish that the Minister and his counterparts in Europe would discuss the long-term future of agriculture. Confidence would be restored if the industry knew that the variable beef premium and the sheepmeat regime would remain in force for the next 10 years. I should like to ask the Minister two other questions, one on quotas — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Were quotas discussed for other products which are produced in Britain ? Finally—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Really!"]—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That would be an abuse when so many other hon. Members want to get in. The hon. Gentleman has done jolly well.
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the beef and sheepmeat arrange-ments. They were difficult to achieve, but they are good. I agree that six months is too long, but I do not believe that we could have settled the sheep and beef arrangements satisfactorily at an earlier meeting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is better to wait to get the right decision than to get the wrong one early.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question about quotas on other products, I have been worried for a long time about the possibility of quotas creeping into the cereals sector. I raised the issue with my colleagues at one stage and I can tell the House that I have been considerably heartened to hear that a good many of my ministerial colleagues on the Council strongly oppose cereal quotas. I hope that, when we discuss some of the more long-term studies in Italy next week, we shall be able to fortify that strong feeling in the Council of Ministers that cereal quotas are not the way out.
Mr. Leigh: On that very point, will my right hon. Friend confirm to the cereal farmers whom I represent, who are arguably the most efficient in the world, that he will not tolerate a repetition of what developed in milk last year—when, because of agriculture ministers' failure to act on price, huge surpluses built up and draconian quotas had to be introduced at the last moment ? If necessary, will my right hon. Friend invoke the Luxembourg compromise to veto any suggestion by our Common Market partners that we should have quotas on cereals, as that would be devastating for the fertile eastern counties ?
Mr. Jopling: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the attitude that one would take to future proposals in the discussions. I can only say that if my hon. Friend had

739
heard what I said in the Council about the possibility of cereal quotas, he might have accused me of reading his speeches.
Mr. Thomas Torney: Has the Minister considered that there would be no surplus if we sent surpluses to the Third world, where millions of people are starving ? Will he press the Commission to dispose of this awkward problem in that way ?
Mr. Jopling: The hon Gentleman, who takes a great interest in these matters, knows that the Community has been extraordinarily generous with food aid. Substantial quantities of grain are supplied by the European Community and the United Kingdom, under the food aid convention. The Community is committed to providing more than 1.65 million tonnes annually. While I agree that we must be as generous as possible, the hon. Gentleman is wrong not to recognise what we have already done.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues on their success, which has been welcomed in Scotland. Is my right hon. Friend aware that beef producers in the United Kingdom suffered a considerable setback in the target price this year, which according to the National Farmers Union will amount to £45 million up to 20 April ? Can he give the House an undertaking that he will endeavour to improve the support to the beef sector, for example, by intervention, so that there will be a good back-up to the beef premium scheme ?
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I noticed that the National Farmers Union of Scotland talked about the settlement on beef and sheepmeat as good news for producers and consumers, and welcomed the British Government's stand. I am aware that, during the past few weeks, the beef market has weakened. However, I hope that as we move away from the period in which a good many cows are being slaughtered as a result of the milk quota arrangements, we shall see more stability in the beef market, and that producers' returns will be improved as we move into the second stage of the carcase classification grid, to which I referred earlier.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that the package, which he described somewhat oddly as meeting the Government's objectives, has been rejected by the president of the NFU who said that it
"does very little to help the industry with its current problems."
Does the Minister realise that, even if the Government had these extremely limited objectives, he has failed to satisfy those who are worried about the budgetary costs and the trading impact of the cereal surplus, and that if he does not end his somewhat dogmatic opposition to quotas, a system will be forced on him for which he is wholly unprepared ?
Mr. Jopling: I can only say that, if the hon. Gentleman reads carefully the statement by the president of the NFU on 17 May, he will see phrases such as
"I greatly welcome the Minister's success in retaining the variable premium for beef … I also welcome the decision to reduce the milk co-responsibility levy."
The president further stated that he was "pleased to know" about the sheepmeat arrangements. That seems to me to be rather a warm response. If the hon. Gentleman is critical of the fact that we were unable to achieve what I
740
regard as a realistic settlement on cereals, he should re-read his speech in the House on 18 March, in which he said:
"Therefore, I hope that it will not be necessary to attack cereal production too savagely in one year."—.[Official Report, 18 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 664.]
As usual, in his stumbling way, the hon. Gentleman does not know what he wants.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it the present position on the Luxembourg compromise that Germany can exercise a veto and we cannot ? Secondly,. what need is there for a co-responsibility levy now that the quota scheme is in operation ?
Mr. Jopling: I may not understand exactly what my hon. Friend meant by his second point. We continue to have a co-responsibility levy, which is now running at 2 per cent. I have always expressed my opposition to the co-responsibility levy. I am glad that many Ministers now join me in being critical of it, and talk of the need to phase it out. My hon. Friend's first point is wrong, in that it strengthens our hand considerably to know that the German Government also believe in the use of the Luxembourg compromise. That can only strengthen the hand of other countries which believe that that weapon should be available.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Although I welcome the Minister's success in withstanding the threats to sheep and milk, It appears that he was fighting a rearguard action at the meeting. Does he accept that farmers in Wales want him to go out with positive plans to safeguard their long-term future instead of fighting such rearguard actions ? They want positive plans such as those put on behalf of Ireland — the Irish Government succeeded in part — but which we appear not to be putting forward.
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman is being unreasonable by nitpicking simply because I got what I wanted at a late stage in the negotiations. A prominent farming leader in Wales jumped the gun and criticised the settlement because he imagined that we would not get some of the things that I was determined to get. He should be satisfied, and should rejoice that we got what we wanted.
Mr. Robert Jackson: On the Luxembourg, compromise, the British Government's position at least has the merit of consistency. Is it not a bizarre exhibition of political incoherence that the Federal Republic of Germany should advocate European union and then invoke the Luxembourg compromise in defence of an industry that represents 0·2 per cent. of German GNP ?
Mr. Jopling: I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes, as I do, the conversion of the German Government to the use of this device. Although it has taken them many years to come round to it, let us welcome them into the fold.
Mr. Tony Speller: May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing a package far better than many of us had expected ? Secondly, does he believe that the increase in prices to producers of 1 per cent., 1·5 per cent. or eventually 2·5 per cent., is reasonable at a time when inflation is nearly 7 per cent. ?
Mr. Jopling: It is a difficult equation to put to dairy farmers, but all dairy farmers understand that they do not have the right to continue producing milk that is not

741
wanted. I remind my hon. Friend that about 12 per cent. of the milk that we shall produce this year will be surplus to consumption in the European Community. Production will be about 98 million tonnes, whereas consumption will be only 86 million tonnes. Most farmers realise that we must adjust to the reality of the position, and, like it or not, that spells a difficult economic equation.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the marginal farmers in my constituency will be pleased with his success in the beef and sheepmeat regimes ? Does he accept that they will be hopping mad, as I am, that Ireland has again got away with murder ? I hope that it will not next year. As to quotas, will he beaver away to try to alter the odd formula which penalises farmers who were upgrading their herds at the relevant date ? They were penalised because they had some up-and-coming heifers in their herds at the time.
Mr. Jopling: On my hon. Friend's last comment, I am aware of the problems of dairy farmers who had undertaken expansion programmes. That is one difficulty that emerges from the quota arrangements. I am grateful for her generous remarks at the beginning about our success. With her, I am not pleased with what we eventually had to agree for the Irish.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend estimated the increased cost to be borne by the British Exchequer, the British taxpayer and the British consumer as a result of the agreement ?
Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will understand that it is impossible to estimate an overall figure while part of the package will continue to be negotiated on 11 June. I remind him that the Commission believes that the agreement will be budgetarily neutral in 1985.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose —
Mr. Speaker: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he was here for the statement ?
Mr. Skinner: Yes—part of it.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Carlisle.
Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great disappointment in the cereals trade about the inability to reach agreement, and that that will cause enormous uncertainty ? What will be the effect of the guarantee by the American Government of about S2 billion of export credit for cereals next year on his talks on 11 June and on the settlement which I hope will then be reached ?
Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. I hope that that announcement in Washington will have a salutary effect on my colleagues, who will realise that they cannot fly in the face of economic reality for long.
Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend give the Prime Minister a detailed account of the negotiations and the Federal Republic of Germany's use of the veto so that, when she goes to Milan this month and is lectured about European unity, she can draw the attention of the other member states to the realities of political life in Europe ?
Mr. Jopling: I have done that already.

Bidston Steelworks (Closure)
4.5 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed closure of the Bidston steelworks in Birkenhead."
My request is specific, because it relates to an announcement of closure made on Friday. It is urgent, because the closure will take place in an area where unemployment is already more than 40 per cent. It is important to have the debate, because it would allow me to illustrate how the proposed closure of Bidston steelworks is contrary to two central planks of Government policy. First, the Government say that they believe in competition, but Allied Steel is trying to buy Bidston steelworks only with the aim of closing a competitor. Secondly, the Government say that they are firmly committed to the private sector, yet Allied Steel, which is half owned by the British Steel Corporation, is using taxpayers' money to destroy jobs in Birkenhead.
Above all, I hope that my application will be successful because it will allow me to express at greater length the anger in our town following the announcement that those jobs will be snatched from our area and transferred to the south.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed closure of the Bidston steelworks in Birkenhead."
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, and I listened carefully to what he said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate fo discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  UNSOLICITED NEWSPAPERS (LIMITATION OF DELIVERY)
  Mr. Tony Spellerpresented a Bill to prevent delivery of free newspapers to a dwelling where the occupier or his representative has given notice in writing to the publisher of a free newspaper that he or she no longer wishes to receive copies of that newspaper: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 June and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

Shop Hours (Auld Report)
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the important debate on the Auld committee report on the Shops Act. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I repeat that more than 42 right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their wish to take part in the debate. Therefore, I intend to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 6 pm and 7.50 pm; but if those who speak after then stick to that limit, or speak for even less time, I hope that there will be more than enough time for everyone to take part.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your suggestion during the statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will you give an assurance, in accordance with that precedent, that no one will be allowed to speak in the debate this evening unless he or she has heard the opening speech by the Secretary of State ? It is not a bad idea, and you should stick to it through thick and thin.
Mr. Speaker: I am exceedingly grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tip.
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Proposals to Amend the Shops Acts (Cmnd. 9376); accepts the case for the removal of legislative limitations on shop hours; and looks forward to the Government bringing forward legislation to remove such limitations.
Shop opening hours were last considered in depth by this House during the debate on the Bill introduced in 1983 by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). By then it was clear that there was hardly anyone who considered the present state of the law satisfactory. The argument for change was put forward on a number of different bases. In the first place, it was almost universally felt that the present distinctions between what could be sold on Sunday and what could not be sold were so arbitrary and outdated as to be indefensible. It was not just a question of a few items that were on the wrong side of the dividing line. There no longer appeared to be a rational dividing line at all. Secondly, there was deep anxiety about the continued existence on the statute book of a law that was being increasingly flouted, and which many if not most local authorities were either simply not prepared to enforce effectively or were unable to do so. These objections to the present law were not seriously challenged.
But in addition, many hon. Members put the case for change in a more positive way. They felt that restrictions on shop opening hours—let us not forget that we are talking about late opening as well as Sunday opening—were an unjustifiable and outdated restriction on the basic freedom that should exist for the consumer to be able to have the choice to shop when he wanted to and for the shopkeeper to be able to assess the wishes of his customers and meet them if he wanted to do so. It was felt by many that the limitations on shop hours were contrary to the interests of the consumer, no longer reflected current social patterns and preferences and were an unjustifiable hindrance to the growth of trade, and in particular the growth of tourism.
None the less, in spite of the virtually universal condemnation of the existing law and the widespread,
744
although by no means universal, belief in the positive merits of change, the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend did not commend itself to the House. A considerable number of hon. Members feared the impact of complete deregulation on the fundamental character of Sunday. Just how many shops would open on Sunday, and which shops would they be ? Other hon. Members were anxious about the impact of such a change on those working in shops and owning them. Would small shops close on an extensive scale, and would there be a major loss of jobs ? Others again wondered whether some compromise or half way house was feasible. Although no one had really suggested any viable new basis for deciding when shops might open during the week or which shops should be allowed to open on Sunday, would not a more careful examination of the problem yield an acceptable and defensible solution falling short of complete decontrol ?
It was because of the combination of almost universal dissatisfaction with the present state of the law, and a widespread feeling of uncertainty about the effects of change and the possible forms that it might take that I decided to accept the suggestions made from all parts of the House, that an inquiry should be appointed to look into the whole question. I accordingly appointed an independent committee of inquiry in July 1983 under the chairmanship of Mr. Robin Auld, QC. The following were the terms of reference:
"To consider what changes are needed in the Shops Acts, having regard to the interests of consumers, employers and employees and to the traditional character of Sunday, and to make recommendations as to how these should be achieved."
The House will note that the committee of inquiry was specifically required to have regard, among other factors, to the fundamental character of Sunday.
The membership of the committee was deliberately small, but in order to ensure that the main groups interested could satisfy themselves that the evidence submitted to the committee was comprehensive and rigorously scrutinised, I appointed six assessors. They represented the employers — both large and small —employees, consumers, the churches and the local authorities. Their main task was to ensure that the committee obtained evidence from across the spectrum of their interests and to offer comment on that evidence. My aim was to ensure that every possible solution to the problem was put to the committee and thoroughly examined by those likely to object to it, as well as by the members of the committee themselves. I know that the committee much appreciated the specialist advice it received from its assessors, and I am grateful to them for their work.
In addition, I commissioned the Institute for Fiscal Studies to carry out an economic review, which has been published as appendix 6 of the Auld report. This was designed to meet the concern that had been expressed that there was much speculation but little hard evidence on the economic effects that increased trading hours would have.
Now that hon. Members have had a chance to read and assimilate the report of the Auld committee, I am sure that they will wish to join me in thanking Mr. Robin Auld, QC and his colleagues, Mrs. Liliana Archibald and Miss Frances Cairncross for their comprehensive study. I of course realise that their recommendations are not universally accepted, but I am sure that their thoroughness has given us a solid and informed basis on which to take decisions.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how, exactly, he decided upon the membership of the committee ? Frances Cairncross has written an interesting article in today's edition of The Times which tries to persuade hon. Members to go further, in one sense, than the Auld report by agreeing completely that the traditional character of Sunday should be abolished. How was Frances Cairncross chosen ? Was she an independent character ? Where does she stand and where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman stand in relation to what she said ?
Mr. Brittan: At the time of the appointments there was no criticism whatsoever that any of those who were appointed to the committee were other than independent. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not have the faintest idea about the views of any of the Committee members.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way ?
Mr. Brittan: No, I must proceed.
As the report shows, over 300 organisations and individuals submitted evidence in response to invitations from the committee. In addition, another 7,000 people sent evidence to the committee which was able to consider it with the benefit of help from the assessors.
The report of the inquiry and the accompanying economic review place the discussion on the future of shop opening hours in an entirely different context to that when the House considered the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. Those hon. Members who took a particular view in 1983 are fully entitled to reconsider the position, now that a report has been published exploring all the main questions which caused anxiety in 1983 and led many hon. Members to feel unable to support the change in the law being then proposed.
The committee examined the obstacles and objections, but in considering whether trading hours should be the subject of legal restriction they started from the premise that
"the law should not interfere in the conduct of human affairs unless it serves a justifiable purpose … in doing so"—
a premise which I am sure that the House would share.
The committee examined carefully the arguments for legal restrictions in the light of the interests of consumers, employers, employees and of those wanting to preserve the traditional character of Sunday.
Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way ?
Mr. Brittan: No, not for the moment.
It came to the conclusion that none of these interests or combinations of interests justified the continuation of statutory restrictions on trading hours.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way ?
Mr. Brittan: I shall in a moment.
The Committee considered very carefully all the possibilities for partial deregulation, with which I should like to deal before giving way to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), as I shall, of course, do. Just how widespread the present anomalies are was well illustrated by the article in last Saturday's Daily Telegraph which pointed out that on
746
Sunday one can buy alcohol but not dried milk for babies, aspirin but not toothpaste or soap. Newsagents can sell sweets and newspapers but not the Bible or stationery. Grocers can sell fresh or frozen fruit but not tinned fruit. One can buy cut flowers but not plants. One cannot buy fish and chips in a fish and chip shop, but one can buy other take-away food.
The committee therefore naturally looked at various kinds of proposals for revising the schedules of goods that can be sold late at night or on Sundays. It concluded that there was no way of compiling a list which would not now or in the future be every bit as plagued with anomalies as the present legislation. It is relevant to point out the extent of those anomalies.
Mr. Foulkes: The Home Secretary has detailed all the further consideration that has taken place by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and the Auld committee and its assessors and he invites hon. Members who voted one way on a previous occasion to reconsider their point of view. How can his hon. Friends reconsider their views if, because of the Whip, they are not allowed to exercise their own judgment and their own consciences ?
Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my hon. Friends will be greatly assisted by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The Government are fully entitled to express their views and to seek to persuade my hon. Friends of the merits of those views. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been made clear to my hon. Friends who have deeply held conscientious views, that their views are fully respected.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the Home Secretary give way ?
Mr. Brittan: Not for the moment.
I was explaining that the Auld committee looked unsuccessfully at the possibility of compiling a different list of the schedule of goods that could and could not be sold on Sundays. Members of the committee also considered proposals that Sunday trading should be limited to certain kinds of shop or to shops of a certain size, but, again, they could see no way of finding a solution that would work. What type of shop should be allowed to trade ? In these days of mixed shops, it would be hard to produce separate and distinct categories of shops that should or should not be allowed to trade.
The committee considered exemption by size of shop, exemption for self-employed retailers, exemption by area and exemption by periods of the year. It examined the call for a maximum number of hours or days per week. It looked at the possibility of an extension of the present trading hours. Chapter 5 of the report is a thorough, unprejudiced examination of all the alternatives that were put forward.
The committee no doubt felt, as do many hon. Members, that something short of complete deregulation might be more acceptable if it were viable. But the analysis is devastating. Each of the alternative limitations is shown to be either indefensible or unworkable. The conclusion, which is amply supported by a reason, is:
"In our view, all the forms of control canvassed in our Inquiry, while affording protection to some, would neglect the interests of others. More importantly, we are convinced that none of the suggestions for reform, short of complete abolition of restrictions, would work. None of them would work because they would not form the basis of a fair, simple and readily enforceable system of regulation."

747
The committee therefore recommended the complete abolition of all the statutory restrictions on retail trading hours, both during the week and on Sundays.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we are dealing with Sunday, which is a day when people are expressing their religious convictions in one way or another, and the arguments of the Auld committee, important though they may be, deal only with facts ? People's faith and their convictions must be considered. My right hon. and learned Friend's comments seem to take no account of that fact.
Mr. Brittan: I respect what my hon. Friend has said and I shall be coming to those aspects of the matter.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the Home Secretary give way ?
Mr. Brittan: Not for the moment.
The Shops Act also contains provisions relating to the conditions of work of shop workers, in particular young shop workers. The committee concluded that it would be wrong to preserve the rigid provisions of part H of the Shops Act 1950 in statutory form. It was, however, worried about the demands that might be made on shop workers in the event of deregulation and, although it was not within its terms of reference, it recommended the retention for retail workers of the machinery of wages councils.
The House knows that, since the committee reported last year, the Government have produced a consultative paper on wages councils. The question whether the machinery of wages councils should be retained is important not only to workers in the retail trade, but to all the other workers covered by wages councils legislation.
The position of shop workers, vis-á-vis shop opening hours, will be given detailed and sympathetic considera-tion in the context of the consultation that is taking place, and what is said in the debate will be taken into account as part of that process of consultation. The Government will announce their conclusions on the future of wages councils before any legislation on shop hours is put before the House.
Mr. Pavitt: The Home Secretary read the last paragraph of chapter 5 of the Auld committee. Does he agree that the evidence in other chapters refutes the assertion that the evidence received by the committee was conclusive ?
Mr. Brittan: The evidence was carefully analysed. Whatever else may be said about the Auld committee, its capacity to analyse specific suggestions for partial methods of decontrol cannot be doubted. It was particularly well qualified to do that, and its conclusion was nothing other than a proper assessment of the evidence.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A comprehensive review of how people did their shopping was carried out by the National Consumer Council. It reported that only one respondent in 10 found existing shopping hours inconvenient. How can the Auld report support its contention in chapter 5 that there is no justification for the continued regulation of opening hours ? Surely the reverse is the case. There is no excuse for changing the law when only 10 per cent. of the population want a change.
Mr. Brittan: Whether or not people find existing hours convenient is a different matter from whether the criminal law should continue to be used to enforce those hours.
I shall come later to the other safeguards for those working in shops and the impact on employment more generally. Faced with the Auld committee's conclusions about the lack of a viable halfway house, those who have anxieties about going along with the committee's decontrol recommendations have to ask themselves just what action they would now favour.
As a Minister whose primary responsibility is for law and order, I could not advise the House to let the present position remain unaltered.
Mr. Conal Gregory: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way ?
Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way ?
Mr. Brittan: In a moment.
The law is being regularly, flagrantly and publicly flouted up and down the country. Some local authorities seek to enforce it to the best of their abilities, others do so patchily and many have not the slightest wish to do so and go through the motions only when they are threatened with legal action if they fail to bring some prosecutions.
The result is inconsistency and injustice on a massive scale. Sometimes it is the small shops that are prosecuted and the large ones that get away. In other places, the reverse policy is followed. Everybody will be aware of situations where the same type of shop is prosecuted in one local authority area and escapes prosecution if it happens to be half a mile away in another district.
Mr. Gregory rose —
Mr. John Carlisle rose —
Mr. Brittan: I shall give way in a moment.
The reason why this has happened is quite simple. The Shops Acts do not penalise behaviour that is self-evidently of a criminal character. They are a means of prescribing a particular, limited pattern of trading. Social change has made that pattern of trading no longer one which is sufficiently generally acceptable for the criminal law to be regarded as an appropriate means of enforcing it.
Mr. Gregory: My right hon. and learned Friend lays a lot of store by the legal consequences. From his senior legal position, does he agree that much of the problem results from the fact that he has not sent a circular to local authorities and enforcement officers setting out their abilities and right to enforce the law ?
Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that that is true. The local authorities are well aware of the law. The real reason why they are not enforcing it is that in large parts of the country local people do not want the law enforced.
Mr. John Carlisle: The fact that the law is an ass in this instance is no reason for the Government to do away with it completely. Is there not some halfway house—even if it was not considered by the Auld committee—that my right hon. and learned Friend could have looked at ? This is a matter of deep conscience for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Brittan: I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's suggestion as to what that halfway house should be. The Auld committee looked at every variant that was

749
presented. Indeed, the committee was equipped with assessors representing all views—not all of them were by any means in favour of deregulation—in order to ensure that it considered every variant. However, it was unable to find any variant that stood up.
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Brittan: I shall give way in a moment.
I say this to those hon. Members who deplore that this has come about. I deeply respect and can readily understand the feelings of those who observe with sadness and regret the social changes that have taken place. But is it feasible for us now to turn the clock back ? If no viable halfway house is available, for any society that believes in the rule of law, the only alternative to removing the sanctions of the criminal law is to enforce them. As long as the prospect of change was in the air, it was just about possible to tolerate a degree of inconsistency and injustice. But it was becoming increasingly uncomfortable to so so. We now have no excuse for not making up our minds, and if we do not proceed in the way Auld recommends, we will really have to do everything in our power to enforce the present laws.
Faced with clear evidence of an extremely widespread desire on the part of large numbers of shopkeepers and their customers to do what may be regrettable but is not inherently criminal, I frankly find the prospect of an attempt to enforce the present law almost impossible to contemplate. The protests that would rain down on us from our constituents if that were attempted would make the lobby against VAT on newspapers seem like an amateurish effort on the part of a particularly badly organised constituency party branch.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take comfort from the experience in Massachusetts and Sweden where shop hours were quite recently freed ? Despite the fears of some small retailers that they might suffer, the opposite happened, and many new opportunities were provided for businesses and retailers, and for the creation of new jobs. If we are serious about new jobs, as we are, it is essential to sweep away this very old-fashioned law.
Mr. Brittan: I take the point that my hon. Friend has made. It would be unacceptable to enforce the present law to its full rigour because of the very great social changes that have taken place since the 1950 Act. In 1951, for example, only 24 per cent. of married women below pensionable age worked full or part-time. By 1981, that figure had risen to 57 per cent. It is not much use to those women—or to their husbands and families—if shops are open only during the time that they are at work.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose —
Mr. Brittan: But for many people Sunday is a special day to be set aside for religious worship and observance. Those who wish to confine what they do on Sunday to that deserve our fullest and sincerest respect. For most people, however—
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Brittan: I shall give way in a moment, but I am making an important point.
For most people, however, there is no conflict between going to church and undertaking all the other activities that
750
are popular on Sunday: leisure, entertainment, sporting and other outdoor activities, as well as cleaning, decorating, gardening or whatever it may be. Shopping is one of the activities that people would increasingly like to be able to undertake on Sundays. Sunday shopping provides an opportunity for shopping as a family, which is greatly welcomed by the very many families who cannot shop together during the week. The question that we have to ask is whether we have the right to continue to use the criminal law to deprive them of that choice.
Mr. Duffy: The Home Secretary has spelt out and, in his own words, respected, the special character of Sunday. That presumably explains why the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department told the House the last time we debated Sunday trading that any decision about any change in the character of Sunday that involved deregulation would be a matter of conscience for each hon. Member. The Under-Secretary's speech to the House on that occasion can be found in column 557 of Hansard for 4 February 1983. Why has the Home Secretary changed his mind ?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was setting out the position in the relation to the debate that day. The Government responded clearly to the request of the House that there should be an inquiry. Following that inquiry, which examined the very matters that cause concern to the House, the Government are entitled to express their views and to say to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who feel unable to go along with them, that their consciences are fully respected.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is misrepresenting what happened on 4 February. The Under-Secretary of State said:
"There are important considerations and fears about the character of Sunday … These fears are held in many parts of the House and I agree that they are an important factor. That is why the Government adhere to the view, which successive Governments have adhered to, that the decision must be for the individual conscience of hon. Members."—[Official Report, 4 February 1983: Vol. 36, c. 557.]
The Under-Secretary of State was talking not about the Shops Bill but about the general principle. Why will the Government not keep their word and have a free vote today ?
Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the view expressed on that occasion related to that Bill, and it is utterly inconceivable that the Government would be expressing a view as to the position that they would take two years later in response to a report that had not even been commissioned, let alone published.
I was explaining why I took the view that the question that we must ask is whether the right to continue to use the criminal law to deprive people of their choice is justified. I believe that we should only take that view, quite apart from questions of enforceability, if there is reason to believe that a change in the law would lead to a substantial and damaging change in the quality of life on Sunday which would otherwise not take place. The example of Scotland, where there has been no general prohibition on Sunday trading for 50 years, does not lead one to believe that this would be the case. One of the reasons for this is

751
that, although deregulation provides freedom of choice, in practice the consequences of change are unlikely to be as great as some people have feared.
I appreciate the anxiety felt by retailers, particularly small ones, about the impact of deregulation on their businesses.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the explanation that he sought to give of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State just will not wash ? When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave that undertaking to the House, it was widely believed that he was saying that this was, indeed, an issue of conscience on which we were all entitled to form an opinion without being pressurised. What most offends those of us on this side of the House who oppose the Bill is the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is seeking to steamroller this thing through the House.
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is doing less than justice to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. From the moment that this debate loomed on the horizon it was made abundantly clear that my right hon. Friend fully accepted the conscientious objections of any of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Those of them who have such objections will, I think, testify to the fact that when they have spoken to the Whips, that readiness and respect has been quite apparent.
I appreciate the anxiety felt by retailers—
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We cannot hear the Home Secretary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The Home Secretary should address the whole House, and not turn his back on it.
Mr. Brittan: I appreciate the anxiety felt by retailers, particularly small ones, about the impact of deregulation on their businesses. The retail trade has been in the process of change for many years. The effect of deregulating opening hours will not in itself produce any large-scale change. The conclusion of the economic review by the Institute for Fiscal Studies states:
"it is unlikely that in any of the areas we have considered — costs, prices, employment and trading patterns—there would be effects which would be of sufficient magnitude to be distinguished readily from the other changes which would be occurring as the result of other influences on the style and structure of British retailing."
I also stress that the opportunities presented by deregulation will provide a stimulus to some sectors of the economy. Garden centres and DIY shops are obvious examples of the trade that will benefit, but there are many others, such as shops involved in the tourist trade. Tourists will certainly feel more welcome, and the economy will in turn benefit if tourists are able to spend more in shops.
Indeed, the British Tourist Authority, which is responsible for securing many jobs, told the Auld committee that the closure on Sundays of many shops causes a considerable loss of revenue for the nation from tourists and would-be shoppers.
None the less, there has been much genuine anxiety about the number of small businesses that will be destroyed if longer opening hours, particularly on a Sunday, are allowed. But, it does not follow that simply because late night or Sunday trading will be permitted, it will be anywhere near universal.
752
Looking at the scale of Sunday opening, for example, the IFS in its study for the Auld committee considered whether Sunday opening would or would not be profitable for various types of retailer.
The IFS concluded that shops accounting for 48 per cent. of turnover would find Sunday opening profitable. The number of shops that will open is likely to be significantly less than this. We believe that for most of the year it will be in the region of 20 to 30 per cent.
It is interesting to note the results of a survey by 'Terry Burke, of the polytechnic of central London, carried out in April this year. On the basis of discussions with managers of one of the country's largest multiple chains, and answers to questionnaires received from 40 major retailing chains, he came to the conclusion that only 15 to 20 per cent. of high street shops will open all the year around, but that there will be widespread pre-Christmas, sales and holiday Sunday opening.
Mr. Faulds: The Home Secretary is emphasising the commercial aspects of these considerations but a little earlier when I tried unsuccessfully to intervene he said that the committee had considered all points of view Did the committee actually consider the proposition that instead of extending Sunday trading, more stringent restrictions should be imposed with which the Home Secretary should be prepared to require compliance ? Does the Home Secretary realise that, perhaps more north of the border than south of the border, Sunday has a special significance ?
Mr. Brittan: I do not think that that view commends itself to the majority north of the border. What I have said ties up with what happens in Scotland. In April this year, managers or assistants from 541 shops in Scotland were asked whether they would open the following Sunday—let us not forget that they are allowed to do so. Across the country 16 per cent. said that they would open but only 8 per cent. of those located in major town centres said that they would.
When the issue was last debated in the House there were also fears that increased retail trading hours would lead to an increase in prices. I think that the House should be reassured by the conclusion reached by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that in the long run the change will have a very small or negligible effect but that, if anything, they will tend to be reduced. If any savings were passed on to customers the effect would be to reduce the retail prices index by up to about 0·4 per cent.
The fears that have been most widely expressed have been those about the possible loss of jobs that might result from deregulation. The predictions from the study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies are that changes in the number of jobs available in the retail trade will be small both in relation to the total work force of some 2·2 million and to the recent trends of changes in retailing employment. Their model indicates that on the basis that there is no Sunday trading, although that is not now the case, there may be a loss in the short term of 5,000 full-time equivalent jobs and in the long term — by which is meant 10 to 20 years — a further 15,000 full-time equivalent jobs. But, of course, there is already a significant amount of Sunday trading which was not taken into account by IFS, so some of those job losses will have already occurred.
We believe that the Institute for Fiscal Studies probably underestimated the potential expansion in other related

753
fields—for example, catering and tourism. It is a fallacy to believe that there is at any given time a fixed pool of shopping and that if shops are open longer, the same amount of goods will be bought, but over a longer period. It is quite likely that there would be some transfer of expenditure from the purchase of services to the purchase of goods. If sales were to rise by 2 per cent. the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that the equivalent of 9,000 extra jobs would be created over the next 10 to 20 years, and if they rise by 5 per cent. the equivalent of 51,000 full-time jobs in the same period.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: That is an interesting observation, because a considerable proportion of goods which are sold are imported, but 100 per cent. of services are the result of employment in Britain. Why should such a transfer from services to goods result in net employment rather than net lost employment ?
Mr. Brittan: It is impossible to make such a calculation.
The House will recall that, in addition to its recommendations on shop opening hours, the committee recommended abolition of all the special provisions relating to the conditions of work of shop workers contained in part II of the Shops Act 1950 and its associated provisions in other parts of the Act, although it recognised that a case would be argued for continuing protection in the case of young persons. Whether even in the case of young persons such protection, as opposed to the protection provided by the health and safety provisions, is nowadays needed is by no means clear. Moreover, just as in the case of adults, there is considerable doubt as to the effectiveness of the present restrictions. In spite of our very considerable doubts on these points, we shall listen very carefully to the views of the House and we shall want to consider any evidence which may be presented on the need for continuing to protect young persons in this way.
Mr. Peter Hordern: Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend said that the Patronage Secretary would take account of those right hon. and hon. Members who had conscientious objections to the motion. However, we are not talking in particular about the conscientious objections of right hon. and hon. Members themselves, but of those which they know, from correspondence, exist among their constituents. Even more important, can my right hon. and learned Friend explain the Government's thinking about those shop assistants who have genuine convictions about not working on Sundays ?
Mr. Brittan: I know that very real fears have been expressed, not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), and that if regulations are removed, those working in shops now might be forced to work on Sundays.
I understand that concern, not only by those who would be troubled on conscientious grounds about working on Sunday, but also by people who see their Sunday as a day apart, as an opportunity to be with their families and as a day on which they do not wish to work. For example, many married women have for years worked in a shop on the basis that they would do so during the week but would be able to spend Sunday with their families.
754
That concern is reflected in the amendment to the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I know that it is very widely shared in the House. That is reflected in the signatures to the motion. Although the Auld committee did not believe that protection for those in this category would be feasible, on this issue I must differ from the committee. I accept in principle the case put forward by my hon. Friend and will look sympathetically at the best way of ensuring that established shop workers cannot be compelled to work on Sundays. Doing this will in no way detract from deregulation generally, as experience elsewhere suggests that there will be no shortage of volunteers who wish to work on Sundays.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The Home Secretary has made an important statement, which could be an important concession. Will he clarify what he meant by established shop workers ? Was he seeking to confer a right on those who happen to be employed in shops now, or was he talking about a right that would be extended to anyone seeking employment in the retail trade ?
Mr. Brittan: The former. With the qualifications that I mentioned, I recommend that the House accepts the conclusions of the Auld committee. The Government will seek an early opportunity to present to the House legislation to that effect. It is not possible to put back the clock and I do not think that there would be public support for enforcing the current criminal law.
Many people want change for positive reasons—the main one being not the benefit that that would confer on any particular section of the economy, important though that may be, but rather that restrictions on the freedom of traders to trade and customers to buy what they want, when they want, are inconsistent with the development of a free economy. The onus must rest on those who seek to maintain such restrictions. I believe that that onus can no longer be discharged.
4.51 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"requires that any legislation relating to shop hours should include full and proper protection for the pay and working conditions of shop workers."
This is an issue that arouses strong feelings and very differing views. I was interested to hear the Home Secretary say that if a law is habitually not observed, it is important that that law should be changed. Does that mean that, as we now have the greatest outbreak of robbery known in the history of our country, the Government will remove the laws against robbery ? Does it mean that if, under the new public order legislation, people do not observe the bans and restrictions on open-air meetings, the Government will remove them ? Does it mean that where the law is sufficiently broken, the Home Secretary will not seek to uphold it but will change it to suit those who broke the law ?
Mr. Brittan: As the right hon. Gentleman has put his remarks in the form of questions, I shall answer them. He knows perfectly well the difference between a law that is broken and a law that is unacceptable because it is no longer one that the majority of people want.
Mr. Kaufman: Therefore, we are to have laws maintained on the basis of opinion polls, are we ? If an

755
opinion poll shows that the Government's employment legislation is unacceptable, may we take it that the Home Secretary will come forward and repeal that legislation ?
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to everyone, but in my own time. I want to get under way for a minute or two, and I shall then give way.
Quite apart from the personal opinions that each of us may hold on this issue, every hon. Member will have received representations from large numbers of outside interests, both legitimate and less legitimate, on this matter. Trading organisations are making different calculations about how a change in the law might affect their profitability. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers says one thing while the Association of Independent Retailers says quite another. The Retail Consortium sounds a discordant note, rather like the dissonance at the introduction to Mozart's 39th symphony. The co-operative movement speaks uniquely and more harmoniously, not only for its commercial interests but for its employees. That is highly proper because the co-op has 9 million members, and its employees, with their families, are also customers of its 6,000 shops.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour party amendment is based entirely on material considerations ? Surely other considerations, such as moral and religious, are far more important.
Mr. Kaufman: I shall be coming in a moment to precisely the point raised by the hon. Lady.
Like others, the co-op believes in changing and making sense of the law without completely revoking control. Like many, it accepts that current legislation is awkwardly drafted, difficult to enforce and full of anomalies. It is also a strong champion of the traditional British Sunday.
In its belief that change is necessary but should be limited, the co-op shares the attitude of the associations of local authorities which have the unenviable task of enforcing current legislation. But even they differ from each other. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities opposes general Sunday opening, while recognising the need for amending legislation. The Association of District Councils is divided on unrestricted Sunday opening, but united in its wish to protect shopworkers. The Consumers Association supports complete deregulation. The churches have serious misgivings about the effect of Sunday deregulation on the religious observance of the Christian sabbath. All those great institutions and important interests do their best to see the case of those who disagree with them. Some of them have undergone agonies of conscience in making up their minds.
I come now to the intervention by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). The Opposition believe that issues of conscience require each individual to make up his or her mind. For that reason, we are having a free vote on the main question. The only people who are absolutely certain on this issue are the Government—not for them doubt, not for them thought, not for them the freedom of conscience championed by the Under-Secretary of State when he spoke in the House two years ago on the Bill introduced by the present Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. I shall repeat what he said, which I quoted in my intervention during the Home Secretary's speech. He said:
756
"There are important considerations and fears about the character of Sunday … These fears are held in many parts of the House and I agree that they are an important factor. That is why the Government adhere to the view, which successive Governments have adhered to, that the decision must he for the individual conscience of hon. Members."—[Official Report, 4 February 1983, Vol. 36. c. 557.]
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Kaufman: I wish to say a few more words, then I shall readily give way.
When I intervened, the Home Secretary effectively said that Tory Members could have a conscience on a private Member's Bill, but they must abandon their conscience on the orders of the Government-even though, if they ask nicely, they may be given permission to think about having a conscience.
Mr. John Gorst: I inform the right hon. Gentleman that I have come to the House to abstain because I do not accept that, although I am in favour of this measure, any of my colleagues on either side of the House should be forced either to vote for something in which they do not believe or to do something that other colleagues are not forced to do.
Mr. Kaufman: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and I honour him for saying it.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Setting aside the example of the arrogance of power displayed by the Conservative party, including the stage management of the early-day motion signed by more than 100 hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend remember that the organisations to which he referred did not mention the danger of the fragmentation of the family in our society and the additional pressure of this proposal, steamrollered through by the Government, on family life ?
Mr. Kaufman: That point has, of course, been made in the many representations to us. It has also been made by the representatives of the shop workers who are worried, as they have the right to be, about the effect on their family lives if they are made to work on a Sunday. I shall deal later with the strange commitment given by the Home Secretary on this matter.
Mr. Faulds: As I have such warm regard for my right hon. Friend and do not want him to suffer any subsequent distress, may I make it clear to him that I shall not be voting for the Labour amendment tonight because it presupposes quite unacceptable subsequent legislation ?
Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend has every right to vote in the way that he believes appropriate, even on a three-line Whip, and I do not challenge his right—perhaps the Opposition Chief Whip would—to say what he has said. In our amendent we refer to "any legislation"; we do not refer specifically to the legislation that is heralded in the Auld report.
Conservative Members are to be whipped through the Lobby on a three-line Whip on this matter tonight — [Interruption.] —and I hope that everybody interested in this issue, whatever view they hold, will note the difference between the free vote on the Labour Benches and the whipped discipline imposed by the Government.
While there can be, and are, differing views in the House and the country about whether there should be any alterations in shopping hours, I am amazed that the Government should cause division on the subject of the

757
protection of shop workers. I am sure that even shoppers who want complete deregulation do not wish to obtain their shopping convenience at the expense of the exploitation of shop workers.
For myself, I find any change completely unacceptable if it will mean even less security for a large group of workers—one in 11 of the working population—who are already among the most disadvantaged, the most exploited and the worst paid in Britain. The Home Secretary's speech showed a lack of concern for shop workers which I found staggering. He hardly referred to them, except in one particular, in a speech lasting 45 minutes. Therefore, I make it clear for myself that, should the Government defeat our amendment tonight, I shall vote against their motion in protest at their lack of concern for the interests of shop workers.
The nature of provision in shops in Britain means that it is exceptionally difficult for shop workers to win the kind of working conditions that are available to others. It is difficult for them to be organised into trade unions, and, despite the gratuitous sneers by the Under-Secretary against USDAW at Question Time earlier this month, that union has done magnificently in recruiting and seeking to protect 250,000 shop workers.
What the Government propose emphasises the need for USDAW and other shop workers' unions even more strongly. If ever there was a case for the members of USDAW to vote for a political fund, that case was made by the callous speech of the Home Secretary today.
One reason for lack of union organisation is that so many shop workers are employed only part time. In 1983, 43 per cent. of shop workers were part-timers, and most of them were women. Women form 66 per cent. of the shops' labour force and more than half of them, 39 per cent. of the total, work part time.
It is, in addition, a young work force. In 1971, 15 per cent. of males and 21 per cent. of females in the industry were less than 19 years old, and among part-timers the ages were even younger. The 1968 figures showed that in retailing, 75 per cent. of Saturday only workers were under 18, of whom 64 per cent. were girls, and 87 per cent. were under 21. Those official statistics undoubtedly understate the true position.
Current practice where there is Sunday trading, legal or illegal, shows that part-timers are predominant. Retailers opening on Sunday employ double the number of part-timers as on weekdays. Not surprisingly, these workers are often poorly qualified, much less qualified than workers in other industries. They are also inadequately trained. Money spent on training per employee in the distributive trades is less than half that in manufacturing industries.
It is scarcely surprising that shop workers are disgracefully paid. In January of this year, the statutory minimum rate was only £70–66 in the retail food and allied trades, and £71.05 in the non-food retail trades. Women in those trades were receiving little more than half women's national average earnings, and men were receiving not much more than one third of men's average earnings.
We must remember, too, that those miserable conditions have been obtained with existing protections, such as they are. Auld wants to remove some of these protections, and the rest of them are endangered by the
758
Government's attitude to wages councils, which the Auld report, to do it justice, strongly recommends should be retained.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Part of the argument is that extending trading times to include, for example, Sundays would give an opportunity for the very lowest paid to double up on their terms of income and thereby earn more.
Mr. Kaufman: I shall deal with that as I proceed.
The Auld recommendation about the abolition of the Shops Act protection for retail workers is astounding in view of the committee's terms of reference, which instructed it to have regard to the interests of employees. Legislation on shop hours in the past has been very much directed towards the protection of shop workers. The Auld report reminds us:
"Statutory restrictions on evening closing had their origin in the late nineteenth century concern to protect shop workers from exploitation".
The Shop Hours Regulation Act 1886, for example, specified maximum hours for persons under 18. That was a century ago, when legislation was governed by Victorian values. Even in 1911, the Shops Act of that year called for a half-day holiday for all shop workers. The Auld recommendations would remove that 75-year-old obligation.
The two major protections that shop workers have at present are the Shops Act 1950 and the wages councils. Neither has brought those workers conditions that are ideal or anything like ideal. However, they have meant that specific statutory protection has existed and that employers have to step carefully or face legal consequences.
The Shops Act 1950 prescribes maximum working hours and conditions of employment for young persons, and lays down regulations governing paid half days off, meal breaks and time off in lieu of Sunday working. The wages council orders prescribe minimum rates that are far from princely but are certainly much higher than they would be if wages councils did not exist. These lay down levels both for weekday and Sunday working and they influence pay in sectors of retail trading that are not covered by wages councils.
The Government's attitude to wages councils is especially deplorable. The way in which the Home Secretary brushed aside the issue of wages councils and simply said that he would listen was scandalous. The Auld report makes two specific recommendations — one is deregulation and the other is the retention of wages councils and a strengthened inspectorate. The Home Secretary—this is why his motion is framed in the way in which it is—accepts the recommendation that suits him and does not accept the other, on which, as I shall show, the first is based; without the second recommenda-tion, the exploitation of shop workers will be absolutely intolerable.
Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on reading the mind of the Government on this matter, one can conclude that their central strategy is to depress the wages and conditions that have been fought for by unions over the years ? Their plan, in other words, is to get rid of Sunday as a special day, so that workers will finally work on Sundays as though they were Wednesdays or Thursdays, with the result that double time and time and

759
a half will be a thing of the past. They are not just after shop workers. Once they have established that Sunday is the same as a weekday, additional payments, including unsocial hours money, will be abolished for millions of workers not involved in the trades with which we are concerned. That is part of the jigsaw which my right hon. Friend is piecing together. Does he agree with my conclusion?
Mr. Kaufman: In many ways it is even worse than that, as I shall demonstrate as I proceed.
The Government's attitude to wages councils is deplorable. The need for wages councils was recognised more than three quarters of a century ago. in 1909, when they were first created. In this instance we are talking about Edwardian values. The councils' progenitor was Winston Churchill, the man to whom the Prime Minister so frequently refers as Winston, as if he was one of her most intimate friends. It was Churchill who said, when the Bill creating wages councils was introduced:
"It was formerly supposed that the workings of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil"
of living on a less than a decent wage
"But when you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst."—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 388.]
Winston was right then, and he remains right now.
Mr. John Powley rose —
Mr. Kaufman: I shall proceed with my speech for a while. I have been giving way a good deal. There are 42 other right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate.
Mr. Powley: I am one of them.
Mr. Kaufman: Wages councils are needed to establish basic minimum pay levels, rates of pay for overtime, weekends and bank holiday working and minimum holiday entitlements. Without the councils, pay rates in retailing as elsewhere would slump to intolerably low levels. Even now, earnings in the industry are slumping towards the councils' minimum levels. Ten years ago, women full-time shop workers earned on average 20 per cent. more than the wages councils' basic rate and part- timers were 16 per cent. above the basic rate. By last year, both categories of worker were only 10 per cent. above the minimum rate.
The Low Pay Unit has given dreadful examples of the exploitation of shop workers. I shall give the House just three. There is one young woman aged 22 years who is a jewellery sales assistant. She earns £54 gross for a 40-hour week. She says:
"Considering the responsibilities we have, I think our wages are disgustingly low. I personally have taken retail jewellery examinations, which was supposed to have made a difference to my wage packet. It did—£2."
Another woman, Miss S, is a manageress of a dry cleaners. She is 23 and works a 381/2-hour week, for which she receives £44·56 gross. She says:
"I've got to do the pressing, work the machine and look after the counter. My wages don't go far. I give my mum £15 keep money, bus fares £5·70 a week, life insurance £3 and that doesn't leave a lot to buy clothes or go out."
The third example is that of a man aged 20 years who earns £65 for a 47-hour week as the manager of a video hop library. His take-home pay is £49·85, of which he spends £4 on bus fares.
Mr. Powley rose —
Mr. Kaufman: In 1983, the report of the wages inspectorate to the retail food and allied trades wages council showed that a check of 10–9 per cent. of the register revealed that 20,832 workers were being underpaid and that arrears totalling £2,416,353 were assessed as due. Where complaints were investigated, underpayments were revealed at 867 of the 1,096 establishments involved. That is what was found by the wages council, yet the Government will not say that they will keep the councils.
Mr. Powley rose —
Mr. Kaufman: It is no wonder that a working party of the distributive trades EDC reported in March as follows:
"The working group believes that any reform or abolition of the retail trade wages council could have a wide-ranging effect on retail trade employment prospects. It regards as largely unproven the assertion that increases in wage rates determined by wages councils are substantially reducing the employment prospects of young people."
Mr. Powley rose —
Mr. Kaufman: I ask the hon. Gentleman to permit me to continue. I have given way on several occasions. I have a great deal more to say and I should like to see how we get on before I allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. It is no wonder—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".] If hon. Members who wish to speak will not be annoyed if I give way, I shall do so.
Mr. Powley rose —
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose —
Mr. Kaufman: I give way to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley).
Mr. Powley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps he will tell me how I should respond to a business man who saw me in my constituency yesterday—
Mr. Cormack: On a Sunday?
Mr. Powley: Yes, he saw me yesterday because of the subject that we are debating now. He put a complaint to me and asked me what I could do for him. He contended that the actions of a wages council and not the complaints of his employees were putting him out of business and making him bankrupt. The regulations that the council will be enforcing will mean that four people who have had a job in my constituency will be forcibly made unemployed.
Mr. Kaufman: I would say that he is a pretty lousy employer. I shall quote from the evidence that is accumulated in the Cambridge study which the Department of Employment has published. Evidence is available in the report of the Select Committee on Employment, which was published last Thursday. The evidence demonstrates that the employer to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred is in a tiny minority and that the effect of wages councils in supporting the miserable minimum wages of workers in the retail industry has a minimal effect on employment. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about bankruptcies in his constituency, he should speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about interest rates, which are driving companies out of business.
Mr. Dickens: We are talking about our sabbath day, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary

761
and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department are both Jewish. I respect that. I understand that Mohammedans in Britain can choose whether to work on their sabbath day, which is Friday. Jews in Britain can choose whether they work on their sabbath day, which is Saturday. When the proposed legislation is before the House—we are having only a little debate on the issue today — it will seek to give Christians the opportunity to decide whether they wish to open their shops and work on a Sunday. The arguments about salaries and the tear-jerking examples that we have been given by the right hon. Gentleman relate to every day of the week or whatever days shops are open.
Mr. Kaufman: I do not know whether I should have given way to the hon. Gentleman in the circumstances.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should get back to the dance floor.
Mr. Kaufman: What the hon. Gentleman has said would come very well out of an early play by George Bernard Shaw. He is saying that he wants to give Christian employers the right to open their shops but he does not want to give Christian workers the right to say whether they will work. That is the issue and it is that sort of paradox that appears in "Widowers' Houses" and "Major Barbara". I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read both. They are available in the Library.
I shall quote from the study by the department of applied economics at Cambridge university. Addressing itself to wages councils, it states:
"There can be no strong presumption that the retail wages councils have had an important independent employment effect … in the absence of a comprehensive system for the orderly determination of wages in retailing, the wages councils serve a useful purpose in terms of both equity and efficiency."
That survey was carried out on behalf of the Department of Employment. It is no wonder that, only four days ago, the Select Committee on Employment reported:
"Ministers did not give an estimate of the increase in the number of jobs which might be expected to result from abolition" of wages councils;
"when pressed to do so in respect of young people, they were unable to: the message was 'try it and see'."
No wonder, therefore, that the Auld report—a report that cannot be said to be over-solicitous of the interests of workers in its recommendation that all shops protection should be scrapped—deliberately went beyond its terms of reference to recommend "strongly", to use its own word, that wages councils should be retained for retailing. The report went on to recommend that there should be proper enforcement of wages council orders by an adequately staffed wages council inspectorate. We heard not a word about that from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell rose —
Mr. Kaufman: Let me just finish what I am saying.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has been speaking about wages councils for about seven minutes. We are actually discussing the motion before the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that 40 right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
762
There have been 20 interventions during the speeches by the Front Benchers. A matter which is not a point of order merely delays the speeches of other hon. Members.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) should be ashamed of himself for making that bogus point or order. This report, which I recommend that he read, has just two recommendations, one of which is the recommendation to retain the wages councils and strengthen the wages councils inspectorate. If the hon. Gentleman does not like that recommendation, he is telling us not only that he does not know what is in the report but that he does not care about the workers who are involved.
Mr. Sayeed rose —
Mr. Kaufman: I shall not give way. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have clearly shown that you believe that no more interventions should be taken; therefore, I shall proceed.
The way in which the Home Secretary brushed aside the issue of wages councils was most offensive and showed no concern whatever for the interests of shop workers. The report makes two recommendations—one is accepted in the Government motion; the other is ignored in the Government motion.
Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman obviously wrote that before listening to what I said. That is, of course, his custom. Otherwise, he would have heard me say specifically in relation to wages councils:
"The position of shop workers, vis-á-vis opening hours, will be given detailed and sympathetic consideration in the context of the consultation that is taking place".
I said that what was said in this debate would be taken into account. Moreover, although this debate is about opening hours and Sunday opening, I made it quite clear that the Government would announce their conclusion on the future of wages councils, not today but before any legislation on opening hours is brought before the House.
Mr. Kaufman: I am afraid that that simply will not wash. The Government have had the report for six months. They have had the opportunity to think about this report for six months. They have thought about the recommendation on deregulation and have made up their minds. I should have thought that six months was long enough for the Government to decide whether to accept the other recommendation. The Government do not care about the other recommendation because they do not care about shop workers.
Protection for workers in this industry becomes all the more essential when we examine the likely effects of deregulation on workers' jobs and conditions. Discussion of the effects of deregulation concentrates on Sunday trading, partly because Sunday trading understandably arouses the strong feelings and consciences of many people, and also because legal shopping hours on weekdays are already so long that major extensions are unlikely between Monday and Saturday, even if there is complete deregulation. Yet for workers, the effects of Sunday deregulation would spread over into the other six days. Unless the type of protection demanded in our amendment is provided, those effects will be painful.
Referring to the effect of deregulation on employment, the Auld report said:
"De-regulation would have an immediate effect on employment in retailing. Sunday opening would generate Sunday jobs, but the resulting fall in week-day demand would mean fewer jobs at other times. In the short term, the IFS suggests that the net effect of these two conflicting influences on

763
manning requirements would be a small reduction in employment in the retail trade, possibly about 5,000 full-time equivalent jobs … In the longer term, the reduction in retailing capacity would inevitably involve a further loss of jobs. Although more people might be required in the remaining shops, the IFS predicts that the net effect would be a reduction of about a further 15,000 full-time equivalent jobs."
That is a net calculation, based on full-time equivalent jobs rather than full-time "real" jobs, as the Prime Minister describes them. The calculation in the report shows that, overall, 110,000 new Sunday jobs are expected to be created — all of them part-time or supplementary to weekday working. On the other hand, 135,000 weekday jobs are expected to be lost and many, if not most, will be full-time jobs. That is additional to the 130,000 full-time jobs that have been lost since 1979.
The real implications are shown in a statement issued by Asda which aimed to demonstrate that Sunday trading produces job increases. Asda said:
"An additional 65–90 staff are needed to operate a superstore on a Sunday. Some 75–90 per cent. of these will be specially recruited via the job centre; others will be existing full or part-time staff."
Asda is saying that most of the people it recruits for Sunday working are part-timers and that it is not creating additional employment for many of its weekday workers. Tesco expects at least 75 per cent. of its Sunday staff to be Sunday-only employees.
These expectations are emphasised by a special report that has just been issued by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which also provided the jobs assessment for the Auld report which the Home Secretary quoted with great approval. This new report was carried out for the Federation of Multiple DIY Retailers, so we cannot suppose that it was intended to be biased against the deregulation recommendation. The report stated:
"First, weekday turnover will be smaller and thus retailers will find they can economise on staff. Second, because Sunday sales will tend to reduce sales at peak times — typically weekday evenings and Saturday—retailers may find they can make more effective use of existing staff as demand during the week is more even."
That is bad enough, but even that assessment of the harmful effects of uncontrolled Sunday opening without protection is made, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies takes pains to emphasise, on the assumption that the continuation of the wages council system will ensure that double-time rates will be paid on Sundays. The institute made that estimate on the best possible assumption of the wages councils being retained and being effective. The IFS went on to say:
"left to market forces the size of the Sunday wage premium would probably fall."
The IFS calculated that, with the fall in that premium, the number of lost weekday jobs would rise to 130,000. Only the maintenance of full protection for shop workers can prevent a massive deterioration in working conditions for those workers, because the industry faces, without their protection, huge dilution by casual and part-time workers.
Dr. Keith Hampson rose
Mr. Kaufman: I shall not give way.
Less full-time working means worse pay and lack of statutory protection in key areas, such as employment protection, redundancy payments and maternity rights. They are especially important in an industry with so many women workers. More casualisation and part-time working means not only less protection for such workers but pressure on full-time workers. Full-time workers will
764
face the evident danger of replacement by part-timers if they cause too much of a fuss over such embellishments as halfway decent pay, let alone holiday and other rights. The Thatcherite dream will become the shop workers' nightmare. That is in an industry in which workers are already inadequately protected. The Auld report itself states that shop workers
"lack the trades union protection enjoyed by most other workers."
In the main, shop workers have to fend for themselves on the subject of working hours and conditions. Yet what hope does the Auld report offer those workers in the absence of statutory protection, including the protection that they themselves say should be removed by the total repeal of Shops Act protection? The report says:
"where an employee might be prejudiced by a requirement to work on Sundays or late at night, so that refusal to do so would lead to dismissal, it might be that the provisions governing unfair dismissal in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 would in certain cases provide a safeguard.
"Might be … certain cases" that will not do. That is not protection. That is optimistic speculation.
Mr. Lyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No.
The Employment Protection Act, 1975 even if relevant and applicable, does not provide for reinstatement even if an action is successful. Employers could apply a whole range of pressures short of dismissal. It is no good Ministers saying that other workers are involved in Sunday working without dire consequences because the report dismisses that argument:
"it is notable that a substantial proportion of regular Sunday employment occurs in industries, such as the railways and health service, with a high degree of unionisation and relatively traditional labour practices. Retailing, by contrast, is characterised by less strong unions and exceptional flexibility in the use of labour."
Therefore, for all of us in the Labour party, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whatever attitude may be taken on deregulation and late and Sunday opening—
Mr. Lyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: —protection of the workers— [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] — protection of the workers becomes a sticking point on which we are implacable.
We insist that any legislation must include specific protection for workers. Many of the private Members' Bills that have been introduced on this subject deliberately included some form of protection such as those introduced by the hon. Members for Chelsea o(Mr. Scott), for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), as well as several others.
I address this remark to the Secretary of State in response to his reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about protection of workers on Sunday. We do not regard as satisfactory his limited and mingy commitment that established workers will be protected. The Secretary of State, in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), commended the legislation in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The commonwealth of Massachusetts legislated on Sunday trading in 1983, and included this provision, that no employee—not "no established employee"—

765
"shall be required to perform such [Sunday] work, and refusal to work for any retail establishment on Sunday shall not be grounds for discrimination, dismissal, discharge, reduction in hours, or any other penalty."
That is what they have in Massachusetts, and that is what we demand in the Bill. Nothing else will do. [HON. MEMBERS: "What Bill?"] The Bill is coming. The Government say that they are going to legislate.
We demand that all Shops Act protections required by the industry's unions should be retained except where other statutes unequivocally and indubitably provide such protection. Those include half holidays, meal times, refreshment breaks, the number of Sundays to be worked and time off in lieu of Sunday working. We insist on full Shops Act protection for young people.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: The report is extremely unsatisfactory on safeguards for young workers. It says that gaps not at present covered by current legislation could be filled by amendments to other statutes. "Could be" is not good enough. We demand an assurance that such gaps will be filled. Above all, we demand that full wages council protection for shop workers be retained. Heaven knows, such protection is barely adequate as it is. We insist on the full retention of the wages council system, and for young people, too.
The Government's consultative paper makes absurd and dangerous statements about the effect of wages council protection on the employment of young people. Those statements are rejected by the Select Committee of this House, by the Cambridge study and by the National Economic Development Council working party. We demand full wages council protection for young people both in regard to minimum rates and age coverage.
The British public are decent, caring people. Many of them may wish for wider shopping opportunities, but none of them would want to enjoy those opportunities at the expense of underpaid, overworked and exploited employees, including women and teenage girls. We are amazed that the Government cannot accept our simple and uncontroversial amendment. We shall be speaking not only for shop workers but for the whole country when we vote for our amendment tonight.
5.35 pm
Sir Ian Gilmour: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) went on with his prepared text in utter disregard of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said. The right hon. Gentleman's language would have been inappropriate in any event. He talked about my right hon. and learned Friend's callous attitude to shop workers when in fact he gave the undertaking to consider carefully the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). That was totally inappropriate. The right hon. Gentleman should have amended his speech drastically.
The right hon. Gentleman began his speech with a series of noisy questions asking whether what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the law being unenforceable meant that we should not have a law against robbery. That was a total misconception of the position. There is an obvious distinction, of which the right hon. Gentleman must be aware—
Mr. Skinner: Is this a rebel I see before me?
Sir Ian Gilmour: I supported the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) because I thought that it was sensible. No doubt the hon. Gentleman opposes it for the same reason. That would be characteristic.
There is a distinction between laws with which it is often difficult to catch the offender and laws which are so illogical and thus so riddled with abuses, inconsistencies and anomalies that no Government or local authority can enforce them. The right hon. Member for Gorton must be fully aware of that distinction. That is the key point.
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of Sunday opening. He made an extremely long speech, which was interesting in many ways. The most interesting part was that he did not state where he stood on the main issue. Perhaps at some stage later in the debate we shall hear from the Opposition what their attitude is.
The key point is that we are being asked to continue using the criminal law to enforce a law that nobody in his right mind thinks can go on being enforced. I fully respect the sabbatarians on both sides of the House, and those who wish to continue the traditional English Sunday, whatever exactly that may mean—
Mr. Cormack: Rather like the traditional Tory.
Sir Ian Gilmour: No, that is not so. The Tory party was against making Sunday a miserable affair. That was very much a Roundhead whim. Although sabbatarianism has quite a long history, it is essentially a Victorian idea. Most of our legislation dates from Queen Victoria. In fact, Karl Marx said that the chief sufferers from the sabbatarian legislation were the working classes. It is paradoxical that now their alleged representatives are very much against the amelioration of these laws. I am not an admirer of Victorian values, and I am grateful that, in this respect at least, the Government are departing from them; although it is fair to say that Queen Victoria was not a sabbatarian, and was opposed to the sabbatarianism of those days. [Interruption.] Luckily I cannot hear the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He is raucous but inaudible.
In the earlier debate, the Government were asked to hold an inquiry and not to act before it had reported. In general, that is a sensible procedure. The Government have now done exactly what was asked. The findings of the inquiry are unequivocal, and the Government now have no alternative but to legislate. I agree with both parts of the Auld report. I believe that it is important that, unless some other safeguards can be found, wages councils should be preserved. I am not opposed to the reform of wages councils, but I believe that they need to be preserved in this case.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was right in 1983—I supported him then—and I believe that the Government are right now.
5.41 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: There has been an exchange about the line taken by the Under-Secretary in an earlier debate. I believe that this is a matter on which the individual conscience is of supreme importance. It is a matter on which I speak for myself, although I believe that my hon. Friends will agree with almost all that I say, and that they all agree with me when I say that, in any legislative change, the shop worker

767
should be protected. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) took that view when he introduced his legislation, the protection offered in which was far more stringent than the measly concession offered by the Home Secretary today.
On 4 February 1983, when replying to some issues that I had raised, the Under-Secretary said:
"These fears are held in many parts of the House and I agree that they are an important factor. That is why the Government adhere to the view, which successive Governments have adhered to, that the decision must be for the individual conscience of hon. Members." — [Official Report, 4 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 557.]
In referring to "successive Governments" the hon. Gentleman could not have been speaking solely about the legislation then being discussed. I do not believe that that was what was in his mind. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has now been asked to stand his own words on their head. He should not accede to the pressure to do so. He should make it clear that individual conscience should have free rein, not only in today's debate but in the debates on the details of legislation which, I suspect, will occupy us for many long weeks in some future Session.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) referred to the Auld committee as though it were a body of impeccable impartiality and breadth of background knowledge. That is far from the case. Committees set up by Governments are normally of two kinds. Some are intended to debate an issue at length—preferably until after the next general election. Others are intended to secure a certain verdict, and to do so as quickly as possible. The committee just appointed by the Home Secretary to consider advertising on BBC television—the membership was announced on Friday—falls into the former category. Its members range from the Home Secretary's brother to people who have spent most of their working lives in the BBC. It represents a wide range of opinion and its debates will no doubt be lengthy.
The Auld committee has no such breadth. No one could say that the members of the committee represent the full range of opinion on the issue. I can find among the members no one who holds the traditional view of the place of Sunday in our society and in the Christian religion.
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is kicking the referee because he does not like his ruling. Not a single word of criticism was advanced about the composition of the committee until it made its report. What right does the hon. Gentleman have to call into question the integrity of the three members who produced the report in good conscience? Further, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there were also six assessors, at least three of whom represented views antipathetic to the final result of the inquiry? Not one of them has called into question the good faith of the inquiry process. Why is the hon. Gentleman doing so?
Mr. Beith: I do not call into question the good faith of those conducting the inquiry. I question whether they represented the range of views on this issue. They did not.
If the Minister consults his files, he will find there some correspondence from me on certain aspects of the committee's initial actions, which immediately caused me to doubt the breadth of opinion that it represented. The Minister sees fit to ignore that correspondence, but I shall refer to it.
768
It is possible that the members of the committee initially had no views at all. However, they certainly did not start with a representative breadth of opinion on the subject such as can be found in the committee considering advertising on the BBC, which was clearly set up en the basis that it should contain a breadth of views. I believe that the reason for the difference is that the Government wanted a certain result from the Auld committee whereas they do not want the other committee to produce a result for some time.
Immediately the Auld committee started work, there was a straw in the wind. I wrote to the Minister about it. The committee quite properly placed advertisements in newspapers seeking evidence from people holding different views. However, it placed the advertisements exclusively in Sunday newspapers. The committee had embarked on its task with no grasp of the fact that a significant minority of people, on religious grounds, do not read Sunday newspapers.
The Minister has referred to the assessors. The assessors had no part in writing the report, and cannot be held responsible for it. Their position was quite clear. They were to provide factual evidence on the areas about which they knew.
No one reading the article by Miss Frances Cairncross in The Times today could come to any conclusion other than that she is strongly in favour of Sunday opening on a slightly more widespread scale than was envisaged even in the report. She is fully entitled to hold those views, but they give a flavour of the basis of the report.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the report is somewhat disdainful of the Christian religion and attaches far too little weight to the views of those who, because of their Christian convictions or on other grounds, do not wish to work on Sundays.
The most balanced criticism of the report was produced by the British Council of Churches and the Free Church Federal Council. The critique states:
"The Auld report appears to have been written to sustain the case for abolishing all regulation of shop opening hours. That part of the case which the churches, with others, made on behalf of shop-workers and their families is accepted, but rather than abandon the conclusion that there should be no regulation of hours the Committee makes the proposal for a Wages Council, which it must know the Government is unlikely to accept … There is a serious conflict between the evidence they present and the conclusion they reach. What appears to be a closely argued case is a much more tendentious document. Market forces, it seems, are now to determine every aspect of our life in community."
Dr. Hampson: I shall not take up the theoretical arguments. There are many examples of Sunday opening around the world, and the right hon. Gentleman lives next to the Scottish example. How does he deal with the fact that only 16 per cent. of Scottish shops open on Sundays and that 98 per cent. of Scots say that they are not inconvenienced by Sunday trading? What is the evidence that the Scots are any less religious as a result of Sunday opening?
Mr. Beith: I am close enough to Scotland to know that the situation there is very different. The pressures to bring about more Sunday trading are far less intense in Scotland than in much of the United Kingdom, and many people in the retail trade in Scotland do not want to see much Sunday trading. Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not

769
prefer the social pressures against Sunday trading that operate in some parts of Scotland to a proper regulation of the matter by law.
In seeking to implement the Auld recommendation of complete deregulation without the other recommedation about retaining a wages council, the Government are taking no account of the fact that Sunday is, and has long been, regarded by many people as different from any other day of the week. The moulding and shaping effect of the Christian religion in our society should not simply be thrown aside.
The factors have special significance in some parts of the country, which the Government have not mentioned. In Wales, for example, legislation requires referendums on the opening hours of public houses. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) can vote not to have public houses open on Sundays, and did so, but they will have no control over Sunday trading, although these things have a special place in their hearts. If people discover that we have irrevocably changed the character of Sunday, they will be critical of a House of Commons which did this with such carelessness.
It is crucial to protect shop workers from the pressures to work on Sunday when they do not wish to on religious grounds or because they are prepared to work five or six days but want Sunday with their family. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, with whom I disagree on the issue, introduced proposals considerably to deregulate Sunday trading he nevertheless went to great lengths to protect shop workers. His proposals included limiting overtime payments and therefore the extent to which workers can be bribed to work on Sunday.
Some Conservative Members suggested that we should welcome deregulation because shop workers can get a decent living wage only by working double time on Sundays, and that deregulation offers a wonderful opportunity to extend an otherwise small wage. An alarming range of pressures on shop workers to work on Sundays in the event of complete deregulation would include their desire to augment a low income and the pressure to keep a job. There would also be pressure on people wanting to get a job, as they are likely to be asked to fill in an application form declaring whether they have any objections to working on any day of the week. I take issue with the Home Secretary and his vaunted concession in this regard. I was hopeful when he said that he wanted to provide for shop workers who had a conscientious objection to working on Sunday. However, he talked of established shop workers. It is a dated provision for people now working in the retail trade. It is like trying to buy shares in the Trustee Savings Bank—only people who had an account last year will have priority in buying them. Only people who were employed in the retail trade before the proposed legislation is brought in are to have any protection. As that group of people dies out, fewer will be protected, and anyone who wants to apply for a job will be asked whether he is prepared to work on Sunday. If an applicant has any reservations, or a statement of his religious activities arouses any doubt, he will be passed over in favour of someone else. Without protection, we shall eventually have economic persecution of people who persist in their belief that they should not work on Sunday.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: On the principle of Sunday, how does the hon. Gentleman, who represents Berwick which, but for an odd mistake, is part of Scotland, defend the sanctity of Sunday from shopping when, since 1950, when attitudes were much more rigorous, the Scots, with all the Free Presbyterians and the Free Church, have had no objection to Sunday trading? Does he not realise that his constituents cross the border on Sundays to go shopping?
Mr. Beith: There are massive objections to Sunday trading in many parts of Scotland. No doubt the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will voice some of them. Some of the social pressures are less desirable than a general framework of law under which people know what they are entitled to do and are free to do it.
The Home Secretary's concessions to shop workers are not good enough. The consequences of deregulation for those who feel strongly about working on Sundays will be loss of pay, loss of job or an inability to get one, unless there is protection. Small shopkeepers will be put under enormous pressure. Hon. Members have received extensive representations from the meat trade, for example, which believes that the Government, who claim to be sympathetic towards small businesses, will put unreasonable pressure on many members of it.
We should also consider people who live near shopping centres and who rely on Sunday for peace and an opportunity to sit in their garden without the constant slamming of car doors and the noise of traffic coming and going. It is not enough to say that they should not live there. If people are to live in city centres, it is reasonable to assume that there should be some difference in the pattern of life between weekdays and Sundays. Moreover, many tourists like to go around normally busy areas such as the City of London and other town centres when it is quiet.
There are wider and more general disadvantages of deregulation which have been argued in the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, such as the potential loss of jobs and of trade and an effect on prices. To put it at its lowest, it has not been argued that general economic benefits will follow.
The Government seem to be able to contemplate only deregulation or nothing but there are many choices. I favour revising the Shops Acts to clarify the categories of shop which are allowed to open on Sunday and to define them so as to minimise the difficulties that I have described. The Government seem to have rejected that possibility out of hand, as did the Auld report. There are various compromises. The Home Secretary mentioned Massachusetts and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the Massachusetts experiment involved specific protection for shop workers: it is also confined to Sunday afternoons. Most other countries which have made such changes have limited the trading to some extent.
We shall also have to consider planning control. Local authorities must be allowed to exercise some planning powers because, if there is deregulated Sunday trading, arguments about the siting of shops will be much more important to objectors when the shops remain open seven days a week.
The Government must protect shop workers, Their job security, the basis on which they are paid — that involves retaining wages councils — and enabling

771
applicants for jobs or workers to contend that they have been unfairly discriminated against for objecting to work on Sundays. However many regulations we build in, workers will still be discriminated against in practice if we deregulate generally.
I say to my hon. Friends that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) waved the flag of liberty and liberalism in support of his private Member's Bill on deregulation. He should remember that John Stuart Mill said that, when defining the right of the individual, we must always have regard to the extent to which it infringes on the liberties of others. Shop workers and other people affected by Sunday trading are among those others. I say to the Labour party that its amendment improves the motion, but does not go to the heart of the matter.
I say to Conservatives that if the Government accept the Auld report without providing permanent protection for Sunday, they will have signalled themselves as being firmly on the side of Mammon rather than of God, and of substituting the religion of the market place for the religion that has guided and sustained this nation for more than 1,000 years. The Government might win the day on this occasion, but when they get to the details of the Bill, I hope that they will find that many Conservative Members are no more willing than I am to see that happen.
5.59 pm
Sir John Wells: Tomorrow is the opening of the Chelsea flower show, which is the greatest flower show in the world. The Chelsea flower show is the showplace of nurserymen from this country and overseas, and specialist plants are presented. However, the man and woman in the street buy their plants from garden centres, which are the most important phenomenon in the leisure industry today.
The do-it-yourself movement is also of fundamental importance in the shopping pattern of families. The Government have got their project wrong. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that there had to be change because of garden centres, and do-it-yourself and tourist shops. But surely we merely need to alter the planning law to make a new planning classification because local authorities do not know what a garden centre is. They cannot decide whether it is a farm shop, a shop or farm land. Under planning laws and regulations, garden centres are neither one nor the other. Do-it-yourself shops are called warehouses. Are they warehouses or shops? That area is fraught in many respects.
If the Government had tackled the problem from the other way on, and had introduced new planning classifications for garden centres, do-it-yourself shops and, to a lesser extent, tourist shops, Sunday trading could have been easily permitted in those three areas.
A fourth category, which is also of great importance to the tourist trade, is exhibitions that stay open on Sunday. I began my speech by mentioning the Chelsea flower show, but there are many other exhibitions, such as the Ideal Home exhibition, at which goods are sold and which stay open on Sunday. That is also a fraught area because, provided the shopper buys a souvenir and carries it away in a souvenir bag, he is not technically breaking the law. That is absurd.
Although I welcome the Government's intentions to change the law in those four limited respects, they have got it wrong because they are trying to change the law for more than those four areas
6.2 pm
Mr. Thomas Torney: I must declare an interest in that I am sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as many hon. Members know. It is obvious from the debate and the many interventions that the crux of the matter is the Sunday trading argument. I subscribe to the consensus that there is a need to reform the Shops Act 1950. I accept that it generates some curious anomalies, but we do not need complete abolition of the Act to minimise those anomalies.
The abolitionist case is unconvincing, and potentially highly expensive and disruptive. The Auld committee report says a great deal about the dangers to shop workers and the environment and, indeed, much of the report is correct. Despite that, it reaches the wrong conclusions. I am amazed that the best a Government committee can offer is to say, "It is all too difficult. We must abandon all attempts at regulation."
The proposal that small shops and self-employed retailers should be allowed to open is dismissed summarily by the committee, despite the fact that changing the law in that respect would legitimise much of what now takes place without causing danger to shop workers' conditions, upheaval in the high street, or interference with the traditional Sunday and the Christian belief in the sabbath. That may have proved too difficult, or perhaps too troublesome, for the Auld committee to deal with, but parliamentary draftsmen have much more complicated measures to deal with than this, and would find it a doddle to draft suitable changes in the law to implement such a proposal.
It is said that there is a need for shops to open on Sundays, but we should consider the existing position. Most shops are open by 9 am—some food stores open even earlier—and in most cases they do not close until 6 pm. They are open from Mondays to Saturdays, arid the majority of supermarkets and multiple stores have two and sometimes three late nights every week when they stay open until 7 pm, 8 pm or even later.
Some people, and even some hon. Members, talk about not being able to shop and say that their only free time is on Sunday. Yet I have never heard of anyone who has starved or gone short of food because shops are not open. Nor have I heard of a person being short of something to wear or being without apparel because shops are not open. In the Third world and the north of England, which I represent, some people are short of those things because of insufficient money and mass unemployment, but never because the shops are not open.
The mass of our working population work from 8 or 8.30 am to 5 or 5.30 pm for five days only. Those people have all day Saturday to shop and can easily shop on late opening nights with their families, if they wish.
The arguments of the abolitionists are ludicrous. There is no need for shops to open on Sundays. I accept that there is a desire among some people to go shopping when the whim suits them. Others are disorganised and cannot remember to prepare for the times when shops are closed or cannot even remember when the shops are closed or what time of day it is. Perhaps we should open shops on Christmas day and Boxing day in case someone forgets the stuffing for the turkey or even the turkey itself, or that a new party dress is required. Hon. Members may think that that sounds ludicrous, but those are precisely the type of

773
people to whom the Government are pandering with the Bill. The Government have confused the meaning of "need" with the meaning of "desire" or "whim".
Over the years, shop workers have been a disadvantaged section of the working population —unsocial hours and low pay have been their lot. I shall not deal with this subject for long because my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made an admirable speech in which he dealt with many of the subjects that worry me. As a young man, I worked in a shop. I can well remember my employer sending me along the high street to see whether our competitors were closing, before he would allow me to start closing. That is the shape of things to come. Such is the battle of the high street today that, when some shops open, all must follow. Competition is so intense that no trader can afford to be closed and therefore to lose business to a competitor who is open.
Only so much trade can be achieved overall. To divide it seven ways instead of five or six ways would not mean greater trade for everyone. The higher costs of lighting, cleaning, wages and even rates would mean greater overheads. There is only one way in which a store can recoup such additional costs and that is from the consumer. Prices would undoubtedly rise, despite what the Home Secretary said.
The Government have in the past advocated helping small businesses, yet Sunday trading would cripple the small corner shops. They already suffer from intense competition from supermarkets that have all the modern techniques and the bulk-buying facilities that enable them to sell goods more cheaply. The corner shop does considerable business, by its standards, on a Sunday. If superstores open on Sundays it would lose most of this business and many corner shops and small businesses would disappear—[Laughter.] Hon. Members do not like my modern, efficient way of tackling the debate by using a computer print-out.
The average high street would eventually become almost as busy on Sundays as it is on Saturdays, with all the noise and bustle associated with a busy shopping area. Other services would be required, such as policing, street cleaning, bus services as on a normal weekday, and the full cover of emergency services. In addition to shop workers, this would mean more people working on a Sunday. All those people would have to be paid, thus causing greater burdens on rates and taxes. Ultimately, we would have to pay for those services.
Sunday as we have known it for generations would be gone. Gone would be the peace. Gone would be the family Sunday, because mother or father may be working. Gone would be the opportunity for many to practice the freedom of religious worship. Sunday would become far less a sabbath day than it is now.
The Auld report calls for—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to stop speaking in half a minute.
Mr. Torney: I have very little to go, Mr. Speaker.
The Auld report calls for protection for shop workers. It advocates the retention of the wages councils. The committee must have known that the Government intend to abolish the wages councils because they have published their intention repeatedly over a long period. After all this,
774
the conclusion of the committee was the complete abolition of the Shops Act 1950, which means complete abolition of any protection the shop worker may have.
Wages councils were formed to protect the low paid and those least organised in trade unions. They were meant to put a bottom to wages paid in industries where exploitation was rife. Without that base, shop workers will again be seriously exploited. They will have little choice in refusing to work on Sundays if their employers demand it, because they know that, from the ranks of the 4 million unemployed, people will be found to do their jobs—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must say farewell to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a computer to make copious use of an hon. Member?
Mr. Speaker: Computer or not, the hon. Gentleman speaks from great personal experience.
6.13 pm
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I welcome the opportunity to debate the Auld report and all its implications. First, I must declare two interests. I am on the main board of Boots, one of the largest retailers in the country, and I am a former Minister for Consumer Affairs.
Mr. Foulkes: An ordinary housewife.
Mrs. Oppenheim: I have not heard much about consumers from Labour Members.
Boots does not advocate Sunday trading, for several reasons, but if the law is changed, and if that is what its customers want, it will open. However, I advocate the implementation of the proposals in the report, subject to adequate qualifications and safeguards.
Five major considerations should be borne in mind when discussing Sunday opening: consumers, traders, those who must work on Sunday, the religious implications, and the effectiveness of the current legislation. Before I discuss those categories in detail, I should emphasise that I believe that we shall do no service to any of them if we try to exaggerate either the advantages or the disadvantages of the proposals before us. There is an obvious temptation to do so, but I shall try to resist it.
No right hon. or hon. Member could seriously defend the current legislation. The House will agree that such a law, which is riddled with anomalies, frequently flouted and held in contempt by so many, brings the framework of British law into disrepute. The anomalies in the law are so bizarre and they have been mentioned often, that I shall not mention them again.
Perhaps worse than the anomalies themselves are the conditions that they have created, whereby normally law-abiding shopkeepers regularly break the criminal law by selling to their customers on Sundays items from the banned category. No policman will walk into a shop and arrest the shopkeeper for selling a can of baked beans to a customer who wants it on a Sunday. What is even worse is that many small and medium-sized shops, especially in the do-it-yourself category, cannot open on Sundays because they cannot afford the fines, while their larger competitors can open on Sundays and sometimes flout the law because they can afford the fines. It is clear that the law operates unfairly and unenforceably.
The Auld report concludes, I believe correctly, that reform is not practical and would lead to greater

775
confusion, and that, therefore, abolition is necessary. Such a proposal would leave traders free to choose whether to trade on Sundays, and would leave consumers free to choose whether to shop on Sundays. No element of compulsion is involved. Some people, especially Labour Members, dispute whether that freedom will apply in practice across the board, and whether it will be beneficial or disadvantageous. Others are understandably worried on religious grounds. I hope that I can deal even-handedly with those issues.
Since the 1950 Act, nearly 1 million more women are at work. Family activities have widened, and shops have become bigger. Many shops have moved from city centres to the edges of towns. For many families, Sunday is a day of rest and of family activity, so I have no doubt that, for the majority of consumers, the abolition of the Shops Act 1950 and the freedom to choose whether to shop on Sundays would be beneficial from the point of view of convenience and for another important reason: it will reinforce consumer power and stimulate competition in some, but not all, sectors of the market place.
Such a change would not greatly affect the character of the traditional Sunday, because, except in special cases, most households will not choose to do their major weekly household shopping on Sundays. They will continue to use their new freedom to carry out top-up food shopping at their local shops for convenience. They will not drive in their cars or take public transport to out-of-town or in-town centres to do minor top-up shopping. On the contrary, the corner shop will keep its trade and will have the added advantage of being able to offer its customer a wider range of goods on a fair, legal basis.
Those who have not chosen to take public transport, or to get into their cars, or who do not wish to shop on Sundays, will have the convenience of knowing that many necessities that they may have run out of in the home, garden or in do-it-yourself activities are available to them if they are willing to go out and get them. The real surge in Sunday shopping will be felt in the edge-of-town shops selling furniture, major domestic appliances, and do-it-yourself goods, and in garden centres.
The growth will arise in family shopping involving expensve purchases, in which the views of the whole family can be shared. However, these purchases will not take place every week and they will have repercussions elsewhere in the market place. Above all, I do not believe that a change in the Sunday opening laws will result in people flocking to town centres to do their shopping, or that many town centre shops will open on Sundays. I have observed Sunday opening in several states in the United States. The overall effects are minimal but variable, just as they would be in this country, according to different circumstances.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Oppenheim: I regret that I cannot give way to my hon. Friend. I must get on with my speech.
For example, most of the major shops and department stores in the city centres of California do not open, but on the edge of the cities shopping malls and the larger drug stores open. In the centre of Chicago, where there has been major investment in a city centre mall, most of the shops open and do very well. Therefore, no precise comparisons can be made. The same variations will apply here, as they
776
already do on Saturdays. One only has to walk around the west end of London on Saturdays to see that some department stores are open all day while others are open for half a day, and some shops do not open. They have gauged their market. They know what their viability niche is. I am of course not referring to those shops winch do not open on Saturdays for religious reasons.
I turn now to the effects upon traders of Sunday opening. The benefits and disadvantages for traders are not nearly so clear as they are for customers. Many traders, especially in the categories I have mentioned, will benefit, others will do so only marginally and some will lose. The corner shops will not lose. They are among the marginal gainers. Some shops, in particular the city centre multiple retailers, will have to open on seven days a week, but their turnover will be no higher than it is when trading on six days a week. They will have to open, because if they do not some of their customers will buy elsewhere on Sunday the goods that otherwise they would have bought from them during the week. This is a genuine concern of the Retail Consortium which cannot be dismissed. However, we should not allow this genuine objection to outweigh the benefits that Sunday opening would bring to the majority, nor should we exaggerate the significance of the increased costs. If local authority rates were to be kept lower all over the country it would wipe out any disadvantage for most of the major retailers.
As for the effects of Sunday opening upon those who work in shops and their future interests, I firmly believe that those interests must be protected, but not 5y wages councils, as the report recommends. Their protection should be enshrined in appropriate legislation and should be fair and equitable. It is only right and fair that those who have a conscientious objection to working on Sundays, or those who, for personal or family reasons, do not wish to work on Sundays should not be forced to do so. Their existing or potential jobs should not be endangered as a result. That is a fundamental prerequisite to any change in the law which should be enshrined in the law itself. On the other hand, traders, especially those whose costs will increase, should not be asked to pay part-time Sunday-only workers for eight hours when they work only two. That would be inequitable, would add to costs and would undermine the commercial viability of opening on Sunday.
The benefits of abolition will be more marginal than some people believe. Nevertheless, they will be significant. The disadvantages will be a good deal less than some prophets of doom foretell. I respect the views of those with strong religious convictions, but overriding everything is the need to get rid of a bad law and to uphold the great principles of fairness and freedom.
6.23 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) ended her speech by saying that we need to get rid of a bad law. The Act to which the Auld report refers has been on the statute book since 1950. If it had been so bad as the hon. Lady and certain other hon. Members have maintained, it is odd that neither of the two main parties that have formed Administrations during the last 35 years have done anything to get rid of it. Such attempts as have been made were left to private Members.
The motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister is one with which I disagree entirely. I regret that the

777
Conservative party, which was regarded as the great bastion of religion in this nation, has accepted the recommendations of the Auld report. The amendment which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is not much better. Although it regards legislation as desirable and essential, it carefully avoids the central issue and is almost as bad as the motion itself.
When he introduced the debate the Home Secretary said that he was a Minister for law and order. My forecast is that when the legislation eventually reaches the statute book there will be further disruption of law and order because of what will happen to the traditional observance of Sunday in this country. I find it offensive that those who would not work on Sundays, apart from washing their cars or working in their gardens, find it acceptable that others should work on Sundays as well as on the other days of the week. We are told that we must have Sunday trading for the benefit of tourists. Many tourists come from countries where they do not enjoy such facilities. If they come from countries which do not have Sunday trading, they observe what happens in this country. Do we have to alter what has been the tradition for generations just to suit tourists who may come here for only three weeks once in every 10 years? That is a ridiculous argument.
The consumer interest has been referred to on many occasions in this debate. Consumers are not demanding that shops should be open on Sunday. I challenge hon. Members to say whether their mail bags are full of letters from people who complain that they cannot buy goods on Sunday. No hon. Member can say that. There is no basis for that assertion.
Mr. Fairbairn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: No, I shall not give way, because of the time limit on speeches. I am restricted to 10 minutes.
I do not see the mail bag of every hon. Member, but while I have been a Member of Parliament I have received no request that shops should be open on Sunday. I do not believe that such a demand exists. The demand comes from Conservative Members. Non-religious bodies, such as the Trades Union Council, the Scottish Trades Union Council and the unions, are greatly opposed to Sunday trading. The British Council of Churches has also made its view clear on that point. The Auld report recommends that the regulation of shop hours should be abolished. This is a twin recommendation. Nobody who wished to implement it would implement one part of the recommendation without the other.
Mr. Fairbairn: Why on earth is the right hon. Gentleman speaking against the abolition of Sunday opening when the Shops Act 1950 specifically exempted Scotland from clauses 32 to 52? There has been Sunday opening in Scotland ever since 1950, but the right hon. Gentleman has never included in his manifesto the promise that the law would be changed.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I that when he goes through Scottish towns on Sunday he never sees shops open in the main street. Other restraints are placed upon Sunday opening in Scotland, apart from what might be on the statute book.
778
The recommendation is in two parts, which have to be considered together. In addition to the abolition of shop hours regulation, the Auld committee also said:
"we strongly urge the retention for retail workers of the machinery of the wages councils".
The one cannot be implemented without the other. All hon. Members know about the Government's attitude towards wages councils. I do not support the deregulation of shop hours. Many people object to the sweeping changes urged by the report, but agree that the 1950 Act is out of date in some ways and contains some anomalies. Some reform is needed, but there is no proven case for Sunday opening or for late-night opening.
It is all very well to talk about a shop owner's freedom of choice about when he should open. but if some in a trade decide to open late at night or on Sundays, most—not all—will have to follow. If each retailer is to maintain his share of the market and his credibility with his customers, he will be virtually forced to stay open as long and as late as the others. Deregulated trading hours will inevitably mean extended trading hours, which will result in increased costs to traders, which will be passed on to the consumers about whose interests we have heard so much.
The lack of Sunday trading in Scotland is the result of respect for the fourth commandment. There is a need for one day a week to be different and to be set aside for relaxation, rest and worship. The Church of England has been called the Conservative party at prayer, but if Conservative Members are whipped on the motion, the Church of England will be shutting up shop.
I do not believe that we are any longer a Christian society. It seems more like a pagan society. If the motion is passed, and is followed by legislation, the effects on the individual, the family and the nation will be disastrous.
6.31 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: My main worry has concerned the position of existing workers in the retail trade who, for religious reasons or on conscience grounds, might not wish to be forced to work on Sunday and might fear that they would be discriminated against.
Therefore, I was particularly pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary say that the only matter on which he disagreed with the Auld report was the protection of workers in the retail trade [HON. MEMBERS: "Existing workers."] Yes, that is exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend said. He was referring to paragraph 279 of the report:
"We explained in Chapter Four why we believe that existing shop employees might deserve greater protection against having to work on Sundays or late at night than those who enter the trade in the future, knowing of the likely requirements if our recommendations were to be adopted. Some of those now employed in shops would have religious objections to working on Sundays, and we believe that such objections deserve particular respect. Others might be equally unwilling to work on Sundays or late at night because of family or other commitments, and we believe that it would be wrong if they were forced to choose between such commitments and keeping their jobs."
I agree with that and I do not understand why the Auld committee adopted the attitude shown in the next two paragraphs. It refers to the law passed in Massachusetts in 1983:
"No employee … shall be required to perform such [Sunday] work, and refusal to work for any retail establishment on Sunday shall not be grounds for discrimination, dismissal. discharge, reduction in hours, or any other penalty."

779
I hope that the Home Secretary will use that law as a model for the Government's legislation. It seems to be eminently sensible. However, the Auld report said that, because the Massachusetts law had not been tested, it did not know how useful it had been. That was an extraordinary statement, because if the law has not been tested, that surely means that it has worked well and that there has been no need to test it.
Mr. John Prescott: Read the next bit.
Mr. Butterfill: I will read the bits that I want to read, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with those bits. The committee quotes in paragraph 281 the evidence given by the Bishop of St. Germans who said that he did not think that legislation on the lines of the Massachusetts law would work here. On the basis of the evidence of one bishop of the Church of England, who ought to be ashamed of himself, the committee says that it does not think that it would be a good idea to put such protection into our law. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has chosen to ignore that section of the report and I look forward with interest to seeing the Bill that is to be produced.
There are many other matters about which I am unhappy and on which I and, I am sure, other hon. Members will require much reassurance when a Bill is brought before us. However, on the vital question of the protection of workers, I thank the Home Secretary for his concession on the most important point that we should be discussing.
6.36 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I immediately declare an interest as vice-chairman of the co-operative group in the House and as an hon. Member sponsored by the co-operative movement. I hope that that sets a good example to all hon. Members in declaring their interests.
We must put the debate on Sunday trading into context. I do not believe that it is a debate merely about liberalising trade on Sunday. One needs to consider the matter in the light of the overall strategy of the Government since 1979 and of the people who control the Government. Most hon. Members have preferred the topic to remain in the area of individual conscience and private Members' Bills. We all know what has been the fate of those Bills over a long period. That traditional view has served us well, but now we see a change.
The Auld report made only two recommendations and the fact that one is completely ignored in the Government's motion ought to make the Opposition suspicious.
The first recommendation has been up taken with great enthusiasm by some members of the Government. I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House regarded the Home Secretary's speech today as pretty deplorable. The only highlights were the interventions. But it was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech; it had all the hallmarks of the Prime Minister's view.
The Government are searching frantically for new sacrifices on the altar of market freedom. Over the past six years, we have seen many sacrifices on that altar, and our traditional Sunday is to be the latest victim. Deregulation and simple solutions to complex problems are the
780
hallmarks of the Prime Minister's thinking. Here we see a simplistic approach and the abolition of all controls. Does not that smack of the Prime Minister's view? Once again, the Prime Minister has got it wrong.
All hon. Members know that there is some middle ground on this issue. We all know that over the years society has altered. There are real anomalies, and there is a need for change. We also know that shopping patterns are different. Many of us would say that the anomalies could be ironed out by legislation and that a small expansion covering, perhaps, do-it-yourself shops and garden centres, could be considered. But the main thrust of the shops legislation could be kept intact.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way. I am short of time.
The Auld report is very poor. The evidence given is quite contrary to the committee's conclusions. All the evidence shows that there should be a sensible reform of the legislation, which we could all agree on. However, three people have come up with the recommendation that all the legislation pertaining to shop hours and trading should be scrapped. There will be many casualties, including shop workers and not only their families but the families of transport workers and of people who are now to be forced to spend time apart when they should be together on a Sunday.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way.
The complexities of modern life are dividing our families. Too often, families do not have the opportunity to gather together during the week, and this legislation will make it even more difficult for parents to see their children and for mothers, fathers and children to gather round the table or to gather in the church or chapel and to communicate with one another.
This proposal seriously underrates the long-term social damage that will be done to the fabric of the family and of the community. That has consequences, too, for law and order, vandalism and all the other things that worry us as legislators. But there can still be common ground if hon. Members of good will decide that this proposal is bad, and kick it out. Many hon. Members have derided what they call the traditional Sunday, and have described those of us who support and defend it as sabbatarians. That seems to be their common way of saying that we are do-gooders or kill-joys. That is apparently the trendy terminology for those of us who want to stick up for something that we believe to be right. I believe that the freedoms of workers, families and of those who want to live in peace on Sunday and who live near our urban shopping centres should be given some priority. But this Government, who give priority to the free market, to business and to their worship of Mammon, remind me of Oscar Wilde's reference to knowing
"the price of everything and the value of nothing".
A chain of unsatisfactory social consequences will flow from any such legislation and will make both it and the Government very unpopular. Indeed, they will be known as the Prime Minister and party who killed the British Sunday. It has been said that we should change our law because the tourists do not like it. Perhaps we should go further, and dress up in 17th century costume in order to

781
appeal to them. Perhaps we should extend the way in which we appeal to tourists. Incidentally, I exempt you, Mr. Speaker, from those remarks and would never refer to you as part of the tourist industry.
We want a sensible and step-by-step approach that will protect shop workers and the traditional English Sunday. I have looked at the Conservative party's manifesto for 1983. The Prime Minister often tells us that her party has a mandate to abolish the GLC. However tenuous that argument maybe, she certainly has no mandate arising from that manifesto to change something as fundamental to British people as the British Sunday. The Government have no mandate to make such a change, and should not make it until they have one.
The change is so far-reaching that there must be a mandate. After all, it would fundamentally change the lives of shop workers and the nature of retail distribution in this country. I speak as someone who knows the co- operative side of the retail movement. Not in five, but in 10 or 15 years' time, we would see a complete change in the nature of our commercial life. Legislation would have a domino effect. No major retailer could afford to stay out once another retailer had opened on Sunday, and Sundays would become like every other day of the week. I do not believe that the British people want that.
The Auld report and the report of the Consumers Council show that the British people have never given their consent for such a drastic change, even in an opinion poll. The British Council of Churches made exactly the right comment in the introductory remarks to its booklet. With the exception of the document from the co-operative movement, that has probably been the best thing to come out of the past week's intensive period of lobbying. The BCC says:
"Our pattern of life in community has changed and the law needs revision to reflect those changes, but not to go far beyond them. Governments have a responsibility to see that such changes of the law are within an overall ethical framework which strengthens the community and safeguards the needs of its weakest members."
This proposal does not do that, and will make changes that are well beyond what is needed in this country today.
6.46 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: That the present law is chaotic and full of anomalies none can deny. That this is undesirable one can only agree, but to sweep away all restrictions on shop opening hours, as the Auld report recommends, is no answer, as I shall endeavour to show.
Anomalies arise because certain goods are exempt under the existing law but not others. It is not necessarily a bad law, but it has not been properly administered or amended. Nevertheless, certain goods are exempt under the existing law forbidding Sunday sales, and these are listed in the fifth schedule to the 1950 Act. One way around the problem might be to extend the exemptions where a clear case could be established for so doing, or to remove some of the restrictions on weekday trading. But that would not justify the Auld report's conclusion that the removal of restrictions
"offers the best—indeed the only—way forward"—
an arrogant view—and that any adverse effects
"would be far outweighed by the substantial benefits".
That is a monstrous presumption, and I object most strongly to being summoned here under a three-line Whip
782
ostensibly to support it. I can do no such thing. It would be a contradiction of everything that I have stood for and said in the House for many years and, furthermore, it would run counter to the facts.
I assert, as do many of my constituents who have taken the trouble to raise the matter with me, that one cannot weigh in the same scales commercial gain, even convenience to the shopper— which are the supposed advantages—and the social benefit of keeping Sunday as a day of rest, a day that is different from all others. One is simply not comparing like with like. For most people, even those who do not go to church—and many still do —Sunday is different.
I do not know about the rest of the country, but the fact that Sunday is different is welcome in south-east Essex. Its pace is slower. It is quieter. It is a time for relaxation, reflection and recuperation. It is a healing day, one for family togetherness, and for many it is the only day in the week for corporate worship.
Every one of us knows in his heart that physical and mental health requires at least one day a week set apart from the rest. There is no evidence that the nation wishes Sunday as we have known it to be abolished.
I hesitate to agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in his strictures, but I have to say that no mention of legislation on these lines appeared in the Conservative party manifesto at the last election. I can recollect no mention of my party's intention to change the nature of Sunday. I recall no pledge to that effect at any time.
Since 1950, when the Shops Act was passed, some 13 attempts have been made to change the law, but they all failed. That shows that there is no support in the country for the sweeping changes now envisaged.
Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not give way, because I am subject to the ten-minutes rule.
Let us consider the impact of the proposals on family life. It could be profound and damaging. Young and Wilmott found in a survey in Greater London that 52 per cent. of shift workers and 34 per cent. of weekend workers said that work interfered with home and family life, while only 27 per cent. of other workers did. On the one day that men are most likely to be at home, many wives will be out at work. Some 66 per cent. of retail workers are women and many of them are married. The point which needs to be underlined is that work on Sunday, whether by father, mother or teenager, reduces the possibility of the members of the family doing things together.
Take the effect on shop workers. The report concedes that,
"while some people are obviously happy to work on Sundays, others are not",
that there might be difficulty in getting sufficient volunteers, and that pressure might be applied on unwilling employees, with refusal to work on Sundays leading to dismissal or prejudiced promotion prospects. Constituents have told me that that is what they fear and I have no doubt that other right hon. and hon. Members have been told the same. Pressure on shop workers to work on Sundays would be difficult to monitor.
Let us consider the effect upon communities and consumers. Retail outlets will be open for longer, but because the turnover available to support retail enterprises will hardly rise at all — no one contests that — the

783
number of outlets is likely to decline. Fewer outlets generally will mean fewer nearby outlets for those who find it hard to travel. I refer particularly to the old, the sick and those on low incomes. Fewer outlets will mean fewer local shops. That is a consequence that should be measured.
Let us consider the impact on church life. Congregations will be fragmented. Some people who would like to attend the main service of the week on a Sunday morning will be unable to do so because they will be required to work. It will rarely be possible for the church members in any one area to gather together as a whole. Church attendance will be made more difficult.
Let us weigh the effects—
Mr. Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Bernard Braine: No. I have already explained why. No one in the House is less fearful than I of standing up to criticism or intervention. I am simply obeying the Chair's ruling, and my hon. and learned Friend knows that. I hope that that intervention will be deducted from the time allotted to me.
Let us weigh the effects of the proposition on the trading community itself. Frequent references have been made in the debate to the economic review by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That makes it plain that the tangible economic benefits of permitting Sunday trading are negligible. Retail turnover will rise almost not at all. In the short term, unit costs in retail industry will rise. The effect might well be upward pressure on prices. Alternatively, retail profit margins might be squeezed.
In practice, both those effects may be experienced. That will accelerate the decline in the number of small retailers. Employment will suffer. The institute estimates that in the short term the equivalent of 5,000 full-time jobs will be lost and that in the long term 20,000 will be lost. Because of part-time working, the number employed might rise in the short term and fall in the long term.
The Auld committee's argument is that people on both sides of the market want to trade and that it would be wrong in a free society for us to prevent them from doing so. That argument is totally unconvincing.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies notes:
"it might pay many individual retailers to open on Sundays even though it would pay all retailers collectively to shut on Sundays, and it is very likely that this is in fact the case."
As one of my constituents who wrote to me recently remarked, at a football stadium the first person who stands up has a better view, but soon everyone stands. The net result is that no one's view is improved but that everyone ends by standing instead of sitting.
I take note of the Auld report. I do not accept the case for legislation to remove the restrictions on shop hours. I regret that the Government contemplate introducing legislation to remove those limitations, and I shall vote accordingly.
6.57 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Those who favour Sunday trading make much of the anomalies that have arisen from the Shops Act 1950, but, given the extent to which the face of retailing has changed since the war, it is not surprising that such anomalies should have arisen. I know of no one on either side of the debate who would not agree that we should deal with the anomalies. However, do we really require seven-days-a-week shopping to do that?
784
The dynamic that has changed the face of retailing has been fierce, uncompromising, unrelenting, no-quarter- given competition. The number of retail outlets has declined from more than 500,000 in 1961 to 472,000 in 1971 and to less than 350,000 in 1981. The trend continues.
The number of independent grocers fell from 86,000 to 47,000 between 1971 and 1981. The proportion of national income devoted to spending in the shops has declined from 46 per cent. to 36 per cent. since the war, yet the Home Secretary speculated irresponsibly about the possibility, not of a 2 per cent. increase in that proportion on spending in the retail sector, but of a 5 per cent. increase. He is not in touch with the realities of the retail sector.
Pressure continues to concentrate in order to achieve economies of scale. Above all, the incentive is to retain the market share. Is it not arguable that concentration will accelerate under fiercer competition and that competition will be stimulated by longer shopping hours and Sunday trading? Those who say that shops need not open must be unaware of what has happened to the retail trade since the war.
The steady change in the pattern of retailing and the growth of superstores and hypermarkets have already had serious consequences, not only for the corner store but for disabled people and old-age pensioners. It is interesting to note how old people and others in rural communities have reacted differently from the rest of society—according to recent opinion surveys — as the car-borne shopper predominates and public transport becomes more costly and less frequent. Not only is the small shop under pressure, but USDAW is properly concerned about those trends and their effect on its members.
Irrespective of which side of the argument we support, none of us can fail to respond to the appealing speech of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I am proud of his stand on this topic. We must all share his concern about the effect of these proposals on the quality of life as so many of our precious social values come under strain and are eroded.
The Auld committee considered the traditional character of Sunday and accepted that widespread Sunday trading would probably
"affect the traditional character of the day."
It believes that the tradition of Sunday as a day of little activity outside the home and the church has lolg gone. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have already rejected that view. The resolution passed by the Free Church Federal Council and the British Council of Churches in March last year said that there was a social need for Sunday to be a day for the family to be together.
The Auld committee said of retailers that if, following deregulation, Sunday opening occurred on a wide scale, there was a risk that some small shops, and the weaker units among the multiples, would be unable to compete and would have to close.
Many small shops survive only because they are family businesses, because they open all hours and because there is less control of the wages they pay their employees— but the social costs that the families must endure are enormous.
It was difficult to listen to the peroration of the Home Secretary and not think that he was really seeking a free- for-all. The Auld committee said that, although the evidence by USDAW and other organisations representing

785
shop workers is against having to work on Sundays, those retailers who work on Sundays report no difficulty in finding staff willing to work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned the impact of Sunday working on staff and on the current composition of the retail trade. Many of its workers are women, a high proportion of whom are married. There will be a considerable impact on their family lives.
The Auld committee commented on shoppers and said that there was an argument that additional shop opening hours would lead to greater demand upon public services. But it did not believe that there would be any great increase in public spending on public services. There will be greater recourse to weights and measures legislation, health and hygiene legislation, the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Trades Description Act, wages councils orders and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963.
Scotland has been cited, and we shall hear more about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). Factors prevailing in Scotland are unique, so we cannot compare like with like.
The Home Secretary argued that prices would not be affected by Sunday trading. When corner shops have closed and competition is reduced, price movements will undoubtedly reflect costs and rise. I refer those who believe that the proposals will lead to the creation of jobs to the findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Some say that the current law is unsatisfactory because of social and economic changes, but to seek to scrap it altogether is defeatism. Everyone in retail trading fears that the proposals will mean a widespread extension of Sunday trading. Such a development would be detrimental not only to small shopkeepers and their families, USDAW members and other involved in the retail sector, but to those who have gained hitherto. I refer to the vast majority of the population who have Sunday as a day of rest or for corporate worship.
The proposals will have far-reaching implications for the flavour and rhythm of life in Britain. They will encourage the growing secularisation of the sabbath and make for a further erosion of Christian standards. When Sunday is an ordinary shopping day, it may become an ordinary working day for many people in addition to those employed in the retail sector.
Can we not have one day off? Must all the seven days now become the same because, in the words of David Lipsey in The Sunday Times yesterday:
"Reform of laws to allow Sunday trading, epitomises what Mrs. Thatcher's government is supposed to be about."?
7.6 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Unlike some of my hon. Friends and most Opposition Members, I welcome the Government's motion. I also welcome the whipping because it is a new interpretation of whipping—when there is a three-line Whip, we have only to be here; it is no longer a question of what one does. That should be welcomed by Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
I am reassured by the condemnation of the Auld report by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). It
786
sounded as though he was talking about any piece of Conservative legislation, and if he condemns the report in that manner, it must be right.
The Auld report, which nobody has yet praised, is clear, concise and sensible. The removal of limitations on shopping hours and on Sunday trading is long overdue. I do not, however, welcome the absolute certainty that appears to underlie so many of the speeches about the dire future for those who work in shops or wish to shop at later hours or on Sundays. I want to put forward some tentative thoughts on some of the points made.
Underlying the Government's intentions in welcoming the report and promising legislation is the increased choice that it will give. It is difficult to measure a hypothesis that does not yet exist, either by opinion polls or by voting behaviour — and that was measured many years ago, before the introduction of commercial television. However, the report mentions a research measurement on page 193, table E2. It clearly shows that two thirds of people are in favour of changes in the hours and the days during which shops are allowed to open.
I do not believe that we should take that research measurement literally. It is one of the essential elements of our membership of this place not only to listen to majorities and interpret their wishes but to protect minorities. Therefore, I question the Government's denial of the second half of the report. while welcoming the Home Secretary's reassurance about the protection of minorities working in shops.
The claim by some Labour Members that there would be a decline in jobs if Sunday opening were permitted bears investigation. The Auld report uses the phrase "full-time equivalent" through its pages, though sadly, in small print buried in the report, is the view that up to 5,000 additional employment opportunities could be created by Sunday trading, with increased turnover of £300 million. That is nothing to be sniffed at when people are pressing the Government to take steps to improve the economy and employment opportunities.
On the technical, as against the sociological side, is the argument of the risk of the eventual diminution of choice in that, by extending Sunday opening to embrace all shops, some might be forced out of business because they could not, or would not open on Sundays. That is unlikely. In the village in Sussex where I live, because the locally owned food shop opens on Sundays, the local Spar shop, which is part of a network, has to open also to meet that competition. There will therefore be more encouragement for shops to open where such trading is seen to be needed to meet local desires.
On the sociological side, much reference is made to the erosion of the traditional British Sunday. That is an emotive phrase, and I agree that we should all be justifiably proud of that tradition if it still existed.
Mr. Cormack: It does still exist.
Mr. Rathbone: Contrary to that intervention by my hon. Friend, it does not exist with the same tradition as we associate with it. Cinemas are open, television is on and sport and recreation are taking place. Indeed, recreation is encouraged. Public services are provided. People man the telephones and offer taxi services and some still offer on Sundays, to a lesser degree than most of us would wish, train services. Indeed, it was greatly deplored, certainly on these Benches, when the Sunday collections and preparations for postal deliveries were withdrawn.

787
In those countries — I embrace in this remark, I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), the area north of the border —where Sunday opening is allowed, there has been no diminution of family cohesion and family worship. Many hon. Members have visited the United States and reference has been made to laws that have been passed in Massachusetts. There is hardly a place—there may be no place — in the United States where there are not much more liberal laws allowing trading on Sundays. There is also hardly a place—there may be no place—in America where family churchgoing is not more prevalent than it is in Britain.
The two march together. The family unit does different things nowadays. Families do not just sit at home and play games. They go out to play them. They do not stay at home and garden. In addition to doing that, they go to the garden centre to buy the plants with which to do the gardening. Nor do they stay at home doing jobs about the house. They go to the DIY stores to buy the drills, wood, nails, even the furniture, with which to live a fuller life in the home.
There is no substantiation, except terrified theorising, of any underlying desirable effects on family life of Sunday trading. If there is a germ of possibility that I am right in my contention, who are we to tell everybody in every town and hamlet in Britain how to live their lives on one day of the week?
We are not saying that shops must open or that people must go shopping. We are talking of the possibility of a permissive law to allow people to go shopping as well as going to church, to go shopping as well as working in their homes, to go shopping or to do the things on the day that they want to do them with the people closest to them—the members of their families.
7.15 pm
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: When I first came into the House, the late Nye Bevan, apart from warning us of the green acres of boredom, gave me and others new to the place some extremely good advice. He said, "I am afraid that you new Members will have to learn to stand up and make speeches when most of the points that you wanted to make will have been made far more effectively by previous speakers."
In this case, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), to my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for giving a comprehensive analysis of the subject. That is more than can be said of the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who began by saying that no references had been made to the Auld report. All hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned it, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton dealt with two chapters of it.
I must at the outset declare my interest. I am a co-op sponsored Member. Many hon. Members whom I regularly call my hon. Friends may not know that I belong to a separate political party which is in coalition with the Labour party, and that has been the case since 1926.
Hon. Members have received a large amount of correspondence and have been lobbied by interests of all shapes and forms. The one that I have appreciated the most has come from the Lord Bishop of Willesden, the Right
788
Reverend Geoffrey Hewlett Thompson, who sent me some extremely interesting propositions following an examina- tion of the issue by his synod.
The document that he sent me was not in the least sabbatarian. It recognised the whole concept of community life and dealt with what would happen— apart from the religious impact — if the Auld recommendations were implemented and the shops law was abolished. It referred to an outgoing community becoming an ingoing one, with less pressure being applied to the way in which we used our leisure, with less of it. Obviously that is a problem that we should face if we had a seven day working week, with the rat race not ending after five and a half days for shop workers.
The co-operative movement has always been the champion of the housewife and consumer, and I shall deal with the aspects of the report that deal with the consumer. It emerges immediately from a reading of the report, and from a re-reading of the debate in February 1983 on the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) — sufficient hon. Members turned up on that occasion to make the Friday debate viable—that two aspects must be taken carefully into account.
The first is that there is a section of consumers for whom convenience is an important point. Against that, however, must be put the power of the purse. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that the inevitable consequence of Sunday opening must be increased costs of retail distribution. Those increased costs must be passed on, and finally they come out of the housewife's purse.
The Auld committee looked too much at the convenience aspect, although I agree that that must be borne in mind—for example, for the large number of married women who go out to work. Against that, however, must be placed the inevitable consequence of the economic pressures on family spending that would result in increased prices.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred to the issue of freedom of conscience, and the Home Secretary dealt with that. I suppose that I am the only Member who knows anything about conscientious objection, because I was a conscientious objector. I realise that in this debate we have been presented with inadequate blanket phrases, especially for those who could be affected by the proposal to work on Sundays. There are many disparate reasons that will cause a considerable number to feel it wrong that they should have to work on Sunday. They will take that view on religious grounds and many others. I accept that there can be safeguards for those who are already in work, but if someone wants to work as a shop assistant and he or she states in applying for a job an unwillingness to work on Sundays, that person will not get the job. If the recommendations in the Auld report are implemented, such an applicant will not be successful.
I am profoundly disturbed about the plight of low-paid workers. Tremendous pressure is building up on the Government Benches against wages councils in general. Therefore, it was the second recommendation in the report which found favour with me. The committee realised that retail employees formed one of the lowest paid sectors of the working population. It recognised that they needed to be protected by a wages council and that the relevant council should be preserved. Indeed, it recommended that

789
the inspectorate should be strengthened and improved so that the retail sector will receive the same protection, whatever follows the Auld report.
Experience tells us that the lowest paid need the greatest protection. Those engaged in retail distribution have traditionally always been, with agriculture workers, at the bottom of the heap. Whatever else happens, it is vital that we retain for them the present safeguards. Estimates of job losses have been bandied about the Chamber. I have considered the figures of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other organisations, including the Retail Consortium, and it seems that if the proposed Sunday working is put into effect we shall have another turn of the unemployment screw.
It is true that there is much part-time work in retail distribution. If there are fewer full-time workers, there will be a greater burden upon the state when it is called upon to provide social security payments and unemployment benefit. We often fail to take into account the social consequences and costs of changes in employment patterns. I have watched the Government pursue economic policies that lead to the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. We exist in an economic jungle and the rich and powerful have the means to protect themselves, but those on low wages need the protection that the House can provide for them. Therefore, the second recommenda- tion in the Auld report is vital.
It has been accepted generally that the 1950 Act needs changing. Social and economic circumstances have changed. However, that does not justify the Home Secretary's callous approach of scrapping the previous legislation because of the complications that would arise if we tried to amend it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has adopted a defeatist approach and one that the House should reject wholeheartedly.
Change there must be, but there is no need for abolition. The parliamentary draftsmen are more than capable of introducing changes that will have the desired effect while preserving what is best in our family, cultural and social life within the community. We can preserve what is best in our traditions and habits while making the adjustments that are necessary to meet the changes that have taken place. There have been many changes since 1950 and it is clear that they must be reflected in legislation.
I began my speech by referring to the synod and I shall bring my remarks to a close by referring to it again. I ask the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to reflect upon the quotation that I am about to submit to the House, as his constituency and mine come under the same bishop. The synod stated:
"We acknowledge that the provisions of part IV of the 1950 Act are unjustifiably anomalous, widely disregarded and unenforced, and we are greatly concerned that the law is being brought into disrepute."
I do not have time to read the four pertinent and practical suggestions that follow. However, the synod added:
"space therefore needs to be made in the pattern of community life for people simply to be, and to cultivate truly personal relationships in which people seek to know one another for their own sakes rather than as a means to acquisition."
I hope that the House will agree with that sentiment and that, when subsequent legislation comes before it, it will be scrutinised with the utmost care.
7.26 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Sunday occupies a special place in the Christian religion and there is a tendency to regard all objections to Sunday trading as matters only of conscience. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip has said that he will extend his indulgence to his right hon. and hon. Friends who feel compelled to vote against the motion on grounds of conscience, but no such indulgence is offered to those who oppose the motion on its merits. I am opposed to the motion on grounds of conscience and also because I believe that the Government are making a terrible mistake in seeking to push through changes in Sunday trading. The Government are guilty of a disastrous error of judgment which has political as well as religious overtones and they will pay dearly for it.
No one seriously disputes that the law governing Sunday trading is in need of reform. However, few people want Sunday to be like any other day of the week. The removal of all restrictions on Sunday trading, as recommended by the Auld committee, is bound to have that effect, because it is largely in the restriction on trading on Sundays that the day gets its special character.
A wise Government, especially one who claim to have respect for Victorian values, would seek to avoid such a result. Who can doubt that we all benefit from the weekly pause in the rhythm of everyday life? That pause—the enforced rest, the quietness, the opportunity for recreation and time to be with one's family, in the special character of Sunday that has been brought about in Britain—has been an essential part of the British way of life for centuries. It helps to keep us all sane.
In the. past few decades our pace of life has quickened. Urban society has grown more complex and noisy and there is more mental stress in everyday life than ever before. We need the pause that Sunday provides. We need the extra breathing space more than ever before. It is a basic human need that is recognised by the great religions of the world, the wisdom of the ages and sheer common sense.
What is the argument about? Why do do we need wholesale change in the law? To be fair to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, he does not base his case on the allegedly beneficial effects of unrestricted trading on Sundays. The objectives of those who do so base their case are entirely materialistic and irrespective of public good. The reason given by my right hon. and learned Friend for his support of the abolition of restrictions is the state of the law. I accept that the law is confused, and confusion exists because it is not evident to the public why one item may be sold on Sundays while another which is not greatly different may not. This leads naturally to resentment of the law and the inclination to break it. That attitude is taken because it is regarded as a foolish law. There follows a disinclination to enforce it and, ultimately, contempt for all law. We all agree that we should avoid that at all costs.
That is the case of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but does it follow that the remedy is to abolish all restrictions? The Auld report is disappointing in this respect. It pays too little regard to the desirability of retaining our traditional Sunday and too much regard to anomalies in the law. Abolition is not the only answer. It is not right to abandon what has always been accepted as part of the British way of life. It is possible to strike a balance between the commercial and the truly public

791
interest. All we need is a logical, and obviously logical, statement in our law of what goods may be sold on Sunday and who may trade on Sunday. This is the task which my right hon. learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Auld committee faced, and they funked it. They chose the easy way out. They found the task too difficult, so they surrendered to the commercial and libertarian lobbies, believing that the sabbatarians, the Christian churches and the trade unions were in retreat.
I was not surprised by the Auld committee's conclusions. They were predictable, considering the way the wind was blowing. I was however surprised that the Government thought it right to force this measure through on a three-line Whip. As if they had not enough enemies already, within and without, they seem determined to alienate a sizeable part of the electorate who hold deep-rooted beliefs about Sunday trading and have hitherto given the Government solid support. These include small traders, shop workers and small business people. They include also many people with a Christian conscience about Sunday. Nowadays, we may not all subscribe to the Christian faith and the Christian church may no longer be entitled, because of dwindling support, to the special position it occupies in the state. But those of us who are still adherents of the Christian faith will fight strongly for it to keep its position and influence in our national life.
As I understand it, the Christian argument for the maintenance of respect for the fourth commandment in our law is that it is positively good, in the scheme of things as God created it, to have a day set apart for rest and recreation and family life. This is so, if not just because it is one of the ten commandments, then because it is for the good of society and sanity and, indeed, employees.
A Government who seek to undermine one of the ten commandments do so at their peril, for they are abandoning Christian morality as the basis of their actions. As Lord Devlin said in the Maccabean lectures in 1965:
"A state which refuses to enforce Christian beliefs has lost the right to enforce Christian morals".
If the report is accepted, there are likely to be further encroachments on the Christian position in our society.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose —
Mr. Stanbrook: I am sorry, but I do not have sufficient time to give way.
If we destroy the traditional Christian Sunday, how long will it be before compulsory religious education disappears from our schools? Will some other Secretary of State appoint some other Robin Auld to say that, because it is so widely disregarded, the requirement for morning worship in schools must be abandoned and section 25 of the Education Act 1944 repealed? I hope that the Government will think carefully before going further along that path.
In February 1983 a private Member's Bill proposed to do what the Auld committee recommends we should do now. The Bill was defeated on a free vote by 205 votes to 106. I abstained because I thought that some reform of the law was needed to eliminate anomalies, but 41 of my hon. Friends had no such qualms. They voted against the Bill as it stood.
Tonight, all my hon. Friends are summoned to be here. How will those 41 vote this time? Will they fall into line behind the Home Secretary? Those of us who will not are good Conservatives upon whom the Government have relied in foul weather as well as fair. We believe that this
792
time the Government are simply and absolutely wrong. We are not prepared to accept dictation in a matter of this kind. I hope that all those who voted against the Whitney Bill in 1983, and many more besides, will join me in the No Lobby tonight.
7.35 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have long prevaricated and equivocated on this issue, to such an extent that I am fed up with my own indecision. I have generally kept my head down, as one does when the arguments are irreconcilable. I have been pulled both ways by an instinct for liberalisation and change and yet also by a desire to protect the small shopkeeper, the co-operatives and the standards and conditions of shop workers, as well as a general conservative instinct, which naturally is strong in the Labour party, to preserve our way of life on Sunday for sociological, if not religious, reasons.
I decided tonight that sentimentality is not enough, that the time has come to choose, that we cannot hold back the tide — to give three platitudes — and that we face essentially a straight choice, as the Home Secretary said, between deregulation and the present mess. The House had dithered on this issue for far too long, and 19 Bills show the extent of that dithering.
There is no possible compromise between deregulation and the present mess. I do not see any way of deciding that shops should be kept open on the basis of their size. There is no possibility of including some sections of business while excluding others, opening some sections of a supermarket and closing others. I see no middle ground, except the hypocrisy in which we are involved. Once one starts trying to define a middle ground, there is no possibility of agreement.
I must plump for deregulation. I shall, therefore, vote for the Government's motion—on three grounds. First, the present position is a mess, as has been admitted on all sides. Enforcement of trading hours depends not only on the will of the local authority but, often, on the pressure that is brought to bear on that authority. Some authorities reluctantly enforce the regulations, while others do not. Unpredictability brings the law into disrepute. It is a mess of follies, fines, fiddles and fuss which is untenable.
Secondly, the public want an extension of hours and trading on Sunday. All the poll evidence shows this. One must go with the evidence of the polls, which give an overall opinion, not with the pressure of individual fanatics and people with strong feelings. We serve the community and by acting in favour of Sunday trading and deregulation, we are giving the people what they want. Indeed, we are giving the people something for which they have already voted with their feet, their cheque books, their credit cards and their cash.
Thirdly, it is wrong for a minority of any type, religious or otherwise — indeed, in the case of the religious minority, it is a "minority of that minority", as Bishop Gummer, of Suffolk, Coastal has pointed out — to impose their wishes, attitudes and inhibitions on other people. They wish to impose the inhibitions and attitudes of a way of life of 50 years ago and do so by bringing the law into disrepute. They can impose their wishes only by making other people law breakers in a totally undesirable fashion. It is even more undesirable for the Scots, who have freedom, to come down here and attempt to dictate what controls we should have in this country.

793
Those of us who are taking part in the debate are white, not representing Pakistani shopkeepers. Most of us are male, and do not represent the bulk of shoppers. The only exception is my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) who, I know, is a Stakhanovite shopper. Thus our contributions are unrepresentative of the attitudes of the community.
I support the Government. If anything could have put me off, it was the speech of the Home Secretary, with his equivocation on wages councils. It is essential that the Government commit themselves to retaining wages councils in this area. That is a strong recommendation of the Auld report. If the Government carried out that recommendation, there would be much support for the measure by the Opposition, because our principal concern is about the wages and conditions of shop workers. The Government should have been magnanimous and big- hearted enough to say that they would commit themselves to the retention of wages councils, which can enforce the proper conditions.
The conscience provision should also be extended, because the industry has a rapid turnover, with new people coming in all the time. It should be extended to all employees, to give them the right not to work on Sundays if their conscience dictates. The protection of pay and conditions should be built in.
I shall support the measure because I believe in competition. It will stimulate business and increase trade. It will stimulate the economy as a whole. Therefore, the predictions of the Institute for Fiscal Studies about job losses will not be borne out. I believe that Sunday trading and the extension of hours adds to the gaiety of life and the convenience of the consumer. It adds to the opportunities for the family. People may say that the morbidity, boredom and dullness of the traditional English Sunday brings the family together— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] All my family can do on a traditional English Sunday is go for a walk on Cleethorpes front, which is not the most exciting form of activity.
I believe in opening up opportunities for the family to shop together, as well as the opportunities for the working wife. Let us not forget that 57 per cent. of married women work. There are also opportunities for the shift worker and for those who cannot shop in normal shopping hours. My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Grimsby wrote in "The Future of Socialism" in 1956 that we needed more open-air cafes, brighter and gayer streets at night, later closing hours, and so on ad infinitum. That means giving the kiss of life to Sunday, not keeping it as a dead day of closed shops, miserable streets, furtive law breaking and total hypocrisy. Let us have the choice. That is what the implementation of the Auld report will give us.
I do not know whether the change that the report brings will be drastic. Personally, I hope it is, because I should like to reinvigorate Sunday and give new life to it. In implementing the report, we shall allow choice as to whether the change is drastic to those to whom it properly belongs—to the consumer, the shopper and those who want to use the choice. We should do that rather than impose it on them. I believe that that is right.
7.43 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I like Sundays even though they deprive me of the company of most of my hon. Friends. They allow me to go home and have a peaceful time with my family.
Having looked into the background of the debate, I have a considerably enhanced appreciation of and gratitude towards the 17,000 to 19,000 employees of London Transport, the 30,000 to 40,000 manual workers in local authorities, the 22,000-plus flight staff of British Airways, the 16,000 staff in the fire services, the 60,000 staff of British Rail and the 26,000 staff of the Central Electricity Generating Board, who are among the hundreds of thousands of people who make it possible for me and my family to enjoy our Sunday. Sunday seems to be traditional only in the Victorian sense that the Victorian Sunday was carried on the backs of a large number of people who worked so that the rest could enjoy the Sunday that has passed into legend.
In that catalogue of people to whom I feel gratitude, I should have mentioned the unascertainable number of police who spend their Sundays shepherding those of us who choose to spend our family day marching through the streets, in order to avoid threats to public order. I should also have mentioned all the people who are busily preparing Monday's newspapers.
It seems to me that faith is a matter of seven days a week. Already, many of us spend part of our Sunday in church, at our own choice, but it is also true that many of the churches are moving towards meeting their members outside the confines of Sunday. It is a poor church that relies on the shops being closed to attract a congregation. Although he has left his place, I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would not rely on that in his other capacity.
Modifications are possible. In Massachusetts, to which much reference has been made, trading on Sundays does not start until 12 noon. That is a compromise to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary might care to give his attention.
Mr. Roger Gale: Does not my hon. Friend accept that in Massachusetts they have enshrined in law the right of a man not to work on Sunday? That matter has worried many of us deeply.
Mr. Rowe: I entirely accept that. The right of people not to work on Sundays and not to be put under that pressure is important.
Sunday has also been described as the family day. I am unclear as to exactly what is meant by "the family day", but one thing that is certain is that many families enjoy shopping together. I happen to believe that simple Christian slogan that "the family that prays together stays together". I also believe that it may be possible that the family that shops together stops together.
However, it is true that life is changing anyway. The hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and fÓr Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) are entirely wrong to attribute any Machiavellian motives to the Government. However, they may be right that such things as five and six-shift, working are altering the shape of the working week. So are flexitime and shorter working hours. All those things will make it easier for families to choose how best to coincide. If, as a long-term result, the difference between Sunday remuneration and that for other days

795
gradually disappears, that will be no bad thing. It would also be a good thing if overtime and double time eventually disappeared.
As the vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau and editor of its newspaper Small Business, I have heard the fears of many small traders. I believe that they are grossly exaggerated. In Sweden, Sunday opening has led to the development of some 2,000 convenience stores. In the United Kingdom we already have less than 25 per cent. of the number of convenience stores which United States experience suggests we should expect if our small business proprietors were as energetic and optimistic as their peers overseas.
Disgraceful practices such as discriminatory discounts, which this Government of ours are far too slow to tackle, are a menace, but Sunday shopping is not one of the perils hanging over the small shop. The Swedish food retailers have said that free hours have proved to be a competitive tool for the small retailer. I believe that it would be the same here.
I bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a minor but important point, which was first brought to my attention by the Kent Association of Small Shopkeepers. If there is a relaxation of trading hours, the Post Office must be expected to change its regulations governing the rules on sub-post offices which, at the moment, are required by those rules to stay open during normal shopping hours. They should be able to shut on any day of the week.
We are not talking about shops staying open seven days a week. Shops should be able to choose when to open, within the spectrum of the seven days. People do not want shops to be open for seven days a week; they want to know when they will be open, and they want them to be open at convenient times.
Many shopkeepers may find that closing the shop on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday will be better for them and for the public, and will give them the opportunity to enjoy leisure facilities when they are not overcrowded.
We owe our local authorities a clarification of the law. They detest being required to enforce a law that, if the experience of my local garden centre is anything to go by, the public holds in total contempt.
7.51 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) gave away one of the real reasons for the Government's enthusiasm for this report. He said that he—and no doubt the Government too—want to do away with time and a half and double time, and to make the wages for each day of the week exactly the same.
I declare an interest as a Co-operative Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.") To the hon. Gentlemen who made those sheep-like noises and to the Minister, I should like to say that I have had, and retain, a strong commitment against Sunday opening irrespective of that fact. If I had had no such conviction, the shallow and spurious arguments and the tendentious and biased polemic in the report would have convinced me.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: No. The Minister will have an opportunity to reply later on.
796
The members of the committee seem to have decided on their conclusion in advance and then gone out of their way to justify that conclusion with arguments rather than facts or evidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, the first conclusion is not supported by evidence. There is no ovenvhelming public—
Mr. Fairbairn: What about Scotland?
Mr. Foulkes: I shall deal with Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman is behaving in his usual tendentious way.
There is no overwhelming public demand for Sunday shopping. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) challenged hon. Members to prove that there was an overwhelming demand and, as we expected, there was no reply. The majority of retailers strongly favour the retention of controls on Sunday shopping. I therefore found it disappointing that the Retail Consortium, in its letter to us, did not make that clear.
The Auld committee deals, first, with anomalies. We had expected to hear clever speeches about bibles on the one hand and pornographic books on the other—about gin and dried milk—and we heard them. However, we had not expected to hear them from the Home Secretary.
The anomalies could be dealt with without scrapping the controls completely. We can certainly accept rational exemptions, as in the case of airports. However, there are anomalies in the law in many other areas. Food put up for sale as pet food is subject to VAT at the standard rate, but if the label of a food makes no reference to pets, it may be regarded as a zero-rated animal feeding stuff. Pies and pasties sold hot are subject to VAT at the standard rate but if sold cold may be zero-rated. There are many anomalies in the application of VAT. However, although such action would certainly be more welcome than the present proposals, we do not expect the Government to abolish VAT.
The second argument in the Auld report is that the current legislation is too complicated. Amazingly, the report states that the law is not easy for lawyers to understand or interpret. That is a characteristic of most legislation, and I thought that difficult legislation was popular with the lawyers. In any case, to suggest that because the law needs simplification it should be abolished is somewhat drastic.
Some hon. Members have referred to Scotland. Paragraph 243 of the report states:
"The most frequently cited comparison is Scotland… the pattern of Sunday opening in England and Wales under de- regulation would not necessarily be the same. Scotland is a predominantly rural country, with few large shopping centres outside Edinburgh and Glasgow, and with more strongly rooted religious traditions of Sunday observance. Moreover, many of its larger shops are operated by companies whose headquarters are in England. Some may have remained shut on Sunday because their English based managements have geared all their retailing to their trading patterns south of the border… De-regulation of opening hours in England and Wales might prompt a new look at Sunday trading there"—
in Scotland—
"as well."
The majority of people would agree with Auld that Scotland is different and that, for the reasons put forward in Auld, we have not seen a rash of Sunday opening there. However, if there is Sunday opening in England and Wales, all our shops will open. Auld says so, but Auld does not draw the right conclusions.
Mr. Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: Scotland is the most quoted example, although it contradicts the Auld conclusions, but Scotland is not the example that the Government are following. They are following the example of the United States of America. I am fed up with suggestions that, like the United States, we should deregulate in every way. I have been to the United States many times. I do not like the American Sunday. I like the traditional British Sunday.
Mr. Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friends have expressed many worries about the wages councils. Not only is that second recommendation of the report not to be implemented, but many speeches and statements have made it clear that the Government intend to get rid of the wages councils.
I should like to say a few words about the quality of the British Sunday. I speak not as a practising Christian but as an hon. Member who represents a large number of practising Christians and who respects their views. I wish that the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the chairman of the Conservative party, had the courage of his convictions. I do not believe that he really supports the legislation. I believe that, as in many instances, he has been sat on by a certain lady.
I respect strong religious convictions. In 1961 the Crathorne committee referred to the special character of Sunday. The Auld report quotes the words of Bishop Hugh Montefiore:
"it gives space in the midst of a busy week, and it acts as a marker in the rhythm of everyday life."
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent referred to journalists, television producers, taxi drivers and others who have to work on Sundays. The fact that certain people have to work on Sunday is no argument for legislating to end the traditional Sunday for the shop workers and the rest of us.
Mr. Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on Crathorne?
Mr. Foulkes: It has been suggested that those who argue along these lines are killjoys.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Hear, hear.
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) agrees. It is said in the report, and has been repeated this evening, that shopping is a leisure activity. I have a wife and three children and I have been shopping with them. Do we call that a leisure activity? I have read several of those books the titles of which begin. "The Joy of'. If my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), great author that he is, wrote a book entitled "The Joy of Shopping", it would not be a best seller. My joy is the joy of Sunday with the kids and no toyshops open. Is that not marvellous? None of the pressure to buy, buy, buy.
I reject Auld, the co-operative movement rejects it and I hope that the House will. It is amazing that the Government are being pressurised into legislation such as this by illegal and renegade do-it-yourself shops and garden centres. That is where the pressure is coming from.
Dr. Hampson: The pressure is coming from the public.
Mr. Foulkes: It is not coming from the public. Is it not appalling that DIY shops and garden centres should decide the law of the United Kingdom? I hope that Parliament is strong enough to reject that pressure.
8 pm
Sir Peter Mills: I shall not follow what the hon. Member for Carrick. Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, although his views were extremely interesting. I declare an interest—that is what is being done at the moment—as a reader in the Church of England. I am therefore deeply worried about some of these proposals.
This is not a happy day for me, as I am afraid that I am at variance with the Government whom I have supported loyally for so long. Their views on this important subject and those of the Auld report do not coincide with mine. Perhaps I might tell the Under-Secretary of State, a young Minister whom I admire, that he must be a little more careful in his attitude. I can see from his reaction that he is not very pleased with those who speak against what he is trying to promote. The way forward in any legislation, especially something as sensitive as this, is to take along those who disagree. My hon. Friend's attitude will not be helpful tonight.
I am amazed that there is a three-line Whip tonight. Our Chief Whip and the Whips have been most helpful. I am grateful to them, and thank them for their consideration. However, I must tell the House, the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister that the climate of the debate would have been much better if there had been no three-line Whip. Without it, many of those who will abstain or vote against the Government tonight would have supported them, or at least taken a different view. The three-line Whip is a serious mistake.
I do not apologise for stating my beliefs clearly. I should be dishonest to myself and the House if I did not. Keeping Sunday as a holy or different day is one of God's commandments and Christians still have to try to maintain those commandments. I find it difficult enough but we must try. Canon B6(1) of the Church of England states clearly that the Church of England believes that Sunday should be different and a holy day. That is not a bad aim in a modern world in which many people do not accept the Christian standard.
We all have memories of the past. The Victorian Sunday was not the sort of day that I like. It was a grim, joyless and highly restricted day. There should be a proper balance between work and rest. Sunday should be a joyful day for worship, relaxation, family and pleasure. The loss of that distinctive quality, which Sunday still has, would be a grievous loss to the nation as a whole, not just Christians. How dreary it would be if Sunday became a normal day. It is difficult, but we must try to maintain Sunday as a different day. For Christians, of course, it is a day on which one tries to worship and to give to God what is due to Him.
It is obvious that work has to be done on Sunday. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been adduced today. I remember the years when, as a farmer, I had to work on Sunday mornings and afternoons. Work has to be done by farmers and others in essential industries, and by doctors and nurses. However, I never want Sunday to be another commercial day and for the seven days to be blurred into a continuous working period. Irrespective of the Christian attitude, that would be tragic for the nation and for the people, but it could easily happen if we abandon the legislation and give complete freedom.
I also fear for family life. Sunday trading would create a lot more part-time working. That would inevitably mean

799
children with parents who work part time not having a day when there is a chance, no more, of enjoying a day together, perhaps having a meal together. It is only a chance in a difficult world, but family life could be seriously affected. There are enough attacks on family life at the moment and I do not want my Government, at the end of their term, to be known as the Government who reduced its quality. There are signs of our doing that and I do not want them to continue.
Workers would be under pressure. There would be moral and social pressure on people to take their turn in Sunday work. Christians have a duty to ensure that employees are not exploited or deprived of their rights of worship, leisure and recreation.
I am also worried for small shopkeepers. In a town such as Bideford, which has one pretty huge supermarket which sells everything, the effect on small shops of that supermarket opening on Sunday would be devastating. Small shopkeepers are under enough pressure already and Sunday trading would end many of them. That is contrary to the Government's aims. I admit that there are anomalies, but there must be a middle way. Indeed, I do not accept that there cannot be a middle way. We must find out how best to adjust to modern life.
I should like to conclude by quoting someone who has put it nicely from the Christian point of view — His Holiness the Pope. He said:
"Open up your working week to God by keeping the sabbath holy and partaking regularly of the eucharist. Respect the Lord's day as a precious gift. In this way we can avoid becoming the slaves of work or entertainment."
That is where I stand, and I shall not support the Government tonight.
8.9 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: The Opposition have established their case, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who covered all aspects of the Auld report. I am one of the two sponsored members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and represent about 400,000 workers. My union and its officers contributed greatly to the inquiry when it was set up. I well recall the Friday when we turned up to discuss the Shops Act 1950, and the suggestion from an hon. Member to introduce a private Bill to amend that Act. The Auld committee was then set up.
Before Christmas, at Question Time, I asked the Prime Minister whether she agreed with the full implementation of the Employment Act 1980 when she was prepared completely to ignore the implementation of the Shops Act 1950. Yet they are both Acts of Parliament, and should bind trade unionists, shoppers, shopkeepers and everyone. She agreed that both Acts should be implemented.
I have read the Auld report in detail—it is a lengthy document—and examined the input of USDAW into it. I am surprised to find that in many instances USDAW and the committee agreed. The USDAW policy statement says:
"Together with USDAW, the Committee believed that established retail workers would be under real pressure to conform to Sunday trading requirements wherever their employers saw fit. If they entered the trade believing that Sundays were their own, they could begin to think again. Without the 1950 Shops Act to protect them only those in strong, USDAW organised stores may be able to resist the pressures to work regularly on Sundays.
800
Together with USDAW, the Committee believed that potential retail workers had better view Sundays as a routine working day if they were considering a career in a retail sector without the 1950 Shops Act.
Together with USDAW, the Committee believed that statutory control over retail workers' terms and conditions was an absolute requirement and that without effective and properly enforced Wages Council Orders retail workers, especially non- USDAW members, would be very vulnerable.
Together with USDAW, the Committee believed that some traders would profit very handsomely if the 1950 Shops Act was scrapped but many small traders would suffer increasingly. Their businesses would be the price to pay for extended late night and Sunday trading."
Dr. Hampson: I understand the worry that people may be exploited for seven days a week and miss the opportunity of Sunday worship. However, the information given by the right hon. Member for Manchester. Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), which is borne out by all experience in all countries, as it is in Saturday trading and Sunday pubs now, is that employees would primarily be Sunday-only employees—women and the young. Therefore, the rest of the case falls. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people would be exploited only if they also worked the rest of the week?
Mr. Powell: I do not entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman suggests, for many reasons. In some -retail establishments, most shop workers must be trained in the job. Some of our employers will train people for a full week's work, but I am sure that they would not train them only for Sunday. If one asks for a drink in a pub or club, usually the barmaid or barman must be trained to serve that drink, to know the prices, to work the till and in many other ways. Not all individual traders would be prepared to volunteer training for one day's work week. A great deal more pressure would be put on people who are already working a five or six-day week to work on Sunday. If we abolish the wages councils, there will be even further pressure. Therefore, I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and praise the speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I shall return to the input of USDAW to the Auld committee, and that was agreed. The statement continues:
"Together with USDAW, the Committee believed that local residents would be subject to increased noise, traffic and disturbance wherever Sunday trading occurred.
Together with USDAW, the Committee believed that some consumers would enjoy more flexible options to time their shopping, but that other such as the elderly, the unemployed, the poor, inner city residents and the majority of consumers without private transport would find they had less choice and fewer options as small traders closed down and the large multiples moved out of the High Street onto out-of-town sites.
So, in six key areas USDAW and the Committee were in agreement on deregulated trading:
on the pressures on retail workers' terms and conditions
on the need for statutory protection for them should the 1950 Shops Act fall
on the heavy price to be paid by small traders
on the undesirable impact on local residents
on the severe restrictions which many consumers would face
on the job losses which would follow and the increased use of part-time and casual labour in the retail industry."
Yet, in the face of that agreement and all the objective evidence for which the Auld committee called, the committee recommended the abolition of the Shops Act 1950.
The impact of USDAW has been formidable. The Auld committee examined our reports and the reports from 500 organisations and individuals, with 7,000 responses to the invitations sent out, and undoubtedly and conclusively

801
came to two major recommendations. The Government are prepared to implement and act on only one of them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, if the Government are prepared to respond to one recommendation, why will they not respond to the most important recommendation? The second recommendation relates to wages councils, and is far more important to the workers whom I represent.
On Tuesday 2 April, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Employment, asking him to make a statement about the future of wages councils. He replied:
"My right hon. Friend published a consultative paper on wages councils on 21 March. This invites comments by 31 May. Decisions will be taken when responses to the document have been considered."—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 531.]
I accept that reply. However, I fail to understand why this debate was brought forward. Why are we not debating the matter after the consultations have taken place—on 30 May—when the Home Secretary would be equipped with the necessary information to inform the House whether or not we should abolish the wages councils? The Government continue to drag their feet on the issue. When the Home Secretary says that he may be sympathetic to wages councils, it makes me shudder on behalf of the USDAW members whom I represent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney), who is also sponsored by USDAW, used a sheaf of paper when he made his speech. However, he did not have enough time, as a result of the 10-minute rule, to conclude his speech. May I conclude his remarks by referring to the wages councils and the Low Pay Unit? I wish that I had more time to go into detail, because this is an important subject. My hon. Friend would have said that the wages councils were formed to protect the low paid and those who were least organised in trade unions. They were meant to put a bottom to wages paid in those industries where exploitation was rife. Without that base, shop workers will again be seriously exploited. They will have little hope of refusing work on Sundays if the employer demands it, knowing that, from the ranks of 4 million unemployed, people would be found to do their jobs and would readily agree to even greater exploitation just for the pleasure of a job of work.
Advocates of total abolition tell us that it would create more jobs. That is a fallacy. They talk without knowledge of shop life and shop practice. Abolition would increase the employment of part-time labour, and the employment of schoolboys and girls at weekends—
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a speech that was terminated by the 10-minute rule to be continued by another hon. Member?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That is not a point of order.
Mr. Powell: Already, hosts of stores employ many part-time workers and, at weekends, they employ schoolgirls and boys. It is cheaper for the firms to do that, but opening on Sundays will create hardly any extra employment of full-time labour.
8.19 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson: I have listened to more of the speeches in the debate than has the hon.
802
Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), and I wonder whether life is different in south Wales from life in the areas of some other hon. Members who have spoken. On Sundays in my constituency I can buy almost anything I want within a five-mile radius of my home. There is Sunday trading in my region regardless of the state of the law.
Many hon. Members have mentioned garden centres. There are no fewer than four garden centres in my constituency, and I regret to say that, more than once, my wife and I have visited them on Sundays. In selling my wife pot plants, those centres were in breach of the law.
There are three clear issues in the debate. The paramount one is whether the Shops Act 1950 is acceptable. There are three aspects to that, the first of which concerns the origin of the Act. If one can believe it, it was introduced as a temporary measure in response to the report of the Gowers committee. It was never intended that it should remain permanently on the statute book. It was a consolidation measure to bring together several existing laws on trading. It made no attempt to deal with the anomalies that existed, even in 1950. Those anomalies have remained, and have increased consider- ably during the past 10 years. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people in England and Wales, but not in Scotland, shop on Sundays and are therefore in breach of the law. It is wholly wrong that such a law should remain on the statute book.
The second issue is whether the 1950 Act can be replaced by new legislation that would cure the anomalies and find an acceptable balance between those who believe that there should be some limited Sunday trading and those who want a completely free system. The Auld report clearly demonstrated the difficulty of achieving that. How can we regularise the law so that it will control Sunday trading? Should we do it by location? Should we say that high street shops must remain closed, but that the out-of-town shopping centres can remain open? If we did that, we should only accelerate the move away from town centres into the new shopping areas.
Should we regulate it by the type of goods sold? In the multi-purpose store, how can one distinguish which part of the store should be open, so that people can make purchases there, and which part of the store should remain closed? Should we do it by size of store? Do we say, "If a store is a certain size, it may open on a Sunday, but if it is larger, it may not"? Should we regularise Sunday trading by producing a list of goods that can be posted near the cash register so that the person operating the till can say, "I am sorry, but you cannot buy that on a Sunday?"
The answer is that, whatever route we take, the anomalies will still exist. Even if a satisfactory formula could be found, decisions will inevitably be arbitrary. If we find an acceptable formula, how can we enforce it? The burden of enforcement is placed on district councils. As one store owner said to me, if Newport district council decided that his store should not open on Sundays, he would simply go across the border to Cardiff. Therefore, Newport would lose his business, and Cardiff would gain it. If we leave enforcement to district authorities, that is the sort of difficulty that they will have. I am sure that they do not want the burden.
I should be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on whether, in terms of Sunday trading and late-night opening, it would be possible to exercise more regulation through the planning authorities so that at least the peace

803
and quiet that is wanted in most residential areas can be maintained. Is it realistic to use the existing mechanism of planning law rather than the criminal law?
The third issue is whether the abolition of the Shops Act will require additional protection for shop workers. From some of the speeches by Labour Members one would have thought that that was the only issue in the debate. I welcome the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that he accepts the principle behind the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). I also commend to him the Massachusetts precedent as it is reproduced in the Auld report. It may contain the answer to the problem of the retail worker who, because of his religious views, does not wish to be forcerd to work on Sundays.
At present, there is no protection for the British Sunday in areas where shops open on Sundays. In Scotland, where Sunday trading is permitted, and in England and Wales, where it is illegal but still happens, people continue to enjoy the traditional British Sunday while at the same time using the shops that are open.
8.29 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson). In both his speech and those of other hon. Members there was a recurring theme: that if the law is broken sufficiently often we should no longer seek to uphold and enforce it. As I come from a part of the United Kingdom where there has been a fair amount of murder and mayhem, I am beginning to wonder whether the same kind of thinking permeates Government guidance as in the realm of Sunday trading. In other words, if the law is broken we should no longer try to uphold it.
Several aspects may not have been given sufficient consideration in this debate. Mention has already been made of the fact that there is no large body of public opinion that favours drastic change. Although some anomalies could be removed, I do not believe that the arguments contained in the Auld report are sufficiently convincing to require us to legislate and therefore change the character of the British Sunday. There are several reasons for this.
The first has already been alluded to and glibly set aside —that is, the reference to the fact that young people will be employed on Sundays. It amazes me that hon. Members are prepared to tolerate cheap labour so that multiple stores may continue to prosper while we relapse into one of the worst aspects of an outdated Victorian society. Therefore I urge the Government to give deeper consideration to this aspect before they legislate, because it will not ultimately enrich the country and help the community. An increasing number of part-time workers will result in an increase in the black economy, but the economy of the nation as a whole will not be improved.
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that he believed in the old adage that the family that prays together stays together. He also believes that the family that shops together stops together. I am not sure whether we have examined family shopping sufficiently closely. I have discovered that it becomes a nightmare not only for their mothers and fathers but for other shoppers when children run hither and thither through multiple stores. I submit that there is ample time on other occasions for the family to shop together and to stick together through thick and thin. It is a travesty of one of our fundamental values
804
to equate shopping together with praying together. It reflects the commercial attitude which predominates on certain Benches, to the detriment, I believe, of the nation. In Ulster there are business men who would sell their granny if they could get enough for her. There are those who let the commercial and profit motives take control.
I hope that hon. Members will reflect, not upon what will happen to businesses, but to communities. I am sure that other hon. Members know of the difficulties that are experienced in shopping complexes in urban areas. Planning permission has been given for their construction without considering the consequential knock-on effect upon the neighbourhood. Many of my constituents have been in touch with me about what happens in their areas. It is all very well for the shopper who comes to the shopping precinct, gets a bargain and goes away again. However, for six days of the week, from the early hours of the morning until late at night, large vans arrive and are unloaded, trolleys clatter and quietness disappears from the community. Those communities are now being asked to tolerate yet more noise and thereby lose the one day upon which they can enjoy peace and quiet. I plead on behalf of those people for a re-examination of the legislation.
As one who was nurtured on a respect for the Lord's day, I urge this Chamber to pause before it moves in the direction of accepting one basic element of the Auld report and ignoring the other basic element. That element has already been alluded to, but I ask hon. Members to think afresh about the Christian Sunday—the Lord's day, as some of us prefer to call it. Since I became a Member of Parliament, there have been innumerable allusiors in debates to the lack of respect for authority. This Chamber could take a step towards leading the nation back to a respect for authority if it set its seal upon observing the authority of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Whatever the religion of people may be, I discover that we have this in common: that although we may disagree on the day, we believe in the principle that one day in seven ought to be set aside for rest and worship and family life. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could do it as effectively as I, but I do not intend to deliver a sermon upon the New Testament doctrine of the Lord's day. Nevertheless. I wish to emphasise the principle. Exceptions are therein allowed, but I plead with hon. Members to look afresh at this question.
Victorian principles have often been upbraided, but, whether or not we like every aspect of Victorian society, one principle which remained true was concern for the family. Even when families broke up, we discover that the Victorian society provided help and support for those who were in particular need. I believe that if the Auld report is implemented and we depart from the principles a the Old Book, family life will continue to be eroded, as will respect for authority which manifests itself in riots on the streets. Therefore, I urge the House to think carefully. If it accepts the principle contained in the Auld report, I hope that the Government will examine the matter carefully before introducing legislation.
8.39 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) speaks for more people than he perhaps realises. W e often forget that more people go to church on Sundays than go

805
to football matches on Saturdays. That is a statistic which I offer to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
I wish to concentrate upon two or three aspects. Although the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gm-ton (Mr. Kaufman) did not tell us where he stood on the issue of Sunday trading, and gratuitously distorted the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, nevertheless there was real substance in what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast. South, who referred to the suggestion that a law should be abolished if it is unenforceable. That is an exceptionally dangerous doctrine. It could be argued that speeding restrictions are far less popular than restrictions on Sunday trading. It could also be argued that speeding restrictions are just as difficult to enforce, but it would not therefore be sensible to argue that there should be no speeding restrictions.
Most hon. Members who are very troubled by the subject that is being debated today are not killjoy sabbatarians. We believe that Sunday should be a joyful day when people enjoy themselves to the full— it is irrelevant whether they go to church as part of that—and a different day from the rest of the week. We believe that there is a traditional British Sunday, and the Auld report recognises that its proposals are bound to have a corrosive or eroding effect on that traditional Sunday.
We believe that there is much to be said for a family having a meal together on a Sunday. That is as important in its way in making a family unit cohesive as is going to church. We do not suggest that the present law is perfect or that it is not riddled with ridiculous anomalies, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) spoke with great conviction.
However, I was disturbed by one aspect of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. She rightly declared an interest as a director of Boots and said that she would not obey the Boots whip but would vote with the Government and against her fellow directors. That is an honourable and proper position, but hon. Members who are doubtful about how to vote ought to note that my right hon. Friend said that although Boots did not wish to open on Sundays and agreed with the Retail Consortium in underlining all the objections that have been put so reasonably, if Sunday trading came, Boots would open.
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I did not say that.
Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend certainly gave that impression.
Mrs. Oppenheim: I said that if our customers wished us to open, we would do so.
Mr. Cormack: I apologise if I slightly misquoted my right hon. Friend, but there will be pressure and many more shops will open, not only to the detriment of the character of the British Sunday, but to the detriment of the small shop, whether the corner shop, the village shop or the small establishment in a rural area.
I believe that there could be a reasonable compromise. I gave evidence to the Auld committee and tabled an amendment to the motion. Mr. Speaker did not select my amendment which, imperfectly, suggests that one solution could be to limit the easing of restrictions to
806
establishments employing fewer than a certain number of people. The Home Secretary dismissed that suggestion and said that he did not think it sensible. However, he did not put up convincing arguments to demolish my proposal.
Many of us believe that garden centres and village shops that are struggling to keep open fulfil a useful social function and we argue that freeing them from restrictions and anomalies should not mean that we would automatically have the cash tills jingling in every high street on every Sunday, thereby creating a second Saturday or, even worse, transferring the pressure so that Sunday becomes a peak shopping day.
The Government are on a dangerous course which carries the serious threat that part of our national life will be seriously undermined. On whatever terms we were debating the motion, I should find myself in the opposite Lobby to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues.
I have been here long enough for three-line Whips not to mean a great deal to me. If I believe that the merits of an issue are not particularly great, I shall vote against the party. I have done so on a number of occasions, though not with any relish or enjoyment. I greatly resent the fact that this issue has been made the subject for a three-line Whip. That flies in the face of one of our better and more honourable parliamentary traditions, which is that an issue that is, broadly speaking, one of conscience and not of party politics should be left to the discretion and conscience of hon. Members who should vote accordingly.
I have been given a little licence. I received a pleasant letter from my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary in which he acknowledges my misgivings and says that my conscientious scruples are fully respected. I appreciate that and I understand that my hon. Friends who have made similar representations have received a similar licence. However, that is not an answer, because I know that other colleagues are disturbed about the Government's policy, but, because a three-line Whip has been put on, they feel obliged to support the Government. That applies particularly to Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the great extra army of unpaid members of the payroll vote.
If the Government wish to test the opinion of the House, which should be the object of the debate, there should be no Whip on. The matter should be treated as any other major issue of conscience would be treated, and hon. Members should be allowed to vote without fearing that they are being disloyal.
Mr. Lyell: And no abstentions.
Mr. Cormack: I always think that abstention is an undesirable course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) placed the most charitable interpretation on the new Government view of the three-line Whip. He said that it means what it says; hon. Members turn up and do what they like when they get here. If I thought that that really was the Government's new approach, I should be the happiest man in the Chamber. However, I cannot believe that that is what it means.
The Government have imposed a three-line Whip and they expect Conservative Members to support the declared policy. I believe that policy to be wrong, but whether my misgivings are correct or not—it is just as likely that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester is right;

807
we have equally deeply held convictions — it is unnecessary to place on Conservative Members an obligation and subsequently to issue a licence saying that it does not matter.
The matter should be treated as an issue of conscience. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) made a moving speech in which he pointed out that he had been one of the Government's most loyal supporters, through thick and thin. He should not be made to feel that he is rebelling against the party line.
I shall vote against the Government's policy because I do not believe in it. Even at this late hour, I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is to reply to the debate, to have hurried consultations so that when he winds up the debate he can tell us, "The Whips are off. Vote according to your conscience and your belief." In that way, the Government will discover the true opinion of the House and, by behaving in that sensible, magnanimous and realistic way, they will avoid many problems for the future.
If the Government embark on legislation, with many unhappy Members on the Conservative Benches—even though the unhappiness of those hon. Members may be stifled today—that unhappiness will manifest itself and the Bill will not have a smooth passage.
I urge the Under-Secretary of State to think again and I hope that, whatever he says, all my hon. Friends will regard the matter as one which should be determined on its merits and according to their consciences and not on the basis of an edict issued from on high.
8.49 pm
Mr. Michael Hancock: This afternoon the Home Secretary put forward a very unconvincing argument in order to try to get his right hon. and hon. Friends to toe the party line. It is diabolical that anyone should try to test the water by putting a proposition before the House and then twisting the arms of his colleagues to ensure that he gets the answer he wants.
I happen to believe in the proposal to widen the opportunity for shopping on Sunday. People undoubtedly want a change, and more than one hon. Member has already said that recent opinion polls show that the population are in favour of such changes by a majority of two to one. I had hoped that the Home Secretary would respond to such opinion polls and to the feeling of the House and the country, and would try to do more to answer the questions worrying so many of us. Those questions have certainly not been answered so far. I refer to issues such as the protection of staff, the role of the traditional British Sunday and the part that religion has to play.
I shall try to show why I believe that there is a case for relaxing the regulations on Sunday trading. As has been pointed out, it is nonsense that people should be able to buy soft porn on a Sunday but not a bible, or a Chinese take-away but not fish and chips. We have also heard the argument about religion. I am proud to say that I am an active member of a church that has survived for 2,000 years, despite the slings and arrows of all sorts of evils. But I do not believe that my church or religion will fall apart because shops are allowed to trade on Sundays. Moreover, I do not think that the majority of those who go to church regularly feel that that will happen. I am sure that many of them will continue to go to church on Sundays and to go to the shop afterwards if they so wish.
808
Some hon. Members have said that it is against their religious beliefs for people to have the freedom to decide what they want to do on the day that we all put aside as being somewhat different from the other six days of the week. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of the millions of people who are already committed to some form of Sunday working. I come from an area in which the economy survives because people are prepared to work on Sundays. The tourist trade in the south of England relies wholly on our ability to adjust to the demands of those who want that service. Tourist attraction after tourist attraction depends wholeheartedly on that commitment to work.
We do not want lukewarm policies such as those that we heard today from the Home Secretary. We want cast-iron guarantees that people's rights in employment will be protected and that the right to choose whether to work is given not only to those in employment now but to those who will become employed later. I believe that support for such cast-iron guarantees is widespread. We also need to consider consumers' needs. We need to think about the changing shape of the society in which we live and to realise that shopping patterns and our way of life have changed.
People undoubtedly want to use shopping facilities on Sundays and it is nonsense that we should take it upon ourselves today to deny them that opportunity. As has been said, we must also consider the protection of those who live closest to shopping centres. There are three shopping centres in my consituency which would rank as major centres. One, indeed, is a regional shopping centre. Thousands of people live close to them and for six days a week they have to tolerate that unholy alliance of their homes being close to major shopping centres. I do not relish the thought of telling those people that I want to impose such problems on them for another day. However, there is sufficient scope within existing planning laws—if they need to be tightened, they should be—to ensure that proper protection is given to them. The problem is not insurmountable. It should be recognised as a problem, and it can then be solved.
We must consider carefully what we are achieving this afternoon. I regret that the Government needed to whip in Conservative Members to support their motion. The merits of the case must stand or fall upon the individual's right to choose whether to support it, and hon. Members should not have to have the Government's boot put up their backsides in order not only to get them to the Chamber but to get them into the right Lobby. That is not in keeping with what I should have thought were the traditions of the House, and of this Government. But of course it is up to each retailer to choose whether to operate [Interruption.] Perhaps I have just made a Freudian slip. It is a pity that my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) did not come in at a more opportune moment.
It is up to the individual retailer to choose whether to open up for business. It is also for the public to choose whether to go shopping. I am sure that there will be a rush of people to open up on a Sunday once the legislation has been passed. But I am equally sure that over a period things will even out. People will operate on Sundays if that meets the demands of market forces and perhaps more shops will open at Christmas than during the rest of the year.

809
A case has undoubtedly been made for giving people the opportunity to exercise that choice, but as I have said, I believe that my religion, which has survived 2,000 years, will not suffer irreparable damage as a result of any such legislation. I urge hon. Members not to fall into the trap of trying to convince themselves that such damage will be caused. We are faced with the opportunity to give a vast number of people the chance to make use of facilities that they should have had long ago. We cannot continue with a law that is abused and broken time and again by hundreds and thousands of people every Sunday. It is nonsense to allow such a law to persist. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support the Government—for that reason and not because the Government have told them to do so.
8.56 pm
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: In the few minutes available to me I shall take up the remarks made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), because they lie at the centre of this debate. Reform of the law is long overdue. I welcome the Auld report all the more strongly because the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) did not even have the courage to say what the Labour party would do about the central issue in this debate: whether it would deregulate, maintain the existing law or just sit on the fence. The Labour party certainly did not say whether it would enforce the existing law.
At present, the law is unenforceable. Millions of offences are committed every Sunday in tens of thousands of retail establishments. We must decide now to regularise the position one way or another. I know that some of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite are profoundly sincere in their opposition to change, but the existing state of the law does nothing to enhance the moral position that they promote. Furthermore, I do not believe that the abolition of the fifth schedule to the Shops Act would have the disastrous effects which have been suggested on the traditional Sunday, which I also cherish; on the interests of shop workers for whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has implied that he will make safeguarding provisions, or on the position of small shopkeepers.
I speak for the garden centres on whose behalf I sought to promote a Bill about four years ago. It is nonsense that people should be able to sell vegetable seedlings only on the ground that they are part of the greengrocery trade and that they should be breaking the law if they sell a fork or a bag of peat. As several hon. Members have said, we can best illustrate how radical the effect of such a change would be on our society by making a comparison with those countries that have no such restrictions. For us, the best example must be Scotland. That country provides not a small sample, but a sample of 5–5 million people, some of whom — they are represented by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart)—have such strong religious convictions that they do not open their shops anyway. But the majority of them, although rather better churchgoers than we are in England, trade a little on Sundays and reach a sensible balance that I am confident we shall reach if we are given the same opportunity.
We know that on 28 April 16 per cent. of shops opened in Scotland, although only 8 per cent. opened in town
810
centres. Although 25 per cent. of people shopped in some way, only 1 per cent. did any major shopping, while the remainder topped up. About 98 per cent. of the population said that they were content with what was happening and were not inconvenienced. The same pattern applies to the United States — in Texas and in other states where Sunday trading is permitted and which have an excellent record of churchgoing.
The existing law brings itself into so much disrepute that no Government should stand by and leave it as it is indefinitely. Change with sensible safeguards will help the gentle change that is already occurring. It will not undercut the traditional values which I—and others of my hon. Friends, with misgivings—support.
9 pm
Mr. John Prescott: The debate has been excellent. The issues are fundamental and I shall state my opinions immediately. It is clear that our amendment is not acceptable to the Government. We are debating the motion on the Auld report with no qualification about the conditions of the workers who are affected by the proposed changes. That is the heart of the debate.
I am a traditionalist about Sunday. One of the bishops who gave evidence to the committee said that Sunday was a break in the week. I agree, as do many others. Many of us receive calls on a Sunday from people who apologise for ringing on a Sunday. That does not stop them from ringing, but they are conscious of intruding on Sunday. Sunday is different from the rest of the days in the week and it is important to maintain that difference.
I have been a Sunday worker. As a seaman I had to work seven days in a week. I have also worked in hotels, so I know that many people have to work seven days a week. I accept that some people have to work so that others can enjoy the luxury of our traditional Sunday.
I have also shopped on Sunday. I do not approach the question from a moral view, but I wish to retain the character of Sunday and that means that I do not want shops to open as if Sunday were the same as Monday or any other day of the week.
Hon. Members should be able to make their own judgment. I deplore that right not being given to Government Members. Those who have spoken out against the proposition have spoken for the House as a whole. Individuals should be able to make their own decision, although for some of us the issue is not one which involves conscience. That is a problem for the Government. Their members are subjected to a three-line Whip. They cannot vote against the motion unless they can prove that they have a conscientious objection to it. They have to pass that test before the Patronage Secretary will agree that they are fit to exercise that judgment.
The Auld report lists the many anomalies and the difficulties of enforcement which have been described by many right hon. and hon. Members. I am sorry that the report did not discuss in detail the 10-year Swedish experiment. At the end of that experiment, many people were still against extended trading hours, but the Swedish Government decided to maintain the open shop. The Government should see how important it is to maintain social conditions — premium hours at weekends, guaranteed overtime, holidays, meal times and other conditions which the Swedish Government believed to be important.

811
It is crucial to maintain certain conditions. The Auld report said that wages council conditions should be maintained. As many hon. Members have said, the Government are actively considering the abolition of the wages councils indeed, they are notifying internation- ally that they are prepared to renounce that international obligation—the only country of the 94 countries which ratified that agreement to do so—and are leading the way for an attack on the low paid. That characterises much of our attitude towards the Auld report and the Government's motion.
We listened carefully to the Home Secretary, who said that he was prepared to listen to the views of the House and keep an open mind on wages councils. He said that he was prepared to depart from the conscience clause. He did not say how it would be implemented, but we await legislation. I do not believe that the Government have any intention of keeping an open mind — they are blabbering. I shall give evidence to support that view rather than simply make the point.
Mr. Lyell: On deregulation, do the Opposition support it, do they want to enforce the current law, do they want a halfway house or are they not able to say anything?
Mr. Prescott: The Opposition are prepared to operate a free vote on the main question, as we consider it to be a matter of conscience. I favour the traditional Sunday and would not want to see more shops open. However, there is a middle way. The committee funked the issue and did not take the opportunities presented to it. Amendments on the Order Paper take a middle course and people should reach their own decisions. We have, for example, debated abortion and left voting to the conscience of hon. Members, although Front Bench spokesmen have put thier point of view. It is an honourable tradition of the House.
The Home Secretary has said that the Government would try to find a way in which people could refuse to work on Sundays without penalty. He said that that would be for established workers, which we saw as a code phrase. Does it apply to both part-time and full-time workers? The majority of women workers in that industry are part time. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) tabled an amendment, and when he spoke he quoted from the Auld report, saying that the committee thought that we could reflect the proposal put forward in Massachusetts, and that Massachusetts was not short of people wanting to work on Sunday. However, if he had continued to read from the report he would have seen the reason for that —because premium payments are available on a Sunday and people get additional money. That is why there is no difficulty in obtaining workers.
The committee says that it is concerned that there may be dismissals over this matter. It said:
"the provisions governing unfair dismissal in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 would in certain cases provide a safeguard".
That would have been true until most Conservative Members last week willingly trooped through the Lobby to reduce the rights of people who have been unfairly dismissed. Therefore, one of the protections envisaged in the report has been taken away.
When I hear the argument about conscience, I am reminded of a concern that does not express itself on conditions but simply on whether one is refusing to work
812
on a Sunday. There is no equal concern about the maintenance of the premium payment, working so many' hours or the limits laid down in current legislation.
It seems to reflect the concern that was show n in the 19th century, when anxiety was expressed about women working in the pits—not because they were having to push heavy loads and were suffering physically but because miners were seeing naked women in the pits and it was thought that that would affect the moral fibre of the miners. Thus, legislation was introduced to stop women going down the pits. That action may have been said to have been motivated by concern and conscience. Frankly, the concern was not really about the conditions under which the women were working.
That is at the heart of our argument. The conditions that have been won for shop workers are crucial. Nor is it just a vested interest being raised. I have no vested interest in USDAW, my union being the National Union of Seamen. However, I worked in hotels and my wife was a hairdresser, so we have both worked in wages council industries and appreciate the conditions and wages that apply in such industries.
If one works and lives in a hotel, as I did, the thought of arguing with the manager about being given better wages or conditions does not arise because he can simply reply, "If you do not like the conditions and so on, get out." One's bed is in the hotel, and one has to make up one's mind whether to accept his terms or leave. That is one of the difficulties with the wages council industries and why those councils are important.
A method is necessary to govern the wages and conditions in certain industries because the unions have found it difficult to organise the workers in them. Unt:1 the Tory Government came to power, that principle was accepted by all previous Governments. Indeed, it has been pointed out that Winston Churchill introduced legislation in 1909 because he accepted that the good employers' conditions were undermined by the bad and that the had employers' conditions were undermined by those who were even worse.
That argument applies to wages councils now just as it applied to them at the turn of the century. One need only examine the wages and conditions in the industries concerned to see how vital the councils are. Wage rates determined under wages council terms are 50 to 60 per cent. of national average earnings. When one thinks of £50 and £60 being a weekly wage, mostly paid to women, many of them working part-time, one sees the problem in its proper perspective. Many of those employees are not working for pin money but for a family income. More and more of them are one-parent families.
We are talking about poverty in employment. If changes of the type that we are discussing were to be made without some statutory control, we should have more poverty in low-wage situations. Indeed, that seems to be part of Government policy. All their proposals appear to be geared to driving down wage levels. Their employment protection legislation seems designed to remove workers' rights that have been established over the years by various Governments, and not only by Labour Administrations. That is why tonight we are concentrating on the whole issue of workers' conditions.
The right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said that she had not heard much about the consumer. She will be aware that much has been said

813
about consumers wanting extended Sunday trading. I suggest that the reaction of the consumer depends on the way in which the question is phrased.
What would be the response if the question was asked, "Do you want Sunday trading, even if it resulted in wages going down from £60 to £50 or even £40, thus having it at the expense of the work force, particularly women?" Unfortunately, that is not the way in which the question is framed when polls are taken. Not many people would want the change if they knew that it would mean workers being exploited.
The Government say that they are listening to our arguments about wages councils and other matters. Frankly, I cannot believe that they will give serious attention to our views. Let us be clear that we are speaking of industries which employ many youngsters, a lot of them women and a great number of them part-timers.
The Government's deregulation approach is very much an American one. It seems that deregulation has become part of our language. Over the weekend an American gentleman appeared on our television screens talking about targeting unemployment benefit and social security benefit. That, too, is the Governnient's language. Their aim is to reduce social welfare benefits, and now they want deregulation of conditions within retailing. Deregulation is not confined to shop hours for it involves conditions of work.
The Government argue that the abolition of wages councils will lead to the creation of more jobs. It is claimed that there will be 5,000 more jobs if legislation is introduced to enable shops to open on Sundays. I accept that it is laudable for the Government to shape their policy to the creation of more jobs but the Government have been losing about 5,000 jobs a week since they came to office. That must be set against their concern to create 5,000 jobs.
Even if more jobs are created by shops opening on Sundays, a price will have to be paid. That is the factor that concerns the Opposition. The Government argue that individuals must price themselves into a job. They claim that many workers are overpaid and that the wages councils should be abolished. I have not yet heard a Minister argue that the councils should be abolished so that wages can increase to a proper level that will provide for incentives and generally for more money to be earned. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has said that wages are far too high and that we should abolish wages councils.
Mr. Rowe: I have never said that.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has often said that. He has been heard to say it by many Opposition Members. He has offered that opinion at Question Time and on other occasions.
Mr. Rowe: Words are being put in my mouth. I have never said that wages councils should be abolished. I am a member of a Select Committee which has specifically said that that should not happen. I call upon the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.
Mr. Prescott: If I have made a mistake, I unreservedly withdraw. I was distinctly under the impression that the hon. Gentleman had urged abolition, but I shall not argue about that. The hon. Gentleman has made his position clear and I withdraw unequivocally.
814
I am thinking on my feet, but I remember that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said that he would like to see a reduction of overtime payments for weekend work. Premium payments were one of the conditions laid down in the Swedish experiment. That is why the Swedes have come to live with longer hours. The hon. Gentleman argued for a reduction of the very benefits that are currently provided for in legislation. I certainly heard him say that this evening.
Mr. Dykes: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the proposals, will he explain why there will be a free vote on the motion, which will be contrary to USDAW's position, which appeared to be that of the Labour party, and a whipped vote only on the amendment?
Mr. Prescott: The amendment spells out our belief that an extension of working hours should not be at the expense of working conditions. The Government do not accept the amendment, so they are prepared to tolerate longer hours and conditions that will be adverse to workers. That is the heart of our case. The House will remember the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about wages councils and the need for their position on conditions of work to be clarified. I agree that the time has come to make decisions and I have tried to make my position clear. I shall vote against the motion.
It is the Government's policy to reduce the standards and conditions of workers, especially in the wages council area. Their aim is to establish a lower wage structure and there is much evidence to support that contention. One piece of evidence is the proposed abolition of the wages councils. I think that the Government will admit that that is the direction in which their policy lies. I have read the evidence that was taken by the Select Committee on Employment. When the Secretary of State for Employment appeared before the Committee, he said that there was no evidence to establish whether more jobs had become available in the light of the proposal to abolish the councils. He said that it was too early to come to a judgment. However, it seems that the decision has been taken and we have heard from contractors who have been affected by the fair wage resolution that the Government's policy has led to a reduction in wages and conditions of employment.
Mr. Torney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed free-for-all in Sunday trading highlights the issue of wages councils? This issue has been brought about by the imposition of Sunday trading on everyone. Legislation to this effect will be introduced later.
Mr. Prescott: This is the floodgate opening the way to that type of policy. If we accept these proposals, without a guarantee on conditions, the policy will not stop just at the shops. It will apply to the industries associated with the wages councils and, eventually, to all industries. This is part of the Government's policy to force down wage rates. There is no reason to be mealy-mouthed about this—every part of the policy is geared by the Government to achieve that end.
This policy did not come about during the past few months. I have been interested to read the various Cabinet Committee documents that have come to my hand. They involve the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) who fought a valiant fight against the unfair dismissal and wages council aspects of the Employment Act 1980. All

815
his arguments to the Cabinet Employment Committee make it absolutely clear that he did not believe that the Conservatives should follow that route. He said:
"My conclusion therefore is that there is insufficient justification to amend the employment legislation further in favour of employers. Moreover, I believe that any attempt to do so would alienate large sections of the working population, trade unionists and others and would therefore be politically damaging to the Government."
That document was dated 17 July 1981. The right hon. Gentleman continued to argue the case with regard to wages councils. He got the Cabinet to agree that the wages councils should not be abolished, but was asked to investigate whether pan-time women and youngsters should be excluded from wages councils. The Home Secretary made a similar suggestion today. That policy emerged not from the Auld report but from the battle in Cabinet in 1981–82 by those so-called wets who were fighting against a policy to reduce the working and living conditions of the people in those industries. A report produced by the right hon. Member for Waveney made clear his view about the proposal to exclude women and youngsters from the wages councils awards. The document states:
"Young persons and part-timers … probably account for about half the total number of employees covered by wages councils. They are amongst the lowest-paid in the workforce. The majority are not trade unionists. A move to exclude them from minimum-level wage protection would be widely portrayed as an attack on those who are particularly vulnerable. Public sympathy would he readily enlisted on their behalf."
The right hon. Gentleman concluded:
"My conclusion is that the exclusion of young persons and part-time workers from the scope of wages councils would be unlikely to lead to more than a very marginal increase in job opportunities for these categories, and that largely at the expense of full-time adult jobs. I am in no doubt that the serious political and legislative difficulties of such a course would outweigh any conceivable benefits."
The right hon. Gentleman was right. Other documents concerning the same Cabinet Committee argue that case extremely well, showing the vindictive nature of such legislation. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman was able to convince the Cabinet. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) followed in the footsteps of the right hon. Member for Waveney.
Mr. James Prior: I do not know whether I was right or not. I do know that whoever leaked that information to the hon. Gentleman was wrong.
Mr. Prescott: The document has the right hon. Gentleman's name and the date appended to it. I am prepared to make it available to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not seek to do him an injustice. The issue is crucial. With the appointment of the right hon. Member for Chingford, the position changed—I have the document showing this—and the civil servants were ordered to bring about that change.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. I would not contest it for one moment when he talks about safeguarding the rights of workers. However, could he spare a brief moment, before he resumes his seat, to give us some indication of where the Labour Front Bench stands in respect of the erosion of Sunday? That is of enormous importance to his constituents as well as mine.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is ignored in the Labour party's amendment.
Mr. Prescott: I shall sum up on that point. [Interruption.] I have told Conservative Members twice, but I shall tell the particularly thick a third time when I sum up.
Mr. John Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it within your power to require the papers to which the hon. Gentleman has been referring to be made available to the whole House?
Mr. Speaker: That is not within my power. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) must take responsibility for what he has said.
Mr. Prescott: I immediately withdraw any implica- tions concerning you in my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
I should happily give the papers to which I referred to the Select Committee on Employment if it wishes to look at them. It has reported on the wages councils and it came to a contrary decision from that of the Government. The Committee said that we should not abolish the wages councils. It did not have to be influenced by those documents to reach that conclusion. It arrived at its own conclusion, and it was a majority decision. We in the Opposition welcome that, although the Government are not paying a great deal of attention to it.
The Opposition's point is that we believe that the measure is part of the Government's policy, which has been developing for a long time. It is designed to hit the lower income groups in our society, in particular. They are the ones who are most affected by the wages councils, particularly the retail councils. One thing has often puzzled me about the argument on wages councils. The Government announced that they proposed to give notice to ILO about abolishing the wages councils. Why did they not give notice to the agricultural workers wages council? That is another wages council convention. Notice had to be given by June of last year. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Waveney, who is a farmer, knows why we exempted that area. We could have given it the same notification about the wages councils—
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Deal with Sunday.
Mr. Prescott: Without doubt, the policy on wages councils is about producing low-paid labour and low-wage conditions.
Let me make another prediction to the House. The youth training scheme, which is now being developed into a two-year scheme, is being developed on low wages. In the retail industries, part-time women and men on adult pay will be removed by cheap labour — youngsters coming out of the YTS. That is what is behind the policy. That is why we on the Labour Benches believe that this policy is just a stalking horse for the Government's policy to bring in more low wages. They are doing that when this weekend, in The Sunday Times, there was a report on the top 100 managers who last year had, on average, three times the average wage as a wage increase. To talk about a wages policy to reduce the low-income groups is totally unacceptable to the Opposition.
If the policy were accepted in its present form, without amendment, there would be more part-time labour, adding to the two-tier market. More youngsters would De taken out of the YTS and put into low-paid jobs. No guarantees would be given, as with the Swedish example and recommended in the Auld report. We in the Opposition do not believe that the Government are concerned about

817
working conditions. They are concerned solely about reducing statutory employment benefits. All that is in the way of getting rid of rigidities in the market are the trade unions. Last year the miners were the enemy. This year it is the shop workers, the hairdressers and the agricultural workers — all those in low-paid areas covered by the wages councils. That is why we believe that for the Government to renounce an international obligation when 94 other nations are retaining it is a stain on our claim to be a civilised nation.
We ask the House to support the proposition that conditions in the industry should be retained and guaranteed, as our amendment requires—
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: What about Sunday trading?
Mr. Prescott: We believe, like many Conservative Members, that the main motion is a matter of conscience, and not one for whipping hon. Members into line. We shall make that clear to the country tonight.
9.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of his speech. I feel that perhaps I should talk about the Auld report and the problems of Sunday trading.
It is an interesting comment on the fitness of the Opposition for government that the real problems with which the enforcement of the law confronts my right hon. and learned Friend should have been wholly ignored in the course of an hour and a quarter's argument from the Opposition spokesmen.
The Auld committee was set up in the wake of the debate on the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), and its members were invited to consider not whether changes should be made to the Shops Acts but what changes should be made. It has been common ground during the debate that the 1950 Act is riddled with anomalies and had to be changed. The issue before us is whether we accept the Auld committee's view that the law not only does not command general acceptance but has brought the generality of the criminal law into disrepute and should be swept away. We would be in a better position to make progress in the debate if the Opposition had coherently explained how they would resolve the anomalies created by the legislation.
The committee comprised three people of great distinction. Those people were aided in their work by six assessors. The assessors were carefully drawn from the interest groups who would be most affected by any change to the 1950 Act. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) says that they got it wrong. If the assessors got it wrong, the implication must be that Mr. Flood of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers got it wrong, Miss Head of the National Chamber of Trade and Lord Gallacher of the Co-operative Union got it wrong. The assessors were there to assess the evidence, and none of them has complained that the Auld committee was parti pris —that it was not wide enough. This is another regrettable example of a desire to call into question those who have conducted an inquiry when the inquiry does not produce the desired results.
Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is misleading the House about the relationship of the assessors to the report. Their position was not as he states.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that point of order. The Minister must take responsibility for his own speech.
Mr. Mellor: The committee's report is the report of the committee. To hear what the Opposition have said today, one would think that evidence was not being put to the members of the committee by people whose job it was to put a different gloss on that evidence if they thought it appropriate to do so.
It seems that the Opposition have chosen to throw over the Auld report, although their amendment would lead us to believe that they are concerned about employment conditions but would not seek to challenge the central thrust of the report. If they wish to throw over the findings of the report, they must do so on a better basis. Contemptuously to toss on one side the whole report is not enough. Manifestly, the report cannot be dismissed. Three able people were engaged in it. The six assessors had the right to put whatever points they wished, and that is what they did.
Mr. Stanbrook: Why does my hon. Friend give the impression that the six assessors signed, or approved of, the report?
Mr. Mellor: I have not said that they signed it. I said that the assessors were there and that they were putting, their gloss on the evidence as it came forward. The fact that they were there and participated—
Mr. Foulkes: They were ignored.
Mr. Mellor: —and the fact that they have not called the inquiry into question —
Mr. Foulkes: Yes, they have.
Mr. Mellor: —as have some Opposition Members, suggests that the Auld report is worthy of much more consideration than it has received from the Opposition today.
We are discussing not whether there should be Sunday trading, but the extent of Sunday trading and whether any common-sense division can be drawn between those activities that are allowed on Sunday under current law and those that are not. It is unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) did not tell us where he stands on Sunday trading or give us any idea of a collective view. There is the world of difference between a collective view in the shadow Cabinet—
Mr. Jack Straw: There is a free vote on this side.
Mr. Mellor: A Cabinet cannot be run on free votes.
The other word that was missing from the right hon. Gentleman's speech —
Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mellor: No.
The word that was missing from the right hon. Gentleman's speech and which was missing from that of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was "customer". The customer's views are worth considering, but any such consideration was lacking in

819
anything that Opposition Members said. When the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) mentioned the customer, it was in dismissive terms.
Mr. Heifer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mellor: I shall in a minute.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South speaks for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. It is not without note that five of the seven Back-Bench Members who have spoken for the Labour party have a relationship with USDAW or the Co-op. There might be a free vote—
Mr. Sheerman rose —
Mr. Mellor: —but there is precious little evidence of free thinking on this issue.
Mr. Sheerman rose —
Mr. Speaker: Order. The speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was heard in silence. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member must restrain himself.
Mr. Mellor: The debate on the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe provided an opportunity for the House to take the Bill into Committee, as everyone who spoke in that debate agreed that there were grave anomalies in the law. That was not done. In that debate, the hon. Member for Bradford, South pleaded with the Secretary of State to have a public inquiry. We have now had that public inquiry and the Government are inviting the House to endorse the recommendations of that public inquiry as the only cogent way in which to see our way through a difficult problem which has bedevilled the administration of criminal law for many years.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are inviting the House to endorse the recommendations of the inquiry, but they are not. They are inviting the House to endorse one of the recommendations —deregulation—but to ignore the recommendation to retain the wages council. The hon. Gentleman said "endorse the recommendations". Will the Government now say that they accept the Auld recommendation for the retention of the wages council?
Mr. Mellor: Our stance on the wages council was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Its future is under consideration. The fact that the Auld committee has recommended that it be retained in retailing is a matter that will be borne in mind when the evaluation takes place, and it will be given the appropriate weight. It would be nonsense for the Government to announce a full-scale review of wages councils throughout industry and then to take a particular line on the future of the wages council for retailing.
Mr. Heifer: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, because I feel that the entire country wants to know, whether the Government are now deciding to abandon the traditional values of Sunday? May we be given a clear answer? Is that their intention? If so, will they spell out why they are doing this to something that has been built up over hundreds of years?
Mr. Mellor: There is no question of the traditional British Sunday being thrown over. We are saying that we should trust the people to make their decision — [Interruption] —and that the arbitrary intervention of the criminal law should not come into the matter.
820
After 19 attempts to change these arrangements in the House, it is time that the House took a view one way or the other. The arrangements into which the Patronage Secretary has entered enable that to be done once and for all.
Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend make it clear whether he is arguing that the issue of principle, on which some hon. Members have a sense of conscience, has already been decided, or whether this is the first occasion on which that matter of principle is being decided? If that is the case, will he explain why on this unique occasion, and without precedent, we are being dragooned to vote in favour of the business?
Mr. Mellor: The Government have placed a three-line Whip on the business, but those with genuine conscientious objections do not have to vote for it. [Interruption.] What is important is that the House has the opportunity to determine the way forward for a piece of legislation on which, whatever the jeering, a decision must be taken.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose —
Mr. Mellor: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. The criminal law occupies too significant a place for us to permit a law to continue when on all sides it is acknowledged that it is riddled with anomalies. The question facing us is one of detail — whether it is possible to have a halfway house or whether there must be complete deregulation.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend seek to ascertain from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) where he stands on the subject of Sunday, which he entirely ignored? He dealt only with the materialistic points of the resolution, and not with the value of Sunday to the family.
Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it within your remit to send for the Conservative Whip and for the Whips of the Opposition parties, so that the whole country may know that the Opposition have a free vote on a principle of conscience, whereas the Conservative party do not?
Mr. Speaker: If the whole country reads the newspapers, it will know that.
Mr. Mellor: We know that the arrangements for late evening shopping were introduced in 1916 to save coal during the first world war, and that they are not in keeping with the views of any hon. Members in the House tonight. We also know that the Shops Act 1950 was a consolidation measure and came after the Gowers report of 1947 recommended the consolidation of the existing statute. However, as long ago as 1947 the Gowers report said, first, that it was time for the public to be given consideration, and that for too long shops legislation had been dealing only with the welfare of shop assistants; and secondly, that the exemptions were such that even at that time the law was being brought into disrepute.
Our problem is that successive Governments have failed to implement all but one of the three recommendations of the Gowers report. That issue will not disappear, as successive attempts to change it in the House have made clear. In trying to steer its way through an increasingly tangled web, the Auld committee adopted two points of principle, which I commend to my hon.

821
Friends. First, the law should not interfere in the conduct of human affairs unless it serves a justifiable purpose in doing so. Secondly, even if there are interests with a justifiable need for protection, could legislation be devised to achieve that end?
The Shops Act is a singular piece of criminal law. The criminal offence is to sell during prohibited hours unless the place or the article qualifies under one of the exemption provisions. The exemption provisions are derided and widely ignored. The anomalies are so acute that it is impossible for a shop that opens on Sundays—we know that hundreds and thousands do every Sunday — to trade legally, because if there are distinctions between pies, buns, sausages and kippers on the one hand, and tea and flour on the other—[Interruption] It is no good Opposition Members sneering. The fact is that every shop that opens on Sundays is almost certainly trading outside the law. It is our job to rescue the law from its present state and to replace it with a fresh law that will allow the criminal law and the administration of justice to proceed properly.
As to enforcement, the number of convictions in recent years has in no way reflected the scale of abuse. In our large cities there have been minimal attempts to enforce a law in which no one believes, least of all the Association of District Councils. Some people have suggested, almost as though the Government had a choice as to whether they should take on the issue, that we must have a duty to those whom Parliament has decreed should be responsible primarily for enforcing the law. In April 1982, the Association of District Councils made clear its view, which it subsequently endorsed in a way that should commend itself to the consideration of the House.
The association originally believed that the law could be rationalised by the elimination of anomalies, but it has since reconsidered, and has come to the conclusion that the removal of one anomaly could easily lead to another, as was pointed out in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson). Since the association recognised — only one hon. Member who spoke in the debate seems not to have recognised it—that imposing a full ban on Sunday trading would not find favour, the only satisfactory solution is to remove all restrictions on Sunday opening. Those whom we have asked to enforce the law have reached a conclusion similar to the one in the Auld report.
The impetus for change has been spurred by two difficulties that lie in the way of the law remaining ignored. The first is the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1983 giving local authorities the power to obtain injunctions against stores breaking the law. The second is the 1982 case in which the Divisional Court held that someone aggrieved — not the local authority — about Sunday trading could compel the local authority to take action by way of an order of mandamus. That is why it is impossible for the Government to overlook the chaotic state of the 1950 Act any longer.
The impact on trade and employees is a matter of controversy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies made predictions based on models that cannot give us the entire answer to the problem, because they were based on the assumption that there was currently no Sunday trading. However, there is Sunday trading in almost every town and village in the country. Therefore, the model is flawed
822
in that respect. Another basic assumption was that there would be no growth in retail demand, but many retailers are only too willing and eager to prove that wrong.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded:
"It is unlikely that in any of the areas we have considered —costs, prices, employment, trading patterns—there would be effects which would be of sufficient magnitude to be distinguished readily from the other changes which would be occurring as a result of other influences on the style and structure of British retailing."
We know that the retailing sector is buoyant and dynamic, and that there have been considerable changes in the size of the retail work force. Therefore, any of the likely consequences will be at the margin. In June 1980, the retail work force was 2·1 million. By June 1982 it was down to 2 million. By the end of 1984 it was up to 2·2 million, so we know that the retail sector is accustomed to taking up and shedding labour. We know that there is scope not just for full-time employment but for part-time employment. We cannot deride full-time employment when we know that 40 per cent. of the work force are women. Those who rightly adhere to the principle of family life feel particularly strongly that women in the work force are entitled to work part-time and that that might be in the best interests of their families.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Will my hon. Friend look at the Auld report, paragraph 206, page 173:
"Our conclusion that, in the long term, Sunday working would slightly reduce retailing employment"?
If it will not increase employment, and the committee does not believe that it will, is Sunday working worth the candle?
Mr. Mellor: As I have already said, that is based on the assumption, first, that there is no Sunday trading at the moment, when manifestly there is, and, secondly, that there will be no growth in retail turnover. We believe that there will be growth. The law needs to be reformed. The only point at issue is how. We know that there will be no economic catastrophe and that the probability is that there will be economic gain by a reform of the law.
The question to which I now turn is that which exercises most hon. Members: whether by reforming the Shops Act 1950 we shall be in any danger of detracting from the qualities of the British Sunday that we all respect. There are those hon. Members who believe that religious observance dictates that Sunday should be a different day. Most of us, whether or not we are active churchgoers, accept that principle. However, I ask those hon. Members who take that view to have regard to what was said by the Bishop of Birmingham on behalf of the Church of England board for social responsibility:
"In a society where in most areas not more than 10 per cent. of the population attend public worship on Sunday, people would hardly be prevented from going to church if Sunday opening were allowed. It is important for Christians to avoid hypocrisy in these matters."
Christians who feel that they wish to observe Sunday in their own way should not feel the need to dictate to others, but many churchgoers take the view not just that it matters but that they wish to keep the quality of Sunday for the benefit of others.
The important point that needs to be borne in mind is that when we look at the impact of Sunday trading in other countries we do not find that the traditional values of Sunday in those countries have been lost. We simply cannot ignore the evidence of Scotland. The evidence is

823
that while, in communities like those represented by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), shops do not open because the communities do not wish it and the shopkeepers therefore do not feel that it is appropriate to open on Sunday, in Edinburgh and Glasgow some shops open while others do not. There is no monochrome, follow-my-leader approach. On 28 April only 16 per cent. of the shops were open, and according to the public survey that was conducted last month by MORI—
Mr. Fairbairn: Does the Minister appreciate that in Scotland, which has always had Sunday trading, there is more churchgoing than in England, and that in Catholic France, which has always had Sunday trading, there has always been a great deal of churchgoing? There is no difficulty in Scotland over Sunday trading. Therefore, those who adopt a priggish view are defiling the whole concept of Christianity.
Mr. Mellor: It is important that we should recognise that 84 per cent. of those questioned by MORI in Scotland by last month do not want the law changed back to the sort of restrictions that exist in England, and that 98 per cent. said that they were not inconvenienced in the slightest by Sunday trading.
When we consider what sort of Sunday we want, we should bear in mind that, whatever we as legislators think, the question whether the traditional values of Sunday will be preserved will be determined by the people, whatever the criminal law may say. That is why The Times was so right to say in an editorial in November:
"A society which needs a day which is special can surely be trusted to keep it special and how it wishes without being compelled by the criminal law."
Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that he is proposing not a reform of the laws, but their abolition? Secondly, if he can trust the people, why cannot he trust us? Is this an issue of conscience?
Mr. Mellon: For some people, it is an issue of conscience and for others it is a matter of hard practicalities and whether the criminal law can be allowed to slip into the derision into which it has slipped in this area. How to restore the credibility of the law is a matter for hard decisions. My hon. Friend tabled an amendment and I am sure that he would not say that conscience determined his decision about the size of shops that should be allowed to open on a Sunday. That is a practical matter. The limit would be arbitrary and the incentive for employers to employ would be reduced by an artificial restriction on the number of employees allowed in a shop that could open on Sunday. That is a matter of hard practicality.
The key to all this is whether there is a halfway house. The pattern of Sunday trading laws has revealed a constant movement away from the principle that there should be no trading on Sunday through the hard recognition that people are willing to buy whatever shopkeepers are prepared to open to sell. That is what happened in 1855, when there were demonstrations in the streets against the Sunday trading laws. The quaint Sunday markets which are a part of the traditional British Sunday were the way in which the populace of London cocked a snook at the Sunday trading laws.
The 1936 law that is the basis for the anomalies in the 1950 Act was based on what goods were needed by people indulging in the then popular weekend pastime of a
824
charabanc ride to Brighton or another seaside resort. One was able to buy gin. Tonic had not been invented, so one had to drink gin neat to cover one's disappointment at a rainy day by the seaside.
Are we as legislators to say that the list of exemptions that was right for charabanc outings to the seaside should be updated because we feel that we have the key today? Or shall we say that in a mature democracy shops should be allowed to open when they choose? The fact that the powers are not always taken up will mean that shops will determine when it is profitable for them to open, and that question will be determined by whether there are customers to go to the shops.
If there are customers to go to the shops, is it the business of this or any other Government to say that the criminal law will stop transactions merely because they take place on Sunday, a situation to which others object, often for reasons that have a lot to do with wordly considerations, though I respect the fact that some see these as matters of conscience? We cannot have any truck with that. We believe that the Sunday trading laws have had their day and that the only alternative that faces us is, indeed, to trust the people and to let them shop ix hen they want.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 321.

Division No. 212]

[10 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Dormand, Jack

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Douglas, Dick

Alton, David

Dover, Den

Anderson, Donald

Duffy, A. E. P.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Ashton, Joe

Eadie, Alex

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Eastham, Ken

Barnett, Guy

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

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Beith, A. J.

Fatchett, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Benn, Tony

Fisher, Mark

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

Flannery, Martin

Bermingham, Gerald

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bidwell, Sydney

Forrester, John

Blair, Anthony

Foster, Derek

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Foulkes, George

Boyes, Roland

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Freud, Clement

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

George, Bruce

Bruce, Malcolm

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Caborn, Richard

Godman, Dr Norman

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Golding, John

Campbell, Ian

Gould, Bryan

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gourlay, Harry

Canavan, Dennis

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Carl Me, Alexander (Montg'y)

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Clarke, Thomas

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Clay, Robert

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Heffer, Eric S.

Cohen, Harry

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Home Robertson, Join

Cowans, Harry

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Craigen, J. M.

Howells, Geraint

Crowther, Stan

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Dewar, Donald

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dixon, Donald

Irving, Charles

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put: —
The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 184

Division No. 212]

[10 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Dormand, Jack

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Douglas, Dick

Alton, David

Dover, Den

Anderson, Donald

Duffy, A. E. P.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Ashton, Joe

Eadie, Alex

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Eastham, Ken

Barnett, Guy

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

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Beith, A. J.

Fatchett, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Benn, Tony

Fisher, Mark

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

Flannery, Martin

Bermingham, Gerald

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bidwell, Sydney

Forrester, John

Blair, Anthony

Foster, Derek

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Foulkes, George

Boyes, Roland

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Freud, Clement

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

George, Bruce

Bruce, Malcolm

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Caborn, Richard

Godman, Dr Norman

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Golding, John

Campbell, Ian

Gould, Bryan

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gourlay, Harry

Canavan, Dennis

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Carl Me, Alexander (Montg'y)

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Clarke, Thomas

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Clay, Robert

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Heffer, Eric S.

Cohen, Harry

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Home Robertson, Join

Cowans, Harry

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Craigen, J. M.

Howells, Geraint

Crowther, Stan

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Dewar, Donald

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dixon, Donald

Irving, Charles

Janner, Hon Greville

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

John, Brynmor

Prescott, John

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Radice, Giles

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Randall, Stuart

Kilfedder, James A.

Redmond, M.

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Richardson, Ms Jo

Kirkwood, Archy

Robertson, George

Lamond, James

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Leadbitter, Ted

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Leighton, Ronald

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rowlands, Ted

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Ryman, John

Litherland, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Loyden, Edward

Short, Mrs H. (W'hampt'n NE)

McCartney, Hugh

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Skinner, Dennis

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Maclennan, Robert

Snape, Peter

McTaggart, Robert

Soley, Clive

McWilliam, John

Spearing, Nigel

Madden, Max

Steel, Rt Hon David

Marek, Dr John

Strang, Gavin

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Straw, Jack

Martin, Michael

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Thome, Stan (Preston)

Meacher, Michael

Tinn, James

Meadowcroft, Michael

Torney, Tom

Michie, William

Wainwright, R.

Mikardo, Ian

Wallace, James

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wareing, Robert

Nellist, David

Weetch, Ken

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Welsh, Michael

O'Brien, William

Wigley, Dafydd

O'Neill, Martin

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Winnick, David

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Park, George

Patchett, Terry

Tellers for the Ayes

Pavitt, Laurie

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Penhaligon, David

Mr. Robin Corbett.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Brooke, Hon Peter

Aitken, Jonathan

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Alexander, Richard

Browne, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bryan, Sir Paul

Ancram, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Arnold, Tom

Buck, Sir Antony

Ashby, David

Budgen, Nick

Aspinwall, Jack

Burt, Alistair

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Butcher, John

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Butler, Hon Adam

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Butterfill, John

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Baldry, Tony

Cash, William

Batiste, Spencer

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Bellingham, Henry

Chope, Christopher

Bendall, Vivian

Churchill, W. S.

Benyon, William

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

Best, Keith

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Clegg, Sir Walter

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cockeram, Eric

Bottomley, Peter

Colvin, Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Coombs, Simon

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

Cope, John

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Corrie, John

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Cranborne, Viscount

Bright, Graham

Critchley, Julian

Brinton, Tim

Crouch, David

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dicks, Terry

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Dorrell, Stephen

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Key, Robert

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Dunn, Robert

King, Rt Hon Tom

Durant, Tony

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Dykes, Hugh

Knowles, Michael

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Knox, David

Eggar, Tim

Lamont, Norman

Emery, Sir Peter

Lang, Ian

Evennett, David

Lawler, Geoffrey

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lawrence, Ivan

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fallon, Michael

Lee, John (Pendle)

Farr, Sir John

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Favell, Anthony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lester, Jim

Fletcher, Alexander

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Peter

Forth, Eric

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Fox, Marcus

Lord, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Luce, Richard

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lyell, Nicholas

Fry, Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Gale, Roger

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Macfarlane, Neil

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

MacGregor, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Maclean, David John

Goodlad, Alastair

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Gow, Ian

McQuarrie, Albert

Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edmds)

Madel, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Major, John

Grist, Ian

Malins, Humfrey

Ground, Patrick

Malone, Gerald

Grylls, Michael

Maples, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Marland, Paul

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mates, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Maude, Hon Francis

Hanley, Jeremy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hannam, John

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Mellor, David

Harvey, Robert

Merchant, Piers

Haselhurst, Alan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hawksley, Warren

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Hayes, J.

Miscampbell, Norman

Hayward, Robert

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moate, Roger

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Henderson, Barry

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moore, John

Hickmet, Richard

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hicks, Robert

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Moynihan, Hon C.

Hind, Kenneth

Neale, Gerrard

Hirst, Michael

Needham, Richard

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Nelson, Anthony

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Neubert, Michael

Holt, Richard

Newton, Tony

Hordern, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Howard, Michael

Normanton, Tom

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Norris, Steven

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Osborn, Sir John

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Hunter, Andrew

Parris, Matthew

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

Jackson, Robert

Pattie, Geoffrey

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Pawsey, James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Pollock, Alexander

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Portillo, Michael

Powell, Wiliiam (Corby)

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Powley, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Sumberg, David

Price, Sir David

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Raffan, Keith

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Raison, Rt Hon Timotny

Temple-Morris, Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Renton, Tim

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thornton, Malcolm

Rippor, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Thurnham, Peter

Roberts. Wyn (Conwy)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tracey, Richard

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Trippier, David

Rost, Peter

Trotter, Neville

Rowe, Andrew

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Ryder, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Viggers, Peter

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Waddington, David

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Waldegrave, Hon William

Scott, Nicholas

Walden, George

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wall, Sir Patrick

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Waller, Gary

Shepherd. Colin (Hereford)

Walters, Dennis

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Ward, John

Silvester, Fred

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Sims, Roger

Watson, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Watts, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfieid)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Speed, Keith

Wheeler, John

Speller, Tony

Whitney, Raymond

Spence, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Spencer, Derek

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Wolfson, Mark

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wood, Timothy

Squire, Robin

Woodcock, Michael

Steen, Anthony

Yeo, Tim

Stern, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Tellers for the Noes:

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mr. Carol Mather and

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Division No. 213]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Aitken, Jonathan

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Alexander, Richard

Bottomley, Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

Ancram, Michael

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Arnold, Tom

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Ashby, David

Bright, Graham

Aspinwall, Jack

Brinton, Tim

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Browne, John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Bruce, Malcolm

Baldry, Tony

Bryan, Sir Paul

Batiste, Spencer

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Buck, Sir Antony

Bellingham, Henry

Budgen, Nick

Bendall, Vivian

Butcher, John

Best, Keith

Butterfill, John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Cash, William

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Channon, Rt hon Paul

Hordern. Peter

Chope, Christopher

Howard, Michael

Churchill, W. S.

Howarth, Alan (Stratr'd-on-A)

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

Howarth. Gerald (Cannock)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Cockeram, Eric

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Colvin, Michael

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Coombs, Simon

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Cope, John

Irving, Charles

Corrie, John

Jackson, Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Jenkin. Rt Hon Patrick

Critchley, Julian

John, Brynmor

Crouch, David

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dicks, Terry

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Dorrell, Stephen

Kershaw, Sir Antnony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

King, Rt Hon Tom

Dunn, Robert

Kirkwood, Archy

Durant, Tony

Knight, Gregory (Deroy N)

Dykes, Hugh

Knowles, Michael

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Knox, David

Eggar, Tim

Lamont, Norman

Emery, Sir Peter

Lang, Ian

Evennett, David

Lawler, Geoffrey

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lawrence, Ivan

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fallon, Michael

Lee, John (Pendle)

Farr, Sir John

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Favell, Anthony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lightbown, David

Fletcher, Alexander

Lilley, Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Forth, Eric

Luce, Richard

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lyell, Nicholas

Fox. Marcus

McCrindle, Robert

Franks, Cecil

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Macfarlane, Neil

Freud, Clement

MacGregor, John

Fry, Peter

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

McQuarrie, Albert

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Madel, David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Major, John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Malone, Gerald

Goodlad, Alastair

Maples, John

Gow, Ian

Marland, Paul

Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Mates, Michael

Grist, Ian

Maude, Hon Francis

Ground, Patrick

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Grylls, Michael

Meadowcroft, Michael

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mellor, David

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Merchant, Piers

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Hanley, Jeremy

Miscampbell, Norman

Harvey, Robert

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Haselhurst, Alan

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Hawksley, Warren

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hayes, J.

Moore, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hayward, Robert

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Moynihan, Hon C.

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Neale, Gerrard

Henderson, Barry

Needham, Richard

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Hickmet, Richard

Neubert, Michael

Hicks, Robert

Newton, Tony

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Nicholls, Patrick

Hind, Kenneth

Normanton, Tom

Hirst, Michael

Norris, Steven

Oppenheim, Phillip

Squire, Robin

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Steen, Anthony

Osborn, Sir John

Stern, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Parris, Matthew

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Stradling Thomas, J.

Pawsey, James

Sumberg, David

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Pollock, Alexander

Temple-Morris, Peter

Portillo, Michael

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Powell, William (Corby)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Powley, John

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Price, Sir David

Thurnham, Peter

Prior, Rt Hon James

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Raffan, Keith

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Tracey, Richard

Rathbone, Tim

Trippier, David

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Trotter, Neville

Renton, Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Viggers, Peter

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Waddington, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Roe, Mrs Marion

Walden, George

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wall, Sir Patrick

Rost, Peter

Waller, Gary

Rowe, Andrew

Walters, Dennis

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Ward, John

Ryder, Richard

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Watson, John

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Watts, John

Scott, Nicholas

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

Wheeler, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Whitney, Raymond

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wiggin, Jerry

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wigley, Dafydd

Silvester, Fred

Wolfson, Mark

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wood, Timothy

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Woodcock, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Yeo, Tim

Speed, Keith

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Speller, Tony

Younger, Rt Hon George

Spence, John

Spencer, Derek

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Mr. Carol Mather and

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Campbell, Ian

Alton, David

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Anderson, Donald

Canavan, Dennis

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Ashton, Joe

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Barnett, Guy

Chapman, Sydney

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Beggs, Roy

Clarke, Thomas

Beith, A. J.

Clay, Robert

Bell, Stuart

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Benn, Tony

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

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

Cohen, Harry

Benyon, William

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Bermingham, Gerald

Corbett, Robin

Bidwell, Sydney

Cormack, Patrick

Blair, Anthony

Cowans, Harry

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Craigen, J. M.

Boyes, Roland

Crowther, Stan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Cunningham, Dr John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Deakins, Eric

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Dixon, Donald

Caborn, Richard

Dormand, Jack

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Douglas, Dick

Dover, Den

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Duffy, A. E. P.

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Eadie, Alex

Maynard, Miss Joan

Eastham, Ken

Meacher, Michael

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

Michie, William

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Mikardo, Ian

Fatchett, Derek

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Fisher, Mark

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Flannery, Martin

Nellist, David

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Forrester, John

O'Brien, William

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

O'Neill, Martin

Foster, Derek

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Foulkes, George

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Park, George

George, Bruce

Patchett, Terry

Godman, Dr Norman

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Golding, John

Penhaligon, David

Gould, Bryan

Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Greenway, Harry

Prescott, John

Gregory, Conal

Radice, Giles

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Randall, Stuart

Harman, Ms Harriet

Redmond, M.

Harris, David

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Rhodes James, Robert

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Haynes, Frank

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Heffer, Eric S.

Rowlands, Ted

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Sedgemore, Brian

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Sheerman, Barry

Howells, Geraint

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Hunter, Andrew

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Janner, Hon Greville

Snape, Peter

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Spearing, Nigel

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Stanbrook, Ivor

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Kilfedder, James A.

Strang, Gavin

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Straw, Jack

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Lamond, James

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Latham, Michael

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Leadbitter, Ted

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Torney, Tom

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Litherland, Robert

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wainwright, R.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Loyden, Edward

Wallace, James

McCartney, Hugh

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McCrea, Rev William

Wareing, Robert

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Weetch, Ken

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Maclennan, Robert

Winnick, David

McTaggart, Robert

Winterton, Mrs Ann

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Tellers for the Noes:

Malins, Humfrey

Mr. Laurie Pavitt and

Marek, Dr John

Mr. Michael Welsh.

Martin, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Proposals to Amend the Shops Acts (Cmnd. 9376); accepts the case for the removal of legislative limitations on shop hours; and looks forward to the Government bringing forward legislation to remove such limitations.

Local Overseas Allowance (Germany)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[tir. Archie Hamilton.]
10.27 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the reduction in local overseas allowance for service men in Germany. I am pleased that the chairman and one of the vice-chairmen of the Conservative Back-Bench defence committee are also present. I welcome them to this short debate.
The House knows that I do not generally seek to intervene in debates on defence matters, although I served my national service in a good regiment and spent some time abroad. We thought ourselves very short of money when we were on active service in Palestine in 1948. But all that was a long time ago.
I am seeking to raise this subject because I believe that the Government may have made a serious mistake in the way in which they have dealt with the overseas allowance for our service men in Germany on this occasion.
I should like to make known to the House the contents of a letter that I have received from a captain serving in Germany. I shall not read out all of it because it would not be fair to him if I were to identify him personally; but I am sure that he is speaking for a large number of our men in Germany. His letter is so well expressed that I do not think that I can do better than to open the debate by reading from it. He wrote on 2 May:
"As a volunteer single soldier, the reduction of Local Overseas Allowance … announced on April 11 (to take effect from August 1) cuts my annual net salary by one month's pay. As a single captain, I therefore stand to lose in excess of £600 per annum. When this reduction takes effect, a single captain will be some DM240 per month worse off now than he was in April 1981; taking into account changes in the rate of exchange between the pound and DM, previous LOA reductions and pay increases.
You will perhaps be aware that few people join the Army to make money, but I cannot think of any firm or organisation that would expect its personnel to endure an 8 per cent. drop in salary. The situation is aggravated by the fact that this comes in addition to increased commitments with reduced manpower which mean a greater work load per capita. This leads to a declining quality of life, principally through an inability to take one's full allowance of leave. Currently, in my Regiment the average amount of leave missed last year was I 1 days per man, and that was during a period of less commitments than this year. Also, the chances for adventure training and sport are reduced dramatically …
Whilst there is the advantage of tax free prices from living abroad there is no question that we incur greater expenses than our comrades who serve in England. A newspaper costs on average three times as much out here … I am entitled to one free return flight home per year, and thus should I wish to see either friends or family more than once a year, I must either pay in excess of £75 for a civil flight, or drive back at a cost of £60 on average. Telephone calls are also expensive since one is making international calls each time one rings home …
It is perhaps worth exploding the myth that actions such as cutting allowances save money. Even though many soldiers were leaving before this announcement was made, due to the declining quality of life over here. I would suggest to you that the numbers leaving will increase further. This will lead to gaps in the middle management level of Corporal and Captain, as in the mid 1970s, with the best men leaving. Thus the vast cost of training these men is not balanced by an adequate return in terms of length of service and we have to incur the expense of training up more new recruits, with a lower grade middle management. I do not think that much of the £17,000.000 saved from LOA will be left for spending on other things.
832
I would therefore be grateful if you could make the strongest representations on behalf of both myself, and all others serving in BOAR, to the Government in an attempt to solve some of these problems … All of the money spent on new equipment will he entirely wasted if there are only second grade soldiers to man it. We need some action now if we are to avoid a crisis worse than existed in the mid 1970s; high unemployment is no deterrent to soldiers who wish to vote with their feet, since they usually posses qualifications which are much in demand in civilian life. I hope that you will feel able to take some action to remedy this situation, and I look forward to hearing from you."
I replied to the captain, but I also made some inquiries. It does not seem that that is an unbalanced or unreasonable expression of the views of our men serving in Germany. If that is true it is a serious matter, and deserves the attention of the House of Commons.
Sir Antony Buck: The whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. Many of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), have had representations and letters similar to the one from which my hon. Friend has just quoted. One of the most disturbing features, to which we hope the Minister will respond, is that in some cases, possibly through no fault of the Ministry, the first intimation that some of our forces had about the matter was through the media, which is a great shame, in addition to the basic facts.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for mentioning that matter. I do not want to emphasise it too much, because mistakes can happen or there can be leaks, but it adds to the loss of morale and it is vital that we should avoid that.
I recognise that the decision to cut the allowances follows a statistical exercise. I shall not suggest that it has not been carried out in good faith and as competently as possible; but on examination of how it was done, how the rate of exchange is taken into account and other aspects of the calculation are dealt with to assess the comparative cost of living in Germany and Britain, I cannot escape the feeling that there is a substantial element of discretion in how the figures are decided. I wonder whether there might have been some anxiety in the Ministry of Defence to show willingness to accommodate itself to the Treasury, at any rate in this small way, by making the cut as severe as possible on the basis of the statistical exercise. If that was the thinking behind it, it was very short-sighted.
I have noted the replies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the Select Committee on Defence on 8 May and I have seen the brief exchange during Question Time on 30 April; but we have not yet had a satisfactory statement. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure the House, or to say that the point has been taken on board and that the Ministry is preparing to make some concession which will compensate for the shock and disappointment that our men undoubtedly feel as a result of this recent announcement.
We are dealing with long-term personnel management. An incident such as this can stick in people's gullets for a long time. We must think about the best use of our human and material resources in Germany and ask whether the saving of £17 million was really worth the inevitable disappointment. Having served in industry for 20 years after leaving the Army, including some time in personnel management, it seems to me that service life is not so different from business in the rest of the state sector or, for

833
that matter, in the private sector of industry. The men must be looked after. If they are not, the machines will not look after themselves. The first consideration is the morale of the men, the management or, in this case, the troops.
How do we value our men? Do we care about their morale? Does it matter if they take their knowledge and skills elsewhere, or is this all a fuss about nothing? In my opinion it is not a fuss about nothing, the men's morale matters and we must not allow them to vote with their feet. Loyalty is a two-way street. Our men must know that we have not forgotten them in Germany and that we are not trying to drive a hard bargain with them. If the traffic in one direction dries up, the reverse traffic—their loyalty to us—will begin to dry up as well. We do not want that result.
I shall not complain and seek to make a serious issue of the fact that the announcement was made in an unfortunate way. It is clear that the Secretary of State has taken that on board and will ensure that the mistake is not repeated. I am worried, however, about the long-term effect if the decision to make a small immediate saving has a disproportionately damaging effect on our defence capability and the long-term cost-effectiveness of our defence expenditure in Germany. We might be making the same mistake that the Labour party made in the 1970s when it did not keep pace with the natural desire of our police force to enjoy a reasonable standard of living and the self-respect that goes with it. We lost many men then that we could ill afford to lose. Moreover it is the best men that find it easiest to go.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The same thing happened with the Armed Forces.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: So I believe. The Ministry must be aware of past mistakes and is equal to providing a remedy now. I realise that pay and conditions in the services have been very much improved recently; but a sudden drop is a shock to men of all ranks and must be compensated for in some way.
The officer who wrote to me in the first instance, replied to my letter with what I hope is a constructive suggestion. He said:
"If financial remuneration is not possible, then perhaps the conditions of service could be improved. This could be done by increasing the number of free flights home per soldier per year. Alternatively, soldiers could be given the option of a free ferry ticket together with a motor mileage claim to the port of departure instead of using one of their free flights. Whatever happens, if something is not done shortly, the quantity of soldiers leaving will increase, and there will be a large decrease in the overall quality of the British Army."
My hon. Friend must reassure the House about that problem tonight. I hope that he will not think that I am seeking to make difficulties for him or to stir up trouble among our men in Germany. That would be the last thing that I or any Conservative Member would seek to do. My hon. Friend has a problem, which at present has not been solved. He must address himself to it sincerely and competently.
10.40 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). As my hon. Friend the Minister
834
knows, I am an officer and a Conservative Back Bench Member, and take a keen interest in these matters through my involvement with the military committee of NATO.
I recognise that the Government have a splendid record in defence matters. That includes both equipment and the terms and conditions of service, which have been substantially improved since they came to office. However, I know from the information that I have received that this matter has caused some anxiety. A straight- forward financial comparison between the cost of living here and in the Federal Republic of Germany is not a true comparison. We are all aware that certain special conditions attach to service in Northern Ireland, which makes it a little more attractive for those who spend any length of time there. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will be able to give us some satisfaction on that score.
10.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir. B. Rhys Williams) for providing this opportunity to comment on the reductions in local overseas allowance which are taking place in Germany. I am well aware of the anxiety expressed by hon. Members, the press and many ordinary members of the public about those reductions. Obviously, I take note of the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). The fact that we have about a 400 per cent. increase in attendance on the Back Benches compared with the normal Adjournment debate demonstrates the degree of parliamentary interest in this subject. I should like, therefore, to give the House a full explanation of how the LOA system works and of the reasons for the outcome of the recent LOA review in Germany.
The purpose of the local overseas allowance is to supplement the pay of service men in those areas where their expenditure on items of day-to-day living is necessarily higher than in the United Kingdom. It is a compensatory cost of living allowance and it is therefore free of income tax. It is assessed separately for each overseas theatre. The approach to and methods used in each individual assessment are always the same, irrespective of location, and rates will differ as a reflection of local prices and conditions. They will also vary according to the individual's marital status and rank.
I stress that the allowance is not paid as an inducement to, or reward for, service overseas or long hours worked or, indeed, in respect of the potential dangers inherent in service with the Armed Forces. Those factors are taken into account when assessing the correct level of service pay. Pay levels for the services are established by the independent Armed Forces pay review body. As part of the AFPRB process of assessment; it identifies an extra payment, known as the X factor, which is added to basic pay to compensate service men for such things as their liability to work long hours without extra pay and the potential danger and turbulence involved in their work. The X factor currently amounts to 10 per cent. of pay in the case of service men and 7·5 per cent. for women.
Similarly, LOA is not designed to cover the extra costs of non-essential or luxury items, such as cameras or hi-fi, or to help with the purchase of tax-free capital goods in an overseas location. It is important to realise that LOA is

835
designed to cover the extra costs to people in general—the average service man or woman. We recognise that individual expenditure patterns will differ from the assumptions made about the average man, but for clear practical reasons it cannot be based on individual circumstances. In Germany alone we would be faced with 65,000 separate assessments were we to do otherwise.
It is obviously important to the Armed Forces that any system for compensating service personnel for extra day-to-day living costs, brought about by their service overseas, should be seen to operate, and should in practice operate, fairly, irrespective of the overseas theatre in which they may be stationed. Service personnel in receipt of LOA are based in many countries as far apart as Hong Kong, Australia, the United States and, of course, closer to home, in various western European countries. Inevitably the difference between the cost of living in Britain and in the countries overseas where our Armed Forces are serving will narrow as well as widen. It is inescapable, therefore, that there will sometimes be LOA reductions as well as LOA increases.
I have laid emphasis on explaining the policy and underlying philosophy for the payment of local overseas allowances. I should now like to turn to the operation of the system and to explain in more detail the workings of the process. LOA is regularly reviewed so that it fairly and accurately reflects additional living costs. An LOA review team normally comprises a representative of a service personnel branch, a Treasury and-or Ministry of Defence finance division representative and an independent chairman together with a secretary from the central staffs, whose job it is to arbitrate between the personnel and finance divisions.
Full reviews are undertaken every three years, and each year close to the anniversary of the full review the review team carries out a repricing of the LOA budget, based on the standards assessed at the review. In this way, LOA is kept in touch with overseas price movements, and the problems which would otherwise be caused by significant pay and price variations between the trienniel reviews are reduced. Each review is carried out extremely thoroughly and in the greatest detail, and covers all the major items of expenditure that a service man would incur—food, clothing, drink, cars, sport, recreation, entertainment, holidays and so on. It also provides for any necessary adjustments to service lifestyles from those in the United Kingdom as a result of local conditions.
A new cycle of LOA reviews began in October 1984 based on the latest data collected from a survey of expenditure by service personnel in the United Kingdom. The 1984 survey was restructured to reflect more accurately the overseas position and, for example, established more evidence on service men's expenditure on weekend holidays, ownership of home videos, the scale of home entertainment, hobbies and several other expenditure headings relevant to the calculation of the LOA budget. We also investigated closely the types of goods and services bought and their weighting in the budget. As a result, we changed some products in the notional LOA shopping basket to reflect known shopping patterns more closely.
The new cycle of reviews has resulted in some substantial increases in LOA, with exceptions in some cases for single personnel. About 5,000 have benefited from the reviews, for example, in Cyprus, Italy, Sardinia, Gibraltar, Portugal, the United States, Denmark and
836
Belize. However, in the case of Germany, a review in March based on the same criteria used for reviews in those other countries concluded that LOA should be reduced. The review in Germany necessitated the employment of two full LOA teams, which undertook a detailed survey during the whole of March. In addition to the armed forces representatives on the team, observers from the British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany were attached to the team throughout the entire review process. Prices were taken at many locations—in NAAFI and German shops, hotels, garages, messes, and places of entertainment. Representatives of service personnel stationed in Germany and their wives were also interviewed, and the findings of the review were considered most carefully before the reductions were announced.
Inflation in Germany continues to remain lower than in the United Kingdom, and the cost of most items for day-to-day living is the same or less in Germany. In addition, the benefits of duty-free prices must be taken into account. For example, at the time of the review in Germany, a packet of 20 cigarettes in NAAFI cost 47p; a pint of beer in a corporal's mess cost 40p; and duty-free petrol cost 94p per gallon which, taken in conjunction with other costs and non-payment of road tax, reduces car running costs to about two thirds of those in the United Kingdom. The main factors which result in LOA continuing to be paid in Germany include the loss to the service man on the sale of his car in the United Kingdom, higher car ownership and car mileages in Germany, the need for extra clothing to combat the cold and the costs of running a second bank account.
The local overseas allowance review in Germany not only took into account the most recent information on shopping patterns, but also made improvements in the compensation for losses on car sales in the United Kingdom and on wear and tear on washing machines; in the cost of a second bank account; and in holiday provision for single personnel. Holiday provision is important, because it is acknowledged that it is not easy to visit friends and relatives in the United Kingdom, so it is assumed for LOA purposes that all personnel spend 21 nights with full board in an hotel and have seven nights camping costs. It is the cost of hotel accommodation, baby-sitting costs, home entertainment and extra clothing for the family which create the differences in LOA rates between married and single personnel.
We fully understand that many service men and women have commitments which they cannot quickly reduce, and although it is made clear that LOA is not intended for the purchase of capital goods, the implementation of the recent LOA reductions has been deferred until 1 August. This is two months later than would apply under the normal rules for this allowance. Increases elsewhere in the world have been put into effect at the beginning of the month following the LOA review.
There has been criticism that service men and women in Germany first heard of the LOA reduction from the media. This point was referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North. The difficulty here is that our experience has shown that a reduction in LOA in Germany is publicised by the media almost immediately it is announced to units. Given the number of service men and women away from barracks at any one time, either in transit or on exercises or other duties it is

837
impossible to avoid the situation in which many of them first hear of an LOA reduction through the media. We will, however, give this aspect further consideration.
We all recognise in the Ministry of Defence that life in Germany is demanding, and are very much aware of the extremely high standards that our service men in BAOR and RAF Germany achieve, as I have noted on my visits. However, LOA is intended only to reflect cost of living factors and cannot be kept at a higher level than the extra cost of living in Germany would justify. The very understandable disappointment at the reductions resulting from the recent LOA review in Germany has to be balanced against the warm welcome given to the increases in LOA that the same system has produced elsewhere.
It is of great importance to the armed forces overall to have a system for ensuring that, as far as it is administratively possible, service men and women are compensated, but not over-compensated, for increases to their costs of living when they are serving overseas. I hope that I have been able to explain to the House the reasons for our decision, which must stand.
We are of course concerned about the well-being and morale of our troops stationed in Germany and we recognise the importance of pay and allowances, but it is
838
equally important to uphold morale by ensuring that our troops are properly and fully equipped, and we are proud of our record in this regard.
I freely acknowledge that, human nature being what it is, no one likes to have something reduced or taken away, but those in receipt of local overseas allowances must appreciate that they are concessionary and can be adjusted upwards or downwards and thus that service personnel must plan their financial commitments accordingly.
Sir Antony Buck: We are most grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for dealing with the matter so fully. Would he consider it to be appropriate to spell out in a slim Government document the substance of what he has just said for distribution not only among the Armed Forces, by whom I think it will be well received, but also among those hon. Members who try closely to follow these matters? It is not mentioned in the White Paper.
Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his suggestion, which I shall certainly consider with my ministerial colleagues.
I emphasise to the House that the principles behind LOAs have not changed and have remained the same for many years under successive Governments.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to eleven o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Land Registration and Law of Property Bill
  Land Registration and Law of Property Bill
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Entry Clearance
  Entry Clearance
  Public Events (Policing)
  Public Events (Policing)
  Animals (Research)
  Animals (Research)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Computerised Data Processing
  Computerised Data Processing
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Tamil Community
  Tamil Community
PRIME MINISTER
  Hospital Management
  Hospital Management
  Nurses (Pay Review)
  Nurses (Pay Review)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Bradford Fire (Appeal Fund)
  Bradford Fire (Appeal Fund)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Ford Motor Company Ltd. (Report)
  Ford Motor Company Ltd. (Report)
  Child Buggy Pushchairs
  Child Buggy Pushchairs
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  South Africa (EC Code of Conduct)
  South Africa (EC Code of Conduct)
  Pirate Radio Stations
  Pirate Radio Stations
  Manufacturing Trade (Deficits)
  Manufacturing Trade (Deficits)
  Bosporus Bridge
  Bosporus Bridge
  Japan (Trade Restrictions)
  Japan (Trade Restrictions)
TRANSPORT
  Licences
  Licences
  Roads (Reconstruction)
  Roads (Reconstruction)
  Trunk Roads (Review)
  Trunk Roads (Review)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Shipping Industry
  Shipping Industry
  Engineering Works (Rayleigh Weir)
  Engineering Works (Rayleigh Weir)
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
  Mr. W. Rawlinson (Member's Correspondence)
  Mr. W. Rawlinson (Member's Correspondence)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Parking Restrictions
  Parking Restrictions
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Traffic Management Systems (London)
  Traffic Management Systems (London)
  A38 (Safety Fencing)
  A38 (Safety Fencing)
  Cars (Lead-free Petrol)
  Cars (Lead-free Petrol)
ENERGY
  Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982
  Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary
  Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary
  People's Republic of China
  People's Republic of China
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
WALES
  CEGB (Chairman)
  CEGB (Chairman)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Rhondda Valley
  Rhondda Valley
  Licences
  Licences
  Welsh Language Act
  Welsh Language Act
  All-Wales Strategy for Mentally Handicapped People
  All-Wales Strategy for Mentally Handicapped People
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Non-Government Bodies (Payments)
  Non-Government Bodies (Payments)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
  Computerised Data Processing
  Computerised Data Processing
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  A5 (Bypasses)
  A5 (Bypasses)
  Company Headquarters
  Company Headquarters
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
SCOTLAND
  Glenochil Centre
  Glenochil Centre
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Rates
  Rates
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  Health Boards
  Health Boards
  Political Conferences (Policing Costs)
  Political Conferences (Policing Costs)
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Schools (Behaviour Problems)
  Schools (Behaviour Problems)
  Defective Houses
  Defective Houses
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
EMPLOYMENT
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Swindon
  Swindon
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Personal Disposable Income
  Personal Disposable Income
  Trans Promotions Ltd.
  Trans Promotions Ltd.
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Black Report
  Black Report
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Birds (Licences to Kill)
  Birds (Licences to Kill)
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Security
  Security
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  O-Level Pupils
  O-Level Pupils
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Infant Classes
  Infant Classes
  Schools (Building Work)
  Schools (Building Work)
THE ARTS
  Sponsorship
  Sponsorship
  Licences
  Licences
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  "Official Report"(Delivery)
  "Official Report"(Delivery)
  Parliamentary Questions (Costs)
  Parliamentary Questions (Costs)
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Visitors
  Visitors
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Benefits
  Housing Benefits
  Mr. Lionel Clarke
  Mr. Lionel Clarke
  Waltham Forest District Health Authority
  Waltham Forest District Health Authority
  General Practitioners (Terms of Service)
  General Practitioners (Terms of Service)
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Screening
  Glaucoma
  Glaucoma
  Voluntary Repatriations
  Voluntary Repatriations
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  State Earnings-related Pension
  State Earnings-related Pension
  Irradiated and Novel Foods
  Irradiated and Novel Foods
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Computerised Data Processing
  Computerised Data Processing
  Blood Donors
  Blood Donors
  Hatacide LP5
  Hatacide LP5
  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre
  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Drug Companies (Compensation Payments)
  Drug Companies (Compensation Payments)
  Drug Trials
  Drug Trials
  Drugs Testing
  Drugs Testing
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Argentina (Missing Persons)
  Argentina (Missing Persons)
  Nuclear Arms Reduction Talks
  Nuclear Arms Reduction Talks
  Underground Nuclear Testing
  Underground Nuclear Testing
  Nuclear Explosions (Treaty)
  Nuclear Explosions (Treaty)
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Mr. S. Chityan
  Mr. S. Chityan
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Ethiopia and Sudan
  Ethiopia and Sudan
NATIONAL FINANCE
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  EC (Own Resources)
  EC (Own Resources)
  Commercial Bills
  Commercial Bills
  Public Expenditure Programmes
  Public Expenditure Programmes
  Albanian Gold
  Albanian Gold
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Computerised Data Processing
  Computerised Data Processing
  Balance of Payments (Japan and Germany)
  Balance of Payments (Japan and Germany)
  Wealth Distribution
  Wealth Distribution
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  CAP (Price System)
  CAP (Price System)
ENVIRONMENT
  Licences
  Licences
  Single Persons (Housing)
  Single Persons (Housing)
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Insulating Materials (Standard)
  Insulating Materials (Standard)
  Urea Formaldehyde Wall Insulation
  Urea Formaldehyde Wall Insulation
  Drinking Water (Nitrates)
  Drinking Water (Nitrates)
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Right-to-Buy (Manchester)
  Right-to-Buy (Manchester)
  Public Footpaths
  Public Footpaths
  Guide Dogs
  Guide Dogs
  Housing and Construction
  Housing and Construction
  Fixed Penalty Parking Fines
  Fixed Penalty Parking Fines
  Greater London Council
  Greater London Council
  Falklands Airport
  Falklands Airport
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  Water Research Centre
  Water Research Centre
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Olive Oil
  Olive Oil
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Departmental Committees of Inquiry
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Dairy Farming (Northern Ireland)
  Dairy Farming (Northern Ireland)
  Mediterranean Products
  Mediterranean Products
  Fishing Vessel Decommissioning Scheme
  Fishing Vessel Decommissioning Scheme
  Livestock Markets
  Livestock Markets
  Imported Poultrymeat
  Imported Poultrymeat
  EC (Meat Directives)
  EC (Meat Directives)
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  Agricultural Production
  Agricultural Production
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Farm Animal Welfare Council (Report)
  Farm Animal Welfare Council (Report)
  EC (Council Meeting)
  EC (Council Meeting)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Farm Prices
  Farm Prices
  Veterinary Medicines
  Veterinary Medicines
  Beef (Intervention)
  Beef (Intervention)
  Outgoers Quota
  Outgoers Quota
  Milk Cessation Scheme
  Milk Cessation Scheme
  Development Awards
  Development Awards
  Pyrazophos
  Pyrazophos
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  EC (Warehouses)
  EC (Warehouses)
  UHT Milk
  UHT Milk
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Food (Fluoride Content)
  Food (Fluoride Content)
  Fungicides
  Fungicides
  Mr. W. Wakeham (Decommissioning Grant)
  Mr. W. Wakeham (Decommissioning Grant)
ENVIRONMENT
  Departmental Stationery
  Departmental Stationery
  Consultants (Cost)
  Consultants (Cost)
  Ministerial Offices
  Ministerial Offices
  Housing Research (London)
  Housing Research (London)
  Newspaper Purchases
  Newspaper Purchases
  Departmental Appointments
  Departmental Appointments
  Local Authorities (Consultations)
  Local Authorities (Consultations)
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Newspapers and Periodicals
  Newspapers and Periodicals
DEFENCE
  Defence Estimates (Romanian Forces)
  Defence Estimates (Romanian Forces)
  Nuclear Depth Bombs
  Nuclear Depth Bombs
  Rapid Reinforcement Aircraft
  Rapid Reinforcement Aircraft
  NATO (Infrastructure Programme)
  NATO (Infrastructure Programme)
  NATO Projects
  NATO Projects
  United States Forces (Support)
  United States Forces (Support)
  Strategic Forces (Analysis)
  Strategic Forces (Analysis)
  Missile Systems
  Missile Systems
  United States Forces (Deployment)
  United States Forces (Deployment)
  Licences
  Licences
  Base Workshops, Bicester
  Base Workshops, Bicester
  Technology Demonstrator Programme
  Technology Demonstrator Programme
  Type 23 Frigate
  Type 23 Frigate
  Computerised Data Processing
  Computerised Data Processing
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Nuclear Warheads
  Nuclear Warheads
  Classified Papers
  Classified Papers
  Spetsnaz. Brigades
  Spetsnaz. Brigades
  Nuclear Artillery Shells
  Nuclear Artillery Shells

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

Libyan School, Chelsea
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that political meetings have taken place at the Libyan School in Chelsea; and whether they are still of the opinion that this establishment poses no threat to national security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I understand that political meetings have been held at the Jamahiriya School, Chelsea. I have no information to suggest that anything sinister has occurred, but if there were any grounds for thinking that this establishment posed a threat to national security, the police would take appropriate action.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If political meetings of any kind have taken place at this establishment—and there is, as the Minister has said, substantial evidence that they have—is this not in itself a matter for grave concern? The establishment concerned is meant to be a school. In the light of the fact that there is substantial evidence of the infiltration of terrorist groups from Libya into this country in recent months, does the Minister not agree that the activities of this school require far more attention and supervision than they appear to be receiving at the moment?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the school, as I understand it, is a bona fide educational establishment, and so long as the activities of all those who use
2
the school remain within the law there are no grounds on which the police may act. At present the police have no grounds for believing that there is anything untoward about the school or its activities.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, concerning the infiltration of terrorist groups from Libya into this country over the past few months? Can the Minister confirm that that is true? If so, what are the Government doing about it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no evidence to suggest that people from Libya who should not be in this country are here.

Immigration Rules
2.38 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 will examine the immigration rules for any discriminatory provisions, report their findings and consider the revision of those provisions.
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords. In accordance with Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, the immigration rules are laid before Parliament. There is thus opportunity for Parliament to consider the justification for the rules.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this is another example of a Question made necessary by the refusal of the Minister to answer a specific point made by me, in this case during your Lordships' debate on women on 1st May. Is it not the case that wives in this country, whether or not they be British citizens, have no right to secure their husbands' entry from abroad, whereas husbands have the right to arrange for their wives living abroad to join them in this country? Is this not a flagrant breach of the principle which the Minister enunciated at the end of our debate on 1st May; that the Government are committed to equality?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the differences in the treatment of husbands and male fiancés compared with wives and fiancées reflect the need to protect the domestic labour market.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister not recall that Parliament has considered the report of the Commission for Racial Equality which draws attention to numerous examples of discrimination in our immigration law which some of us have been talking about for many years? During the course of the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, agreed to make certain changes to the rules as a result of that report. Can the Minister say what progress has been made with those moves and whether, as a result of continued reflection on the CRE report, any further changes are contemplated?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be aware that there are currently three cases before the European Court of Human Rights. The commission's report was an advisory report, and the court's judgment, which will be binding, has not yet been received.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, if it is a matter of principle not to discriminate, is it not absurd that that principle should be set on one side, apparently for reasons connected with the labour market?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, despite changing patterns in recent years, men are still more likely than women to seek work, and particularly full-time work at that. The Government have taken the view that at a time of high unemployment it would not be right to make the changes which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is seeking.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is not the argument about the labour market entirely fallacious? Is it not the case that immigrants create a demand for goods and services which more than cancels out the effect of the employment of them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it was a Labour Government who in 1977 found it necessary to reintroduce tests to prevent marriages of convenience for immigration purposes. In 1979 we were elected with a mandate to strengthen those tests. Having tightened up the work permit system so as to prevent young men entering this country, it would be absurd if we allowed exactly the same young men to come onto the labour market by using marriage as a device. It works both ways.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, will the Minister accept that his replies so far have been very disappointing? Does he not agree that the rules in question are racist as well as sexist, in that it is mostly non-Europeans who are affected by them?
Again, will the Minister not accept—I am moving to another side of the immigration rules—that,
4
whatever may be the actual wording of the rules, there is a great deal of discrimination occurring at airports? I have already told your Lordships the story of when I was chairman of the commission investigating the disturbances in Bermuda—
Noble Lords: Order! Question.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, one of the members of the commission—
Noble Lords: Order! Question.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sorry, but I am asking a question. One of the members of the commission objected to my suggestion that we should write a report because of the discrimination experienced at Heathrow Airport. Will the Minister not agree that, whatever may have been the decisions of the House, it is right to look at rules which it is suggested are discriminatory to see whether that is so?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely reject the noble Lord's assertion that the rules are in any way racially biased. The immigration rules stipulate quite clearly that the control of immigration should be administered without regard to race, colour or religion; and any breach of this requirement would be dealt with by means of disciplinary procedures.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, why is it, then, that discrimination on sex grounds is necessary, according to the Government's criterion? Is it not the case that a large number of women born abroad who come to this country take full-time employment? I believe that the last figure was 41 per cent. of Asian women. Are the Government protecting the male labour market or protecting the total labour market; or is this simply another sign that the Government believe in a male dominated society in which the man is considered to be the head of the household and the breadwinner?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is suggesting that because the rules apply to men in this way they should apply also to women. It has not been considered necessary, up until now, to apply the tests to foreign wives and fiancées, but we continue to monitor any evidence of abuse of the marriage rules by women to secure admission into this country.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the same rules apply to the European Community to protect the employment market? Does he not also believe, bearing in mind the conflict there is over this problem, that there should now be a new, full-scale inquiry into the whole issue?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should have thought that it would be better to wait for the judgment from the European Court of Human Rights.

Midwife Trainees
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the recruitment of midwife trainees will be adequate to meet the anticipated demand for midwifery services in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, it is for individual health authorities to determine their future requirements for student midwives in the light of local needs and circumstances.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that I am very disappointed at her reply? Is she aware that in the report by the Royal College of Nursing to the Pay Review Body the college revealed that there is now a deficiency of nearly 24 per cent. in the funded establishment of trained midwives, and that the trend is getting worse each year? Rather than just referring to the health authorities, can the Minister say what the department is doing to ensure that the pay and career structure within the midwifery profession provides adequate reward and encouragement to get people to join what is a noble and important profession?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, of course I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that it is a noble profession. With regard to pay, as the noble Lord will know, the pay of NHS nursing and midwifery staff is determined in the light of the recommendations of an independent review body. It is a matter for the review body concerning midwives, which will take into account all evidence from interested parties. Should the noble Lord wish for more information on the number of student midwives in training, information supplied by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting shows that the numbers increased by 26 per cent. over the past 12 months.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that only one-fifth of those who have been trained as midwives are now in the midwifery profession, due to the pay and conditions? Is she aware of what is said in the report from the Royal College of Midwives? It states:
"At all levels of the midwifery profession morale is low".
Surely this is a matter for the department and not simply one to be fobbed off on the health authorities.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, refers again to the issue of pay. I have already given him the answer to that. As I have also said, the number of midwifery students is rising and the number of midwives employed in the NHS continues to increase. At 30th September 1983—the latest date for which detailed information is available—there were 17,310 full-time equivalents: an increase of 4.7 per cent. compared with 2.4 per cent. in 1982.

NHS Private Patients' Fees
2.49 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much money is lost to the National Health Service annually by the failure of health authorities to collect the appropriate fees from private patients.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the extent of those losses cannot be reliably estimated. The Government are determined that all necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that the National Health Service receives income to which it is entitled.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that is an encouraging response? May I further ask whether she accepts the recent strictures by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Gordon Downey, on the failure of health authorities to collect the fees of private patients and the recent study which suggested that the loss amounts to about £60 million a year? Does the Minister accept that the responsibility for the collection of these private patients' fees lies with the health authorities? Is it not really appalling that when the Health Service is so desperately in need of funds there is money that is simply not being collected?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General relies heavily on the evidence produced by the department's own auditors, and the Government accept those criticisms. With regard to the noble Lord's other point about the extent of the national loss, it is impossible to say what it is, but the figure of £60 million which has been bandied about in another place is quite baseless.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people would be interested in the other side of this particular coin? How much money does the National Health Service receive from private health fees that are paid?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am unable to answer that question from my noble friend, but I should be glad to let him know.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that it is not just a question of information that may be given in another place? I have had detailed correspondence with the British Medical Association who are themselves very much concerned about this. Will the noble Baroness say why she is not concerned about it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I never said that I was not concerned about it. That is a total misuse of my words. I said that on the figures from the audit it was impossible to state the extent of the national loss.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Council of Agricultural Ministers on 13th to 16th May 1985.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Commons amendments the Prosecution of Offences Bill will be taken.

Royal Bank of Scotland Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Local Government Bill
2.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 135ZB:
Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Voluntary service authorities.
.—(1) On the appointed day there shall be established in Greater London and each metropolitan county a body corporate to be known by the name of the London Voluntary Service Authority or by the name of the county with the addition of the words "Voluntary Service Authority", as the case may be.
(2) Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
(3) The constituent in relation to the London Voluntary Service Authority shall be the London borough councils and the Common Council.
(4) The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan voluntary service authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county.
(5) 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.
(6) Each authority shall annually review the social needs of the inhabitants of its area.
(7) Each authority shall make a scheme for making grants to eligible voluntary organisations.
(8) In this section "voluntary organisation" means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit but does not include any public or local authority and "eligible voluntary organisation" means, in relation to Greater London or a metropolitan county, a voluntary organisation whose activities will directly or indirectly benefit either the whole of Greater London or that county or any part of it extending beyond the area of any particular constituent council.").
The noble Lord said: I should perhaps preface my speech by saying that it has been agreed that for the convenience of the Committee there should be a grouping of this amendment with the next one, under the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and others, and with Amendment No. 136ZB, which noble Lords will find at the bottom of page 4 of the Marshalled List, under the names of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster.
Amendment No. 136ZBA: Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause
("Transtitional funding for voluntary organizations
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall provide transitional support under the Local Government (Social Needs) Act 1969 for expenditure by London boroughs or metropolitan district councils, acting under any of their powers, on revenue support to voluntary organisations benefiting their areas which are funded in the year before the abolition date wholly or partly by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council; and such transitional support shall be provided annually for the four years after the abolition date up to an amount that the Secretary of State shall determine, having regard to the need to ensure continued funding of voluntary organisations comparable with that which obtained before the abolition date.
(2) Any local government contribution towards projects funded under this section shall be disregarded for purposes of calculating block grant penalty under section 5 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.").
Amendment No. 136ZB: After Clause 47, insert the following new clause
("Supervisory Council for s. 47 schemes
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order appoint a Council to oversee the schemes made under section 47.
(2) The Council shall have responsibility for distributing as it thinks fit any sums made available by the Secretary of State for voluntary organisations under such schemes.
(3) The Council shall report annually to Parliament.
(4) This section shall continue in force for three years after the passing of this Act and shall then expire unless Parliament by affirmative resolution of each House determines that it shall continue in force for a further period of three years.").
Let me start on a non-controversial note. The Committee could have been saved a great deal of trouble, and the noble Lord as well, if many of the issues in this Bill had been argued out more fully in another place. But if there is one area in particular where the expertise of many of your Lordships and the compassion of all of us in this Committee can most usefully be employed, it is on the effect of this Bill on voluntary organisations, with which so many of us are familiar.
I assume that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will share a determination that many excellent voluntary services should not be damaged or destroyed as a by-product of this abolition Bill. The Government have given repeated assurances that no such damage is intended, but we feel that the Bill in its present form will not deliver that assurance in practice and will not help us to tackle the massive social problems of all our conurbations.
The amendment is based on the full acceptance of the principle that local responsibilities, including support for voluntary projects, should be devolved to districts and to boroughs. The amendment relates only to the voluntary services which benefit people in more than one district or borough, since its scope is precisely the same as that of Clause 47. It also accepts that borough and district nominees—I emphasise the word "nominees"—should be responsible for supporting these county-wide services. There is no conflict here

9
with the purpose and spirit of the Bill. Our quarrel is with the highly inadequate arrangements suggested in Clause 47 for supporting county-wide voluntary services.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships' Committee that we are dealing here with services now receiving about £30 million in support from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils combined. They are often the front line in the attack on social problems which run right across borough and district boundaries; problems such as alcoholism, drug addiction, homelessness and racial discrimination. Other voluntary organisations provide a cost-effective service operating over a number of districts and boroughs on matters ranging from the citizens' advice bureaux, law centres and other organisations to support the victims of crime. Other voluntary services provide the essential resource materials, advice and information to enable local projects to function in many different parts of the county.
Funding from the county has in innumerable cases been the crucial core to which to attract private charitable donations, volunteer effort and funds from central and local government. Parliament therefore has a heavy responsibility for the sake of the many vulnerable and disadvantaged people who benefit to ensure that this impressive edifice of initiative and service is not brought tumbling down by inadequate legislation.
To our minds Clause 47 has serious weaknesses. First, it is left to boroughs and districts to decide if they want to make a scheme at all. There is reason to fear that no scheme would materialise in some metropolitan counties in which there is no tradition of collaboration between the districts. Political and parochial divisions between different districts run very deep. Moreover, they may see little political advantage in supporting a county-wide service which may primarily benefit other districts. Then we have a big question: what is to become of the charitable organisations which may have no scheme or grants to which to apply? The Bill provides no safety net for them. Such an insecure prospect may kill voluntary organisations as staff leave and management committees seek to escape the threat of heavy personal responsibilities. I do not believe that your Lordships would find this acceptable.
Secondly, there is no provision requiring any sort of county-wide or London-wide overview of need; and I stress the word "need". This is a highly significant omission when services to meet county-wide problems are being devolved to local ward councillors whose perspectives and priorities are quite properly geared to the particular district or borough electorates which they serve.
Thirdly, grants to voluntary organisations can be made only with the agreement of at least two-thirds of the districts or boroughs. How will voluntary organisations be able to lobby so many different authorities to explain their clients' needs and seek support? Even where they can, there will often be extreme difficulty in obtaining sufficient support. In Merseyside and Tyne and Wear, for example, four out of five districts would need to agree. In South Yorkshire it would be three out of four. In Greater
10
Manchester it would be seven out of 10; and so on. Even where the odds are less mountainous, districts and boroughs are sometimes split by bitter political divisions which are not of voluntary organisations' making. Moreover, many eligible services are the Cinderella client groups which lack political appeal. They may benefit a few boroughs, but not the whole.
3 p.m.
For these reasons charitable services, however important in the perspective of county-wide needs, may often fare badly in competition with all the other claims on the budgets of the boroughs and districts. In some cases, these boroughs are the only source of funding which Clause 47 provides. Hence the need to secure the support of two-thirds of the boroughs or districts would probably imply the demise of many services. Of course that device may well kibosh the homosexuals and the lesbians but it may also kibosh many others as well.
No doubt we shall be told in reply that a lead borough, in this case Richmond, has been identified in London and that the London Boroughs Association is entertaining grant applications for a wide range of groups concerned with single homeless people. I should not want to minimise the great effort that has been made to achieve this. However, it is of no comfort to voluntary organisations in the metropolitan counties where, so far as I know, not one lead borough has yet been identified. It is also of relatively little comfort in London, where nobody knows the scale of the budget which would actually pass the two-thirds test and, incidentally, where the single homeless account for less than one-fifth of the GLC's present spending on county-wide services. These then are the reasons why voluntary organisations throughout London and the metropolitan counties have denounced Clause 47.
It has been suggested once or twice in this Committee that the voluntary organisations have made such energetic representations to your Lordships simply because their natural anxieties have been fuelled and exploited by the GLC. That interpretation is incomplete and inadequate. Voluntary organisations have developed their own independent assessment of what this Bill will do to their work; and I will admit that they are handicapped and irritated by some of the more foolish GLC advertisements. Their arguments are based on local experience and are levelheaded arguments which compel respect.
They are led by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, formerly called the National Council of Social Service, which has worked alongside Governments of all political colours ever since 1919, with the great object of protecting and promoting the interests of voluntary organisations. It does not lightly become involved in any matter of public controversy.
This amendment provides for formally constituted authorities with powers to precept, subject to the systems of financial control which apply to all the other authorities established by this Bill. They will comprise borough and district nominees in line with the thrust of this Bill as a whole. They will have a duty to review social needs county-wide and make a scheme or grants to eligible voluntary organisations, again set out in subsection (10) of this clause. They will have no

11
powers relating to local projects which benefit only one borough or one district.
This amendment is really based on charity and compassion, which perhaps sounds rather alien to party politics. Yet in this case of course it must conform so far as possible with the political implications of the Local Government Bill. Therefore we who are sponsoring this amendment accept the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils. We are not trying to link it with residuary authorities because this has become somewhat suspect for reasons which have emerged during the Committee stage. Nor are we seeking for any elective procedure. We start from the premise that, just as everybody's view on art is as valid as anybody else's, so is everybody's view on charity—though I suppose I should add that the view of the right revered Prelate on charity is perhaps better informed than my own.
I ask the Committee to support this amendment as an arrangement more worthy than Clause 47 of the magnificent contribution made by voluntary services across our capital city and across the metropolitan areas, and to set their very genuine fears at rest. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, particularly affects grants currently made by the GLC or the metropolitan counties for charities working on a wider than borough or wider than district basis. This is clearly the type of charity that will be most at risk after abolition of the upper-tier authorities. The suggestion that the smaller councils, freed of the precepts of their larger regional parasites, will joyfully and collectively assume the responsibility for funding, to a comparable extent, existing London-wide and county-wide voluntary activities, is frankly naïve and can only be received with scepticism.
It may be said, "All right; so be it. Boroughs and districts must decide how much they can contribute to charities whose operations extend outside their own boundaries. That is local democracy". However, if local democracy decides that the realities of local government finance prevent it from contributing to voluntary bodies dealing with alcoholism, drug abuse, homelessness, mental handicap and so forth, what happens?
The Bill proposes in Clause 47 that there should be a lead borough or district through which applications are channelled and processed prior to the hurdle of securing a two-thirds majority. I understand that, in London, Richmond has offered itself for this job and the London Boroughs Association is confident that the new unit will be able to cope with this much-enhanced task. That may be so, but it says nothing about the amount of funding that will clear the two-thirds hurdle, or the maximum amount that may be imposed by the Secretary of State under Clause 47(5).
Furthermore, it takes no account of the nightmare that will face charities of having to lobby successfully 22 out of the 33 London boroughs, or seven out of 10 in Greater Manchester. The director of one of the largest lobbying organisations told me quite openly that he saw this clause as a charter for lobbyists. The
12
smaller charities would never be able to face the cost. In the six metropolitan counties, the situation is even worse since not one single district has yet offered to take the lead in its area. Therefore there will be large areas of the country in which the mechanism proposed in the Bill will simply not exist.
These are some, and only some, of the reasons that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, for voluntary service authorities for London and the counties is so important. These authorities fall fully within the scope of Part IV of the Bill. Their funds will be derived as under Clause 66 of the Bill. If you need them for police, fire and civil defence, you need them for the rising tide of social problems presented by old age, homelessness, unemployment and so forth. That is why we on these Benches so strongly support this amendment.
I now want to say a very few words about Amendment No. 136ZBA, which is the second amendment on the Marshalled List, which has been grouped with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, in this debate. I shall be as brief as I possibly can. This amendment addresses a related but separate issue. The transitional assistance which the Government propose to give to districts and boroughs in coming to terms with their new responsibilities in this field is at present quite inadequate.
The Government have on offer only £7.5 million to help in the year after abolition, tapering away to nothing after four years. Where help is offered, districts and boroughs must pay a 25 per cent. contribution in year one and more thereafter. This rising contribution will be fully subject to rate support grant penalties if the penalty system remains unchanged. The Government's offer will be quite insufficient to prevent the collapse of many local projects, the total of whose grants is several times as much as the money currently on offer. Even this is less generous than it sounds, for reasons which I shall shortly explain.
First, let us look at the realities of the situation. Several districts and boroughs have no significant experience or understanding of partnership with the voluntary sector. For instance, nine London boroughs currently give less than £200,000 a year each to voluntary bodies of whatever kind. Even this is better than the position in some metropolitan districts where certain local authorities prefer to municipalise everything on the grounds that voluntary organisations should be composed exclusively of volunteers and should require no support whatsoever from public funds. Those authorities which do not believe in a pluralistic pattern of services to meet social needs will have little difficulty in finding arguments to reject grant applications from the voluntary sector.
Further, many districts and boroughs have very different priorities from those of the larger authorities. Many have no record of concern for child-care or latch-key schemes for the children of working mothers, or for the needs of ethnic minorities, or for transport facilities for disabled people, to mention only a few. Others will have contracted a positive dislike of voluntary services which help citizens assert their rights against municipal landlords and other local government services. So there may well be a direct conflict of interest between, for example, an advice

13
bureau or a law centre and the council that is asked to contribute to their support. Few of your Lordships in this Committee, I would suggest, are opposed to the widest possible range of advice and information being available to our citizens.
Furthermore, the leaders of boroughs and districts which support the abolition of the upper tier have committed themselves, understandably enough, to savings for their ratepayers as a result of abolition. This will surely be a powerful brake on grants to voluntary bodies however worthy or, indeed, essential.
I invite your Lordships to consider also the general financial climate in local government. Nine London boroughs are rate capped. A further eleven are in grant penalty. Most metropolitan districts are also in penalty. Sixteen London boroughs plan to decrease their support for voluntary organisations in 1985–86 and a further six plan no growth. This is the measure of the heavy competition for available resources.
Now, along come the Government saying they hope and believe that boroughs and districts will pay exclusively from their own budgets for all county-wide voluntary services and most local ones inherited from the GLC and the MCCs at the very time when they are striving to avoid or minimise cuts in statutory services and to find money to continue local projects that they have nurtured within their own boundaries. It simply does not add up.
There will inevitably be a conflict between statutory and voluntary services and between internally financed voluntary services and those previously financed from outside. For all these reasons, there is little doubt that all manner of local projects will go to the wall as a by-product of abolition unless the Government are prepared to step in with much more generous transitional assistance.
I should now like to deal with, and I hope demolish, the argument that boroughs and districts will have more resources after abolition because they will no longer be paying the precept to the GLC and the MCCs and they will get a share of the GRE assessment previously allocated to the upper tier. This does not wash. First, some authorities will want to deliver the savings to ratepayers and will therefore levy less than the precepts of the defunct authorities. Secondly, rate-capped authorities will be constrained by the obvious disadvantage of rate capping. Thirdly, dividing up the GRE of the GLC and the MCCs will not cover what they actually spend, since they spend more than their GRE. Fourth, statutory services already under severe strain will make pre-emptive prior claims. Fifthly, many smaller authorities will not be in tune with the broader perspectives on which upper tier authorities based their grants to local organisations.
I refer briefly to the second subsection of the amendment that would relieve any local authority contributions under the scheme from rate support grant penalty. This must be right because penalties would distort the whole scheme. For example, an authority in penalty might have to pay back to the Government £2 for every extra £1 that it spends in this field. That means that it would end up paying 75 per cent. of the cost of a project under the transitional finance scheme when it was, in theory, supposed to pay only 25 per cent. It is for identical reasons that
14
much urban aid spending by local authorities is disregarded for penalty purposes. So no new precedent will be set up by disregarding the transitional scheme in the same way.
The effect of Amendment No. 136ZBA is to give reality to the Government's assurance, repeated on a number of occasions, that they do not intend worthwhile voluntary organisations to go to the wall as a result of abolition. It is based on the same principles as the Government's own scheme for transitional finance but lifted into a more realistic order of magnitude while firmly leaving the ultimate decision with the Secretary of State. In determining the level of transitional assistance, it simply enjoins the need to ensure that there is no dramatic decrease in the overall flow of funds to voluntary organisations in the four years after the abolition date. It will be up to the Secretary of State to define the criteria for transitional assistance so that he can make absolutely sure that no such assistance is available in respect of allegedly lunatic projects or for any other reason to which the Government take serious exception. I believe that this will be welcomed as an important safeguard by many of your Lordships.
This amendment complements the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. Whatever the Committee's decision on that amendment, which I strongly support, it is vital that this provision for transitional finance should be written into the Bill. I hope very much to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that he will accept it.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: I wish first to apologise to the Committee for the fact that my amendment appeared so late. I am sure that many of your Lordships will not have had a real opportunity to consider its merits or its demerits. Having said that, let me get down to what it is all about. I start by echoing the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and others about the fate of voluntary organisations. The problem that we face today is how best to ensure that they continue to receive proper assistance from the boroughs in the London area and the districts in the metropolitan areas. It is not only the boroughs that have to help. The charitable organisations themselves will have to raise some money. Apart from anything that comes from the voluntary organisations or from the Government, there must also be a contribution by outside groups.
I fear that I have to say that I am unhappy about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and others. If that amendment succeeds, my amendment falls. I hope therefore that I shall be able to persuade your Lordships that the merit in my amendment outweighs that contained in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. I am very glad to know that I have at least one supporter in the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, who has put his name to my amendment. That is one up.
My worry about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, is that, above all, whether we like it or not, it has a political flavour. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, may say, many of your Lordships must recognise that this is the case. Whether this is because the boroughs themselves have a political flavour or because, potentially, the amendment

15
represents a nucleus for forming a new GLC or MCC at a later stage, as in the case of waste disposal and other examples, we cannot get away from it. This is my main objection. It also involves no less than seven local authorities, which complicates matters.
What am I proposing in my amendment? My amendment comes after Clause 47. Very simply, it starts by saying that the Secretary of State shall appoint a council to oversee the schemes made under Section 47. It is possible that Section 47 needs to be changed. There are many amendments before us today to that effect. I am not objecting to that. What I am saying is that there should be a council to oversee the workings.
Secondly, I say that if the Government, as we know they intend to do, help the voluntary organisations, or rather the schemes that have been formed, at least for a period of years, it will be for the Government to pass any funds that they make available through this council. What sort of council will it be? It is, I suggest, fairly easy to see its composition. Certainly, it should contain some members of the borough councils themselves. I hope that the Secretary of State would also recognise the important role of the Churches. Then again, there are such bodies as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations or, more important still, the Charities Aid Foundation, which already has the job of discriminating between the good and the bad in the charity world. If the Secretary of State, as I feel sure will be the case, forms a council with that sort of membership and appoints a chairman, pre-eminent and recognised by one and all to be anxious to promote the good of voluntary organisations, that will constitute, I suggest, a very strong body to help.
Let me take the matter further. I have called it a council quite deliberately because I believe that an analogy can be drawn with what the Arts Council does at present in relation to the arts. The Arts Council receives a grant from the Government and it distributes that grant according to what it judges to be the right and proper merit of the various people who are asking for help. My idea for the council which I am putting forward is very much the same: it will judge according to need, according to how worthwhile it considers various projects to be, and generally it will take into account the type of support that the voluntary organisations are receiving from elsewhere. It is not just the Government who will do it. Like the Arts Council, they will decide whether the voluntary organisations can get outside help—as, indeed, they ought to do.
If I am right and if the idea of a council to do this job is a good one, then it is very important that we should have a chance to see how it progresses. Indeed, that is why subsection (3) of my amendment asks that the council should report once every year to Parliament.
Finally, I have no idea whether in years to come this will or will not be a good and necessary council. Therefore I suggest that after the period of three years Parliament should have a chance to judge for itself. If Parliament judges that the council should continue, then it may continue for yet a further period.
16
One of the great features of today is the growth of voluntary organisations. Indeed, that is natural when one considers the greater leisure time available to people. Yet, bearing in mind all the attempts of Government and local authorities, very often it is the local people who start these voluntary organisations who know the gap and what is needed. If my amendment is right, the council which will be set up will be able to judge the rights and the wrongs and which are the best schemes. I know that it is a novel idea and that novel ideas take time to get off the ground. However, I very much hope that, in view of what I have said, your Lordships will feel that this proposal is really worthwhile.
I hope that you will support my amendment rather than the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and I say that for the following reason. If your Lordships were to go along with Lord Hayter's amendment, then my amendment would fall to the ground. If that were to happen then not only would I be sorry but I believe that a great opportunity would have been missed to start something which in every way is an exciting new thought as regards how best to help the voluntary organisations to do even greater things in the years ahead. I am not quite clear whether I should or should not be moving this amendment at this stage. However, I hope to do so in due course.
Lord Elton: Clause 47 deals specifically with only one aspect of funding for voluntary bodies—that is, the power to establish collective schemes under which boroughs and districts acting jointly can fund voluntary organisations serving more than one borough. The amendments to which noble Lords have spoken do, however, range rather widely. Therefore I hope it will be helpful to your Lordships if at the beginning of this debate I speak generally about the whole issue of voluntary bodies and abolition and respond to the more detailed aspects of the amendments at the end of it.
I must preface my remarks by noting that the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and his supporters have removed from the Marshalled List the notice which they had originally put down to the effect that they proposed to object to the Motion that Clause 47 stand part of the Bill. We must therefore assume that this arrangement is intended to go in parallel with the Clause 47 arrangements, unless they correct that assumption. However, that is what flows from the removal of that notice from the Marshalled List.
I shall not now digress on the oddities of funding that may arise from that decision, nor indeed upon the fact that there are no indications in the noble Lord's Motion as to where the funding is to come from, although there is every indication of where it is to go. I wish to speak to the wider issues first. Voluntary organisations which now get money from abolition authorities are naturally very anxious about their position. Therefore first let me establish that the Government wholly support the principle of voluntary work. We believe that it brings considerable benefits not just to the immediate causes which it supports, but to the community as a whole. I wish also to give credit where credit is due. I freely and readily agree that in London, where anxiety is greatest, the vast majority of GLC funding goes to voluntary organisations which are

17
doing a good and very worthwhile job of work. They bear no responsibility for the actions of the current GLC administration, and our respect for them is in no way affected by the conduct of that administration.
We also recognise that many voluntary bodies in the areas touched by this Bill are anxious about the future. Their anxiety is perfectly natural and has been made clear to us in many approaches by individuals and by organisations; and we have paid, and are continuing to pay, close and careful attention to it. I believe that the care and personal commitment in all this of my honourable friend Sir George Young are already well and rightly known to a number of your Lordships. I know that many of your Lordships have received copious correspondence on this subject. I believe that your Lordships would have done so even without the cynical campaign to heighten anxiety among the already anxious, organised by the political opponents of this Bill in London, of which your Lordships took scornful note a week or two past. Therefore we pay careful attention to it.
We cannot very well discuss the changes that are to be made in the existing arrangements for getting money to the voluntary bodies if we do not first have a clear picture of what those arrangements are and what are their effects. Some people are a little hazy on the facts. One might almost suppose that most of this money comes from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. I ought therefore to start by saying something about what happens now.
From where, in fact, does the income of these bodies come at present? I remind the Committee that your Lordships concern centres on the money, recently raised to £50 million a year, given to London voluntary bodies by the GLC, and the very much smaller amounts given by the metropolitan county councils to voluntary bodies in their county areas. If you roll up the two together you would certainly not get a total of more than £60 million in 1983–84. Against that figure your Lordships must set, first, the £215 million of grants given by the Government nationally to voluntary bodies; and, secondly, over and above that £215 million the very substantial sums paid by the Manpower Services Commission and other sponsored bodies. In London alone some £28 million was channelled into the voluntary sector via the boroughs last year.
As I have said, outside London the role of the county councils is small. Easily the biggest source of public cash for the voluntary organisations in the metropolitan county council areas are already the district councils. This Bill is of much less consequence to them than it is in London. I have shown that in London it is very much not the case that the voluntary sector is supported either wholly or even chiefly by the GLC. I have done so without even referring to the £900 million or so which the Charities Aid Foundation estimated as coming nationally to charities from private and corporate subscriptions in 1980–81. Apart from the very considerable sources of money to which I have referred, there are also the borough councils themselves. It is these elected councils that will be responsible for the GLC share of funding after abolition, now that we have it in perspective. They already have close connections with the
18
voluntary sector and they already provide the voluntary sector with cash.
3.30 p.m.
The London Voluntary Service Council estimates the amount of that cash at £28 million over and above everything I have mentioned so far. At present much of the money goes to voluntary bodies that do all or most of their work inside the boundaries of the borough that gives the funds. That linkage will in no way be affected by what we propose in the Bill. Each of the bodies will still have to knock on one door only in its borough to get their cash from local government, and it will be the same door that they are knocking at now. So your Lordships' concern is not for them. It is with the remainder, with the organisations that operate in or bring benefit to more than one borough. They may serve several boroughs or they may serve the whole of London. It is to these bodies that much of the GLC money has been going. Your Lordships' fear either that it will dry up altogether or that there will be no one to see that it is properly distributed. There are two concerns and they run in parallel.
Before I come to what further proposals we have, let me describe how things stand at present. Under the Bill the boroughs will have the whole responsibility for local government funding of voluntary organisations. They already undertake considerable activity in this field, and it is true that we look to them for a response in no way different from their response on any other of their inherited functions. In the short term we expect them to increase substantially their funding to voluntary groups. We expect them to support individually and collectively those groups which are of genuine benefit to the areas which they serve and which will no longer get GLC support.
At this point some of your Lordships will no doubt narrow your eyes and say, "Ah, he is forgetting the GLC's £50 million. They will not have that money". But in fact they will. They will have exactly that money. And where, I ask, did the GLC get that money from? They obtained it from these boroughs, from the very boroughs we are talking about; and the boroughs, of course, obtained it from their ratepayers. The GLC secured it from the boroughs by precept, and that precept will cease. The London boroughs therefore will have exactly the same amount of cash available between them for this purpose next year as the GLC would have had and could have spent on their behalf had it not been abolished. It is the boroughs' money collected from the boroughs' ratepayers by the boroughs and paid to the GLC by the boroughs as precept. The effect of the Bill is merely to transfer the function of spending the same ratepayers' money from the GLC to the boroughs. Not one-tenth of a penny increase in the rates will be needed to maintain that expenditure at its present level as a result of abolition.
Lord Kaldor: Can the noble Lord confirm that the money paid by the boroughs to the GLC was earmarked for these special purposes?
Lord Elton: I understood the noble Lord to ask me whether the money was earmarked for this purpose. The money was precepted for this purpose by the GLC. It will in future be paid by the boroughs under

19
arrangements which I am about to describe. Whether the level at which it is paid will remain exactly the same or not, I cannot of course say. That will be for locally elected councillors to decide.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Elton: Well, I think that is no bad thing. I ask the Committee to hear me out. It will be for them to decide both on exactly how much money to give and indeed to which organisations to give it. This uncertainty is not, as your Lordships might think from the knowing noises opposite, anything new. It has not been introduced by this Bill. The level of support has always gone up and down. It has varied under the GLC and may vary in exactly the same way under the boroughs. The reason why I cannot now give, and never under any past arrangements could have given, a guarantee is that the decision is not for Ministers, it is for councillors. Councillors elected by the Greater London Council have been having their say and now it will be the turn of councillors elected to London borough councils. I would remind the Committee that they have a good record and already give some £30 million of support to the voluntary groups in London. The source of the money that the voluntary sector now gets from the GLC will be, just as it now is, the borough councils who collect it from their own ratepayers.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Is not the noble Lord in some sense trying to mislead the Committee? The real difference between what exists now and what will exist after abolition is that the precept will no longer be in existence. What now happens is that richer boroughs contribute to the aid which is required by poorer boroughs; the voluntary organisations in poor areas of London are being helped from the GLC precept, and the people who pay are from the richer boroughs. Once that precept is removed that redistribution will also be removed.
Lord Elton: I intend no discourtesy to the noble Lord although he said that I might be misleading the Committee, which is a wounding thing to say. I intend no discourtesy to the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee if I say it would be a good thing to hear me out before trying to unstitch what I am saying, because your Lordships do not know what is yet to come. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has rightly said, the difference in future will be that the GLC will not be there to collect it from the boroughs by precept and hand it out. I accept that that is an alarming prospect for treasurers of voluntary bodies. Things were difficult enough when they had only one door to knock on without being suddenly told, as they believe, to knock on 32 in pursuit of exactly the same cash result. We recognise that difficulty and that is why we have provided in Clause 47 of the Bill for the boroughs to come together voluntarily themselves and provide a single door to knock on.
There is a similar problem, it is true, in the metropolitan counties. Given that the districts and boroughs already have wider powers to fund voluntary bodies than either the metropolitan county council or the GLC, and given that the Bill does nothing
20
whatever to diminish those powers for groups operating wholly within the districts or borough administrative boundaries, there is, as I have said, no problem for the locally-based body. The only legislative action required therefore is to give them clearer and stonger powers to fund groups that serve more than one borough. That is the effect of Clause 47. That clause enables simple majorities of councils in an abolition area to select a lead authority and make a collective grant-giving scheme. It provides for financial decisions to be approved by a two-thirds majority; and I do not doubt that your Lordships will become interested in the balance represented by the majority by which those decisions are to be taken. We shall no doubt return to that. There is however a lower majority for initial adminstrative costs so that such schemes can be started up quickly this year.
A constant theme of our critics has been that too little is being done to prepare for abolition, and what has to be done in the available time is too much; but with an eye on Clause 47 the councils are already preparing for the future. A number of them have begun to collect information about those voluntary groups in their areas which at present receive funding from the upper tier authority. Several have invited bids from the groups concerned. In London a majority of the boroughs are already involved in preparing a collective scheme. Richmond has been designated as a lead borough, a grants unit has been set up; and your Lordships may well have seen a letter from its chairman in The Times just over a week ago.
We in the Department of the Environment have seconded staff who are already starting to work with it. While they are doing so, management consultants are drawing up plans for a permanent organisation. The post of director has been advertised at a substantial salary. They have already contacted 800 voluntary groups—not a few but 800—to establish their needs and priorities. They have taken a number of decisions which mean that so far 69 organisations providing mainly for single homeless, as well as all women's aid hostels in London, whether or not they are currently funded by the GLC, have been recommended for grant aid.
There is no lack of will on the part of these boroughs. If the remainder have the interests of voluntary organisations truly at heart, they will, I am sure, join in very soon. They will not help them if they continue to stand aside. If they hang back, they should perhaps receive some advice as to how to proceed in the interests of the under-privileged for whom so many of these organisations work.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was anxious about the uncertainty of future funding. I have already pointed out that there is nothing new in this. Boroughs do not strike, and the GLC does not strike, their budgets this far ahead of the next financial year. The budget will be made by the Richmond group in the autumn. That budget will be made in the light of policy and criteria decisions taken by the group as a whole. That again means that there is not a multiplicity of doors to lobby—if you can lobby a door; there is the one.
There are safeguards under our proposals and they are there both to protect the position of the lead

21
authority and to give stability to the schemes. The Secretary of State also has to set a limit on the amount which can be spent each year. Let us be clear both about the purpose of this and about the way it will be used. Its purpose is to be a safeguard to limit the potential demands which may be imposed on individual authorities which may not have been part of the majority voting for a scheme. We originally proposed to use it to impose limits of £10 million in London and £3 million elsewhere. We withdrew those figures when it was made clear to us that the first of them at least was too low.
The first undertaking that I give to your Lordships' Committee this afternoon and to the voluntary sector generally is that the Secretary of State does not intend to use this power as a means of reducing the level of grant in 1986–87. I can, therefore, give an assurance today that we will set the limits for 1986–87 in the light of authorities' budget plans for the collective schemes and that we will not seek to contain those budgets below the level of the equivalent expenditure by the abolition authorities this year. This, I believe, meets some of the concern in the second subsection of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The successor bodies will, as a result, be free at least to spend right up to the amounts spent by their predecessors, and that expenditure will be in addition to what they themselves are now spending under current schemes.
Lord Diamond: Will the noble Lord indicate where in the clause this is safeguarded?
Lord Elton: It is safeguarded by the undertaking which I, as a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, gave on behalf of my right honourable friend a moment ago, and which is written into the record.
One inference which could be drawn from the first amendment—I take it very poorly when noble Lords opposite shake their heads at a clear undertaking, given in terms, limiting the use of a power given by statute to a Secretary of State by a Minister of State in his department. I think it is a perfectly adequate safeguard.
As I was saying, one inference that can be drawn from the first amendment, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, is that the scheme that I have described would produce some sort of policy vacuum. In fact, the councils operating, a scheme under Clause 47 will of course be able to set the policy under which the collective grant giving is done. There can be no doubt that there must be a clear set of policy guidelines and of priorities. That would be essential, particularly in an area such as London, where we can expect a budget of several million pounds. In London the necessary majority of the boroughs have assured the voluntary sector that they will provide such a policy.
In our view it is right that these policies should be drawn up by the same authorities as are responsible for the statutory, social, housing, and other services with which voluntary organisations are generally most closely associated. Those authorities are the London boroughs, and we see no case for a separate statutory
22
body to duplicate a role which they are ideally qualified to perform and which most of them are clearly taking on.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and his supporters to consider carefully the importance of that practical and illuminating link between the social work department and the needs of the voluntary sector. It is, after all, the boroughs which already know most about such critical matters as those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, such as those involving child care schemes and latch-key children, to which the voluntary sectors also relate.
We therefore think that we have the shape of this scheme right, but we also recognise that there may well be difficult problems for local groups as we change from the existing system to a new one. These are transitional problems, and that is why we have announced a transitional grant scheme. Under it we will pay a proportion of the cost incurred by a local authority in taking on a voluntary project which has been receiving funding from the GLC or a metropolitan county. We will pay 75 per cent. of the total in the first year, tapering down to 50 per cent. in the second year, 50 per cent. in the third year, and 25 per cent. in the fourth. At Report stage in another place we announced that we would cover £10 million worth of projects under this scheme each year. That is double what we originally proposed and it reflects our willingness to respond to the voluntary sector's concern.
3.45 p.m.
Your Lordships, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, in particular, have made it clear that that concern arises from the fact that the scheme in the Bill is a voluntary scheme, and that the concern persists in spite of the fact that the voluntary scheme has already started to work where it matters most, in London. Whether or not that anxiety is well founded, I accept, and the Government themselves accept, from your Lordships that it exists.
My second announcement that I have to make today is therefore this: we will again double the amount of transitional aid. This will increase it to cover not £10 million, but £20 million worth of projects. That raises our commitment to transitional aid to a total of £40 million of Government cash over four years. That money will be allocated so as to take account of the total amount of extra funding each authority is taking on.
I ask your Lordships to note that this money is separate from, and additional to, the resources which the local authorities concerned already have; and it is separate from, and additional to, the extra resources that will be released to them by abolition and the end of precepting by the upper tier bodies. These councils, I repeat, already provide every penny spent on these grants, both by the GLC and the MCCs. The whole of that money is already provided by them out of their rates.
Some of your Lordships fear that this provision will in some way be negated by our general system of rate control. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was moving towards that concern, if he did not express it. My third undertaking, therefore, this afternoon is

23
that both RSG and targets, if we still have them, will be adjusted to take account of their additional responsibilities for this expenditure.
If there was any doubt about our readiness to give special help to the voluntary sector, I hope I have finally removed it. But increased financial support from Government is only part of what is needed to sustain a vigorous and independent voluntary sector. The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, emphasised—and I deeply sympathise with what he said—the importance of official money in attracting private money. Anyone who compares the funding of charitable causes in our capital city with that in major cities in other countries is struck by one particular thing: how small a contribution is made by our private corporate sources compared with theirs in the Western world.
In the United States, for example, corporate donations for these purposes are estimated at just under 2 per cent. of pre-tax profits. In this country the proportion is about one-tenth of 1 per cent. In this country we have built up high levels of public sector funding and we have got used to them. This can, and sometimes does, result in unfortunate threats to the independence and integrity of the voluntary movement. Pressures can be put on voluntary bodies when they become over-dependent on funding from the public purse. They should not be required to become embroiled in political issues; that destroys their freedom of action. It is essential that we protect their independence and their integrity. We have recently seen the pressures that can be put on voluntary bodies when they become over-dependent on funding from the public purse. Your Lordships will remember the examples.
We believe that it is necessary to the health of the voluntary sector that it should begin to be able to get a greater proportion of its support from private and independent sources. It would be a source of great strength to the voluntary organisations as a whole if we were able to create for them a new permanent and independent source of funding. The present reform of local government provides an admirable opportunity to do this and we propose to take it.
Lord Barnett: I believe the Lord is in danger of giving the House a misleading picture. He talked about public funding of voluntary organisations and quoted the example of the United States. But the 2 per cent. to which he referred also includes substantial public funding because it is wholly allowable for tax.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord can return to the detail as we all will during the debate. The fact is that however one does the calculations there is greater support coming from the private sector to the voluntary sector in the United States than there is here to an order of magnitude of a considerable size.
In no way put on the wrong foot by the noble Lords's well-timed interruption, I shall now make my fourth announcement of this afternoon. It is that we intend to use a proportion of the resources to endow a charitable trust for London whose purpose will be to provide assistance to voluntary bodies whose activities benefit Londoners and to focus additional support from the private sector. The initial endowment that we
24
propose is a least £10 million. If the proceeds arising from the disposal of the GLC's surplus assets allow, we might be able to increase that amount further. In addition, we intend that the new trust shall be added to by contributions from private and other corporate sources. It will be seed money sown both for short term benefit and for future generations of Londoners.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: May I—
Lord Elton: I really ought to finish because your Lordships will look at the clock and think that I have taken even longer than I have—and that is long enough! We propose that the new trust shall be administered by a widely-respected and established charitable organisation that will take it and keep it right out of politics altogether, as the noble Lord, Lord Perth, would wish. The trust would not replace existing sources of grant giving nor would it replace anything provided for in Clause 47. On the contrary, it will be additional to both. The other arrangements we have already announced will continue to go forward. It will necessarily take some time for the endowment of the new trust to become available, but I believe your Lordships will see in it an important and constructive investment in the long term.
We must get the nature and the composition of the new trust and the terms under which it would give grants right. These are matters on which we propose to consult very extensively, as your Lordships would wish, before we take firm decisions. We are particularly anxious to discuss them with the voluntary sector and charitable organisations themselves. All this will take time and will be a matter for subordinate legislation. What we must do in the Bill is to provide a place for that subordinate legislation. The unallocated assets of the GLC will pass to the London residuary body on 1st April next year and it is from them that the endowments must be transferred. We shall therefore bring forward an amendment at Report stage to enable the Secretary of State by order to require the residuary bodies to make payments to such charitable trusts as he may specify.
At present our proposals are for London only, but we shall not rule out the possibility of considering such trusts for one or more metropolitan areas. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Perth, will see the merits of non-political bodies standing outside both national and local government to set, as it were, the tone of this form of activity and to set an example. Outside London the main difference is that the metropolitan councils have been in existence for a shorter time and have acquired fewer assets. But, equally, in the metropolitan areas the need is not so great.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way?
Lord Elton: No, it would be much better if I sat down altogether rather than having the noble Baroness leaping up before I sit down so that I then have to rise again.
To summarise: first, all the reserve resources now spent on the voluntary sector by local authorities in London will still be available from the same sources, not via the precept but direct from the boroughs.

25
Secondly, the scheme that we provide in Clause 47 provides a focus for collective action to which the voluntary sector can look as well as the councils. Thirdly, that scheme is already in being, in embryo, and kicking. It will work. Fourthly, nonetheless we recognise that there are transitional difficulties. We had already offered grant on £10 million-worth of projects now raised to £20 million which means £20 million of Government cash now raised to £40 million for the transistional body. Fifthly, we have assured the Committee that that will not be caught by the provisions for controlling the expenditure of local authority money in the terms which I read out a moment ago. Sixthly, we are providing a new voluntary charitable body outside politics altogether and endowing it with £10 million to start with as a focus for non-political private sector money in the future. I know that the right reverend Prelate will speak next. I know him of old. He is efficient; he is analytical; he is clear—and he was once my boss. I therefore know that he will tear to pieces very carefully everything that I have said. However, when he has finished I ask your Lordships to put the pieces together and you will find a very good scheme for London.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: May I ask just one question? I have listened with the greatest of interest to what the noble Lord has said, but on behalf of all metropolitan councils I wish to say that the deprivation, the unemployment, is much higher than it is in the London area. The anxieties are as great as in London; and when he said he had the shape about right, I should say that the shape he gave for the metropolitan counties is like the piece of jigsaw that is lost under the table that one can never find.
Lord Elton: I have done many jigsaws and I have always found the piece in the end. It is an important piece, but it is less important than the London piece. I shall not recapitulate the whole of my speech, but the ratio between the district councils and the MCCs is entirely different from that of London and the whole of the piece is therefore smaller. We recognise its importance, and we are open to suggestions for trusts there, too, as I have said.
4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: Before I speak to this amendment, to which I have attached my name, may I apologise for the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who is at this moment presiding over a conclave (I think "conclave" would be the proper word) of all his clergy at a conference in the Midlands which was arranged many months ago. He is very sorry that he cannot be here with us today and hopes that it will not be taken amiss or to represent any lack of concern on his part.
I appreciate very much the assurances which the Minister has given with respect to the voluntary associations and the concern of the Government that their work should not be affected adversely. What he said reflects the commitment which the Prime Minister gave to the leaders of the churches in reply to a letter which they wrote to her. I accept that these statements are in the best of faith and I wish to affirm that. For that reason, I welcome what the noble Lord,
26
Lord Hayter, said in his opening speech about the real issue being one of method rather than of aims. I accept what the Government have said with regard to the voluntary associations. I welcome many of the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I hope he will not think I am ungrateful if I do not refer to these in detail. They are encouraging and I shall explain why in reply to the noises behind me because, in spite of all that he has said, he has really not directed his attention to the main issue. The main issue is a very simple one. It is that to which I direct myself and upon which I shall concentrate. None of his proposals provides the necessary framework to ensure adequate security for the voluntary associations and make certain that their needs, the needs of those associations which extend beyond one borough, will be met.
One does not have to take an unduly low view of human nature to appreciate the need for such a framework. I sometimes think that those of us who sit on these Benches actually take a rather more realistic view of human nature than do some other Members of your Lordships' House. Perhaps not, however, because the odd thing that I notice here is that the Government have not shown themselves lacking in zeal for legislative framework in other aspects of human relationships when they feel that it is necessary in order to help people to behave in a better way. I cannot understand why in this particular case they are so loath to pursue the same course of action.
I should like to take a simple example from my own Diocese of London which, as many of your Lordships will know, extends down to Staines in the West, up to the River Lee and Enfield and so on, including the East End and Tower Hamlets as well as the centre here, the Cities of London and Westminster. We have resources at our disposal which come from one source or another. They are at our disposal. We do not receive them from on high. They are ones which come from the disposal of our land, from voluntary giving and so on. So far as that money is concerned, we need and we have a statutory framework which enables that money to be shared and then to be applied where it is most necessary.
The point that I really want to make is that the framework that we have in the diocese, which is there by statute, does not put another body over us in respect of this expenditure. What it does is that it makes us get together, it gives us a framework to do that and then says, "When you have agreed in the proper way you will all abide by it". So there is a body called the Bishops' Council which is also our diocesan fund on which all these deaneries—boroughs, if you like—are represented properly. We meet together. It makes decisions and they are binding.
It is a body which is drawn from and composed of representatives of the parts of the diocese, and this amendment does not propose for another body, an additional body to be slotted in above. This, I am afraid, is why I cannot go with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, because I think that he is putting in another body. The body which is proposed in this amendment cannot be seen in any sense as a successor body to the GLC because it is constituted of the bodies, the boroughs themselves, which (as the Government recognise) have the responsibility for recognising and

27
meeting local needs. This body which we have in the diocese—which any diocese has; but it is particularly important to London with our structures and our needs—we do not resent. We welcome it.
Let me give an example of a recent case where we disposed of a certain site in London. One-third of the proceeds had to go to looking after redundant churches elsewhere but two-thirds of it comes with us. It is available for us to use in the right way. As soon as that money became available, I was under immediate pressure for that money to be spent where the site was, in the area, for that immediate locality, irrespective of how its demands related to those in Tower Hamlets or in Brent or elsewhere.
What happened was that the proper body, again not a body from above but the body composed from among ourselves, met and decided how that money should be allocated, having taken counsel from people who could assess the needs of the different parts of the diocese. We need that body. We do not resent it, as I say: we welcome it. We should be in a most lamentable condition if we were in a situation where all the pressure went to spending money locally where it was raised. Supposing that the site to which I referred had been in the middle of Chelsea and that we had let them spend it all there. What howls there would have been, and rightly so, from some parts of the rest of the diocese where the need was infinitely greater. It is a statutory body and it needs to be a statutory body. It means that we accept its decisions. It is a body which we accept as determining how we spend. This amendment cannot be seen, in my judgment, as a proposal to have a successor to the GLC in any form. It is a body like ours, composed of the boroughs, to help them to meet the London-wide needs.
On the question of funding, may I say that my concern is not merely the maintenance of funding; it is in giving the local authority associations the money that they need to be able to look ahead, to explore—because they have often taken the initiative. I found it a little odd that apparently (if I understood him aright) the Minister said that we must hope that the boroughs will follow the example of the GLC in providing the money which the GLC itself had spent. It seemed to me very odd that we should be urging the boroughs to follow the example of a body that we are in process of demolishing. I mean that quite seriously.
Lord Elton: I spoke for too long and necessarily left out detail. Your Lordships have seen lists of what the GLC is funding. I said that a lot of it, most of it, a great deal of it, was very worthy. I did not say that all of it was. I am in no way counselling the boroughs to spend exactly the same amount of money on exactly the same causes.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister but I still think that my main point holds, which is that the money has got to come from the boroughs and that we cannot just ask them to do what the GLC did, even in its better moments. The function of legislation, as I understand it—and I have said this here before—is to make it easier for people to do what is right and harder for them to do what is wrong. We all need it, and I believe that the boroughs need it in this instance.
28
It is not just a question of people being awkward or unco-operative and so on; it is also a question of loyalty. It is to this that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred on an earlier occasion when she pointed out the tensions which one can have between one's statutory responsibilities to the area in which one is an officer and the needs of the wider area. I believe that we need something such as we have proposed here in order to help those members and officers to be able to resolve that kind of tension which otherwise arises. I appreciate very much the spirit of the letter which Councillor Cobbold wrote to The Times. I must confess that I am not convinced by it. I feel that if one really looks at what is happening it is in far too rudimentary a stage to give any real strength to the voluntary associations. It is true that they wrote 800 letters to various bodies but may I tell the Committee that they wrote on 23rd April and asked for answers by 10th May, and that that includes a Bank Holiday? Frankly that is not very realistic so far as the voluntary organisations are concerned because voluntary organisations have very little capital, if any; their staff are greatly pressed, they have little security and they are not in a position to produce quick answers or to survive long periods of uncertainty.
I could make one other reference to the question of ethnic minorities, but that would take too long and I have spoken too long already. But there is a great gap here which we do not believe is really covered by the proposals as they stand. Of course we welcome the proposals for the fund to which the Minister has referred. That is very encouraging but I do not think that it is in any way to be seen as a substitute for the framework which we see as essential in order to enable the boroughs to work together.
Perhaps I may endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, said about the inspiration of our concern. So far as I am concerned, the GLC did not inspire me one bit on this. I have never known an occasion on which all the leaders of the churches became all of one mind so quickly. The immediate response to the Society of Voluntary Organisations in respect of its first inquiry about response to Streamlining the Cities showed without any pressure from outside—it was a spontaneous response—an overwhelming concern for these proposals.
I do not want a successor body to the GLC. What I think we need is a co-ordinating body with statutory authority which will provide a framework to enable the boroughs to carry out the intentions expressed both by them and by the Government. In passing, do not let us forget that the London Boroughs Association is a voluntary association. It could go out of existence at the drop of a hat, so far as I can see. We cannot really leave the future of the voluntary organisations to something like that. If this amendment fails it would be better for the scheme to be mandatory, and that is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—
Lord Renton: Will the right reverend Prelate allow me to intervene? I do apologise, but perhaps he does not realise that the London Boroughs Association was given specific duties under Section 14 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1970; that until two years ago it was able to exercise those powers but

29
that changes in the last two years have frustrated its statutory duty and since then it has carried on with a voluntary duty without the statute having been repealed.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I should like to follow up what he said, if I may have the indulgence of your Lordships for a few more minutes. In consultations that I have enjoyed with the Government about this Bill, I did say that one thing which would make all the difference to us would be to have some statutory recognition given to some body with responsibility for co-ordination. If in fact the situation relating to the London Boroughs Association was what it was previously—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for informing me about this, because nobody else has provided any information—that would go some way to meeting my point. But now, as he says himself, it has become voluntary and I do not think this job can be left to a voluntary body in that way.
The disadvantage of simply having a mandatory scheme is that it would have to have the power of the Secretary of State to enforce it, if the need arose. I think it is better left to providing the framework by statute, in which the boroughs themselves can be helped to get together and provide the necessary support for the voluntary organisations in our capital. I realise I have said nothing about the areas outside London, but I believe that what I have said applies equally to them and I hope that your Lordships will bear that in mind in voting upon this issue.
Lord Kaldor: Can the noble Lord inform the House that the new sources of funds at the disposal of the designated council for the financing of museums and art galleries will not include the imposition of fees or charges for visitors to museums?
Lord Ennals: I rise to support most strongly the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I have a great deal of respect for much of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. My objection to it has already been stated by the right reverend Prelate, but much that is said in that amendment could be incorporated within the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter.
I was quite delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, had added his name to this amendment as one of the sponsors. After all, as a former Permanent Under-Secretary of the Department of the Environment he would not have put his name to an amendment like this, with all his knowledge and all his background, unless he felt it was the right and proper thing to do.
4.15 p.m.
Perhaps I may say to your Lordships that although I am speaking from this Bench I am speaking as one who has spent much more than half his life working with voluntary organisations. I am speaking in no sense in a political way, and this amendment, quite clearly, has nothing to do with politics. Thank heavens for that. It so happens that there are 15 of the
30
voluntary organisations in London and one in one of the metropolitan authorities with which I am associated as an officer or in some other way. I want to make it clear that I feel most deeply about the tremendously important role that voluntary organisations have to play in our society. They have played that role in the past and must play it in the future.
It has been suggested, I know, on earlier occasions and referred to again today, that somehow or other we or they have been lobbied and got at by the GLC. I am frankly not interested in what the GLC has said to me about this. I am interested in what the voluntary organisations have said to me about their problems. They have done so in meeting after meeting: the disabled and the homeless and especially those groups who are least able to help themselves, such as the disabled and those who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped; those who are suffering from those infirmities who have set up their own organisations which could not have existed had they not had the financial support of the GLC, where that applies. I am certain this also applies to the metropolitan authorities.
So I beg your Lordships to recognise that I speak as a voluntary organisation man with a deep conviction. Even when I was Secretary of State for Social Services I sought, by means of greatly increased grants that were given, to show my feelings, as I did when I launched the Good Neighbour campaign. I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for intervening as early as he did. As one would expect from him, he made a number of points that are extremely relevant and on which I should like spontaneously to respond, if I may.
It has been suggested that the same money will be available, whether under the scheme as proposed by the Government or under the provisions of the amendment. We have no assurance of this. We know perfectly well that the money to be raised, as the noble Lord the Minister said, would be raised by the London boroughs, and by the districts in the case of the metropolitan authorities. I wish I could think that the record of those who are to provide money, if they so do, somehow or other is going to be totally different from their record up to now. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, quite rightly said that nine of the London boroughs give less than £200,000 a year to all voluntary organisations; that 16 London boroughs have already said that they plan to reduce their spending on voluntary organisations in 1985–86; and another six have said that there will be no growth.
How can we feel certain—and I want to come on to the Minister's personal assurance—that that money will be available, especially since it requires the approval of two-thirds of the authorities concerned? The letter from Councillor Bowness, the chairman of the London Boroughs Association, of course reminded me that if they had their will it would not be two-thirds but three-quarters who would have to give their approval before schemes were adopted. So I ask—
Lord Elton: The noble Lord asked me a question. He asked how could we be certain that the money would be forthcoming. I would remind him, first, that there is no certainty that the money would be

31
forthcoming next year without abolition. There is no compulsion on the GLC to provide this money; there is no compulsion on the GLC to precept this money. The only compulsion is on the boroughs to pay the money if it is precepted.
I then ask him to reflect who actually puts up the elected people to make these decisions. It is the same electorate who are electing people to the GLC and to their local borough councils. It will be the same people carrying out those elections in the future. Therefore the electoral pressures will be the same. All the indications are that the results will be the same. The balance between local giving and overall giving will of course vary as it has in the past; but there is no certainty now, and there is no likelihood, that it will go wrong in the future.
Lord Ennals: I wish that I had the confidence of the Minister. I have to say that I do not have it at all. All the evidence of past performance suggests that there are some local authorities who, with the wishes of their electorate, will wish to contribute; and others who will do as I say they have done and who have decided that they are not going to increase the funds concerned. We have to accept that.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord allow me?
Lord Ennals: I feel that I must make my speech. The Minister gave an assurance. In your Lordships' House we would always give due respect to an assurance that is given, but we would give much greater respect if that were placed in the Bill. If I may mention one of the assurances to which he referred, it was that there will be as much money next year as there was last year. All he has to do is to accept Amendment No. 135AAB, which calls for subsection (5) to be deleted, because that in fact goes in exactly the opposite way.
I well remember, when debating on the London Regional Transport Bill an issue concerning voluntary organisations, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, giving an assurance again that the organisation Dial-a-Ride would without doubt be funded from the London boroughs. In fact I am afraid that exactly the opposite has happened. I admire Dial-a-Ride tremendously as an organisation which has opened the doors to people who have been housebound, who have been unable to move to places which they wanted to visit, to see relatives or to have forms of entertainment. Yet unless something has happened in the last week or so, only two of the London boroughs have made a contribution in spite of the assurances that were given by a noble Lord from the Government Bench. Only two London boroughs have sought to finance that magnificent organisation. They happen to be Camden, where I pay rates; and Islington. The Greater London Council has itself had to bear 95 per cent. of the total cost.
What assurances can they have? They are writing to me and telephoning asking to speak to me because, they say, "We have had an assurance before and it did not come off. How can we accept an assurance now? And if the assurance is genuine then why can it not be put into the Bill; or why cannot the amendment"—that has been so ably proposed and supported from all sides of the House—"be carried through?" The noble
32
Lord knows he cannot guarantee what will be the attitude of the London boroughs. I have to say that I am always a little doubtful (I hope the Minister will not take me amiss) when someone comes along with last-minute offers which suggest perhaps that they are a little concerned about how things will go. All of a sudden, instead of £ 10 million, we have £20 million in transitional funds produced today.
Lord Elton: It is interesting that when the Government resist the Opposition we are intransigent; and when we answer pressure in Parliament we are in some way caitiff.
Lord Ennals: I do not think that is an answer at all. I am speaking in favour of the amendment which would give some guarantee and some commitment. After all, even with the £20 million we are only talking about transitional figures. It is only a transitional period. The noble Lord made it clear himself that it is £20 million for one year; then it is reduced by the next year; and then it is phased down to nothing. He also brought out of the hat this new trust—the sort of community chest which as I understand it (I will certainly give way if I am wrong) is a £10 million sum that will come from selling the GLC building, County Hall.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord asked me to put him right; I do. It does not come from that source. It comes from the whole of the GLC assets, any part of which is surplus to the requirements of the successor bodies. It is a very much larger fund and is far more than one building.
Lord Ennals: That is right. I did not expect that it came just from one building. But this is an entirely new proposal. It is similar to the community chest schemes which have operated in the United States. It is quite new so far as this country is concerned. If it is £10 million, then presumably it would be the interest that would be available; and that would be roughly £1 million out of a £10 million capital sum. We have to bear in mind the enormous gap and the amount that we have already seen which was contributed by the GLC. The Minister was absolutely fair. The vast majority of the grants that were given by the GLC were for worthwhile projects. I think it was quite right that he should emphasise that. But a new trust producing £1 million extra a year, if that is roughly what the estimate would be, depending on interest rates—the noble Baroness thinks it is £1½ million; or it may be a little less—is clearly no answer at all to the problem.
He referred to the threats on the independence of voluntary organisations. I think that everyone who is involved in voluntary organisations is dedicated to ensure that their independence is not undermined by successive Governments—whatever colour they may be—or by any other authority. I think respective Governments have shown that same approach. What they are worried about is not that they are going to be interfered with by this Government or by a new organisation to be set up. They are concerned that they will not have the money to do their job.
I heard the Minister say that he was going to have consultations with the voluntary organisations. He must know the tremendous consultation that there has

33
been during this whole period about the role of voluntary organisations. He must know that it is the National Council of Voluntary Organisations—which is as far from being a party political organisation as any organisation that I have ever met, because it represents all that is best in the voluntary organisational movement as well as the churches—which has been expressing support for the amendment so ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter.
It is quite true that the voluntary organisations are very frightened indeed. If they were not very frightened none of us would have had the sort of representations that we have had. I must say that over the weekend I was deeply moved by someone who telephoned my home. His speech was quite clearly impaired. He was trying to get over a message to me. I could not understand it. There was someone else at the side of the phone who asked, "Lord Ennals, did you understand what my friend was saying?" I said, "I am sorry, but I have to say I did not understand it. Can you possibly say what it was?" He said, "He was trying to say to you: 'Can you do your best to see that the proposals that have been made are carried and that we are not dependent upon the scheme that is in the Government's Bill'?". Of course that was difficult for him to say. I was deeply moved and there were tears in my eyes. That is the last I shall say in response to the Minister.
My noble friend Lord Barnett—as the Minister said, perhaps at a very timely moment—intervened and asked about tax in relation to schemes that are comparable with schemes in the United States. He said that it was not perhaps very relevant. I think it is very relevant indeed. No doubt, at a later stage he will respond to that, since he was not able to do so earlier. So my concern is not just with the big voluntary organisations. I thought that the GLC was quite absurd when it put out an advert that said that MENCAP, MIND or many other organisations were in peril. That was not true. I am saying it, as well as the noble Lord who has the distinction of being president of MENCAP. What are in peril are the individual voluntary organisations, sometimes parts of or affiliated to bodies such as MIND, MENCAP and the Church of England Children's Society, of whose committee I was a member until very recently. It is those small organisations that are worried; it is not the national organisations.
4.30 p.m.
Perhaps I may conclude—there is much more that I should like to say, but there are other noble Lords who are better qualified than I am—by mentioning a letter that I received very recently from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. No one could for one moment think of that organisation having some political motivation. It states:
"The Royal National Institute for the Blind is not itself directly funded with grants from metropolitan county councils or the GLC".
It puts itself together with others that are going to live on.
"However, district councils and boroughs sponsor places vitally needed by pupils in RNIB's special schools, old people in homes for the blind or people who need rehabilitation. Abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC will place greater
34
responsibilities on districts and boroughs for funding projects. We fear that there may be less money available overall to enable these councils to meet their obligations".
It goes on
"In the last year the metropolitan count councils and the GLC funded voluntary organisations to the tune of about £60 million".
That we know.
"The money helped, for example, physically and mentally handicapped people and victims of crime who need emotional and practical support".
The letter continues:
"The Government now proposes that it will contribute £7·5 million for a transitional year".
All right, that figure has been raised. I shall not read any more; but the organisation expresses its deep concern.
There cannot be any other legislature in the world which has more people who, in one way or another, are involved in the work of voluntary organisations than has your Lordships' House. There cannot be any place with greater experience of voluntary work than your Lordships' House, regardless of which political opinion your Lordships may hold. I plead with noble Lords to take seriously what the voluntary organisations say, to accept that they are really frightened about their future. When we look at the mass of social need in our society, in London and in the metropolitan areas, we should not be talking about whether the voluntary organisations are to be cut back. Our task is to look at this and to see how voluntary organisations can do more; by raising their own money, of course, but also by having a guarantee and a certainty that their future is there, in order that they can serve the nation as they have done in the past.
Lord Bellwin: I shall not keep your Lordships long, because I suspect that if I did, I should be repeating many of the arguments already made, but there are one or two observations which I should like to make. First, if the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is so concerned that the many bodies which he mentioned are, to quote him, "scared", I am not in the least surprised, in view of all the distortion, publicity and advertising that has been going on. It has been going on for so long that it would be rather amazing if they were not scared.
What one has to look at is: who is responsible for their being scared. Who are these people? In many instances they are the same people who are deluging us with the kind of material that I have been receiving on a scale that I have never experienced before in my whole life. I make no bones about it. I am heartily sick and tired of it. So far as I am concerned, it is very counter-productive, and many of your Lordships tell me that you feel the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that he feels most deeply about this subject and the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, said that the amendment is based on charity and compassion. But there is no monopoly on compassion. There is no monopoly of feelings on these matters. I come from a background where I lived among scenes of deprivation and all that goes with it, and I am very aware of the magnificent work that the many voluntary bodies carried out. I want to see them expand. I like to think that in my former incarnation I made a small contribution towards helping some of

35
them so to do and I want that to continue. I am satisfied that what is in the Bill will happen. I was there—
Lord Ennals: Will the noble Lord—
Lord Bellwin: Will the noble Lord allow me to continue? I was there when much of the words and music of this Bill were being written. I was there when we discussed what might or might not be done to assuage the fears.
Lord Ennals: I greatly respect what the noble Lord had to say about the voluntary organisations and about his own contribution. But is he now saying that all of these organisations have not followed the debates, have not read the Bill, and that they are dupes who do not understand what is going on? If he is, he is doing a great disservice to some fine people, who have at the head of their notepaper the names of people as distinguished as the noble Lord and others who are here today.
Lord Bellwin: I intend to make only one speech, and I want to go on by saying that, having been there when it was started, having watched the imaginative response of the Government to the representations and the consultations, and having listened today to what the Minister has come forward with, I believe that there can be no possible complaint about a lack of response to consultation with organisations such as the NCVO. They are highly responsible bodies for which I have the greatest respect. So I am satisfied that the Government are responding.
I want, fairly briefly, to make one or two other points which must be made. It is very difficult speaking in this debate when we seem to be covering so many amendments. Amendment No. 136ZBA calls for transitional support for a period of four years. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, spoke about that, but I want to say this about it. In all the legislation on local government with which I was concerned for five-and-a-half years never once did we as a Government seek to impose upon local government prespecified spending on prespecified services of any kind. The one factor we always maintained was that we were concerned about the totality of spending. We were concerned where individual authorities were, in total, exceeding what was fair and reasonable in relation to everybody else in local government. But we always said that the priorities on spending must lie with local government itself.
I ask your Lordships to think very carefully about what is being said today. It is being said that you cannot trust people in local government, because they will not have the money. I thought that my noble friend Lord Elton very explicitly explained why they will have no less money than they have now. But I want to remind your Lordships of some of the kind of spending that has taken place by many of these same authorities which, we are being told, will not have the money. I want to remind your Lordships that a sum approaching £20 million has been spent on campaigns by the seven authorities that are about to be abolished; and spending by the district authorities and others on
36
campaigning alone can be measured in millions. If they stop all that nonsense, they will have a great sum of money which they can apportion.
But having said that, at the end of the day the greater concern must be that you cannot seek to dictate exactly what each authority should spend on each separate service. If we cannot trust authorities to do that, we must not hear from noble Lords opposite, as I have heard in the last few years, about how we seek to control them and tell them what to do. I trust them, because I was a member of one of them. I support them, and always have done. But I wonder how happy the local authority associations are about the implications of what is being said today.
I will not detain the Committee longer. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has probably gathered, I feel equally deeply. I have all along been concerned about the voluntary bodies, but I am satisfied more than I have ever been about this whole Bill, having listened to what was said today by my noble friend the Minister in respect of what the Government intend to do.
I ask noble Lords to bear in mind the key factor mentioned by my noble friend and to consider the fact that we are being asked today to vote on a question of £60 million out of the hundreds of millions of pounds which are there anyway and which will not be affected. I am satisfied with what the Government propose to do. I hope that all my noble friends, many Cross-Benchers and—as I am an eternal optimist—even some noble Lords opposite will see that there is merit in the Government's action and that the fears which have been expressed are groundless.
Lord Irving of Dartford: I hope that the Committee will allow me to speak to this group of amendments, although I have put my name to a later amendment on the Marshalled List, Amendment No. 136.
Amendment No. 136: After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
"Grants for Information and Advice Service.
.—(1) The Council of a London borough and of a district in metropolitan counties shall make such grants to appropriate voluntary organisations as are necessary to ensure that such organisations can provide citizens with information, advice and assistance with regard to the responsibilities and rights of those citizens.
(2) In this section "voluntary organisations" has the same meaning as in section 47(10) of this Act.
(3) The duty created by this section shall not be regarded as restricting the powers of section 47 of this Act.").
However, it is quite clear that, as a result of the Government's proposal concerning the fund, much of the debate will arise on these amendments—although I do not believe that the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, will be any the less relevant, whether or not the other amendments are carried.
One of the serious consequences of the disappearance of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will be the interruption to the work of many voluntary bodies upon which much of the well-being of our people depends. I should declare my interest. I am vice-chairman of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. This is one of the largest, if not the largest, of voluntary bodies. I will describe to the Committee the consequences that this Bill will have for that organisation in respect of the

37
interruption and possible damage to the CAB's information and advisory services.
The Citizens' Advice Bureaux were established in 1939 to provide an emergency service during the war. Bureaux worked from mobile units, air raid shelters and rest centres—helping people with their personal problems. After the war, CABs were still needed to deal with resettlement problems and to advise people about benefits under the new welfare state.
This service has continued to respond to the changing needs of the community. The association now consists of a central office and 22 areas in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which provide support services to 682 main bureaux and 221 extensions. Scottish CABs are in a separate organisation but it is of course associated with that representing England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Approximately 13,500 people—90 per cent. of whom are volunteers—work in the service, and a further 10,000 people are associated with the committees which run the bureaux—and they are also volunteers. It is a large and complex organisation. Any interruption of funds could be totally disastrous to the service it gives to the public. The service has an open door policy. Any member of the public can walk into a CAB and obtain free, confidential and impartial advice on any subject. People are often advised by the press and television and by indications in leaflets published by Government departments and by libraries to obtain help from their local CAB. In response to need, an increasing number of CAB also provide specialist services—such as debt counselling, tribunal assistance, and assistance with workers' rights and legal work—to complement their generalist service.
The national association receives a grant from the Department of Trade and Industry to provide back-up services to bureaux, and the local bureaux are funded primarily by local government. The service has gained a high reputation for itself and has received high praise from many quarters. Indeed, when it was under attack last year it was encouraging that so many Members of both Houses who had experience of the CABs came to its support.
The independent inquiry set up by the Secretary of State last year under the distinguished civil servant, Sir Douglas Lovelock, described the service as,
"an invaluable national asset".
A month later the Government accepted the inquiry's recommendations that the CABs should have £1 million more to improve back-up services and to help encourage local authorities to offer long-term support.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not in his place now but he made the point in our rates debate, more than adequately, that this organisation represented the best type of voluntary organisation where, for the involvement of a number of paid staff, the money put into it stimulated the work of a vast number of voluntary people. The GLC takes a London-wide view, but there are rich and there are poor boroughs in London—and the poor boroughs will suffer if there is no London-wide organisation to provide them with effective support in areas which desperately need it; areas of dereliction and poverty. That is why we need a London-wide authority.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: It may be helpful if I interject at this stage to make a point I intended to mention when winding up this debate. The effects of the Clause 47 scheme will be, in conjunction with the London rate equalisation schemes, such that the burden of supporting these schemes will be distributed in roughly the same proportion as it is now. Your Lordships' Committee can dismiss from its mind any anxiety about the penalising of the poorer boroughs.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Irving, whether, in speaking to Amendment No. 136, he is preferring this amendment to his own, or whether he intends to speak also to his amendment later in the event that Amendment No. 135ZB falls.
Lord Irving of Dartford: I will not speak again; I do not intend to impose myself on the Committee twice in one evening on the same subject.
It is true that there is an equalisation scheme but it is also true that the amount of money available in poorer boroughs will be wholly inadequate to deal with many of the problems which they will have to face and which exist historically. When the time comes, I feel sure that there will still be problems. I will speak later about the difficulties which exist already.
Total funding by local authorities in England and Wales in 1982–83 was £9.2 million. With help given in kind, overall funding reached a little more than £10 million. The total number of inquiries continues to rise at a slightly slower rate than in 1982–83. Nevertheless, this year there has been an increase of 8.9 per cent. over the last year for which we have figures. This represented an additional 500,000 inquiries. Given the stringent financial conditions under which many bureaux have been operating, their increase in workload is significant. In many places, clients have to wait up to two hours for an interview and advisers are under an increasing strain.
I turn now to the crux of the problem. The funding of individual bureaux is already patchy and inconsistent. The association is keen to encourage local authorities to recognise that increases in bureau workload require additional resources, if the demand for local services is to be met. In some parts of the country increases in funding have not kept pace with inflation, let alone with the increased demand for the service from the general public. Last year the number of inquiries totalled 6 million.
The Lovelock Report stated:
"We are in no doubt that the level of funding to bureaux needs to be raised",
but added that:
"in the present economic climate local authorities have limited funds at their disposal".
Some authorities, such as the London Borough of Hillingdon, have for this reason already confirmed that they are withdrawing 65 per cent. of their grant aid to the CAB service. It is expected that this will cause the closure of two bureaux and our legal support service. All this is without the problems to be imposed on the service by the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. It is in the light of difficulties already existing that we now see the end of support

39
from the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. It is unrealistic to believe that authorities facing acute difficulties in funding their bureaux at present will be able to take on much additional funding, even with the money that they will receive from the precept that will no longer go to the GLC.
With less than 10 months to go, we have no guarantee that the funding now provided by the present authorities will continue. I am sure that the Government do not want to damage this service, which is unique in the world and which last year attracted visitors from 10 or more countries to see it in operation. It is the case that the Government have, over the past year or two, generously increased their support for hard-up services, but if they want to prevent damage they must act to ensure that there is no interruption in the transitional period and, above all, no reduction in the total amount of money available.
In terms of the fund, the proposal is obviously a recognition by Government of the tremendous financial problems facing voluntary organisations such as the CAB service when the GLC and the metropolitan counties are abolished. Such recognition is greatly welcomed. However, the CAB service relies on the GLC fund for about £500,000 a year, and this will need to be underwritten by the Government long before April 1986—a mere 10 months to go—if there is not to be an interruption of services. I think that many organisations will still have great anxieties even after what has been said today by the noble. Lord. They will have grave anxieties about the future, particularly during the transition period. Therefore, I beg to support these amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, called in aid, very justifiably if he will allow me to say so, his own very distinguished record in connection with the voluntary bodies. I hope I may pay him the flattery of imitation and say that I can claim, however modestly, that during the six-and-a-half years I filled the office of Minister of Pensions and National Insurance I did my utmost, within that department and outside, to encourage and assist the development of voluntary bodies. So there is really no quarrel between us on this.
Nor indeed is there any quarrel with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who is no longer in his place. As the right reverend Prelate said, the difference that we have is not about ends but about the means. Despite the absence of the right reverend Prelate, who made a powerful speech which was highly critical of the Government, I should like to come back to him on at least one of the points that he made. He took my noble friend Lord Elton to task by saying that my noble friend has missed the point and that the real point was that the Bill did not give security to the voluntary bodies. What security do they have now? What is there to prevent the GLC, if it went on, from cutting right back on some or all of them? They have, it would seem to me and I suggest to your Lordships, much less security now, when they are completely dependent for this large part of their support on the decisions of one large body, than they will have when, under the Bill, they pass into the care of the boroughs.
40
I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate realises that this large expenditure by the GLC—£50 million in the current year—is a very new development. As recently as 1981 the figure was between £8 million and £9 million. A figure that has grown in that spectacular way can, as your Lordships know well, wither away equally spectacularly. I thought that the right reverend Prelate—unusually for him and, if I may say so in his absence, particularly for a Balliol man—was very unsound indeed. He then went on to say—
Lord Melchett: Is the noble Lord implying that this growth is a bad thing which should not have happened? That is what he seemed to be saying.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I was not saying that it should not have happened. I was merely pointing out that a growth of that speed, first, has an element of uncertainty about it and, secondly, that it is interesting—and I am indebted to the noble Lord for his intervention—to consider what happened to the voluntary bodies up to 1981 when the support that they received from the GLC was very modest indeed.
I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate has returned to his place because I want to take up a further point with him. He told us about the experience he had in his great diocese of the demolition of a church and the disposal of the funds. He had to resist, as I am sure he did very properly, any suggestion that those funds should be used solely in the near proximity to the demolished church. But again, what security is there that the GLC will use its funds to support voluntary effort in any generalised way? Is it not at least possible that it may wish to use them particularly in areas where it has a great deal of support; perhaps even in the areas represented on the council by its leading members of the majority? With great respect to the right reverend Prelate, it seemed that on both these points he was being somewhat unfair to my noble friend the Minister.
I have only two other points to make. First, this amendment proposes to set up an authority. I think it is a mistake, particularly in this sphere, to call any such body an authority. If one calls a body an authority it is apt to develop authoritarian tendencies. It is apt to think that it is the boss. For a body of this sort, if it is to be set up at all, it is a mistake—perhaps a revealing mistake—that those who drafted the amendment inserted the word "authority". Perhaps it suggests a line of thought on their part because the alternative, and the alternative posed by the Bill, is that we should trust the boroughs, the elected representatives of the people throughout London.
In that context, I received recently a letter from Mr. Bowness who, as your Lordships probably know, is chairman of the London Boroughs Association. I should like to read an extract from this letter which seems highly relevant to the amendment. Mr. Bowness writes:
"I ask you to remember that the boroughs have been supporting voluntary organisations consistently for many years, both through the joint scheme and individually. In 1984/85 we gave some £30 million, in addition to substantial help under the Urban Programme. GLC funding"—

41
and here he comes back to the point I made—
"has on the other hand been a short term phenomenon, growing from only £8 million in 1981 to its present £50 million which could as readily vanish again. We are answerable to local people for what we do, and I can assure you that no local council would lightly ignore the needs of voluntary groups in its area. We know what they can do, and how effectively they can do it. Equally important, so do the electors to whom we answer".
Therefore on this amendment I say one simple thing to noble Lords opposite; simple because it is an expression they so often use themselves in arguments on other matters: why not trust the locally-elected representatives of the people to do what is right?
The Lord Bishop of London: I apologise for having to be out of the Chamber for a few moments. First, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that in my reply I may have been insufficiently grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his additional financial help. I thought that in what I was saying I was trying to help to bring about precisely what he said he intended should come about: namely, encouraging the boroughs to work together and giving them a framework in which to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, quoted from a letter which I too have. It seems to me very significant that the chairman said:
"I can assure you that no local council would lightly ignore the needs of voluntary groups in its area".
That is the crux of the matter. The chairman should have said:
"I can assure you that no local council would lightly ignore the needs of voluntary groups in its area and would be very sensitive to greater needs in other parts of London".
If he had said that, it would have meant a great deal more to me.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the right reverend Prelate had studied the letter from Mr. Bowness, if it be identical to mine, with the care which the responsibilities of his great diocese might make difficult for him, he would have noted that earlier on in the letter Mr. Bowness refers to the fact that,
"the boroughs have been supporting voluntary organisations consistently for many years, both through the joint scheme and individually".
I ask the right reverend Prelate to note the words "both through the joint scheme".
The Lord Bishop of London: I wish the chairman had repeated it later on.
5 p.m.
Lord Soper: I rise to support this amendment because I believe that this Bill, unamended, will do great damage both to the financial situation and indeed to the more, shall we say, spiritual characteristics of the voluntary services. I have not been in any way reinforced in any opposition to that view by what has been said this afternoon.
I believe that there is a requirement—and I speak with some passion on this—to understand what is the nature and what are the particular virtues that belong to voluntary associations. I shall spend a moment or two in describing them. In many respects voluntary services are the bell-wethers of enlightened civic administration. The first créches in London were
42
organised by the Methodist Church in 1885. The crÉches have now become the broad highway of intelligent and responsible administration with regard to children in care or lacking care. That kind of opportunity should be cherished and there is as ample a need for such adventurous participation in this kind of voluntary activity as ever there was before.
There is a second virtue which must be introduced if we are to find a comprehensive attitude to this very complex question. I can put it in the form of an anecdote. It is a very simple one. I myself have been engaged in voluntary services and have been responsible for some over the past 60 years in London. I remember almost the last thing that happened in the old LCC, of which I was a member. There was a project for something to be done for the poor relations of the alcoholics, the spirit drinkers. A long discussion followed and finally it was agreed that if the West London Mission would provide that particular service the LCC would fund it.
The reason for such a decision was not that they believed that those who would be responsible would be careless of the moral and other spiritual responsibilities attached to such a totally disagreeable form of service, but that they believed that there was a peculiar kind of devotion and commitment which could be expected from those in the voluntary area. I believe that that is true and I shall be very sorry to see either of those virtues within the voluntary services pass away. I am sure that they will not, but I see the imperilled position that now faces the voluntary services in particular on the basis of the responsibility that will be theirs in the local boroughs.
It seems to me that the demands on local boroughs in many respects will be in inverse proportion to their capacity to pay for them. Is it not obvious that there is an alcoholic problem in, shall we say, Lambeth, which is not so obvious and much more concealed in, shall we say, Richmond? Is it not obvious that, whatever might be the intentions and the commitments of the Lambeth people to deal with this problem, they will be expected to pay far more and to take much greater responsibility than their restricted resources can command or can deploy?
There is another equally relevant question. I share with the episcopal Bench a realism about the way in which one can trust the local authorities. I very much doubt it, I am afraid. I am not committing myself to a condition of total depravity but there is a situation of original sin in which personal behaviour patterns are very largely geared to the immediate issues with which people confront themselves or are confronted. I have no evidence to support the view over the past 50 years that when you are dealing with local authorities they are likely to take very much more account of things outside their own areas than of things that belong to their own immediate areas of responsibility. It is in this kind of circumstance that I look for an authority—I do not mind the word—which in its essence will do three things.
In the first place, it will provide an overall commitment to which there will be a more likely response than if you depend on the individual responses of local boroughs themselves. Secondly—and here I introduce a note which has not hitherto been struck—not every voluntary commitment is

43
worth supporting. I confess that, having some knowledge of the Church, there have been a number of voluntary associations and voluntary services which I believe have been, if not perverse, then thoroughly impractical and thoroughly stupid. I believe that an authority should discriminate between that kind of service which is required and is obviously desirable and that which is promoted by undue sentimentality. Perhaps I may give an example of that. Over the years I have had something to do with alcoholism and with the provision of some answer to it. How necessary it was for us to try to provide that the alcoholic treatment was based on knowledge and expertise and not merely on the sentimental desire to reclaim the drunkard or the alcoholic.
I am very grateful that, in funding the alcoholic set-up for which I was responsible, the Greater London Council insisted on certain quite obvious technical and administrative conditions without which they were not prepared to fund what we were trying to do. As a result—I shall not detain the Committee—we now have a three-tier system which is funded particularly in the realm of detoxification, which is an expensive thing; which can provide something of the process of rehabilitation of the alcoholic; and which, finally, can set up something in the nature of protected housing. These are illustrations of the way in which an overall authority, by whatever name you call it, will indeed be responsible for the distinction between those things which ought to be funded and those which are not, and can provide a sense of obvious and much required expertise in that function.
I finish by saying this. I hear on many sides and in many open places that the present Government are committed to the dismantling of the welfare state. I do not make such an accusation, or not now, but I am quite sure that there is widespread fear that that is what in fact is happening. If there is one thing that could allay that fear it would be if the Government of the day were prepared to see that the impoverishment of the voluntary services is one step along that road, at any rate in the opinion of a great many of our contemporaries and ultimately of the rate-payers.
In that regard, I hope very much that this Government will see to it that, whatever may be the virtues in the two-tier administration—I share an appreciation of those virtues—they are dead wrong on this particular issue and should take the advice of those who really know a great deal about social services and particularly voluntary services, not as though we are immaculate in what we say or infallible in what we propose, but because one cannot ignore the overall commitment of the Methodist Church, the Anglican Church and other Churches, that this particular amendment is required if the virtues of this Bill are to be preserved.
Lord Shinwell: May I say—
Noble Lords: Lord Bancroft!
Lord Shinwell: I am a Back-Bencher but Back-Benchers should have an opportunity to speak. I will not be long, I assure you. I want to declare an interest. I am president of the Easington Council for Voluntary
44
Service. I initiated it ever so long ago; 30, 40 or 50 years ago. They elect me president every year although I have offered to resign to allow somebody to undertake the tasks involved.
When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, expressing his views about it, I agreed with much that he said but with something I was bound to disagree. It was the statement he made that we must leave matters of this sort to the elected representatives to do what is right. That is exactly what he said. But they are not always allowed to do what is right. They are subject to the parties, the political parties, which help to elect them at election times. They are subject to what the Government of the day decide that they should do. They are subject to the financial provision made to them from time to time. At certain times that can be withdrawn. Sometimes it is reduced, as we know, by reduction in grants and so on.
Thus it is going a bit too far (I will put it no higher than that) to say that these matters must be left to elected representatives. The fact of the matter is that one cannot afford to leave everything to elected representatives any more than one can afford to leave everything to one government. As we see just at the moment, there is almost chaos in Government circles because of misunderstandings about this or that, However, I do not want to pursue that line this afternoon. I have no time for it; nor have I the inclination.
What occurs to me is this. We are talking about the need for freedom, to be permitted to express ourselves. I am all in favour of that. I think that in a civilised society it is essentially wrong to interfere with one freedom; that is, the freedom of those who are elected or who are engaged in voluntary service, whoever they may be. It is a mistaken line of policy. There must be an element of freedom. As one knows, one cannot always have that freedom in an elected body. There is a great deal of criticism of elected bodies, for example, local authorities. There was a great deal of criticism of the GLC. Long before the GLC, in the days of Herbert Morrison, the London County Council was the subject of almost daily criticism.
In the long run there must be something alongside elected bodies. There must be voluntary services: a number of people who club together and say, "We do not think that is right; we must say something about it, we should express an opinion about it". One may offer those organisations some funds to enable them to carry on, or one may deprive them of funds which they have been given in the past. One does that kind of thing. There is nothing wrong with that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and with the right reverend Prelate. There must be something. It does not matter what kind of organisation is set up. It can have all the authority in the world (and we do not have that in this country) but alongside that there will need to be some bodies, people who can get together from time to time. For example, there may be a body of women who have similar conceptions about society and who want to express their opinions. I should allow that, as long as they do not ask for too much money and as long as they satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Elton. May I say how much I admire the noble Lord's capacity for debate, even if I have not agreed with a single word he has said? That does not matter.

45
No; you cannot allow even voluntary bodies to have all their own way and to be presented with funds to do what they like with. That cannot be allowed to happen. Alongside these voluntary bodies, who have funds at their disposal, are set other voluntary bodies who say, "You cannot spend this and you cannot spend that". One wants an element of freedom. Therefore I suggest that whether noble Lords vote for the amendment or vote against it, we should vote so that there will still be some voluntary bodies continuing. They may not have a great deal of authority but they are the kind of concept which the country cannot afford to ignore or destroy.
Lord Bancroft: It is a disconcerting experience to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. They are all brilliant debaters, and I most certainly am not. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, there are two further reasons for its being disconcerting. The first is that I have to confide to the Committee that he has been an object of strictly non-political veneration to me for 35 years. The second is that he and I and the right reverend Prelate were all at the same college. He also speaks with authority on the subject of authority, given his past experiences.
Since I retired, I have never made any secret of the fact that I have little time for the GLC or the metropolitan county councils. Of course they have good things and some excellent staff to their credit. However, they have often failed to deliver the services which we expect from local government effectively, efficiently and economically. All too often some of them have become continuous political corroborees. Yet, in abolishing them, I ask noble Lords to consider whether, in one or two areas, it is right to put in their place something which is ineffective, inefficient and uneconomical. That is the gravamen of my criticism against Clause 47, even with the imaginative, interesting and very last-minute additions made to it so ably by the noble Lord the Minister.
5.15 p.m.
I do not think that those noble Lords who like myself support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, can properly be described as a platoon of bleeding hearts; not do I think that those who oppose it can be described as a section of Scrooges. I hope that the right reverend Prelate and others will forgive the reference to military formations. Those who support the clause are interested in devising an arrangement which is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill but which actually delivers the help that is so sorely needed.
I think especially of disabled people. Organisations dealing with disability regard this clause with dismay or despair. I hasten to add that this in no way derogates from the good work which the boroughs and the districts have done and will continue to do, mainly within their own borders; because we are here dealing with London-wide and county-wide tasks.
During the debate, we have been reminded that the existing borough and district precepts will be available for supporting county-wide voluntary organisations. I concede at once that some will be available. However,
46
it would take a robust, even a Panglossian view of human nature to imagine that, left entirely to themselves, the boroughs and districts would feel themselves able to spare more than a fraction of the amounts of their present precepts (in some cases already small) for county-wide voluntary organisations.
I repeat that I heard with enormous interest what the noble Lord the Minister had to say during the course of his remarks. Most of it was extremely helpful. All of it was imaginative. Yet I am bound to confess that at the end of the day, in organisational terms, I feel one is left with a body or series of bodies which are patched, which clank, whirr and wheeze into action. I do not think that that is sensible.
There was a word about the United States experience. Taking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and, indeed, commented on by the noble Lord the Minister, perhaps I may say something about the United States. I think it is the case that, despite much greater fiscal concessions to private and to corporate giving in the United States of America, despite Community Chest there and all the rest of it, the American voluntary sector depends primarily on government funds. A quotation from—as I think the noble Lord the Minister would agree—one of the greatest experts on the American voluntary sector, Lester M. Salamon of the Urban Institute, Washington; confirms what I say. He said:
"Private charity is no longer the principal source of support for the charitable sectors [in the US]: government is."
Now, I should like to comment, if I may, on the reference—
Lord Elton: The noble Lord paused as though he had disposed of something that I had said. I never claimed that the United States Government did not provide a very large amount of money to charities. What I said was that American private corporations provide a vastly greater proportion of their pre-tax profits than do ours. I shall come back to the arithmetic of that later, but that is what I said. I never made the position that I thought I heard the noble Lord, with satisfaction, demolishing.
Lord Bancroft: I assure the Minister that I would not dream of thinking that I had disposed of that point. I was adding a gloss to it.
I now come to the proposed voluntary trust for London. This, in my view, is to be welcomed unequivocally. But the fund's contribution to the solving of the totality of the London-wide problems facing the voluntary sector over a long period of time, let alone the problems of the metropolitan counties, will be, in the former case, I fear, pretty minor, despite what has been said, and so far, in the latter case, nil. It is, I repeat, a welcome experiment, but in the context of this Bill it is a piece of interesting marginalia with, I am bound to say, a whiff of makeshift diversion about it.
I pass without comment over the fact that we first read of the proposed voluntary trust in The Sunday Times yesterday and again in The Times today. This simply confirms me in my attachment to the television proverb that in this country the ship of state is one of the few craft that leaks from the top.

47
I have great sympathy with the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. What divides us, I think, is that the noble Earl believes that the system in Clause 47 is fundamentally workable. I believe that it is basically defective. To set up a council to supervise a defective system will not improve its defectiveness. It might produce an efficient defectiveness, but that is not, I think, what we are after.
The Earl of Perth: Perhaps I may make one comment, since the noble Lord has mentioned my amendment. It is simply this. Both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, have, I am afraid, misrepresented my proposal. They said that they were not interested in it because it added yet another body to the set-up that we are talking about. My answer is that this is not the case. I am proposing that there should be a body totally outside politics that would be replacing both the GLC and the MCCs. If the amendment on which the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, appears first, is passed, my amendment would also replace the voluntary service authority. My proposal is not to establish another body. It is a substitute. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has sympathy for me. If he has sympathy for me but votes for the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, my amendment disappears.
Lord Bancroft: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. His remarks enable me to conclude my remarks on a note of total agreement in the sense that I regard the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, as totally non-political. I shall vote for it because I have put my name to it. I believe that it has wide support both here and elsewhere.
Baroness Faithfull: During the debate in the other place my noble friend Lord Elton's ministerial colleague Sir George Young said that the voluntary organisations needed stability, security and permanence. Those were, I think, his words. First, however, I wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Elton for upping the £10 million to £20 million. In this day and age he is to be congratulated on that. Secondly, perhaps I may also congratulate him on his idea of the trust.
I have only two points to make. Will the boroughs do their duty, or will they not, under the framework mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London? I have every confidence in the desires and wishes of the boroughs. However, I do not have every confidence that they always have the money, or that they will have the money. Times have changed. There was a period when the boroughs could afford to give money. Now, quite rightly, not all of them feel that they can afford to do so. It is argued that local people will lay down what they want their councillors to do. I am sure that local people will not want their local councillors to spend money on London-wide projects, such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred, when the boroughs are short of money themselves. It is not a question of whether or not the local councillors support the voluntary organisations. You cut your coat according to your cloth. That is, I am afraid, the reality of the situation.
48
Some people say that the boroughs will not take this course. But they are doing so now. I do not blame them. If they have not the money, they cannot pay. I would cite one example in my capacity as president of what was called the Adoption Resource Exchange engaged in finding adoptive homes for handicapped children. Voluntary organisations found the homes, vetted them and prepared them and then offered them to local authorities for £3,000. To keep a child in care costs £3,000 a year. If the child is adopted, the local authority does not have to pay the £3,000. This can be multiplied over the years until the child is 16 or perhaps 18. A great deal of money is therefore saved by the local authorities.
One authority has rung today to say that in future it will not be indulging in the scheme; it will do the work itself. That is not cost-effective. Coming down to hard cash, what worries me is that the boroughs will not be able to afford to help voluntary organisations. That, in turn, will not be cost effective. At the end of the day they will have to pay out much more money.
My second point concerns the trust which my noble friend Lord Elton spoke about. I fully support the trust. I go further and say that I should have liked to see a national trust set up. I should have liked to see local voluntary organisations given stability, security and permanence by a national trust. It is my hope that in that way finance to voluntary organisations would not depend on the ebb and flow, and swing, of political opinion in the country, either locally or nationally.
The question will be asked, "What about the financing of such a trust?" I would only say that in Australia, in order to fund voluntary organisations, the Australian Government allow tax concessions for voluntary contributions. Secondly, they allow direct funding on a matching basis. Lastly, though I am not quite sure I understand what it means, there is joint Commonwealth and state funding.
I support the two amendments, that of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to which my name is attached. I support them simply as stepping stones over the next few years to enable us to think out a much better way of permanently helping the voluntary organisations.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like to raise one matter. In the first part of her speech she made a great point about the fact that if it were left to the boroughs, they would not have the money. I cannot see how the body suggested under Amendment No. 135ZB will have any more money. There does not seem to be any arrangements about it. Surely, it will have to be funded through the boroughs? Therefore, the totality of the money will be exactly the same.
Lord Elton: My noble friend has raised the point that I was about to raise. We have been discussing all this time how the money is to be spent. I can see nothing in the amendment which says from where the money is to come. I presume that it is to come from the rates. I presume therefore that there is some system of charging or that there is to be a precept. Noble Lords opposite nod their heads sagely and eagerly; but

49
I cannot see it written anywhere in the amendment. We need to know about that, and I need to know about that before I answer the debate.
The Lord Bishop of London: Perhaps I may try and answer the noble Lord. My understanding was that it was to come through a precept on the boroughs made by the boroughs themselves. That is why I was able to say that this is not another tier with its own funding, not another body. There is the money which comes from the rates and the body exists to enable that rate money to be shared in a way which fulfils what is being asked for in Clause 47.
Lord Elton: Is the right reverend Prelate able to tell me who sets the level of the precept? I thought that it would be the body referred to here. However, if it is not a precepting body but only a distributing body then we must know who will set the level of the precept. Is that going to be the Clause 47 system? Shall we have the two going in tandem, or what?
The Lord Bishop of London: As I understand it, it would fulfil the functions which are at present provided for in Clause 47. The boroughs would set their own rate. They would have obligations as regards voluntary grants and they would agree among themselves under this framework as to how the money should be distributed. That is the situation as I understood it. However, there may be other noble Lords better equipped to answer the point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Under those circumstances, if it is to be a precepting authority, then it will set a precept on the poorest of the poor in the same way as it will on everyone else. Will there then be an exemption or some way in which to help those people? It seems to me that if we are to set up yet another precepting authority we shall run into all the same problems as we have at present.
Lord Ennals: I should like to answer the point raised by the noble Lord the Minister. If he looks at subsection (5) of the amendment, he will see that it says:
"Each authority shall be a joint authority within the meaning of Part IV of this Act".
It is in that subsection that the precepting power is granted.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: One hundred-and-fifty-eight minutes ago the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, made a very useful speech when he spoke of charity and compassion. The fact that the Committee is so full tonight is another way of saying that we are a House and a Chamber which believes passionately in both compassion and charity, and therefore in the principle of the voluntary organisations. In that regard I take comfort from the very clear statement by the noble Lord the Minister when he says that the Government wholly support the principle of voluntary organisations. I hope that that rings out from this debate.
I also have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. He and I share the same title of
50
"Norwich", in English, or "Norvic", which is Latin. I have seen his work in our fine city of Norwich. He is second to none in the way in which he has cared for voluntary concerns. Indeed, I also believe that that is something upon which the whole Committee is agreed.
I shall not enter into the private argument between the Balliol men. They can get on with it on their own. As a simple Cambridge man I would not understand about Balliol. It is a different university from my own and I wish them the best of British luck. Personally, I am preaching in Great Snoring in Norfolk next week and that, as far as I know, will keep my feet firmly on the ground—not, I hope, an Oxford living.
Here we are, after 161 minutes, looking still at this very important and, I believe, major amendment. In the light of the four major assurances which the noble Lord the Minister has given openly and publicly on behalf of the Government, and in the light of the fact that we must assuage the fears of which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has spoken as regards the voluntary organisations, the message must go out clearly from this Chamber that whatever our view on the amendment, we are concerned about those who need help. I believe that the voluntary organisations will receive from every corner of this Committee support, care and concern. I believe that to be a united feeling.
As regards the amendment, I came to the Committee with a very sad heart. Although, due to sheer pressure of work in the diocese, I have been unable to be present as many times as I should have liked, I have watched a steady change of pattern—though I should like to be thought wrong—in the way in which we are dealing with a Government Bill. Essentially, we are a revising Chamber, and that is something which I recognise and which I believe we all recognise. I see in not only this amendment but in the amendments preceding and following it a steady determination so to dismantle this Bill that we are not tonight speaking only about this amendment. I believe that we are speaking about a change of course in the way in which we conduct our business. I share my anxiety. I am happy to be thought wholly wrong, but I believe that there are many people who think that I am right. However, we shall leave that matter for the moment.
I return to the amendment. In the light of the fact that the Government, through the Minister, have given four direct assurances concerning matters of major importance to all of us concerned with the voluntary organisations—and I am second to none in my concern, support and care for them—I believe it would be right for those who moved this amendment now to withdraw it. If not, I feel that we will be moving towards an approach to the Bill which is beyond a revisionary approach. I shall leave the matter there.
Viscount Buckmaster: I have put my name to one of the amendments, and I assure your Lordships that I shall be brief. I must confess that I have been tempted to nail my colours to the masts of both the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in the hope that one of those two vessels will reach port. After considerable thought I feel that Lord Hayter's vessel is perhaps

51
better equipped than the other, lighter vessel in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
I wish to speak about only one area of this problem which is of vital importance. It concerns the ethnic minorities, the refugees and the migrants. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has tabled Amendment No. 136D, which is almost identical to the amendment which I did not move. Therefore, I do not in any way want to pre-empt the noble Baroness. However, I suggest to the Committee that these two amendments can quite easily stand side by side. I did not move my Amendment No. 85 because, taking the advice of a great many noble Lords and a great many bodies who know so much about this matter, it was considered at the time that the problems of the ethnic minorities would best be considered under Clause 47. Nevertheless, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, all possible success with her amendment and I shall, of course, support it.
My reason for rising at this late hour is to tell your Lordships' Committee that in its report on its response to Streamlining the Cities the National Council for Voluntary Organisations said that abolition will affect the ethnic minorities more than any other group in London. What strong words they are! That is the linchpin of my speech, but that is not the end of the story because that view has been shared and expressed by the Commission for Racial Equality, by the British Refugee Council, by the London Voluntary Social Council, by the Runnymede Trust and by several other bodies. Let me examine briefly why the ethnic minorities will suffer. They will suffer because, as I see it (and I may well be wrong) there will be no central body to combat multiple deprivation, racial discrimination in housing and employment, and to meet their many social and other needs.
The Commission for Racial Equality in its report for 1983 said that no less than 50 per cent. of employers still discriminate against ethnic minorities; and a Policy Studies Institute report for 1984 reached the conclusion that black unemployment was twice that of white. There is a very important aspect of this problem. Perhaps I can draw the Committee's attention to the Race Relations Act 1976, Section 71 of which obliges local authorities to draw up policies to combat racism. The point here, when related to London—I fear I cannot speak about the metropolitan counties—is that of the London boroughs less than half have drawn up a programme at all. That is why I cannot in any way accept the Government solution which is that the functions of the GLC and the metropolitan counties in these spheres should be devolved to the London boroughs and district councils. How can one do that when we have this situation with half the boroughs doing nothing about implementing the legislation?
The situation is even more serious. No less than one-third of the boroughs are totally disinterested in the problems of the minorities; 14 of the boroughs have no specialist staff and have not applied themselves in any way to the problem. So I feel very strongly that what we need is some kind of overall authority such as has been proposed. This idea has been supported by many noble Lords who have spoken. We need an overall authority with an advisory
52
role, a co-ordinating role and a watchdog role. Your Lordships have accepted the principle of overall bodies for highways and waste disposal. We are not now dealing with highways or waste disposal; we are dealing with the real, live human problems: and human problems surely demand humane solutions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is one very important point which has not been made in this long debate. I feel it needs making, and clearly. I speak as one who has spent the whole of her adult life working within voluntary organisations, who was involved for eight years as the chairman of a main committee of a strategic local government council, that committee being responsible for much strategic grant-aiding; and I speak as someone who has discovered that the way to get continuity and stability of funding, and the understanding of councillors of all political parties for voluntary organisations, is by depoliticising the exercise. How does one do that when the exercise is about money raised by local government councillors on behalf of the people they represent, and they have different political views and so do their electors? How does one do that?
In the council where I served we had an all party sub-committee which looked, with an official, at all grants and at the merits of all the different applications. We decided and we recommended to the committee, and as a result there was virtually never a vote. I am bound to say that the amendment is proposing a method which I do not believe could produce a structure that could be apolitical when it looks at these grants. I have listened very carefully and very seriously to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London had to say about the need for structures. This structure will mean that when councils are deciding whatever it is that they have to decide—my noble Friend the Minister asked who was to raise the money, and how; and that has not yet been revealed—if they are deciding in some way the level and allocation of funding they will do so simply as people who have come from the councils which they represent. If we are talking of London as at present constituted, it is fairly evenly balanced. The decision will depend on who is there. If there is a change after an election there may be a slight swing or there may be a big swing. It will be enormously political; and quite frankly that is not what the voluntary organisations want. They have been kind enough to tell me their views.
5.45 p.m.
I went to one meeting of voluntary organisations which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and he was kind enough to allow me to ask the voluntary organisations whether they agreed with me about certain things. I believe he will agree that on the whole they did. As far as I can make out, the noble Lord the Minister has now largely met exactly what they were saying—the problem about increasing the bridging money while the new authorities decide how they want to allocate their resources. They also agreed that it is up to elected people to decide on behalf of London that which is funded on behalf of the people of London through local government; and that we cannot tell what they will do and we should not want to tell what they will do. They agreed that. They are

53
fearful. They have had many assurances. I believe the last thing they actually want, although because they have not all been on local councils they do not envisage what will happen, is a highly politicised body such as this body is bound to end up being.
I know that the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is an attempt to rectify that. We come to that point when we take that amendment, but certainly I feel that what is wanted is in no way what is proposed in this amendment and that the recommendations in the Bill, although they were by no means perfect when they started, have got a good deal better this evening. We may yet get them a tiny bit better still, but certainly this amendment should be rejected.
Lord Ennals: Before the noble Baroness sits down, she referred to a meeting at which I had presided, which was not of course a meeting called by me but a meeting of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations. I think that if the noble Baroness were to consult the national council she would find that they are by no means satisfied with the assurances that have been given and that they are deeply worried—as worried as they were before.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I accept what the noble Lord has said. I believe I said myself just now that I do not think the voluntary organisations quite envisage the kind of politicisation that will take place if this amendment should be accepted.
Lord Ingrow: Perhaps I could draw your Lordships' attention to that part of the country north of Potters Bar. We seem to have dwelt in London for a rather long time today. At the start of the afternoon, if I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, aright, he said that the district councils were political. This may be true. It had not actually occurred to me that the county councils were not political. There does not seem to be very much in it between them, but I suppose it is a good stick with which to beat the districts. In the last few weeks I have listened to a series of attacks from all sides of the House on metropolitan district councillors. They were used as a peg to try to achieve some particular kind of amendment to the Bill. If the councils have not been rogues or fools then they have lacked moral principle entirely or have been far too inexperienced to deal with large authorities such as these.
That last argument has gone overboard on this particular issue. There is no great problem of administration involved except that subsection (6) of the amendment would seem to need an organisation about the size of the Greater London Council to carry out that work every year. There is no excuse for that particular proposal today.
This criticism, with great respect, seems to have come in the main, if not in the great majority, from noble Lords whose practical experience of metropolitan districts, or even county boroughs or non-county boroughs, seems pretty tenuous. The criticisms have come just the same, but not from practical experience. These are the councils which after next April we shall have to be dealing with, and perhaps we should not say too much about them.
The interesting point which came out, that the metropolitan districts raise more money and generally
54
give more money to charity than the county councils, is as one would have expected. If you are in a district and trying to raise money for a charity it is Lord Mayors and Mayors who issue appeals. If the chairman of a county council issued an appeal he would not get the postage back. It is the Lord Mayors and Mayors who count in the cities and towns in this matter. They are the ones raising the money.
If we are talking about voluntary organisations, to some of us voluntary organisations conjure up things like the lifeboat fund, or the NSPCC, organisations supported by people up and down the country who believe in this cause and work for it, and not enormous bodies which have to be funded by central Government in order to exist. It has seemed, listening to the arguments today, as though there is a terrible risk in the minds of some people that these awful people might not do what we think they should do. This is a paternalistic attitude. It ought not to prevail.
We have elected councillors. If they are not doing their job and what the people want, they will be thrown out at the next election. That seems the right and proper way. We ought not to say that we know best—that was discredited about 40 years ago—and that it must be done this way, and that we cannot trust these other people. It may be expedient and an easy touch for the charities, but it is not democratic.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Perhaps I may delay the Committee for a minute to follow what the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmster, had to say. It is true that in fact the ethnic minorities are most worried about the abolition of the GLC. I must apologise to the noble Lord who has just sat down in that I have to come back to discussing London and not stick to the subject of the metropolitan counties. However, I know London best.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, dealt with the situation in London in relation to the way in which boroughs have attempted, or not attempted, to do anything about Section 71 of the Race Relations Act. I want to deal with another aspect of the matter, and that is the question of ethnic minority organisations. In that respect the situation is even worse. Until the GLC started making grants to ethnic minority organisations very few of them received any grant at all from local authorities.
Their fear is that the removal of the GLC will mean that the situation which prevailed before 1981, when the GLC started giving grants to ethnic minority organisations, will again prevail, and that they will have difficulties in being able to do the work that they are now doing. In actual fact as a result of GLC funding there are a large number of ethnic minority organisations in London which are doing good work. There is a great deal of worry about the consequences to them of the abolition of the GLC.
I would therefore invite your Lordships to make a decision which will enable a London-wide authority to exist to make those grants, and that that London-wide authority should be able to precept on London as a whole because those two requirements are essential. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is about to speak. I want to tell her that her city has a large number of blacks, but it does not make the contribution that it can afford to make. That is part of the problem.

55
The areas which can afford to make real contributions are not making them, and the areas which need them and cannot manage to make contributions are the very areas where there are large numbers of blacks, and where in effect the authorities are sympathetic but are being rate capped. For example, my borough, Camden, does not have the same number of blacks as Westminster, but Camden makes a much larger contribution. In fact it has been rate capped as a consequence and been penalised.
In the various interventions I have made in this debate I have always spoken in the same direction, and that is that the precept, making it possible for the sort of distribution which takes place now, the kind of services which are being granted through the richer boroughs servicing some of the needs of the poorer boroughs, is an essential pre-requisite to any proper functioning of local voluntary organisations in London.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: May I—
Lord Elton: I rise merely to provide an opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), to speak. She has been trying to do so for ages and cannot without my help.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am grateful to the Minister. I speak with far more trepidation than the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. Anyway, he is much too modest and underestimates his debating powers. He spoke with an immense amount of expertise and authority. However, thanks to the noble Lord the Minister I shall carry on.
I should like to support Amendment No. 135ZB in particular, and 136ZBA which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said many moons ago, is complementary to it. Although I am very much cheered by the undertakings made by the Minister this afternoon, I do not feel that they solve the whole problem. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said, they are not really a substitute for the framework offered by 135ZB.
I shall try to be brief and stick to two points about organisations dealing with disablement which, predictably, is what I am most concerned about. Many of these organisations, those dealing with minority groups, feel that they will not command enough support in individual boroughs to obtain grants. I feel that a voluntary service authority with a duty to review annually the inhabitants' social needs and to produce a grant-making scheme would help these organisations a lot. I think under the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, they would still have to secure the agreement of two-thirds of constituent councils unless I have misunderstood it.
Now the first of my two points. I should like to refer to Dial-A-Ride, which I gather has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I must apologise that I was not in the Chamber because I was moving from one end of the Chamber to the other. I shall omit much of what I was going to say in an effort not to bore the Committee. I hope what I say still makes sense.
56
I should like to talk briefly about Dial-a-Ride because they are seriously worried about funding. This service has liberated many Londoners who are too severely disabled to use either the public transport system or, indeed, even the taxi service. It is currently 95 per cent. GLC funded and, as yet, has received no assurances about funding, and it is apparently to be left to the boroughs. I feel that Lord Hayter's amendment might be helpful to prevent Dial-A-Ride foundering because of lack of funds, lack of uniformity, and lack of co-ordination.
However, Dial-A-Ride must really be planned as part of the transport system to run alongside conventional public transport. However accessible the latter becomes to severely disabled people—and it is most desirable and necessary that it should become so—there will always be a need for a combination with Dial-A-Ride because no public transport system could ever hope to provide the door-to-door service which people with a mobility problem need. Really it is only logical that Dial-A-Ride should be taken over, developed, and financed by LRT. I realise that the Government are aware of the importance of Dial-A-Ride and the taxi service to the disabled. I hope that the Minister might be able to make another welcome announcement and be able to say that LRT will take over, develop and fund Dial-A-Ride. However, I have to talk about it in this context because at the moment it is said to be a borough responsibility.
6 p.m.
My other point was very much covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. I mentioned the organisations concerned with minority groups. We have heard how worried are the CABs and how some of them are threatened with closure. The citizens advice bureaux do a marvellous job and cover a wide spectrum of the community. How much more will the smaller advisory services, dealing with the small disability sectors, feel threatened and at risk? I will give a few examples. The Disablement Income Group, DIG, which runs an advisory service for disabled Londoners on a grant from the GLC, does not think that it will be able to convince the individual boroughs that it is doing enough in a particular borough to warrant even a small grant. OSCA, which is the sickle-cell anaemia organisation, would be in the same position with only one or two members in each borough, and such a small minority would not have a chance. SENSE, the national blind and deaf rubella association at present receives £53,000 from the GLC. Over the past two years it has approached every London borough and secured less than £2,000 in funding. This illustrates very well how likely it is that those organisations dealing with severe, rare or multiple handicaps would slip through the net and not receive assistance. The organisations must be able to convince the individual boroughs to secure the agreement of the two-thirds of a borough. I think that an authority which must review needs and produce a grant-making scheme would greatly help these organisations. That is why I warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, about the so-called rich boroughs and what they do or do not

57
do for ethnic minorities. Perhaps at the same time I should say that I support Dial-a-Ride. When the noble Lord said "your city" I presume he meant the city of Westminster. Tonight my husband finishes his term as Deputy Lord Mayor. Immediately after that he will become the vice-chairman of the social services committee and I shall be pushing him very hard on Dial-a-Ride, which is an excellent service and is greatly valued by the people of Westminster.
But we return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also took up, on the concept of the richer and poorer boroughs. Westminster may appear a rich borough because it collects such a high rate for every penny, but the GLC and the Inner London Education Authority have been absolutely soaking it to such an extent that it has ended up with about 15 pence for every £1·35 raised. Therefore Westminster ends up poorer than the poorer boroughs to which it hands out all the money in equalisation.
The other side of the picture is where the noble Lord, Lord Soper, is genuinely concerned, about boroughs such as Lambeth. I understand that under the Bill there will continue to be additional equalisation between the boroughs. I hope that the Government balance that finely enough to leave Westminster with a little more to spend on its social services while enabling something to go to the poorer boroughs to help them as well. There will certainly continue to be equalisation, though I do not think anyone has mentioned that today. We have all implied that once the GLC has gone, the poorer boroughs will have no other source of funding. The so-called richer boroughs pay a great amount in to help those poorer boroughs now.
Other speakers have mentioned that nine London boroughs give less than £2,000 each to voluntary organisations. I should be interested to have details of those and I wonder whether many Members of the Committee are aware that many London boroughs have had an agreement with the Greater London Council whereby they have made no attempt whatsoever to fund anything locally, because under the agreement they say, "You send it all up to us, we will pay it, you need not charge your ratepayers, we will charge everyone else in London". That agreement will go, but it means that those boroughs will be able to reconsider matters. Possibly it will involve the nine boroughs we are talking about; I should be interested to know.
I remember one committee that I sat on where 17 of the grants were totally for Lambeth. None of this was for London overall. Many of the grants given by the Greater London Council were for specific boroughs with no overall London concept. Setting aside the 15 per cent. of grants that everyone in the Committee is opposed to, given to what we would call the bad causes, much money is given to what I do not consider are voluntary bodies in the true sense. To me a voluntary body has to be a body which augments the money it is given. It augments it either by raising additional funds or by involving other people and getting them to help. That is a true voluntary organisation. If an organisation does not augment what it is given by the local council—the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has often made this point in
58
debate—why should the local council give money when it could do the work better itself, with its own social workers?
It is because of the marvellous element of productivity and involvement of the voluntary organisations that the local councils give the money. The voluntary organisations involve more people or produce additional funds. I would divide my local organsiations into, first, those 15 per cent. totally out and, secondly, the lot doing nothing but asking for 100 per cent. funding for everything they do and making no effort to involve extra people or extra money. We certainly need to review those.
These amendments do nothing to help. Amendment No. 136ZBA is positively harmful in that it is a blank cheque to give everything to everybody that they have had up till now. Without further ado I oppose the amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope she will realise that she has illustrated the point I was making.
Lord Elton: Your Lordships have conducted a fascinating debate. For me the most bitter-sweet moment was when your Lordships' Committee's eldest member flattered me by saying how well I debated, and illustrated perfectly the truth of what I have long suspected, that the more persuasive I think I am being, the more vigorously he disagrees with me.
That is a disincentive to a long speech. I shall therefore, pick up a number of points that your Lordhips made to which you expected answers. I begin more or less at random, with the point made by the right reverend Prelate, that the current voluntary scheme had started by sending out 800 requests for information in a matter of a dozen days. I should tell your Lordships that the request was for information, not for bids and, secondly, that the replies were asked for as quickly as possible, so that work could begin as soon as possible, which is something your Lordships keep urging. Thirdly—and perhaps more to the point—over 400 replies have been received. So it was not such an impossible task that was set.
I accept, as do the Government, the importance of the citizens advice bureaux. They rightly command a great deal of support from local authorities. I do not think that I ought to address them any differently from all the other voluntary bodies to which your Lordships have referred, except to say that at Second Reading the coadjutor of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, in his amendment said that terrible things were happening in Hillingdon. Hillingdon is not, as I think Lord McGregor suggested, but not the noble Lord, Lord Irving, a rate-capped authority. But even here, when the authority was taking difficult decisions on cuts, not just on voluntary bodies but across the board, it has continued substantial funding for citizens advice bureaux, so that all four bureaux remain open, though I understand that they may somewhat curtail their hours. I should not want your Lordships to feel that the pruning knife is working there already with a chill foreboding of what will happen after abolition.

59
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), are both concerned about Dial-A-Ride, as are we. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in the nicest possible way, said that an undertaking of my noble friend Lord Avon had not been met. The Government are well aware of the importance of Dial-A-Ride. They have established a joint working party from the Department of Transport, London Regional Transport and the boroughs which is now looking urgently at the future funding of Dial-A-Ride and other transport systems for disabled people. It will report to Ministers shortly. The Government have set up and are funding a London branch of the National Advisory Unit for Community Transport specifically to help Dial-A-Ride develop along sensible and cost effective lines in future. As no arrangements have yet been decided upon and the working group is still discussing them, it is rather far fetched to accuse my noble friend in his absence, however politely, of not having delivered. The process of delivery is in train.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, was concerned about the ethnic minorities. I shall return to this but, again, I think that it is wrong to deal with individual causes separately. But I should tell the noble Viscount that the councillors who are actually responsible for the borough's grant scheme have already assured the LVSC last week that they are considering a specific part of the grants unit dealing with ethnic minorities.
Both these questions touch on money and I come to the question of the levels of private company giving in the United States and in the United Kingdom. I made the comparison—and it is an order of magnitude—of between just under 2 per cent. and a figure of 0·1 per cent. Noble Lords have sought to diminish the clarity of that comparison by asking whether the figures are treated the same. The short answer is that the figures I quoted relate to income and profits; that is, before taking account of the different tax regimes in each country. It is not contested, I think, that the levels of corporate giving are far higher in the United States both in absolute terms and as a percentage of income. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, quoted his source and I quote mine. I think that it is no less eminent. It is Professor Ralf Dahrendorf, when he gave the inaugural Arnold Goodman lecture on 29th November 1983. The noble Lord claimed that he was merely casting a gloss on what I said. I rather think he was casting a smoke screen in front of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, brought us—I think on an intervention in a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford; and I think it was the first or second time he spoke—to redistribution. I will repeat what I then said about redistribution. Under the collective scheme, all the boroughs will contribute to the cost of making grants. The extended equalisation scheme will ensure that these costs fall on ratepayers in much the same way as if the GLC had precepted for that amount. So the redistributive function which is held dear, I think, by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and by many noble Lords, and rightly, will be preserved. There is no threat to it to justify supporting the amendments now before your Lordships.
60
I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that our intention is that the schemes in Clause 47 are essentially mechanisms to facilitate local co-operation in each abolition area. We have discussed the concern about the need for an imposed mechanism in each area, but the effect of his amendment, as I understand it, would be to provide a body to compare the arrangements in each area with those in each other area.
The Earl of Perth: I think that the purpose of my amendment is just this. The Government have undertaken—and I am sure that we all rejoice at this—to make considerable grants over an interim period to the local authorities under the grant scheme. My proposal is that the body which should distribute these should be non-political and should so deal with the various matters, not comparing one with the other but judging on the merits of the case.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Earl, and I shall in a moment come back to the question of the depoliticisation of voluntary grant giving.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to summarise this debate, because your Lordships have paid such close attention to it. I shall point out just one thing which relates to all the individual anxieties which have prompted noble Lords later in the Marshalled List to suggest that a particular body should be written into the Bill so that it either gets first call on the voluntary grant aid or shall have a statutory right to it. Listening to this debate has confirmed my opinion that you could not anywhere in the United Kingdom and possibly in the world find an assembly of people representing more special interests of this sort than there are here tonight. Hardly one of your Lordships is not president, founder, patron, governor, treasurer or you-name-it of something. If any of your Lordships succeed in imprinting the name of your particular favoured ewe lamb in the Bill, the noise of others shouting, "Me, too", will be deafening. I do not think that we can proceed in that way and, therefore, we have to proceed in the way in which both the amendments and the Government propose; and that is to have a system which will be equitable to all.
6.15 p.m.
What is there that distinguishes the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, from that proposed by the Government? In each case there is a separate body that is to decide how the money is to be distributed. We understand—and I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in his interpretation of the drafting of the amendment—that it is a precepting, (in London's case) London-wide authority with the power to perform this function. What we propose is a London-wide, non-statutory body to perform this function.
The function is a voluntary function. I thought I heard from the right reverend Prelate the phrase, "the obligation for voluntary grant". If one is obliged to give something, it is not voluntary. Your Lordships have to decide whether the proper way of doing this is to appoint a statutory body with the duty to call from the constituent councils a sum of money determined by that body on a simple majority. I think I got that right from the amendment. It appears to me that the

61
idea is that they shall vote and if 51 per cent. of them think that X is the right sum for the budget or that Y is the right amount for a particular cause, that shall be the decision of all.
I notice that in your Lordships' minds at the end of the day there are two real concerns, and two concerns only. It boils clown to this. First of all, on behalf of the voluntary bodies, you are afraid of the effects of transition; you are afraid that there will be an interruption of funds. Secondly, you are afraid that for political reasons there will be a change of policy thereafter. On the first count I really think I ought to have satisfied your Lordships. I think that a period of four years is reasonable to quote as the period of transition. I think that £20 million of projects amounting to £40 million of hard Government cash spread over those four years is enough to account for that transitional anxiety.
I was interested and pleased to note that when he spoke the right reverend Prelate seemed to move away at once from the question of the quantum, of how much there should be, to the question of whatever is the Latin for "how"; I have forgotten it.
That brings me to the second matter. It was really illuminated for your Lordships far better by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour than it could be by me, because she speaks from direct experience. What she said has the ring of convincing truth about it. If you have a body of which the policy swings on one vote from one direction to the other and back again, you are dealing with a political body which can change its policy overnight. And we have seen that in the existing bodies. If you have a qualified majority—and there can be arguments about the size of the qualification—then what you need is a requirement for a broad consensus of political opinion as to what ought to be supported and what ought not. You can give the detail to the lead borough, and that is what is in the Bill.
Those are the comparisons. I do not want to make too much of this, but I think it is an important and exciting moment that we have now established the fourth commitment of the Government that there shall be a trust for London to expend not only the interest on the initial capital, which will be, I would remind your Lordships, at least £10 million, but also the interest that will accrue on the independent money that we expect and are confident will be attracted to it.
I do think that these things together constitute a very strong case indeed for accepting the Government's proposals and rejecting those in the amendment. If your Lordships have final hesitations about the transitional aid, I would ask you to remember what I said, so that I do not have to repeat it at length now, about the way I protected it as I spoke both from limitation by the Secretary of State below the current level and from the impact of GRE estimates and targets, should they persist.
I think I have done more today than I have ever expected to do in my Parliamentary career to justify the policy of the Government and to put on the line the help that we are able to give to the voluntary bodies. I have no embarrassment in asking your Lordships to stick to the Government's Clause 47 and not to try to adapt the Bill in the way suggested.
Lord Hayter: I should like to make just three quick points. I was glad that the noble Lord the Minister straightened out the Committee on the financial implications of this amendment. Of course he is right and the position is set out in the amendment and in the Bill for those who want to read it. Secondly, I think the Minister's assurances in relation to the transitional financial provisions are well worthy of study, but that is not what we are going to vote on now. So far as this amendment is concerned, once again I think we are all at one: we want to do the best we can for the voluntary authorities. We think one way and others think the other way. Let us put it to the vote.
6.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 135ZB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 164; Not-Contents, 180.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Alport, L.

Gallacher, L.

Amherst, E.

Galpern, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Attlee, E.

Glenamara, L.

Avebury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L.

Bancroft, L.

Grey, E.

Banks, L.

Hampton, L.

Barnett, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birk, L.

Hayter, L. [Teller.]

Birkett, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blyton, L.

Henniker, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hooson, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Brockway, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ingleby, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jacques, L.

Caradon, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

John-Mackie, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Kahn, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kaldor, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kearton, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kilbracken, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Kissin, L.

Lawrence, L.

Denington, B.

Leatherland, L.

Diamond, L.

Listowel, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Eldon, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ennals, L.

London, Bp.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Longford, E.

Ezra, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Faithfull, B.

McCarthy, L.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mar, C.

Foot, L.

Mayhew, L.

Fulton, L.

Melchett, L.

63

Meston, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Molson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Monkswell, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Simon, V.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Soper, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stallard, L.

Mulley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stedman, B.

Nathan, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Nicol, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stone, L.

Oram, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Phillips, B.

Strauss, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Plant, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Thurlow, L.

Thurso, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rea, L.

Walston, L.

Reilly, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Whaddon, L.

Rochester, Bp.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Willis, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Seear, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Seebohm, L.

Winstanley, L.

Serota, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denman, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Denning, L.

Allerton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Ampthill, L.

Donegall, M.

Annaly, L.

Dormer, L.

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Barber, L.

Dudley, E.

Bathurst, E.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Bauer, L.

Dundee, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Elibank, L.

Beloff, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Belstead, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elton, L.

Bethell, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Blake, L.

Foley, L.

Boothby, L.

Forte, L.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Freyberg, L.

Braye, L.

Gainford, L.

Brentford, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Geddes, L.

Burton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Caithness, E.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glanusk, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnock, L.

Gowrie, E.

Cathcart, E.

Grantchester, L.

Cawley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Cayzer, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Halsbury, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hanson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Cox, B.

Henley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hives, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Holderness, L.

Craigton, L.

Hood, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Davidson, V.

Howe, E.

De Freyne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

64

Ingrow, L.

Renwick, L.

Ironside, L.

Romney, E.

Jessel, L.

Rootes, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kemsley, V.

Rugby, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Davids, V.

Layton, L.

Sandford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Savile, L.

Loch, L.

Sharples, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Soames, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Somers, L.

McFadzean, L.

Southborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stamp, L.

Marchwood, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Margadale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Marley, L.

Marsh, L.

Strathspey, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sudeley, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Middleton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Morris, L.

Torrington, V.

Mottistone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trumpington, B.

Norwich, Bp.

Ullswater, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Onslow, E.

Vestey, L.

Orkney, E.

Vickers, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Perth, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Porrit, L.

Wynford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Young, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Remnant, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Renton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think perhaps this is an appropriate moment to take the Statement. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Council of Agriculture Ministers: May 13th-16th
6.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting in Brussels on 13th to 16th May 1985. My honourable friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom.
"The meeting was devoted entirely to negotiations on the 1985–86 agricultural prices and an agreement was reached last Thursday covering all commodities other than cereals and rapeseed.

65
"Decisions on prices were overdue and, while decisions on all commodities would have been preferable, I was not prepared to give in to German insistence that there should be no meaningful reduction in prices for cereals. They felt so strongly on this issue that their Minister made it clear, using the words of the Luxembourg compromise, that very important interests were involved for his country and that the Germans were not prepared to agree to a vote. This represented a significant change in the attitude of the Federal Government towards the use of the Luxembourg compromise.
"Turning to the decisions which were taken, the co-responsibility levy for milk was reduced by 1 per cent., backdated to the beginning of April. This is linked to the reduction of 1 per cent. in the national quotas. With the 1·5 per cent. increase in the support price for milk, this means an average improvement of 2½ per cent. in the support price for milk. Now that these decisions have been made, we can go ahead in the next week or so to notify individual quotas for 1985–86. Letters to producers will start to be sent out later this week.
"The Council agreed that supplementary levy will be collected annually at the end of the milk year. This avoids problems over quarterly or half yearly payments which may bear unfairly on producers if they change their seasonal pattern of production.
"The Council did not agree to the Irish Government demand for a permanent addition of 58,000 tonnes in their quota allocation on account of a statistical error in the Irish production figures on which the Council based its decisions last year. An adjustment was made only for 1984–85 and 1985–86.
"As I foreshadowed in my statement on the implementation of the COMA Report, I accepted that the special United Kingdom butter subsidy should be discontinued. Taken together with other adjustments affecting butter, this will mean over time a small increase in butter prices of about one penny per 250 gram pack.
"I secured the continuation of the Beef Variable Premium Scheme in an unchanged form, against very strong opposition from most other member states. This will be welcome to producers and consumers alike, and will reduce the quantity of United Kingdom beef going into intervention. The guide price for beef will remain unchanged. But United Kingdom producers will benefit—by approximately 1 per cent.—from an increase in the intervention prices under the second stage of the carcase classification grid agreed last year.
"For sheepmeat, there will be no price change this year. But, for next year, when the marketing year will start on 6th January, the basic price will increase by 1 per cent. I successfullly resisted pressure from the Commission and other member states for changes in the regime which would have been damaging to our interests, including a proposal to impose a ceiling on variable premium and a related bar to the recovery through the ewe premium of any money foregone. I also resisted pressure for an immediate end to the Special Export Certification arrangements, which facilitate the
66
export of ewes from Great Britain. Instead there will be further discussions about these arrangements over the coming months. The Commission has undertaken to bring forward proposals to enable annual premium to be paid for next year on certain sheep in especially disadvantaged mountainous areas which cannot be tupped until their third season.
"I secured agreement to the modification which the unions and trade had sought to the sheepmeat seasonal scale which will promote more orderly marketing. I also secured an extension until the end of 1987 of the exemption from clawback for our sheepmeat exports to third countries, which should enable our exporters to develop that trade with more certainty.
"Agreement was reached on measures that should bring about a better balance for Mediterranean products and establish a greater control over the regimes in these sectors. In particular, significant price reductions were agreed for tomatoes, citrus fruits and some varieties of tobacco.
"The overall effect of the changes agreed will have a negligible effect on food prices in our shops.
"Throughout the negotiations, I have attached great importance to the Council continuing with the task which was started last year of bringing greater realism into the common agricultural policy within the budgetary constraints laid down. The Commission stated clearly that they would ensure that the measures agreed, with the decisions yet to be reached on cereals and rapeseed, will be within the budget provision recently agreed for 1985.
"The Council will meet again on 11th June to continue its discussions on cereals and oilseed rape.
"This package agreed last Thursday meets our objectives. In particular, I was determined to resist measures which would discriminate against British interests, and this we have done. I consider it a good agreement for the United Kingdom and for the Community as a whole. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are very much obliged to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement that was made in another place. It is a pity that it is so late. As your Lordships know, the agricultural year starts at the end of March or the beginning of April, and here we are into May. It was mentioned the other day—I forget in which publication—that the Council of Ministers seem to have their heads in a heap of grain. Our Minister certainly does not hide his light under a bushel, so far as this report is concerned.
What about cereals? The Minister has said that he is not prepared to agree that there should be no meaningful reduction. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say what would be a "meaningful reduction", because during 1983–84 and this year cereal prices have been reduced by nearly £20 a tonne and I should have thought that quarrelling about 0.9 or 0.7 per cent. and not settling was splitting hairs. I shall be glad if the noble Lord has any ideas to offer on that.

67
The milk agreement seems very satisfactory indeed, except that I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the Irish situation a little. Does this mean that the 58,000 tonnes is to be allowed for the two years mentioned or is it some other figure? The Statement does not make that clear. If this statistical mistake was made, it seems a little hard on the Irish that it was not corrected to go on all the time. The Minister may have some ideas on that.
I am sure that the sheep farmers will be delighted with the sheep rÉgime. People who export fat ewes will find that the clawback arrangements help the trade immensely. On the question of Mediterranean products, I wonder whether the Minister can help us. As we know, the Channel Islands and the Scilly Isles have a tremendous interest in tomatoes which are considered a Mediterranean product. Can the Minister say whether this will affect them?
On the overall effect of the changes, the Statement says that there will be a negligible effect on food prices in the shops. The funny thing is that prices fixed by the Council of Ministers sometimes have little effect, but what the processors do afterwards—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not here—makes a big difference. So I hope that the processors have noted what the Minister said.
On the question of the negotiations on cereals and rapeseed, the Statement says—and it is rather curious, considering that this has not been settled—that this budgetary arrangement will tie up with the restraints that have been imposed and it will not cost any more. How can that possibly be forecast when the cereal prices have not been fixed and we do not know the size of the harvest? Last year's harvest was a record one and this one looks like being even bigger. So I think that this is being a little optimistic about keeping within the budget. I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on that.
On the whole, it is good that this matter is settled. We get very tired of these long processes and I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues get even more tired night after night. However, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to make some reply to the points I have raised.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, time was, many years ago, when a messenger returning from a foreign country with bad news paid for his unwelcome news with his life. I am glad that we have now moved on from that time, because I should hate to see the noble Lord, or even his right honourable friend, paying for this abysmal failure with their lives. It really is one of the most depressing Statements that we have had, ever since I can remember these Statements being made, and, as is so often the case, it is masked with a veneer of pleasure and self-satisfaction.
For instance, the Statement says that there has been
"a significant change in the attitude of the Federal Government towards the use of the Luxembourg compromise."
There has, but would the Minister not agree that at least part of that change is due to the example set by Her Majesty's Government over earlier negotiations,
68
in invoking the Luxembourg compromise in matters which we asserted were of significant national interest, but where we found very little support from other countries?
Turning to milk—one of the two most important of the commodities—we are still going on giving an increased guaranteed price for quantities well in excess of the total Community requirements, thereby leading to still further storage costs, still further buying into intervention and still further costs of disposal of these unwanted surpluses. No progress has been made here, other than a paltry reduction of 1 per cent. in the national quotas. Has the Minister any hope to hold out to us that in due course there will be some significant progress both in restricting the quantities of what is required and in making a real approach to the prudent price policy about which we have heard so much?
There is a small adjustment in butter, but what is the effect of that? It simply means that people in this country will now have to pay rather more for their butter—not a lot more, but a small amount more—with no advantage to anybody else. That is true. I declare my interest as a beef producer and I am delighted to hear that producers will benefit by approximately 1 per cent. But will the Minister confirm that there is a growing surplus of beef production within the Community and, therefore, that still more beef will be sold into intervention and will have to be disposed of at a loss after it has declined in quality because of the fact that it has been taken into intervention?
We hear also that progress has been made with the task that was started last year,
"of bringing greater realism into the common agricultural policy within the budgetary constraints laid down".
My understanding—and it is borne out by something that was published in The Times today, and which the Minister undoubtedly read if he did not know it already—is that according to the agreement made last year with regard to wheat, cereals and rape, the price should have been reduced by some 8 per cent. because of the great over-production that occurred due to the munificence of the harvest last year. In fact, that reduction has not been achieved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is this a speech, my Lords?
Lord Walston: Nothing like it has been achieved, my Lords, and there is now a question mark over what is going to happen. I will underline what was said by the noble Lord, Lord John Mackie—
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, the Companion to Standing Orders specifies that Statements should not be made the occasion for a debate, but should be the subject only of brief comments and questions for elucidation.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will agree that all the brief comments I have made have taken the form of questions to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to answer.
My penultimate question is, in reinforcing what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, this: how is it possible for the Council of Ministers to give an assurance that the budget will not be exceeded

69
when there is still a question mark hanging over not only the harvest but also the actual prices that will be paid for cereals—the largest crop of the whole Community?
Finally, can the Minister say on what grounds he considers this to be a good agreement for the United Kingdom and the Community as a whole in view of the various difficulties which have been outlined?
6.52 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the questions put by both noble Lords in respect of my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Walston, asked about the meaning of the Statement where it says that we believe there should be a meaningful reduction in cereals. Both noble Lords know the situation: that there should have been a 5 per cent. reduction if the guaranteed threshold had worked. In fact, the commission produced a proposal for a 3.6 per cent. reduction in cereal prices and the Federal Republic of Germany felt that it could not wear even anything like that. This is the one area—an enormously important area—which was left to be decided upon.
My answer to both noble Lords on this particular point is that it is now for the commission to bring forward proposals for the meeting on 11th June. Whatever proposals it now puts forward, those proposals must ensure that expenditure will be kept within the budget agreed for 1985 and within the financial guideline for 1986.
I turn to the second question asked by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, concerning the Irish situation. This is simply a question of meeting the Irish over their request for an increase of 58,000 tonnes for the two years 1984–85 and 1985–86 only. I do not think that the Irish Government have been hard done by in this matter. It was for Ireland, like every other member state, to get its figures right when the agreements were being gone into; agreements which were crucial for all the member states concerned. There was only a certain amount to go around and I believe that the Irish have been treated generously by the other member states in this matter.
The noble Lord was, characteristically, very generous about the result of the sheep negotiations. Indeed, I believe that those negotiations were good. The Statement points out that my right honourable friend did everything he could to defend British interests. If one looks through what has been said about the sheep regime it will be seen that there, perhaps more than anywhere else, my right honourable friend brought home about four very good decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me also what the meaning is of that part of the Statement which makes reference to Mediterranean products. As a result of the agreement, consumers will benefit from improved access to fresh and processed products but the effect on our growers will be very little. United Kingdom growers receive only a small part of the withdrawal compensation which is paid to growers in the Community. Our main withdrawals are for apples, for which there is no price change, and for cauliflowers, for which there is a small price increase.
70
What is of importance to us in this country is that support for Mediterranean fruit—citrus, and of course tomatoes as well—has been realistically reduced.
The noble Lord asked me finally about the costs of the package; indeed, both noble Lords asked me this particular question. The final cost will depend on what is agreed for cereals and rape seed, but the commission has made an undertaking that if the overall costs after the price fixing looks like exceeding the budget provision for 1985 of 19,955 mecu, the commission will adopt the necessary market management economies to keep within that provision.
I will deal briefly, because of the time, with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who was, perhaps, uncharacteristically less generous so far as this Statement is concerned. I would say to the noble Lord that when my right honourable friend returns to this country bearing some improvement in the difficult situation for milk producers, the retention of the enormously important beef variable premium (important for both producers and consumers), the retention of all the main features of the sheep regime, and in addition to that has been participating in negotiations which are keeping within the financial guidelines, then that is good news.
It is not the picture which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, painted. For once, I depart from the noble Lord's view. The noble Lord is enormously experienced in these matters but on this occasion I certainly depart from his comments. I will underline the fact that by keeping within the financial guideline, for the first time ever the agricultural expenditure and the price fixing is operating within a financial discipline for which the United Kingdom has been the chief protagonist.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke about the position of the Federal Republic of Germany. The German Minister of Agriculture specifically referred, as I understand it, to the fact that interests important to the Federal Republic were involved and that he favoured continuation of the discussion. The view of the United Kingdom Government about the Luxembourg compromise is well known. We support the idea of it and we would not have participated if matters had gone to a vote. In that event, if matters had been pressed to a vote the commission's proposals would not have received sufficient positive votes for them to be carried. In fact, we are still in a situation where discussion continues. I hope that on 11th June there will be a sensible final decision in respect of cereals and rape seed, to add to what I believe has been a good negotiation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend elucidate this point? If the American budgetary move is successful, the world price of grain is due to fall quite dramatically. What kind of strain will that place on the EC budget? Secondly, has any progress been made with the introduction of the proper marketability, with the free marketing of milk quotas? I suggest that that could be one of the most advantageous developments for both milk producers and the Community as a whole.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's first question is that in the event of the situation which he explained there will be considerable strain on the Community's export refunds so far as cereals are concerned. This underlines—as my noble friend very shrewdly implied in his question—the enormous importance of seeing to it that there is a realistic final agreement reached on 11th and 12th June in respect of the cereals part of the negotiations.
My noble friend asked about milk quota mobility. I should like to say to my noble friend that the Commissioner told my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture that the Commissioner would be considering British concern that provision should be made for the buying and selling of quota.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have only two short questions to ask the noble Lord. The noble Lord assured us that during the current year the constraints imposed by the budget will be adhered to. Can we therefore have his assurance that there will be no supplementary budget in respect of the current year and in respect of demand-led expenditure in the agricultural guarantee section? Can we have that undertaking and can he also assure us, following what he said, that it will now be subject to strict cash limits, because that is what budgetary constraint ultimately means?
Will the noble Lord explain why on this particular occasion Her Majesty's Government decided to sustain the right of veto of the German Federal Republic but were content to leave the whole question of the 1982–83 veto by the United Kingdom which was overridden by the Community?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can give the assurance the noble Lord asked for. There will be no supplementary budget, so I am advised. I think I have already answered the noble Lord's second question.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, may I assure my noble friend that the most important objective that his right honourable friend has achieved has been to hold on to the cattle and sheep regimes, because the prosperity of the most difficult areas in the country—namely, the upland and marginal areas—are totally dependent on livestock?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stodart. I always bear in mind that the beef variable premium was first secured by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, when he was Minister of Agriculture. Although he was a Minister in the Government of a party of which I am not a member, that agreement was none the worse for that. It was a fine move by, if I may say so, a Minister of the past whom many of us admired. I am very glad that the point has been brought out by my noble friend Lord Stodart.
Again, on sheep, it is enormously important and I am glad to have confirmation from my noble friend north of the Border that the agreement on sheep is looked at as being a good one. I believe it is.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in view of the fact of the apparent vetoing of a 2.6 per cent. lowering of the price of cereals by the German Minister of Agricul-
72
ture, which cannot possibly be described as being in supreme national interest and flatly contradicts everything that the West German Government have been saying for the past few years about majority voting, would it not be possible on 11th June for the President to put the Commission's proposal to the vote and if the Germans are alone in opposing it, simply declare that, under the Treaty, it is carried?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I have made clear to your Lordships' House, if it is put to the vote under those circumstances, we would not participate in any such vote because we take a certain view of the Luxembourg compromise, and that view has not changed, and will not do so.
Lord Gladwyn: But, my Lords, confronted with that necessity, the Germans might say, "All right, we agree."
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely understand why the noble Lord, with his skill and experience in these negotiating matters, puts that point to me; but I have to make it clear on behalf of the Government that we believe in the concept of the Luxembourg compromise and if put to the vote, we would not participate.
Lord Soames: My Lords, there has been constant reference to the Luxembourg compromise. May I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government still construe the Luxembourg compromise as being one which enables any member state of the Community to be the sole judge of whether a particular matter is in its vital national interest? May I suggest to my noble friend that if this continues, there will not be one quarter of the progress made in the European Community towards which most people in all countries aspire? If a country wishes to use the veto because the arguments go against it, that problem can be resolved only if the fact that it considers the issue to be of sufficient national importance to itself is debated before the main question comes before the Council of Ministers.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that it would be right for me, with little experience compared to my noble friend, to start talking about the principle of the Luxembourg compromise. My noble friend and, indeed, other noble Lords are enormously experienced in this matter and on this specific agricultural Statement I would be well advised not to start giving any offerings on a matter of principle. However, I say to my noble friend that I have clearly heard what he said.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may add that so far as the practicalities of the matter are concerned, the Agriculture Council is due to meet again on 11th June. Therefore, I remind your Lordships that the Federal Republic has asked for the discussion to continue. I hope that they will have had time to reconsider their position, so that agreement can be reached when that date arrives.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although he has been pressed from both sides to encourage the withdrawal of the veto, that view is in no sense universal? If matters were as

73
my noble friend would like them to be—and I wish that they were, too—that argument would be fine. But it is quite clear to those of us who have sat in Europe for five or six years and have made some study of how it works that it is not yet the kind of Community that was envisaged. It is still a meeting of nations and the national point of view has to be argued for some time yet before one can throw it open to the majority verdict which would allow all sorts of arrangements to be made which, at the end of the day, would not necessarily be in the best interests of the continuation of Europe.
Lord Bedstead: My Lords, in order to bring this question and answer session to an end I say again that I hear what my noble friend has said. So far as the practicalities are concerned, we must see how we go on 1 1 th June. But surely it is important—and this goes back to the original questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston—that the final negotiations should be within the budget for the current year and within the financial guidelines for next year. We have been given an assurance by the Commission that that will be the case.

Rent (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Sexual Offences Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a short business statement. Before we go on to the adjournment business it would be only fair to tell those noble Lords interested in the Local Government Bill that we shall not resume that Bill after the dinner adjournment before ten minutes to nine o'clock.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, surely the noble Lord means ten minutes to eight o'clock, or eight o'clock.
Lord Denham: I am sorry, my Lords; I should have said ten minutes to eight o'clock.

Prosecution of Offences Bill [H.L.]
7.9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments he now considered.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to (Bill 96) as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 3, page 3, line 16, after ("all") insert ("binding over").
2 Clause 3, page 3, line 18, leave out from ("person)") To end of line 21.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. At the same time I shall, if it is convenient for your Lordships, speak to Amendments Nos. 15 and 19:

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
15 Clause 15, page 12, line 23, at end insert—
(" "binding over proceedings" means any proceedings instituted (whether by way of complaint under section 115 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 or otherwise) with a view to obtaining from a magistrates' Court an order requiring a person to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour;").
19 Clause 15 page 13, line 19, leave out from ("Act") to ("shall") in line 21 and insert ("binding over proceedings").
For the further convenience of the House, I propose that we should consider Amendments Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 together in one group; Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together; Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together; Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 together; and Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 28 together. I propose that we should consider the other amendments singularly save for Amendments Nos. 29 and 32 which I suggest should also be taken together. I hope that in saying that I have not confused the noble and learned Lord opposite.
Clause 3(2)(c) of the Bill, as it left your Lordships, placed a duty on the new service to take over the conduct of proceedings instituted by way of complaint under Section 115 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. In that way we had sought to ensure that the new service would take over the conduct of all proceedings instituted by the police that resulted in the offender being bound over by the justices. We found that we had not quite met this objective with the clause as it was then drafted, and these amendments were moved in another place to ensure that it could be met. These amendments are therefore essentially technical ones designed to ensure that the clause secures its objective which is that the new service will take over the conduct of all binding-over proceedings instituted by the police. On that basis I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, the Question is that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 en bloc.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am in full agreement with what is proposed. It is clearly desirable that the independent prosecution service should have as wide a remit as possible and what is suggested is eminently sensible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 11, page 7, line 24, leave out ("local or police").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 3, and I take it that by having moved Amendment No. 2 en bloc, that has been agreed to.
I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. If it is convenient for the House, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 and Amendments Nos. 12 to 14.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 11, page 8, line 9, leave out ("a local, or police,") and instert ("an").
8 Clause 11, page 8 line 20, after ("section") insert (" "authority" means any police authority or other authority or body mentioned in section 17(6)(c) or (d) of this Act; and ").
9 Clause 12, page 8, line 24, leave out ("local or police").
10 Clause 12, page 8, line 25, leave out ("such").
12 Clause 12, page 8, line 29, leave out ("local or police").
13 Clause 12, page 9, line 1, leave out ("local or police").
14 Clause 12, page 8, line 11, after ("section") insert (" "authority" means any police authority or other authority or body mentioned in section 17(6)(c) or (d) of this Act; and").
As your Lordships will appreciate, under the terms of Clause 3(3) of the Bill, the new service will take over the conduct of criminal proceedings instituted by all police forces specified in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. Such police forces are intended to include not only those established under the Police Act 1964 but also other bodies of constabularies such as the British Transport Police. This amendment seeks to achieve that so, again, it is essentially technical. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to 6 en bloc, and Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 en bloc—
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think perhaps that it might be better if we were to take them in order. What I had intended to do in moving those amendments was to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 9. I think it might be better to take them in order, and following on Amendment No. 9 would come Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 13 and 14.
The Deputy Speaker: I apologise, my Lords. The Question is that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to 6.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we shall get into bad trouble if we try to make the proceedings even shorter than they are going to be. Let us take it in stages; otherwise we shall get into a terrible mess.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, let each amendment be called.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that this House do agree with the Commons with their Amendment No. 3.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 11, page 7, line 29, leave out ("and").
5 Clause 11, page 7, line 30, at end insert—
(": and
(c) for the termination of the employment with the authorities concerned of persons to whom the regulations apply (whether or not they are transferred in accordance with the regulations) and as to the consequences of that termination.").
6 Clause 11, page 7, line 35, at end insert ("and may make such modifications in the application of any enactment as the Attorney General considers appropriate in connection with any provision of the regulations of a kind mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6. The amendments are technical and tie up loose ends concerning the existing contracts of staff affected by the transfer regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, when the Minister says that these are technical amendments, I take it that by that he means that no point of principle arises. I remember one famous occasion in your Lordships' House when some counsel said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, that the proposal was raising a mere technical point. The noble and learned Lord said, "Very often, what you think is a technical point is a point of principle that the other side remembered". I am assuming that when the noble Lord says that it is a mere technical point, he means what he says, as he usually does.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I mean that the amendments are technical. If it is any reassurance to the noble and learned Lord, contracts of employment often include provisions as to the notice that must be served before an employee can leave for new employment. These amendments will enable staff to transfer into the new service under the regulations to avoid what in the circumstances may well be inappropriate conditions and, moreover, ones which are impossible to meet.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 10.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Printed above.]
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 12, page 8, line 26, leave out ("one month") and insert ("three months").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. The need for this amendment arises from the excellent progress that the Bill has made here and in another place. That in itself is perhaps a tribute to the constructive spirit shown on all sides of your Lordships' House and indeed in another place. The amendment accordingly alters the period within which my right honourable friend is obliged to establish the commission from one to three months. I can, however, assure your Lordships that the commission will be established as quickly as possible, as my right honourable friend and the Director are anxious to have access to its advice from as early a stage as possible. With that end in view, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Printed above.]
I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Printed above.]
I spoke to this amendment earlier with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16 Clause 15, page 12, line 33, leave out ("the time at which").
17 Clause 15, page 12, line 34, leave out ("is").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. These are essentially minor technical and tidying up amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Clause 15, page 13, line 18, leave out ("and (e)").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. Again, it is a drafting amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Printed earlier: col. 740.]
This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 16, page 14, line 35, leave out ("or") and insert)—
"(aa) on an appeal under that Part against conviction—

(i) substitutes a verdict of guilty of another offence;

(ii) in a case where a special verdict has been found, orders a different conclusion on the effect of that verdict to be recorded; or

(iii) is of the opinion that the case falls within paragraph (a) or (b) of section 6(1) of that Act (eases where the court substitutes a finding of insanity or unfitness to plead); or").

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. Your Lordships will doubtless recall that when this Bill was last before us my noble friend Lord Elton moved amendments which enabled the Court of Appeal to make an award of costs from central funds in favour of an appellant successful in an appeal against sentence. The court also has powers under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to substitute a verdict of guilty of another offence, or to order the recording of a different conclusion on the effect of a special verdict, or to substitute a finding of insanity or unfitness to plead.
It is appropriate, where any of these orders are made on the hearing of an appeal, to enable the Court of Appeal also to consider whether a defendant's costs order should be made in favour of the appellant. The amendment therefore introduces this change. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I shall assume, if I may, that the word "eases" three lines from the end of that amendment will be altered in due course to "cases".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly. I am sure that that is a drafting error. I shall ensure that it is correct in the final print.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, yes. I wanted only to demonstrate that I had read the matter with some care.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the same object as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to show that I had at least read something and wanted to deal with it before your Lordships, I wonder whether the noble Lord can at this juncture explain something to me that I am sure I ought to know. This copy of the Bill, which is headed,
"To be substituted for Bill previously delivered",
has a note at the top. The note says:
"The words marked by a black line in the margin were inserted by the Lords to avoid questions of privilege".
I see that this indeed necessitated a reissue of the Bill because these words were omitted from the Bill when it was brought from the Lords on 4th March. However, the only black margin that I can find is at the bottom of page 28. It has nothing to do with the Royal privilege but the amendment reads at the end of subsection (8) under Part IV "supplemental":
"Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge".
I am only inquisitive to know why this House inserted these words and what the words "to avoid questions of privilege" mean. If I may, I shall go on talking for a moment in order to enable the noble Lord to consult with whomever he wants. Alternatively, if he feels that this matter should be referred to later in the Bill after an opportunity has been given to him to consider it, then with the greatest of pleasure I shall resume my seat. However, for the moment I shall remain standing.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience. As I understand it, the fact is that it is normal procedure for Bills which start in this House to have the privilege amendment put in in this House. In this particular case the fact is that we shall come on to it with a later amendment, Amendment No. 27. I think I am right in saying, though I was not here at that particular moment, that the privilege amendment was not included and it had to come back for a second Third Reading, (if that makes sense). I hope that that elucidates the position for the noble Lord.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I recollect that. It put us all slightly to shame when we were putting it right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Clause 20, page 20, line 38, after ("means") insert ("(a)").
22 Page 20, line 41, at end insert ("or—
(b) an order made in a criminal case by the House of Lords for the payment of costs by a party to proceedings.").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 en bloc.
These are technical amendments, consequential on earlier amendments relating to the jurisdiction of your Lordships' House, when sitting in its judicial capacity, to make awards of costs between parties.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 22, page 24, line 44, at end insert—
23 ("(12A) For the purposes of section 29(3) of the Surpeme Court Act 1981 (High Court to have power to make prerogative orders in relation to jurisdiction of Crown Court in matters which do not relate to trial on indictment) the jurisdiction conferred on the Crown Court by this section shall be taken to be part of its jurisdiction in matters other than those relating to trial on indictment.").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. The weakness in the Bill which this amendment remedies concerns the right of appeal by accused or prosecution against the decision of a court to grant or to refuse an extension of a time limit. Whereas the unamended Bill provided for appeal to the Crown court against the decision of a magistrates' court, Section 29(3) of the 1981 Act would have had the effect of denying the possibility of any review of a decision of the Crown Court in a case triable on indictment. This is because the Act limits the prerogative powers of the High Court to matters not relating to trial on indictment.
We are not seeking to provide for appeal on a point of fact from decisions of the Crown court. However, we consider that the Bill should enable application to be made for judicial review on a point of law. This would allow the High Court to give an authoritative interpretation of the relevant provision in the Act which would be of value to the lower courts generally, and particularly where the Crown court may have made a manifestly erroneous decision.
The amendment also removes an anomaly. Judicial review would not have been available for cases to be tried on indictment but it would have been available in relation to Crown court determinations of appeals against magistrates' decisions on time limits in summary cases. The case for judicial review to be available here therefore seems to us to be a strong one.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should just like to say that I agree entirely with what the Commons have done. It fills in a gap which otherwise would have been left in our legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
24 Clause 23, page 25, line 17, leave out from ("discontinued") to end of line 19 and insert—
("with effect from the giving of that notice but may be revived by notice given by the accused under subsection (6) below.
(3A) Where, in the case of a person charged wilt an offence after being taken into custody without a warrant, the Director gives him notice, at a time when no magistrates' court has been informed of the charge, that the proceedings against him are discontinued, they shall be discontinued with effect from the giving of that notice.").
25 Page 25, line 29, at end insert—
("within the prescribed period; and where notice is so given the proceedings shall continue as if no notice had been given by the Director under subsection (3) above.").
26 Page 25, line 34, at end insert—
("(8A) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 en bloc. With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Schedule 1, page 29, line 36, at end insert—
("Contempt of Court Act 1981 (c. 49)
3A. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (meaning of "discontinuance" in relation to criminal proceedings), the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (a)—
"(aa) in England and Wales, if they are discontinued by virtue of section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985;".
3B. After paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to that Act there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"9A. Where proceedings in England and Wales have been discontinued by virtue of section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, but notice is given by the accused under subsection (6) of that section to the effect that he wants the proceedings to continue, they become active again with the giving of that notice.".").
As your Lordships will know, Clause 23 of the Bill was introduced in this House at Report stage. It was always likely that a number of tidying up amendments would be required at some subsequent stage. That is the purpose of these amendments. Perhaps it may be helpful if I outline their collective effect.
First, as the clause left your Lordships' House it was not precisely clear as to what actually happens when the Director issues his notice of discontinuance. It seems to us that for a number of reasons proceedings should be discontinued with immediate effect from the issue by the Director of his notice. If discontinuance was not effective from the issue of his notice, then the provisions of Clause 22 might continue to apply. If the relevant time limit ran out before the expiry of the period within which the case would come to court following the issue by the defendant of his counter notice, the effect would be to deprive the defendant of his opportunity to have the matter dealt with in court.
Secondly, if proceedings were not discontinued upon issue of the Director's notice, those cases listed for hearing during the period from the issue of the Director's notice to the expiry of the period within which the defendant might issue his counter notice would have to come to court. That would run counter to the underlying purpose of the clause, which is to avoid unnecessary court appearances. It would surely not be welcome to the majority of defendants, who will simply be relieved to have cases dropped. The prescribed period within which the defendant might issue his counter notice is to be established by rules made under Section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. There will of course be consultation in the normal way on what the period should be before the rules are made. Proceeding in this way will give flexibility to ensure that the period set is fair to the defendant and will work in practice.
7.30 p.m.
The new subsection (3A) is aimed at a different aspect of the discontinuance scheme. It is designed to deal with those very rare cases where the police have charged someone and the new service has the conduct
82
of the case but the charge sheet has not been presented to the court, and therefore it cannot be said that any information has been laid. In these circumstances the court will not be seized of the case and consequently the provisions of Clause 23, crucial to which is the idea that the court should be informed when cases within its purview are dropped, are not quite appropriate. To take account of this, an additional provision is needed to avoid wasting the time of the courts, the defendants and the prosecutors in coming to court unnecessarily.
Finally, the amendment to Schedule 1 ensures that the provisions of Clause 23 of this Bill sit properly with those of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 on the "strict liability rule" for contempt of court. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
27 After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
("Expenses.
.—(1) There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament such sums as the Attorney General may, with the consent of the Treasury, direct in respect of the expenditure incurred by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the discharge of his functions under this Act.
(2) Any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General which is attributable to this Act shall be payable out of money provided by Parliament.").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment. I referred to it earlier. This new clause enables any expenditure arising as a result of the Bill, once enacted, to be funded by parliamentary Vote. The insertion of such a clause is a normal development when a Bill is introduced in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this is essentially an Attorney-General protection amendment, and I am all for protecting Attorneys-General from personal expenditure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Printed above.]
I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Schedule 1, page 30, line 6, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(2)").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
32 Schedule 2, page 32, line 26, leave out ("32(1)") and insert ("32(2)").
These are minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
30 Schedule 1, page 30, leave out lines 29 to 44 and insert—
("(5) For paragraphs 6 and 7 there shall be substituted the following—
"6. Where the criminal division of the Court of Appeal makes an order as to costs to be paid by—

(a) an appellant;

(b) an applicant for leave to appeal to that court; or

(c) in the case of an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords, an applicant who was the appellant before the criminal division.".").

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment. Again, it is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
31 Page 31, line 13, leave out ("award") and insert ("order",).
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment. Again, it is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Printed above.]
I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I do not want vigorously to oppose this drafting amendment. It is the last opportunity that I think I shall have of saying farewell to the Bill. I wish to make only one observation.
84
It was a highly controversial Bill when it first came to your Lordships' House and a number of substantial alterations were made to it in your Lordships' House. It then went to the other place. The other place carried out what many of us may think it is best at carrying out—and that is its role as a revising Chamber. It went through the Bill with considerable care and has made only one or two very small, minor amendments. The fact that the Bill, altered so substantially in your Lordships' House, was then altered so little in another place is a very great tribute to the work that was done on the Bill in your Lordships' House.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I join in this self-praise which is being inflicted on the House and which is entirely justified. It is very pleasurable that one particular heresy that was attempted, if I dare make mention of the word "heresy"—namely, giving the Attorney-General power to reopen too lenient sentences—is as dead as the dodo, thank goodness.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for their comments. I was not of course privy to the intricacies of the Bill at that particular stage. I do not think that I should be drawn on the comments that they make about certain parts of the Bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful for their kind remarks and the fact that the Bill is now safely and well on its way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.36 until 7.50 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 136ZBA:
[Printed earlier: col. 8.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the previous debate referred at some length to transitional funding. We had a long debate in which many points were raised, and I should like to clear in my mind one or two matters before deciding what course to take as regards this amendment.
I understood from the noble Lord that the Government were prepared to double their offer for transitional funding to £40 million over four years. I take it that that would mean that £15 million would be available in the first year, £10 million in each of the second and third years, and £5 million in the last of the four years. Perhaps the noble Lord will kindly confirm that that is so.
Lord Elton: To save time, I am happy to confirm that now.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As regards general expenditure under Clause 47, I understood the noble Lord to say that no limitation would be put on this by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) in the first year after abolition. If I am correct in my understanding, I should like to go on to ask the noble Lord whether that applies to one year only and what is to happen in subsequent years?
I also understood the noble Lord to say that in setting grant-related expenditure assessments and targets the Secretary of State would take into account the level of funding to voluntary organisations. Does that mean the current level of funding in the first year? Again, what about subsequent years?
As regards transitional finance, I do not think that the noble Lord's offer or series of offers quite met the second part of my Amendment No. 136ZBA on the question of disregarding these monies for grant penalty. If that is so, it is still my submission that this will introduce a very serious distortion into the scheme, for the reasons that I explained in my earlier remarks. However, in order to get the position clear I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that what might well happen is that an authority might have to pay back to the Government in penalty £2 for every extra £1 which it spends on these projects. If my understanding is correct, that would mean that it would end up by paying 75 per cent. of the cost of a project under the transitional finance scheme when it is in theory supposed to pay only 25 per cent. Will the noble Lord tell me whether I am correct about that? If so, will he tell the Committee whether he thinks that the Government might do something about that at the next stage of the Bill? In other words, might the Government themselves bring forward an amendment at Report to take care of that point?
I should like to make two final inquiries. Is it the Government's understanding of their own scheme that transitional funding will apply to county-wide bodies as well as to local projects? If that is so, it again raises the question as to whether the proposed transitional funding, even at the higher amount, is in fact adequate.
The last question that I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. His announcement of the trust fund was widely welcomed in the Committee. Our complaint was that it did not address the problem that we were trying to address in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. I should like to ask about the metropolitan counties. If the Government are to set up a trust fund for London, which, incidentally, already has some trust funds of this nature, why should the metropolitan counties be left out in the cold, or why have the Government decided to discriminate against the metropolitan counties and in favour only of London? I should be most grateful if the noble Lord would answer those few queries before I decide what to do with the amendment. In the meantime, I formally beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble Lord the Minister answers those queries, I should like to follow up what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows, I am very concerned about the metropolitan
86
counties. The whole of the debate during the course of this afternoon has concentrated on London. The noble Lord the Minister has put forward the figures of £15,000, £10,000 and £5,000—
Lord Elton: I think that the noble Baroness means millions.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Yes, I am extremely sorry; I mean millions. Is the noble Lord able to give the breakdown as to the amounts which will go to the GLC areas and to the metropolitan counties? I think that previously there was a difference between the figures. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us the difference tonight, so that those of us in the metropolitan counties will be able to see how badly we do.
I should like the noble Lord to take into consideration what has just been said. There is grave concern about the voluntary bodies in the metropolitan authorities. Perhaps they cannot make their voice so easily heard in this assembly because most noble Lords are from the shire counties or live in the London area. There are very few noble Lords who live in the metropolitan counties. Indeed, I think that they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and I include myself as one of them. Therefore, it is very difficult for them to have many spokesmen. Nevertheless, they are doing a great deal for the voluntary bodies. I can speak with some knowledge of the West Midlands, which only this last year spent £2¼ million—which is a substantial amount—on the voluntary bodies.
Nobody has said anything this afternoon about the neighbourhood schemes which are operating mainly in the metropolitan counties—and here I speak particularly of the West Midlands—and which have the support of what the Minister would call "private funds". I give as an example the Cadbury family, a family who not only give very generously of their money; the directors, in the old Cadbury tradition, also participate in some very small pioneering activities. They concentrate in the main on what they call "neighbourhood fostering". They start off groups and give them initial funding which continues for about three years. The West Midlands counties have concentrated on neighbourhood funding. The neighbourhood funding has, in the main, been spent on ethnic minorities—on Indian ladies, on the provision of language lessons and matters of that nature. It has concentrated on all the various ethnic minorities. It has helped considerably with the integration of our coloured friends in the West Midlands. That is a matter which has to be considered quite seriously if we want harmony between all the various races.
Therefore, to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has said, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to give some encouragement to the metropolitan counties; perhaps as much as he has given to London this afternoon.
Viscount Buckmaster: We are now considering transitional funding for borough-based groups.

87
Perhaps I may give two examples of London boroughs which will suffer quite considerably. The first is the London Borough of Wandsworth, which currently provides £1·7 million worth of grant aid to voluntary organisations. The GLC funding to the Wandsworth organisations is approximately £1·5 million for the year 1984–85. Therefore, the London Borough of Wandsworth would have to find and allocate double its present expenditure to sustain the current level of voluntary activity. Wandsworth, while not rate capped, is in a penalty position on its 1984–85 expenditure level.
Perhaps I may give just one example of a voluntary organisation which is at risk in the London Borough of Wandsworth. It is the Balham Family Centre, which provides a range of important services for children and young people, including a créche, a latch-key scheme for children, which was referred to by earlier speakers on another amendment, playgroups for the under-fives, and so on. The centre also offers advice on pregnancy and motherhood.
8 p.m.
Lord Elton: If the noble Viscount will give way, perhaps I may ask him whether the Balham Family Centre is directed to benefit the residents of Wandsworth or the residents of a wider area? I ask that question because if it is directed to benefit the residents of Wandsworth, they will still be funded as they now are by Wandsworth Borough Council. If it is for a wider area, it of course falls into the new arrangements.
Viscount Buckmaster: I thank the noble Lord for making that point. I cannot state specifically which of the two applies, but I know that the centre does good work and receives a grant of £54,000 from the GLC.
Perhaps I may next refer to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which now provides about £650,000 of grant aid to voluntary organisations in the borough, and a GLC funding provides a further £1,375,000. So the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham would need to increase its grant-aid programme by some 200 per cent. to stay at that level of voluntary service.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships just one example of a voluntary organisation in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham which would be at risk. It is a voluntary organisation very dear to my heart, called SPEAK. This is a new venture which provides language classes in a play environment for ethnic minorities, under-fives and their mothers. Between 25 and 30 different nationalities are enrolled during an average year, which is quite impressive. The aim of the scheme is to help the under-fives in particular to cope with the English language and its problems in time for beginning school. The GLC funding for this scheme during the current year amounts to £18,000.
Baroness Faithfull: I shall speak only briefly; my name is attached to this amendment. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. I ask with diffidence because I do not really know the
88
situation with regard to the metropolitan counties very well. I feel extremely sorry for them in that we have talked so much about London and we have not really addressed ourselves to their problems. I have been asked two points. First, is the Minister satisfied that on geographical grounds it is going to be easy for the different districts to co-operate with one another, because in certain of the metropolitan counties there are very great distances between the various districts? Secondly, where do those voluntary organisations which deal with the arts and theatre fall? Do they fall in this sector, or are they dealt with elsewhere? A number of people in the metropolitan counties have written to me in regard to where voluntary organisations have been set up for a theatre or concert hall. They are very worried because they get their money from the metropolitan counties and they are sure that they will not get it from the districts come the time.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is right in his arithmetic, The amount of money available in the first year will be £15 million as the Government's proportion of the total of £20 million. In the second year it will be £10 million, as it will in the third year, and it will be £5 million in the final year. The noble Lord asked me what was the exact detail of the undertaking I gave on the limit which the Secretary of State would impose. I can give an assurance today that he will set the limits for 1986–87 in the light of authorities' budget plans for the collective schemes, and that we will not seek to constrain these budgets below the level of the equivalent expenditure by the abolition authorities this year. Those are the exact terms. I cannot of course look beyond the year after next; nor, indeed, could anybody else.
The noble Lord asked me, I believe, about the effects of the undertakings we have given in respect of the amount of money which the Secretary of State allowed to be expended through GRE and/or rate capping. Again, I am not sure whether the noble Lord wants me merely to repeat what I have said. That I can of course do in due course. We will adjust the GRE and if they continue, reduce the targets in order to see that expenditure by the local authorities of these sums of money does not militate against them.
I think the noble Lord probably went further than that and asked about the provisions in these amendments on the disregard. I shall try to sum up in a word as a layman and if the noble Lord is not satisfied, I shall then read out my brief. As I understand it, a disregard is something which is used by the Secretary of State very sparingly on the request of a local authority when they feel that they have been required to spend money above target for inescapable reasons. The inference from that is that the target was set without that particular expenditure in mind, is it not? I have already said that the targets will be set with this expenditure in mind. That is what I have just repeated to the noble Lord. He is asking not only that the target be jacked up to allow for this expenditure, but then if local authorities exceed that expenditure, as far as the excess matches the expenditure which is approved it should nonetheless be disregarded. I hope I have made it clear that that is a blatant piece of

89
double counting, and I do not think it is what the noble Lord wanted. However, I hope that if it was, I have explained to him why we cannot give it to him.
The noble Lord, the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Faithfull all put in a kindly word for the metropolitan counties which have tended to have their case—their corner of the battlefield, so to speak—obscured by the smoke generated at what I suppose we here regard as the centre. They have not escaped the attention or concern of the Government and I repeat now what perhaps I did not say with sufficient emphasis at the time: that although the trust fund we propose is for London, the provision in the Bill will allow for trust funds for any or all of the metropolitan counties. The reason we have not leapt forward with a scheme immediately is that whereas in London there is an accumulation of resources which in part the GLC has made and in part has inherited from its predecessors, which amounts to a considerable amount of capital value, the metropolitan county councils have not been in existence for so long and we cannot therefore be confident that the same resources are available.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, has helpfully pointed out that there is a strong tradition of private sector funding in the metropolitan districts—some, if not all—and it is to exactly that that any such scheme would be addressed. Therefore, I am hopeful that schemes can also be generated there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, went on to ask about two other matters. One was the breakdown of transitional aid between the areas. I know that this is something which interests the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as well. The way in which the transitional aid will be allocated will at the centre be to make an apportionment between the areas in response to the bids which the areas make through their Clause 47 bodies.
It may be, and it may not be, that the bids exceed what is available. It would then be a question for the Secretary of State whether in fact all the bids are equally reasonable and they should all get the same proportion of the amounts they have bid if the total exceeds the total available, or whether some of them have perhaps sought to take unfair advantage from the scheme. It is difficult for me to say more than that at the moment. The point I am anxious to make is that the allocation of those funds, once they are received by either the metropolitan Clause 47 bodies or the Greater London Clause 47 bodies, will be for them. The Secretary of State will have a minimal role, except if it is necessary to allocate less than the whole amount as asked by one of the authorities.
The noble Baroness went on to refer to an interesting scheme which at one stage she called "neighbourhood fostering" and at another stage "neighbourhood funding". I am not too familiar with the detail of it, but if it is called "neighbourhood", it almost certainly implies that it will be for funding by the local authority because neighbourhoods typically are within the boundaries of a local authority.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Will the noble Lord give way? It will be, with the exception of two of the
90
districts, between the metropolitan counties. There are two districts where I suppose you would say that there are no ethnic minorities.
Lord Elton: I got two different messages from that. The first said that there were two areas which were trans-borough. The other was that there were two areas where there were no ethnic minorities. If I am right on both counts, the two which go across the borders of neighbouring boroughs will fall to the Clause 47 arrangement. I think that is what the noble Baroness asked.
My noble friend takes advantage of my lack of geography in that I am not certain which of the metropolitan district councils are thought to be too far away from the other metropolitan district councils for them not to be able to co-operate. The only reassurance I can give her at the moment is that I have not yet heard that there is any geographical difficulty involved. But the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, seems to think that the noble Baroness behind her has some means of illuminating this point, and so I shall sit down.
Baroness Lockwood: I heard someone whisper "West Yorkshire", which of course is the largest geographical county area of the six. I must confess to the noble Baroness that this problem has not been drawn to my attention, though the extremities of some of the districts to the extremities of other districts is a considerable distance.
Lord Ennals: May I just ask one question for clarity? In respect of the nine London boroughs which are rate capped and the 11 which are in grant penalty, does the explanation mean that the level on which they will be either capped or in penalty will be adjusted according to the contribution that they make under the clause?
8.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: I speak subject to advice and correction. As I understand it, there is a distinct difference between penalty and rate cap. Grant penalty relates to the amount of expenditure acceptable under the existing system, and the claw-back begins when you are into penalty. I think that that is the jargon.
I said that targets will be adjusted, and that relates to penalty. But as I understand it, rate capping is for a different order of error, if I may so put it without offending the noble Lord opposite, and the whole expenditure has become excessive. In that case although the target may be breached and the breach may not count against the authority in its expenditure, as I understand it—and, as I say, I await instant and vituperative correction—if the rate cap, if that level, is breached, what I have said has no bearing.
Lord Kilmarnock: We are in a complicated area. The noble Lord, who has come only recently to it, has shown his usual rapid mastery of his subject. I think that he accused me, or my amendment—I do not think he accused me personally—of double counting.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord forgive me? I now have a little more to say. I am told in the most

91
courteous tones, I may say, and not vituperatively at all, that expenditure limits for rate capping will be adjusted. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will be glad to hear that. The other point is that the transitional grants are directed principally to helping individual local authorities fund the local groups.
I said that we should be looking to the groups to make the initial bid, but the initial bids will be brought together from the local authorities. That justifies the mishearing that I experienced, and my noble friend told me that I was wrong. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, quite properly said, "The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has shown his usual lack of mastery of the subject". He said "rapid", and I am most grateful to him, but I am afraid he would have been right if he had not.
Lord Kilmarnock: On this question of double counting it is my impression that you can have your grant-giving capacity jacked up in the way that the noble Lord has suggested, but still be fined under penalty. I should like to ask the noble Lord to look at that and tell me whether or not my interpretation is correct. I am not asking him to do it now.
Lord Elton: The fact that you are virtuous about this sort of grant and profligate about others does not protect you from any penalty for misbehaviour for other reasons. The GREs and targets and, I now understand, the rate capping assessment will be adjusted so that the expenditure which I have encouraged local authorities to make with the backing of Government money will not bring them into that sort of penalty. It obviously does not protect them from being brought into penalty for other sorts of over expenditure.
Lord Kilmarnock: We must look at this exchange and some of the exchanges in the earlier debate. As this is, or would be, Government induced expenditure—in other words, there is a Government carrot in it—why should this type of expenditure be different from the urban aid where so much urban aid spending is disregarded for penalty purposes? I do not see the difference.
We are not going to clear this up now, and I am asking only for genuine enlightenment. The best thing to do is to go away and read the debate. If I find that I am not satisfied with what I read, I and my noble friends will come back to this point at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Grants to voluntary organisations]:
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 135ZC:
Page 29, line 2, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this amendment, I am thankful that the indications of this amendment are more simple and not as complex as
92
those of my noble friend. I am sure I was persuaded to take on this amendment because it is so utterly simple in its proposition. I am, as all your Lordships present are, conscious of the different ambience that obtains in this thinly-populated Committee at the moment, the calm and quiet in contrast to the marathon debate we had before the break for supper.
I wanted to be quite certain with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the amendment I am about to explain would not conflict with the amendment he spoke to, although it will be moved formally after Clause 47. He has given me total reassurance that I can go ahead. The final introductory comment is to assure your Lordships, who I hope will not leave the Chamber, that I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division at this late hour. I am anxious to hear from the Minister what he thinks about it. If, as I confidently hope, he will agree to accept it, there will be no problem. If he does not, he will explain his reasons, which will provide me with the necessary material to demolish his arguments on Report.
It will be quite obvious to the Commitee that this amendment was drafted as a fallback from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. I have no hesitation in saying that it is a second best; but, in saying that, it is not my intention to describe it as unimportant. On the contrary, it is very important indeed. It would greatly improve Clause 47 as drafted. I would go on to say that something has to be done about that clause because, if left unamended, its consequences for the voluntary organisations are likely to be serious. I take the word "may" in this context as a variety of possibility ranging from "probably" to "possibly" and not as permissive. Even more important, we have heard much about voluntary organisations, but we have not heard quite so much about the range of their current services in the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Surely that is the most important thing.
Having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, stress the amount of time we have spent and thought we have given to the GLC, it is really in the context of the metropolitan districts that I address this amendment. Something has to be done to ensure that the joint schemes envisaged by this clause, which will deal with country-wide and trans-district or borough boundary services, are set up and made to function. We heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London earlier this evening in a powerful and persuasive speech draw attention to some scheme in his diocese. He used the phrase, "the component parts of that scheme are made to get together". I immediately say that I see nothing wrong in that.
As it stands, the clause fails to ensure this essential first step. It merely enables the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts to make joint schemes and it begs the question whether they will do so, let alone whether the requisite majority will be found to set up the joint schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, at an earlier stage this evening was reassuring in relation to the county-wide operations of the voluntary organisations in Greater London when he spoke about

93
them as being in being, in embryo and kicking—an interesting and not entirely mutually contradictory set of analogies. I think he was referring to London. If I am right in my assumption, he had in mind the fact that Richmond has agreed to be designated. I am advised that this is by no means the case in the metropolitan districts. It is on that blithe assumption that they will set up schemes that the clause proceeds to lay down a number of mandatory requirements governing operation of the scheme in question.
We have heard how little some of us are alleged to know about the operation and the calibre of districts and district councillors in relation to voluntary organisations. But surely we must accept that the voluntary organisations that have close and daily contacts with local government have first hand experience of working with local government. They are deeply sceptical as to whether any district council will, of its own accord, by mutual consent and even with the requisite majority, avail itself of the option open to it to take this essential first step. At any rate it is alleged, averred and feared that the councils will be in no great hurry to do so.
The reasons the National Council of Voluntary Organisations have put forward have been mentioned before. I shall rehearse them extremely briefly because so much has been said in between. They point out that there is no tradition for such trans-district boundary and county-wide operation in the metropolitan county areas in furthering schemes to address the needs and problems which lie possibly equally or in varying degrees in each of the districts. Unlike Richmond, no single district may be identified or acknowledged as the lead borough to be designated as receiving and distributing grants from a consortium of boroughs and districts.
Assuming that the problem can be solved (I am glad to make an act of faith and assume that it will be by mutual consent), there is likely to be a pause while the district to be designated agrees to take on the job; there must be some reluctance to take on the extra work and responsibility. If it agrees it is likely that it will avail itself of the opportunity open to it to do so for the minimum period allowed for in this clause. But, more important, differing political allegiances and policies between districts will make the co-operation difficult. The same consideration will bear upon differing perceptions by the district councils of the work of the voluntary organisations in general and their various causes, areas of interest and activity and provision in particular, despite or because of the existence of county-wide problems and needs which beset or face them all.
Here I come to the point of the amendment. All this adds up to a difficult, delicate and time-consuming task. Voluntary bodies will be faced—with great respect I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton—with lobbying all the many boroughs and councils to persuade them to fund their diverse causes. The designated council has no mandate in this clause to make such judgments county-wide. That means further delay and it is the essence of the amendment in
94
the name of my noble friend Lord Ennals and myself that time is the crucial element in the Government's proposals in the clause.
Apart from the time likely to be needed to set up such schemes, the minimum time they are required to run is too short. Your Lordships may say that is another matter, but it is relevant to my amendment, in that it adds to the degree and the depth of uncertainty and insecurity in which voluntary organisations already find themselves and will continue to find themselves to the detriment of their work and even of their survival.
What are their doubts and insecurities? Their doubts are whether they are to be funded, for which particular causes, interests, activities and services they will receive money, and how much and when local authority funds will be made available. This is not in any way to treat the splendid dedicated work they do. The least they deserve is the certainty that all—I repeat "all"—schemes envisaged in the clause will be set up without peradventure and without delay. Thus there is the need to make the setting up requirement mandatory and not optional, by changing the permissive word "may" to the obligatory verb "shall" in line 2. I finish by saying that the Government surely have an obligation to honour the undertaking given by Sir George Young in Standing Committee G on 26th February, when he said:
"It will clearly be important to establish a grants unit".
I would say that this clause does not establish such a unit. It leaves to the local council the decision as to whether or not to do so. That is simply not good enough. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: Before the noble Lord the Minister replies, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked a question of me. It was whether his amendment in any way conflicts with the amendment that I propose to move later. My answer to that is, no; far from it. As I read it, it ensures that there will be these schemes. If these schemes are not only from the Greater London Council but also from the metropolitan bodies then the sort of body that I am talking of will be all the more necessary.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and it is a pleasure to engage in exchanges with him again after the brief interval that we have had after so recently talking about parole and kindred subjects—voiced a general anxiety which I hope he will find has been somewhat allayed when he reads (as I hope he will later this week) what I said in a rather extensive speech early in the debate, before the Division and before dinner. I do not think that I ought to delay proceedings by repeating the assurances that I then gave, but they are relevant to his concern.
He says that if Clause 47 is not amended it will be a very serious matter for the voluntary sector, and he directed our attention not only to Greater London but

95
also to the metropolitan county councils' areas. I think that I should ask the noble Lord to look particularly at what I said about Richmond. He referred to it. He will find in those two paragraphs (as I think it is) a really rather considerable amount of detail about what has already been done; so that there is no question that what we propose can be done. It is already being done.
The noble Lord is anxious that it shall be done and he is afraid that it will not. That brings me to the substance of his amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that it is compatible with the noble Earl's. It brings me to a certain difficulty which I have, because Clause 47 sets up a voluntary co-operative scheme and that is what we debated at great length before dinner. The noble Lord seeks simply to make it compulsory. I then ask myself what would happen, first of all, if nobody wanted to play. We see in Clause 47, as amended (if he would amend it) in subsection (1), that a scheme for the making of grants to eligible voluntary organisations shall be made for Greater London and for each of the metropolitan counties by the constituent councils. Then it proceeds to name them. Then it goes on to say that any such scheme shall provide—the scheme has become mandatory, we must remember; it is not something that may happen—for the grants to be made by one of the constituent councils.
Who is to blame if this does not happen? How is the noble Lord going to enforce this mandatory provision? It does not bind on any individual one of the constituent authorities; it merely says that one of them shall be appointed as the lead authority. That made me look more closely at the mandatory nature of this; and the noble Lord has clearly addressed himself to the problem of what happens if a minority of the constituent bodies want to play.
It appears that, as the amendment is drafted—I do not know if this is or is not an accidental result; and the noble Lord will be thinking of that between now and Report, no doubt—the effect appears to be that if only two of the district councils in a metropolitan county decided that they would have a scheme, that scheme would be mandatory upon all of them. This says something very confusing about what happens on the occasion when they start voting for schemes under the mandatory scheme.
I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord wants, but he is in the difficulty, if he wishes to graft the mandatory approach on to the voluntary model, of finding how to get over the discontinuity between the two concepts. I am not quite clear how in his heart he proposes that it should be done. I think that what he is saying is that we must bring the horse to the water and we must make it drink. But you cannot do that. You can bring it to the water or you can have some other animal, if you see what I mean. The Secretary of State can make a scheme such as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, was proposing where he can point the finger and say, "This shall be done".
What you cannot do is to get the authorities to get together and say, "You must by law choose one of you
96
to operate voluntarily for the others". I do not for a moment think that I have satisfied the noble Lord about the strength of my position. I hope I have revealed to him some of the difficulties of his own which he may like to think about further.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that he was not going to press this amendment tonight, because I think that in the course of his introduction of the amendment he has revealed not only a weakness in the scheme as it might be amended, if that amendment was accepted, but also in the noble Lord the Minister's argument as well. Suppose a majority of authorities decided to accept this voluntary scheme and under Clause 7 (towards the bottom of page 29) in the absence of agreement between all the councils, the majority accept that it is binding on them and some councils are therefore left out of the scheme. I wonder whether the Government have thought through how that will affect the fixing of the upper expenditure limit of that council—and my language unfortunately does not stretch to England in this case—the amount up to which the council may spend, the amount of the taxpayers' support of that authority and the amount at which it is rate capped. Those things have to be fixed at a given moment in the cycle of budgeting and the decision about the scheme might happen at a different moment in the cycle of budgeting. So that I think there is a hole in the argument, unless the noble Lord can fill it now. Perhaps that is something that could be looked at before the next stage.
Baroness Seear: The hole is not only in the argument; it is in the total scheme. The noble Minister's reply since the dinner break is, in both content and tone, in sharp contrast to the speech that he made before the dinner break. We were being assured that this was going to work; that we could trust and leave it to the boroughs who would get together to do this funding; that we had nothing to worry about and that boroughs do collaborate. Now we are told that it may well be that only one or two boroughs will get together. What is going to happen to the assurance that this money will be forthcoming for the voluntary bodies through the working together of the boroughs?
Lord Ennals: My concern is exactly the same as that expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is all very well for the noble Lord the Minister to point out that any such scheme "shall" provide; but there may not be a scheme at all. I had rather expected that the noble Lord the Minister would accept these two amendments. Obviously the two are dealing with different things, and I should like to say a word or two about each one of them. There is no point in having a scheme mandatory if there is not a scheme at all. It is possible that if the word "may" remains there, rather than "shall", there simply will not be, either in London or in the metropolitan areas, any scheme at all.
As the noble Baroness has just said, all the assurances that were given that there will be schemes

97
which will help voluntary organisations fall to the ground. I would much rather the Minister would say that he will take it away and see whether there is not an absolute conflict between one "may" and the next "shall", because the "shall" could be meaningless unless the first one is "shall" as well.
Secondly, in the case of the metropolitan counties in the second amendment, if it is simply "or a" metropolitan county we have been repeatedly saying that in the earlier debate we were perhaps concentrating too much on London and not enough on the metropolitan authorities. Surely we want to see schemes that apply to the metropolitan authorities as well as to London. I would have thought that the wise thing for the Minister to do would be nor simply to defend what I honestly believe to be indefensible but for him to say that in view of the concern, which he must have sensed by now, he will take it away and consider it carefully and come back with something that will not be so conflicting at the Report stage.
Lord Renton: Following what was said by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Elton would be so good, when he is replying to this short debate, to make clear the difference between the provisions of subsection (3), which refers to the need to have a majority of at least two-thirds of the constituent councils before any expenditure is approved, and subsection (7). That subsection says,
"A scheme may, in the absence of agreement between all the constituent councils, be made by a majority of those councils".
It would seem that under subsection (7) it need only be a simple majority: in other words, 51 per cent. I think this is a disparity which does need to be explained.
Lord Kilmarnock: As my name is also on this amendment, I just want to say that my understanding of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is that it simply wants the mechanism to be in place. Once it is there, obviously some schemes will jump the hurdle, whether it is 51 per cent. or 66 per cent., or whatever may be decided by the Committee. Therefore the suggestion made by the noble Lord, for example, that two districts out of four in South Yorkshire would be able to "bounce" their brethren into a scheme is not in fact the intention behind the amendment.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord and I can tell your Lordships that the Government have thought this scheme through, that it will work and that the doubts which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has sought to cast upon it will run off it, as water will off a well-oiled duck's back, I hope.
The to-ing and fro-ing between the Box was at my request, to discover whether, in subsection (7), I was right in thinking that the word "them" in line 41 referred to all the constituent councils or only to the majority referred to in line 40. It refers to all; so your Lordships have had your attention helpfully drawn to subsection (7) by my noble friend. That subsection
98
provides that if a simple majority of the constituent councils in any of these areas decide that they want to have a scheme, there will be a scheme and it will be binding on the minority. The qualifying majority of two-thirds only comes in when it is a question of fixing the amount of money because this is a voluntary scheme and it is thought that it is necessary, as I said earlier, to depoliticise it and to avoid having a large number of the members being reluctant in their co-operation. It is a co-operative and voluntary effort.
I think that really does dispose of the difficulty which the noble Lord has raised because I do not see—and I should be interested to know whether he does—the remotest possibility of any of the metropolitan county areas deciding, in the name of the majority of the constituent councils, that they do not want to have a scheme to cover the whole of the county. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, may be about to say that there is such a metropolitan county. I think that is casting a really dreadful slur upon it because the metropolitan district councils are very good-hearted bodies with very adequate administrative arrangements who are very concerned about the under-privileged in their areas—the noble Lord can contradict me if they are not concerned, but I think that they are—
8.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I was not going to say that at all: I was just saying to my noble friend that every word the Minister says shows that we have now landed ourselves with a dog's breakfast. That is what I was saying.
Lord Elton: I do not think that the noble Lord is entirely wrong in his interpretation, but I was wrong in my imagination of what he was saying. The fact is that I really cannot believe that there is one metropolitan county which has a majority of its districts which will not get together. I doubt very much whether they will be resisted in fact by a minority. So I can reassure the noble Lord; and as to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the rate capping and all the arithmetic applies to all the members once the majority have determined that it is uniform. So that disposes of that. I think that the noble Lord will find himself happier when he returns to this matter on Report than he is now.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble Lord sits down, he has mentioned Richmond on several occasions. If one looks at the metropolitan counties, there is a very serious difference between London and the metropolitan counties. If one looks at Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, they are large cities in their own right and the constituent districts around them in many cases are quite small districts: 20,000 going up to perhaps 30,000 or 40,000, as against more than a million in the case of Birmingham.
Therefore a difficulty is arising and it has been brought to my attention: which of them starts off the trigger mechanism? Whichever does that will be the district which is landed with the scheme. There is

99
going to be a difficulty if all the districts have the same vote. One with a higher rateable value than another will obviously feel they are carrying the can for the other districts in the area. This is quite a serious point, bearing in mind that there are some very large local authorities in the metropolitan districts with very small local authorities. One can see in the future perhaps that the larger authorities might be saying, "We are doing a lot more things than we originally intended" if they start off the trigger mechanism. But no doubt the noble Lord is aware of the point and is taking it fully into consideration.
Lord Elton: I would make only two responses to that. The first is that the equalisation system of the block grant system will continue to apply. The other is that the apportionment of the cost of the scheme will be on a population basis, so although the votes may not be equal, the expenditure will be.
Lord Hunt: We have had a very useful exchange on the amendment that I moved and I do not propose to prolong the discussion. Listening to the various contributions that have been made, I feel that I may have failed to make my main point clear. I shall make it again extremely briefly, in one sentence. The main
100
point of my concern was not so much whether the schemes would be set up under the permissive "may", but just how long it would take in a very delicate, difficult and time-consuming operation, particularly in the context of the metropolitan districts, to get these schemes set up to the point where the voluntary organisations will not have to hold their vital operations, trans-district boundaries county-wide, in suspense and themselves in a state of great anxiety.
That is the main point so far as I am concerned in proposing that the districts and boroughs should be required to get themselves together in the first instance without any peradventure, so that they can tackle as soon as possible a matter of great urgency in terms of the time-scale set by this whole Bill. I shall of course read very carefully what I heard the noble Lord say earlier in the afternoon. I hope that he will take into account what has been said in favour of this amendment. In withdrawing it now I shall seriously consider bringing it up again on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135ZD not moved.]
[Amendment No. 135A not moved.]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 135AZA:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert—("and
( ) for grants under this section to be determined by a committee comprising elected members of the constituent councils.")
The noble Lord said: Very briefly this amendment is designed to do something about the scenario which I endeavoured to sketch in my speech in the earlier debate this evening on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, when I drew attention to the nightmare which will face charities, voluntary bodies, having to lobby successfully—in the case of London—22 out of 33 London boroughs in order to get this scheme accepted; or seven out of 10, for example, in the case of Greater Mancheser. I have the equivalent number of districts and the relevant majorities that will be required here for the other metropolitan counties.
This, surely, would be a most undesirable situation. As I mentioned in my speech on that earlier amendment, I have been assured by the director of one of the larger lobbying organisations that he sees this simply as a charter for lobbyists. The object of the amendment is to make sure that the applications can be made through one door. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the earlier debate mentioned the concept of the "one-door" applications. But as far as I can see that is not provided for in the clause. Therefore, it is the intention of this amendment to make that absolutely clear; and to make it quite clear that any voluntary body striving to get assistance under this scheme would be able to go to a committee comprising elected members of the constituent councils who could then consider it rather than having to knock on 22 doors in the case of London, and a considerable number of doors in the case of the metropolitan counties. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance he wants. Indeed, I rather think I have done so already in describing how the Richmond scheme is working. Basically, the amendment appears to address itself to the fear that the councillors, having set up the scheme, will not wish to run it. But as it will be their ratepayers' money that is being spent, I think that the fear is not likely to manifest itself and that the Bill as drafted makes it quite clear that it will in fact be a committee of exactly the people the noble Lord wants who will be running the scheme under Clause 47 as in fact is now happening under the Richmond scheme.
Lord Kilmarnock: I shall read carefully what the noble Lord says, to see whether it embodies the assurances I hoped for, and I may come back to this at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster moved Amendment No. 135AA.
Page 29, line 19, leave out ("at least two-thirds") and substitute ("more than half')
The noble Viscount said: This is an amendment of some importance. Its purpose, as your Lordships will
102
see, is to ensure that the collective funding mechanism is triggered off by a simple majority rather than the two-thirds majority of boroughs in the GLC and districts in the metropolitan counties.
Clause 47 of the Bill states:
"The constituent councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure of the designated council which has been incurred with the approval of at least two-thirds of the constituent councils…"
Voluntary organisations—and I am speaking here of a good many—are of the opinion that this requirement for a two-thirds majority approval before a grant is made is a prescription for paralysis. In London the joint borough scheme, which is similar in nature to that proposed in this Bill, has had all sorts of difficulties in reaching a consensus, and in the metropolitan counties I understand—although I have not been there—that there are no such joint district schemes.
The problem of reaching the two-thirds majority seems to stem from four fundamental problems. First, there are the financial constraints on the boroughs and districts. In the metropolitan counties the majority of the 36 districts are being rate-capped or face penalties which put them under considerable pressure to keep their expenditure down to very strict limits. In London, I understand that 9 of the London boroughs are being rate-capped. Therefore, the proposition that two-thirds of the districts would agree to additional funding of countrywide voluntary organisations seems highly unlikely. The second consideration is a political one—political constraints. If we take the case of the metropolitan councils again, district councils are of course accountable to their own electors, and the interests of neighbouring boroughs which may be of a different political hue will be of little concern to them.
The third point is in my view perhaps the most important of all. I touched on this very briefly when I was speaking to the earlier amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. Voluntary organisations are well aware that even in districts of similar political complexion there are widely differing ranges of performance and understanding of the work of the voluntary sector and their commitment to financial support.
If one turns to the GLC area, for example—I mentioned this earlier on in the context of the ethnic minorities—there are only one-third who are considered to be really caring boroughs. There is the very interesting case, for example, of the London Borough of Ealing, which has no less than 25 per cent.—a quarter—of its population made up of ethnic minorities; and that is one of the uncaring boroughs. How can one imagine that boroughs like that would help to make up the two-thirds total?
There is a fourth consideration. This was touched on very briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, when he moved his amendment. The fourth consideration is that the arithmetical problems of reaching a two-thirds majority are, as your Lordships can see, enormous. In London, for example, it would require 22 out of 33; seven out of 10 in Greater Manchester; three out of four in South Yorkshire; four out of five in West Yorkshire; five out of seven in the West Midlands; and four out of five in Tyne and Wear. I think that poses a real difficulty.
In conclusion, I would say that the many voluntary organisations concerned believe that collective funding schemes in the seven areas have a much better chance of working and fulfilling the Government's intention of safeguarding country-wide voluntary endeavour if the two-thirds majority is reduced to a simple majority. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: The difficulty for me lies in the tremendous difference that there always is between London and the metropolitan counties. Most of the metropolitan counties have an overwhelming majority in one district, which makes it very difficult to see how this will apply if Manchester wants to do it and the other boroughs do not, though it has an overwhelming majority not only in numbers but also in problems.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Council for Voluntary Organisations was kind enough to explain its point of view to me as well as to the noble Viscount and I talked about it with its representative. From my own experience, and also after conversations with representatives of the London Boroughs Association, I feel strongly that while the anxiety of the voluntary organisations is extremely understandable in this respect, this solution will not solve the problem; in fact, it will be counter-productive.
The noble Viscount has said that a 66 per cent. majority as a requirement is a prescription for paralysis. In saying that I do not think he has considered that in local government people behave differently according to what are their responsibilities under an Act and what are the responsibilities of other councils, particularly if those councils are in a sense in competition with them, even if they are in agreement politically.
Voluntary organisations, as a number of noble Lords said earlier today, want, above all, stability of funding. They need continuity. They need a degree of certainty. The grant award process needs to be above the vagaries of political chance. There needs to be the smallest possible risk if the political balance between councils in an area changes. There needs to be the maximum inducement to people to award grants across the political spectrum.
What would be the effect of a 50 per cent. plus one vote? If, as at present in London, the balance is even, decisions could swing on a given occasion because somebody was not there, because some council for some reason had been leaned upon, or for some other reason. If one party controls the decision-making in an area, and then there is an election and the control changes, there could be enormous swings because there would have been a very politicised decision in the first place on a straight vote. The whole policy could change.
I do not have to remind your Lordships' Committee that in the GLC, over the four years since control
104
changed, the spending went up from £8 million to £51 million and one does not know whether, if control had changed again, it might have swung back, though perhaps not so far. I am not commenting on whether that would be a good or a bad thing, but it is what happens in a politicised grant awarding group. This is no way to proceed. Also, importantly, looking at the figures of how it would work out, a 50 per cent. plus one majority would work out very undemocratically. It would be unfair to the electorate of the larger councils. Again in London—I am sorry to use the London example, but these are the people I spoke to—if the 50 per cent. plus one was made up of the counties which are smaller in population and which could make a 50 per cent. plus one majority, they would be paying only 41 per cent. of the cost of the decision that had been taken and the 49 per cent. of people whose representatives disagreed would be bearing 59 per cent. of the cost. This is difficult to imagine, but it is borne out by the figures. Even at the Government's 66 per cent., the smaller counties making up 66 per cent. of the population would be paying only half the bill. From the electorate's viewpoint this is taxation without representation.
I hope it is in order for me to progress into discussion of the amendment standing in my name, which is proposing that it should be 75 per cent. It seems to me that, far from 50 per cent. being a good idea, 75 per cent. would bring about what I am trying to describe very much better, because it would to a large extent depoliticise the whole operation. It would mean that for decisions to be taken there would have to be a degree of cross-party support and any council opposing an award to a certain organisation or trying to bring down the total amount would have to stand up and be counted across the whole area, because there would not be the safety in numbers of the political group meeting, the whipped vote and that kind of thing. They would have to explain why they are doing it, and any of your Lordships who have taken part in this sort of operation will understand what I mean. In this way there would be no sudden swing if there was a change of power in one council at a by-election and even a change of power, unless it was a very big one, in all the councils.
In London a 75 per cent. majority has been required over the last 15 years of collective funding. It may seem to your Lordships that the funding has not been satisfactory, but this is the way it has been done and, in the view of the borough councils, it has worked. As my noble friend Lord Renton said earlier, under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1970 the boroughs promoted a scheme which meant that they would decide on collective grants, they would request the GLC to pay and they would recoup the money in proportion in their case to the rateable value, not to the population, and this would be done only if 75 per cent. agreed. That worked. Since some of the councils have pulled out of the association—it has had to be a voluntary scheme because the Act did not allow for it any more—they have continued with the 75 per cent. It has proved possible to get 75 per cent. in London. Although the total being dispersed was much smaller because the requirement was smaller and the GLC was there, I submit that attitudes

105
would change when—known to the electors—the responsibility to do this was on the boroughs.
I suggest that it would be much wiser for the noble Viscount not to pursue this amendment. I hope that he will consider what I have said and what the Minister has to say when he explains this aspect—probably much more clearly than I have done. In the words of the representatives of the London Boroughs Association, I believe that the 50 per cent. plus one provision would be a disaster.
Baroness Birk: I had not intended to take part in this particular debate, but I found myself becoming more and more transfixed as I listened to the contributions. I have thought for a long while that there was a great deal wrong with this Bill. Even if I had not thought so, hearing the kind of discussion which is now taking place in this Committee really makes one wonder what we are letting ourselves, and the boroughs and districts, in for.
Why does the Baroness not go the whole hog? Why not wait until there is a 100 per cent. majority? Why not depoliticise the boroughs and districts so that political parties can be done away with altogether? It really is mind-boggling.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to take up the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I believe that my noble friend Lady Carnegy has brought forward this amendment as a reaction to what she considers to be the extreme proposal for a 50 per cent. majority. I oppose the figure of 50 per cent. but I think that my noble friend's figure of 75 per cent. is probably an automatic reaction. I think that the Government are for once probably right with a figure of two-thirds.
I say this because at County Hall at the moment the balance is 48 seats to 44, which is not a very big difference between the majority party and the combined minority parties; yet there is no democracy there whatsoever. In fact, all sorts of things have been voted through to give false numbers on committees and everything else. I therefore believe that a figure of two-thirds would introduce a degree of moderation—which at County Hall might perhaps have meant that we would never have needed to face this Bill.
To go one stage further, it is important to spell out eventually, if not tonight, exactly how this decision-making process for grants will work. I asked Sir George Young, when I had an opportunity to do so on a recent occasion, whether the figure of 50 per cent. (or 75 per cent. or whatever percentage it might be) would be in respect of those present at a meeting. He replied, "No, it would be one of those councils". In that case, I should like to know how the votes of the councils will be obtained and whether they will be obliged to vote.
As I understand the present situation, a great many Labour boroughs are boycotting many meetings. If there is a figure of 75 per cent. the point might be reached where no decision could ever be taken because either party was boycotting the meetings—and 25 per
106
cent. might be enough to make the whole process invalid and non-operable. It is important that we should have an exact procedure, whatever the majority may be—and I believe that with the two-thirds suggested, the Government have fixed the proportion about right. It is important that some procedure is developed.
Lord Ennals: I am very disturbed by the way in which this debate is now proceeding. I shall immediately take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I find it disturbing that she should be telling us of what was said by the Minister in a private meeting as a means of explaining to this Committee how the Bill is to work. If a statement is to be made, it should be made by Ministers before this Committee and not in some private meeting. Whether Sir George explained the matter in exactly the way that the noble Baroness recounted, I just do not know. I do not know either whether the noble Lord the Minister will explain this point in exactly the same way as Sir George did in that private meeting. But I do not consider that we can conduct our business in this way.
My second point is that I find it quite frightening the way in which the atmosphere in this debate has changed since the end of the Division on the first amendment. Before the Division, the Minister was coming along with all his goodies and everything was done to reassure the Committee that the voluntary organisations were going to get what they wanted. We were told that there was to be an extra £10 million here and an extra £20 million there, and there was going to be this and that provision made. All of this was to convince us that voluntary organisations were not going to suffer as a result of the Bill. The amendment was suitably defeated. Naturally I regretted that Now that the amendment has been defeated, I find that there is a very different atmosphere prevailing from the noble Lord and some of his noble friends. It seems to me that the obstacles which are now in the way of voluntary organisations in getting the assistance we all know they need are being emphasised to the Committee. Every attempt to make sure—as I am sure the Minister would like to make sure—that voluntary organisations do receive assistance seems to be turned down. Everything seems to be stacked against the voluntary organisations.
We had a debate on the previous amendment a bout "may" and "shall". There may not be a scheme, as a result of the decision taken by the Minister. Now we are on to: what is "democracy"? Is democracy two-thirds? Is it 75 per cent., 80 per cent. or 100 per cent., as my noble friend asked? As far as I am concerned, democracy is a majority. That is how this House operates. We are not asked to vote according to a particular percentage. A majority of one is enough. If it had to be two-thirds, I do not know who would have won on the last amendment.
9.15 p.m.
I feel that we are stacking the obstacles against the voluntary organisations just too much. The aim is: "Provided we can get enough we will stop having a scheme to help the voluntary organisations". In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnet of

107
Lour, is saying that it is not enough to have one-third against a grant; that it must be just a quarter to stop it going through. I believe that too much power is being used, which can only work against the interests of the voluntary organisations. If I was the representative of a voluntary organisation listening to the debate now, since dinner, I would think that noble Lords were not anxious to help voluntary organisations and were putting obstacles in the way of effective schemes. I believe that this is an amendment, so ably moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, on which the Committee should divide.
Lord Elton: Before giving his advice the noble Lord should wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Renton: I have been very surprised, if I may say so, by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and also that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I cannot believe that either of them would have made those speeches if they had known of the situation of the London Boroughs Association, acting under statutory powers, between 1971 and 1983. Under the statute which has been quoted by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, and quoted by me earlier when interrupting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, it was provided that grants made under a scheme agreed by the London boroughs within the London Boroughs Association required the approval of 75 per cent. of those voting.
That scheme worked well and without challenge until two years ago when the Greater London Council changed the whole scene. We know the way in which the GLC changed it. The noble Lord, speaking on the first amendment today, was candid enough to refer to the extraordinary situation whereby charities were mentioned which were not even threatened by the Bill. There are 200 charities listed in this remarkable document, all presumably voted funds by a committee of the GLC on a simple majority. The nature of the recipients is interesting. I shall read out some of them. They include: Capital Jobmate; Actionspace Limited (community theatre); London Region CND—but nothing about civil defence; the Lesbian Line (counselling service); the London Gay Teenage Group; I have always understood that under our law one is not allowed to be a homosexual until one is aged 18; the London and Kent Amateur Gymnastic Association; and so it goes on. I restrain myself from reading out 20 or 30 other names of remarkable groups which might not get full acceptance for grant purposes if we had a proper majority required among those having to vote.
The Government have put 66 per cent. in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, wants 61 per cent.—
Noble Lords: Fifty-one per cent.
Lord Renton: I thank your Lordships; 51 per cent. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour has the backing of experience—the experience of the London Boroughs Association until the situation was, if I may use the expression, somewhat mauled about. For 11 years it was a perfectly satisfactory operation. I speak from some knowledge. I know it is vicarious, but my
108
wife has been for some years president of the London Association for the Disabled, which relies mainly on voluntary contributions for its support. It used to be able to get what it needed from the London Boroughs Association until, effectively, a lot of them went out. I am not saying which boroughs they were; I leave that to the imagination of noble Lords. The others formed themselves as best they could into a voluntary association. The Greater London Council stepped in, found a situation which was right for its beneficence, and since then they have been dependent upon a somewhat uncertain contribution from the GLC. There was experience, good experience, of the operation of the 75 per cent. rule by the London Boroughs Association.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On that point, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to clarify it again. I understood him to say, "75 per cent. of those voting." I think that that is emphasising the very point I made earlier. There is quite a significant difference whether it is of those present and voting or whether it is of the boroughs. Could he confirm that he said "of those voting"?
Lord Renton: I did say "of those voting" and I understand that to be the position, but I am open to correction. But if one has two representatives, or whatever number it may be, from each of the London boroughs who are required to attend a meeting to decide these important matters probably not more than once, or at the most twice, a year, one would very much hope that those who are nominated or elected to attend would turn up. Therefore, quite frankly, and with respect to my noble friend, for whom I have enormous regard, I do not think that it makes very much difference whether it is 75 per cent. of those eligible to vote or 75 per cent. of those voting. Personally, I do not attach much importance to that as a difference.
In conclusion, if we want to make sure that the people's money, the ratepayers' money, is spent in a way which commands support and on causes which command general support, then we can make sure of that by using the experience of the past in the London Boroughs Association to say that it must be 75 per cent. But if we have it as 50 per cent. we could merely get a repetition in certain political circumstances of the kind of nonsense which has prevailed under the GLC.
I have only one last comment, and it is this. It is tempting to say, "Well, the Government say 66 per cent. The amendment proposed by the noble Viscount says 51 per cent. My noble friend says 75 per cent. Perhaps, therefore, the Government have got it about right". Personally, I do not take that view, and I would seriously ask my noble friend Lord Elton when he replies tonight to say that he has an open mind about this and that he will be prepared to consider it between now and Report stage.
Baroness Lockwood: Most of the discussion so far seems to have concentrated on the experience of the London boroughs. I would remind the Committee that we are talking about the whole of the country and not just about the experience of the London boroughs and the GLC. If we take my own metropolitan county

109
of West Yorkshire, the argument of the noble Baronesses opposite about 75 per cent. or 66 per cent. is academic because in West Yorkshire we are talking about four of the districts out of five. We would have to have agreement between the four districts all the time in order to get anything through.
If one begins to look at this in terms of how democracy operates, one might have three districts which overwhelmingly supported a proposition and two which were balanced on a knife edge and might vote against a proposition. Therefore there would not be any representative democracy in a decision of that kind. Thus I suggest that the discussion which is going on at the moment is an academic discussion about democracy. The principle upon which most of us in local government have operated in the past has been based on a majority rule. I should suggest that the amendment by the noble Viscount calls for support on those grounds.
Lord Kilmarnock: Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has said, I should say this. She referred to West Yorkshire. It so happens that, even with the two-thirds majority written into the Bill at the moment, as one has to round up districts and not round them down, (one cannot take half a district), it is already the case that in Greater Manchester one would require seven districts out of 10; in Merseyside, four out of five; in South Yorkshire, three out of four; in Tyne and Wear, four out of five; in West Midlands, five out of seven and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, in West Yorkshire, four out of five. That is because of the rounding upwards principle, which would have to apply. If the system proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, were adopted, it would arise in only two: Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.
I think that what we on these Benches are saying is that these hurdles are already extremely high. I do not think that this issue is something upon which we should divide the Committee. However, we suggest to the Government that they should go away and think about this matter again.
Lord Mottistone: The noble Lords opposite, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, seemed to pay no attention at all to the argument which impressed me greatly. That was the argument of my noble friend Lady Carnegy about stability. It is no good having funds provided if they are going to be turned over the next time the council changes. Stability is surely very important. However, not one of the noble Lords or noble Baronesses opposite gave any credibility at all to that. I think that they are mistaken to ignore it.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree that the ultimate stability would be to have no funding at all?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Following on from what the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, perhaps I may say this. If one looks at the West Midlands, one sees that for a two-thirds majority they need five out of seven; for three-quarters, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, they need six out of seven. If noble Lords know anything about the politics in the
110
West Midlands, they will know that when Birmingham switches round from one party to another the stability goes immediately, even on the three-quarters basis.
Lord Elton: I think it is probably time that I tried to put in my forecast. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Liberal Party came in briefly to say that the tone and content of everything that I said had changed since dinner, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has endorsed that. For the benefit of any noble Lords who are in doubt I should say that I have been forewarned the bottle since last November, and so there is no influence of dinner on this.
The second matter is that I therefore wonder why there should be this constant drawing of attention to the fact that the Government's position appears to noble Lords opposite to have changed. I must tell them that it has not. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke as though we had removed the guarantee for a further £20 million worth of grant. We have not. The noble Lord spoke as though we had removed the protection of that from the operation of the expenditure controls that I spoke of. We have not. What the noble Lord is saying is that we gave a great deal in the first debate and it is still on the table, but he wants to see more.
I quite see that it suits noble Lords opposite to paint this party as the enemy of the "voluntaries" and their party as the friend. In fact, that is not the case because what we are doing is looking at the interests of both the receivers and the givers of grant-in-aid to voluntary bodies. There will not be a workable system unless that is done.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that we are not holding an academic debate about democracy. We are talking about who decides how other people's money shall be spent. The purpose of Clause 47 is to provide for the transfer of money from the districts and boroughs to voluntary bodies benefiting more than one of them. Half the equation is made up of the councils and the other half of the voluntary bodies.
We have looked at the voluntary bodies all the way through to dinner and we are now looking at the councils. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said something extremely pertinent which the noble Lord opposite I think completely misunderstood. The fact is that if you put the boroughs of London in order of magnitude starting with that having the smallest population and have the first 17 of them comprising the majority, that is 51 per cent. of the votes, they would comprise only 41 per cent. of the population. Therefore, you would have 41 per cent. of the population telling 59 per cent. of the population how to spend their money. That does not sound to me like the pure mathematics of democracy. It sounds to me like a problem that noble Lords on the Liberal Benches entirely understand.
Lord Kilmarnock: In fact, an amendment was tabled by Liberal Members in another place which would have taken care of this. It specified 51 per cent. of the population, that is, of the totality of the population. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept that at a later stage.
Lord Elton: I am extremely interested to hear that. I did not know it. The noble Lord has homed in on the problem that appears to have escaped the notice of the official Opposition Front Bench. It is that we see a great danger in setting up a voluntary scheme in which 59 per cent. of the people can find that they are a majority and that they are being told to do something that they do not want to do. It seems to me that this is the first reason for having more than a straight majority for this purpose.
The second reason has already been adduced, and I shall not spend long on it. If you have a straight majority for decisions of this sort, the policy can go through a sort of switchback. It is difficult to arrive at the right majority. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, has pointed out that the criteria differ from one county to another. But there are conventions in statute that are binding in Parliament. We have to treat—we have had this issue before—the whole of a class of bodies in the same way. We have to strike as a mean what is the nearest to being suitable to all.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour suggests that we have struck it too low. Noble Lords opposite have suggested with enthusiasm that we have struck it too high. That seems to me, although perhaps not to my noble friend Lord Renton, to be the beginnings of a suggestion that we have it about right. For the reasons that I have given, I ask your Lordships to agree.
9.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 135AA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Kaldor, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birkett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brockway, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Buckmaster, V. [Teller]

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mountevans, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Eldon, E.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ewart-Bigss, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton. L. [Teller]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hunt, L.

Winstanley, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Allerton, L.

112

Auckland, L.

Ingrow, L.

Barber, L.

Jessel, L.

Bathurst, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bauer, L.

Kemsley, V.

Beloff, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Belstead, L.

Layton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Loch, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Long, V. [Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lothian, M.

Burton, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mar, C.

Carnock, L.

Marchwood, V.

Cathcart, E.

Margadale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Murley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Middleton, L.

Cox, B.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Norwich, Bp.

Craigmyle, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigton, L.

Perth, L.

Davidson, V.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Rankeillour, L.

Denman, L.

Renton, L.

Donegall, M.

Renwick, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Romney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rugby, L.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Savile, L.

Gainford, L.

Sharples, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Southborough, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glanusk, L,

Teviot, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gowrie, E.

Thurlow, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Torphichen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Hanson, L.

Ullswater, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Vickers, B.

Hatherton, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hives, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Holderness, L.

Wynford, L.

Hood, V.

Yarborough, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Young, B.

Howe, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.41 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 135AAZA:
Page 29, line 19, leave out ("two thirds") and insert ("three quarters").
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to the amendment and now move it. I shall not press it to a vote at this stage, but I should like to ask the Minister whether he will think again about this. I believe the discussion has revealed that the whole issue has not, until we began to talk about it this evening, been very thoroughly thought through. In writing to London Peers, the leader of the Croydon authority said that the London boroughs would accept the 66 per cent. although they regretted it. They would have preferred 75 per cent. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, reckoned that we had taken off into the realms of fantasy, a person as experienced as she knows that

113
there are occasions when there is a more than 50 per cent. majority in local government where for very particular purposes one wants to be quite sure that there is a reasonable ongoing consensus about something; and it is a reasonable thing for the Government to consider this. If the Minister felt he could agree to look at it, I should be extremely grateful. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am in a slight difficulty because I have deployed already arguments against both my noble friend's amendment and that of noble Lords opposite. My noble friend is using the opportunity, having spoken to it, to move it formally, which I can tell noble Lords opposite is perfectly all right. I take this opportunity to say that of course I shall read her speech in the earlier debate with very close attention hut I must not give her the impression that I am in some way suggesting that her amendment would be acceptable at a later stage, for the reasons which I have already adduced. I will not repeat them now. I mean no discourtesy to my noble friend, but she can read them at leisure tomorrow. I will of course take careful note, as I always do, of what she has said.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the Minister for that answer. I, of course, will read what he said in his long contribution earlier in the debate.
Lord Elton: I have just recalled that I did not in the last debate answer one question that I was asked. It will soon be out of order to do so but we are on the same subject still. The Bill, if one reads it carefully, refers in Clause 47 to a majority of the councils. It is not a majority of those present. It is a majority of the votes available.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I accept what the noble Lord says. I shall read with interest what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 135AAA, 135AAB, 135AB not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 135B.
[Printed 13/5/85; col. 935.]
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment at an earlier stage, on No. 103A. My noble friend Lord Gowrie, at col. 936, invited me to speak again at this stage of the Bill; and I should be happy to do that on this amendment. The point at issue is the problem that youth clubs have of making sure that they get continuity of support. The particular youth clubs I have mentioned several times before to your Lordships are currently given grants by the ILEA, which is why the matter was raised in that part of the Bill.
Since then it has become clear from a letter I have had from my noble friend, which I shall not read to your Lordships, that the ILEA has produced documents which have put great fright in the minds of those organisations they support, which is quite unwarranted. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his letter, and shall pass it on as being good advice not to be deceived by the ILEA on this particular point.
I wish to speak to this amendment because youth services, which includes youth clubs, seem by convention to be supported, if at all from local government, by the education authorities, and in the case of London this is the ILEA. May I be assured by my noble friend whether, on the one hand, a scheme under Clause 47 such as we are debating at the moment would apply? The purpose of my amendment is to show that I understand that there is this education support but would hope that perhaps a scheme might be able to supplement, or even replace, an education authority grant if that was appropriate.
My other question for my noble friend concerns the splendid trust for London that he announced earlier this evening. Would the grants that would be made from that trust be open to youth services even though their main funding base might be an education authority? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Your Lordships will recall, because I have said it too often already, that Clause 47 deals only with voluntary organisations which serve an area of more than one borough or district. The purely, local groups will be able to look to their individual councils for support. Clause 47 sets up arrangements which will replace the strategic role of the GLC or the MCCs in looking at voluntary services operating over a large number of borough or district councils.
I think it is likely that many of the youth clubs which my noble friend has in mind—but of course not all—will be purely local and therefore fall to the local authority. My noble friend asks in terms whether a scheme under Clause 47 would be able to supplement or replace an ILEA grant. The answer to that is, yes; and that is what he wanted to know. I would anticipate that the grants from the trust would be open to the youth services, as to others.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend. I should say that the particular youth clubs to which I was referring fall into three separate London boroughs and would be eligible under Clause 47. I am grateful for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 136ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 136ZB:
[Printed 20/5/85; co1.8.]
The noble Earl said: The amendment standing in my name rejoices in the letters "ZB" after its number. Before I give my reasons for it I should like to clear up a misapprehension when the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rather cavalierly dismissed my amendment on the grounds that it gave a blank cheque for spending. She cannot have read the amendment, because it does no such thing. It works entirely within the ambit of Clause 47 and the amount of money that may be available either from local authorities or, more important, from the Government's generous help which was announced this evening.
I am convinced that when the schemes come up there will be more demands on the Government for money that can be provided. I feel sure of that. The problem is that, if that is so, who will decide the apportionment, and how will it be decided? It is this which my amendment attempts to deal with. I should have thought that the Government would welcome the amendment as drafted because it overcomes the problem of their having to make political decisions. My proposal is that a totally independent body should be faced with that responsibility, a body which is not political in any way.
I shall not repeat the sort of composition that I think is appropriate, but I stress that whichever party forms the Government—it may not always be the present party which forms the Government—it has to come to these decisions. Whatever the Government, surely it is good that a decision should be taken by an independent body. I earlier used the analogy of the Arts Council.
Before the question of a Division goes any further I should like to stress what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said. He said that he was afraid that over the last months there had been a tendency for your Lordships to go beyond your function as a revising Chamber. That is probably correct, but the amendment I propose does not go against the Government. It is a revision, but it is wholly within the ambit of the Government's proposals. It accepts Clause 47 and it is the better for the fact that the Government have themselves announced generous further aid for the schemes which may come forward.
I repeat that my anxiety is: who is to decide how that aid is to be divided among the competition of the many schemes which will be before it? At this moment I stop there. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: I find this amendment very difficult because I still feel, having heard the noble Earl twice, that I am not completely sure what it is he has in mind. As I understand it—and I may be wrong—the proposal in the Bill is for an organisation of boroughs or metropolitan districts which will come together and allocate money to the support of the voluntary organisations. I understand further—and this has been enlarged upon by the Minister today—that, because there may be a gap between the setting up of such an organisation and its ability fully to fund the needs of these organisations, the Government will make certain interim additions to the funds at their disposal.
What I am not clear about is whether the noble Earl proposes that the organisation of the boroughs, in respect of the money which the boroughs themselves raise, should spend it through an independent body or whether the independent body would deal only with the extra money, the bonus, if you like, which the Government are conferring on the scheme. If it is the former, then it is a major change in the proposed arrangements. As the noble Earl said earlier today, it would be the equivalent of setting up for voluntary charitable organisations an equivalent of the Arts Council.
But if it is only for the additional sums which the Government are to give over an interim period then it seems to me that it must enormously complicate the
116
task of distribution because you will have one body which distributes the funds raised by the boroughs and a different body distributing the bonus. I should have thought that this would be awkward both for those who have to distribute and for the recipients. To use a phrase which has been used more than once today, there would be two doors on which to knock. I hope that before we finally decide about the noble Earl's amendment he can clear up my doubts on this score.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the noble Earl stands up, I have a question to ask him, too, so he may find it convenient to answer my noble friend Lord Beloff's question and mine. I was going to ask him the meaning of his first subsection, which uses the words:
"by order appoint a Council to oversee the schemes made under section 47."
I am not familiar with the use of the word "oversee" in this sense in a statute. What I should like to know is this. Does he mean that they should oversee in the colloquial sense: that is to say, that they should notice and comment upon but that the responsibility should still lie with the local councils in the scheme under Clause 47; or does he mean that they would have power to overrule the local councils in the distribution of the money which they themselves had raised from their ratepayers?
The Earl of Perth: I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for raising these questions. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that if he will look at subsection (2) of my amendment, it is totally clear that what I am talking about is only the,
"sums made available by the Secretary of State for voluntary organisations under such schemes".
It says so in that subsection, and I should like to make it totally clear (as I am sure it ought to be clear if anybody reads this) that all that I am talking about is the money which the Government are using for topping up the scheme.
I would repeat to Lord Beloff and others that I think that for the Government to have to make that decision is a difficult one. I should have thought that they would welcome the opportunity to leave it to somebody who is well equipped to do this in a non-political way and to ensure that it is fairly handled. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked me the meaning of "oversee". I find this a difficult question to answer, and I thought of using the word "monitor". However, I am clear that what I mean is this: the local authorities will put up their schemes. Then it will be for the new body, the council, to look at those schemes and decide whether or not it will support them with the money that is available from the Government grant. So it does not, in a sense, decide on the merit of the schemes: it does decide on whether the schemes are worthy of the support of the council which I am proposing. I hope that is sufficient answer.
10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Just for the sake of complete clarity, then it does not mean that the council would have the power to overrule the local authorities in respect of the money that they themselves raise for these schemes from their own ratepayers?
The Earl of Perth: That is right.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether I may reply, because we have discussed this amendment already at an earlier stage and I do not think we ought to stand too long on it. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, is concerned about the transitional stages of the scheme. He has proposed a system that is in itself transitional, and it is to supervise the distribution of transitional grant. Transitional grant will be given under the 1969 Act on social needs, the urban programme power, to projects currently getting their grant from the GLC and the MCC's. There will be a bidding round; the DoE will make allocations based on the local authority bids; and the point at which the noble Earl would like his amendment to bite is the point when the allocation is made between the different areas.
I can tell him that in fact it will be made broadly proportional to the amount of the grants that each will be taking from the GLC or MCC now. It seems to me that is a satisfactory answer to the question, because his concern is about the transition from what the GLC and the MCCs are now doing to what is done in the future; and surely the grounds for this must be what is done now, rather than take some external opinion. It is on that basis that we intend the allocation to be made.
The Earl of Perth: I am afraid I am not entirely happy with that answer because, as I see the problem, it is that there will be more demands on Government than there are funds available. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, as I understand it, said, "In certain sections it will be done proportionately". Frankly, I do not think that is a good idea. Some of the things may be good, and some of the things may be bad. I should have thought it would be far better to have an independent body making a decision.
If the noble Lord can say that he will think about this further, for the reasons that I have given, fine; then we could look at it again at Report stage. But if he cannot give me any comfort, then I must confess I am in great difficulty. The difficulty is this: in the earlier amendments various noble Lords voted against the Hayter amendment because they wanted to see my amendment go through. That was the advice that I gave them. If I can get no sort of comfort that it will be looked at again, then I am breaking faith with those who helped the Government to win that amendment by not pressing mine. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord not to say, "It will be proportionate", because that seems to me to be not the right method of handling it. Surely the right method is to decide on its merit. I propose, rather than the Government having to decide on the merit of it, that they pass the decision to a body which is in every way impartial and nonpolitical.
Lord Elton: I am always for deciding cases on their merits, and the merits of this one must surely be—indebted as I am to any who voted in the Government Lobby on the last Division—whether or not what we propose carries out the function which noble Lords wish it to do. And what noble Lords want is that the step, if it is a step down between the GLCMCC funding and the new funding—if there is a step
118
in whatever direction—should be smoothed. The only reference point for that is what is happening now. It cannot be a subjective decision. I much regret that I cannot help the noble Earl, much as I should like to, by saying that this is a scheme which we could bring in at a later stage.
Lord Renton: I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, might understand the position of a great many of us in the Committee if I were to mention that this clause, whatever its merits, is not consistent with Clause 47, which we have already passed.
The Earl of Perth: I do not understand that.
Lord Renton: Clause 47 has already provided machinery for the decisions to be taken as to the grants to voluntary bodies, and the way in which the decisions are to be taken, and the way in which the grants are to be made. To that extent, it not only overlaps with the arrangements proposed by the noble Earl but, I suggest, conflicts with them.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness White): We now have Amendment No. 136ZBB, which is a manuscript amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in place, I understand, of Amendment No. 136ZE. The manuscript amendment has been available in the Printed Paper Office. I understand that if no noble Lord objects, it is now open to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to move his amendment.
Lord Elton: May I just ask the noble Lord whether, in moving it, he will confirm that it is word for word the same as Amendment No. 136ZE? If it is not, I wonder whether we may have a little time to read it, because I have not yet seen the alternative.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask the noble Lord, if he is going to move it, whether he will first read it, so that those of us who have not had the advantage of seeing the manuscript amendment can know what we are debating?
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved manuscript Amendment No. 136ZBB:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
"Economic Development Authorities.
(1) On the abolition date there shall be established for Greater London and each of the metropolitan areas a body corporate which shall be known as the London Economic Development Authority, or by the name of the county with the words "Economic Development Authority" as the case may be, to which the Secretary of State shall transfer the functions to which this section applies.
(2) Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
(3) The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan economic development authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county, and for the London Economic Development Authority shall be the councils of the London boroughs.
(4) The functions of the Economic Development Authority in each area shall be—

(a) the funding of any body corporate whose objects include the assistance, promotion and encouragement of existing and new industrial or commercial enterprises in Greater London and the metropolitan areas by way of grants, loans, guarantees or other financial assistance;

119

(b) the provision of research and information necessary to the development of programmes appropriate for the economic, industrial and employment development of the areas concerned:

(c) the provision of training projects, or funding of such projects by any body corporate, appropriate to the employment needs of the areas concerned.

(5) An order under this section 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."
The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee for the error that took place in the tabling of Amendment No. 136ZE. It was originally drafted at a time when I thought that the machinery of the London residuary body would be more amenable to the Government than the other means that had been proposed. But in the course of the Committee stage I apprehended that the London residuary body was no longer in such great favour and I redrafted the amendment which I propose to read to your Lordships and which alters the provision to make the effective body a joint board. I apologise for the error.
The amendment I now propose reads as follows:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
"(1) On the abolition date there shall be established for Greater London and each of the metropolitan areas a body corporate which shall be known as the London Economic Development Authority, or by the name of the county with the words "Economic Development Authority" as the case may be, to which the Secretary of State shall transfer the functions to which this section applies.
(2) Each authority shall consist of members of the constituent councils appointed by them to be members of the Authority.
(3) The constituent councils in relation to a metropolitan economic development authority shall be the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the county, and for the London Economic Development Authority shall be the councils of the London boroughs.
(4) The functions of the Economic Development Authority in each area shall be—

(a) the funding of any body corporate whose objects include the assistance, promotion and encouragement of existing and new industrial or commercial enterprises in Greater London and the metropolitan areas by way of grants, loans, guarantees or other financial assistance;

(b) the provision of research and information necessary to the development of programmes appropriate for the economic, industrial and employment development of the areas concerned;

(c) the provision of training projects, or funding of such projects by any body corporate, appropriate to the employment needs of the areas concerned.

(5) An order under this section 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."
This amendment endeavours to deal with the future of those organisations within the GLC and the metropolitan counties which have been actively concerned in the promotion of business and commercial enterprises within their respective areas in Greater London or in the metropolitan county areas. Normally the activities have taken two or perhaps more forms. Some of the authorities have had in-house arrangements for suitable training for small business enterprises involving the employment of many skilled professional people in making their services available to those who wish to start up
120
businesses and, in many cases, to those whose businesses are, or have been, on the brink of failure.
Also, all of the authorities concerned have formed, and have put their efforts behind, various enterprise bodies including the Greater London Enterprise Board, in Merseyside the Merseyside Enterprise Board, in West Yorkshire the West Yorkshire Enterprise Board, in the West Midlands the West Midlands Enterprise Board, in Tyne and Wear the Tyne and Wear Business Development Fund Company Limited and in Greater Manchester the Greater Manchester Development Corporation. All of these have been either limited companies or companies limited by guarantee. They have their own separate legal entity and there is nothing contained within the Bill, as your Lordships would expect, that seeks to abolish them. But their future is of some considerable importance. These enterprises that are not concerned with trading, which I hope will be enlarged upon by the noble Countess. Lady Mar, are engaged in promoting investment in various enterprises either selected by them or brought to them.
10.15 p.m.
It is necessary to state that these enterprise organisations are not peopled, as it were, by politicians but are manned by staffs who are extremely skilled professionally: who have skills in the accountancy profession, in production engineering, and in a whole range of other spheres. Nobody so far has ever sought to take anything away from the qualities of those people.
In the event, they have been singularly successful. We find from the nearest estimate that it is possible to obtain—and time does not permit me, at this stage, to go into further detail although I shall be very happy to do so and to produce the documentation—that their work has resulted in the creation of, or the saving of, more than 50,000 new jobs in the GLC and metropolitan county areas.
We are living in times of very heavy unemployment. Without wearying your Lordships with the figures, unemployment is worst precisely in the metropolitan county areas—although even in London (particularly the inner city area) unemployment is running at some 16·5 per cent.
We are either serious about creating new jobs—genuine jobs, if I may borrow the Government's phrase describing this activity—or we are not. It seems to me that the Bill ought to contain some provision to deal with these various bodies. The Bill is silent on this point, and so far as I can see, there has been very little in the way of Government observations on their futures other than an off-the-cuff observation (which I cannot take very seriously) by one Minister in another place, that they will be allowed to wither away on the bough. I cannot believe that this was meant as a serious observation.
The purpose of moving this amendment is to obtain from the Government a statement as to what their intentions are in this respect. Your Lordships will appreciate (particularly those noble Lords who have experience of business and commerce) that when an investment is made in a new concern—and particularly when it is made at the instance of and after

121
investigation by professionals such as investment analysts, accountants, production engineers marketing experts, and all the rest—then the investment or loan support required to move these new enterprises, or to save enterprises, from the state in which they were found can only be accomplished over a period of years.
The normal procedure—and each of the enterprise organisations to which I am referring insists upon it—is for the businesses to provide details of the appropriate cash flows, their forecast of sales or activities as the case may be, their fixed and floating expenditure over the years, the progressive development of their expenses, and so on.
Very often, investment is made on the basis of continuing support. At a later stage if necessary, when the time is more propitious, I can give details to show that in some cases any withdrawal of the facilities already promised and negotiated would mean the failure of the organisation concerned. I could go into considerable detail about the activities of each of the organisations to which I am referring, but time will not permit. Indeed, the purpose of moving this amendment is to find out what are the Government's intentions.
However, I make one point very clear; and that is the economics of the matter. I hope that what I have said will encourage the Government to take what I conceive to be steps that any reasonable businessman, economist or banker would take in the particular circumstances. Your Lordships will recall that in the course of a debate in this House on 21st January last, when we were discussing regional development, the Government underlined the contents of their own White Paper published in October 1983 which put the cost of regional aid at about £35,000 per job. Some amendments were made, by regulation, that went through the House on that occasion and which tied regional aid to one of two alternatives. In labour intensive proposals the limit was going to be £5,000 per job and in the case of capital intensive proposals it would be, in certain circumstances, £10,000 per job. Let us consider the position if there is a saving of jobs to the tune of some 50,000—a figure for which at a later stage I can give a reasonably accurate build up, supported by the appropriate authentications. Then, on the basis of findings arrived at by your Lordships' Select Committee which considered the cost of unemployment to the Exchequer, and which came out with a figure, including lost taxation, of £5,000 per job per annum in the case of a single unemployed person, it will be readily perceived that if, in fact, 50,000 jobs have been either created or saved, the Exchequer has benefited, in one way or another, to the tune of £250 million per annum.
Many noble Lords may think, and indeed the Government may think, that that is not chicken feed. I would not myself think it was chicken feed. What emerges from the figures is that in the case of, for example, the Greater London Enterprise Board, where 2,352 jobs have been saved, the cost is between £3,000 and £3,500 per job. In the case of Merseyside, where 482 jobs were created or saved, the cost was only £519 per job. In the case of the West Midlands, where 3,000 jobs were created or saved, the figure was £2,666 per job. In West Yorkshire, where 4,100 jobs were created or saved, it works out at £560 per job.
There is no need for us to cavil at the precise extent of the figures, though I am prepared, at a suitable stage, to document them; the fact is that they are very significantly below the figures determined for regional aid. They are significantly below the cost to the Exchequer of having a person unemployed, whether through receipt of unemployment benefit or loss of taxation.
Those are the considerations I lay before the noble Lord. Whatever figures may materialise according to different assumptions, I am satisfied—and I have had experience in this field of the reconstruction of companies, the starting up of new businesses, the preparation of feasibility studies, and the like—that they form a good proposition. As I said, if necessary I am prepared to prove it at a later stage. It may well be—I hope so—that I am knocking at an open door. It appears to me to be a matter of commonsense that the aid which has been given to these enterprises by the GLC and by the metropolitan counties, as appropriate, has been a very good business investment indeed. It has been good for the Exchequer and indeed has been well regarded by local chambers of commerce up and down the country in the areas of the councils affected.
I could give the Committee specific quotations from bodies which noble Lords would think to be extremely responsible, many of which have a favourable disposition even at this time towards the broad general policies of Her Majesty's Government; but I shall not weary the Committee at this time of night. I sincerely hope, therefore, that in reply the noble Lord will be able to give for the first time some firm indication as to exactly what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government towards these bodies. I beg to move.
The Countess of Mar: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. My interest in industrial and commercial training is not a transitory one. Nine years ago, when there were fewer than 2 million unemployed, the subject of my maiden speech was industrial training. I propose to confine myself to the training aspects of this amendment. That was in the days when specialist training considered necessary by employers was provided by them in the form of apprenticeships, sandwich, block and day release courses and in-house training.
Finances are now so stringent that employers seem to expect prospective employees to be highly trained at the expense of central or local government. I know that most of us accept that unemployment and its accompanying social problems have now reached unacceptable proportions. We know too the importance of adequate training in skills which are required by modern industry and commerce. Her Majesty's Government have done a good deal towards the provision of training schemes, particularly for young people, but there is no reason why such provision should be considered to be the sole prerogative of Government.
I wonder how many of your Lordships have been sufficiently interested in the outcome of this debate to see for yourselves the achievements of, for example, the Greater London Training Board. I must admit that before I did so I was more than a little sceptical about the role of a local authority in training for jobs. I had

123
not expected to find the degree of enthusiasm, commitment and desire for quality with which I was confronted. Many of the 70 or so projects have been started as a result of local demand. Those most in need of training have gone to the board with their own ideas, and if the board has considered them viable it has offered assistance. The schemes do not compete with those provided by Government but rather complement them. The numerous debates we have had in your Lordships' House on unemployment and training have highlighted the disadvantages suffered by the mentally and physically handicapped, ethnic minorities and women, and especially those who fall within these groups who have a poor educational background.
The Greater London Training Board has tended to concentrate its resources on these people. In the three years since its inception, 5,000 adults and young people have received, and 220 instructors have provided, training in skills as diverse as gardening and advanced computer technology. It has the support of organisations such as the London Chamber of Commerce, the Industry and Employers' Group Training Association, the City and Guilds of London, the British Youth Council and many others. Cross-borough drinks—it sounds as though I have been drinking. I am sorry; I am very tired. Cross-borough links with dozens of employers have been fostered. Its work has also become the focus of widespread international interest, most recently from professional instructors in West Germany, Greece, Sweden, Nigeria, Australia, the Philippines, Austria, Tanzania and the Sudan.
A fine example of the work done by the board is the Tower Hamlets Advanced Technology Training Project. This is an organisation whose objects are to advance the education and training of young people and adults in the manufacture, use, operation, repair and maintenance of computers, microprocessors and other electronic and mechanical equipment, and to teach them the role and effect of the new and advanced technology in society.
10.30 p.m.
At any one time it has 35 trainees whose only qualifications are that they must be over the age of 25 and unemployed. It is funded jointly by the Greater London Training Board, the European Social Fund and the Tower Hamlets Inner Areas Training programme. There I have seen men and women—a high proportion of women—of British, Indian, Chinese and West Indian origin, aged between 25 and 50. There were five severely disabled people in wheelchairs. I was most impressed by the skill and patience of the instructors, who also come from a wide variety of social and ethnic backgrounds. All these people had been considered unsuitable for Government training schemes for a number of reasons. They have been given the opportunity to become productive, independent citizens with nationally recognised qualifications, where they had once been written off. This is only one example.
The board's Women's Motor Mechanics Apprenticeship Programme at the Oval has successfully placed 87 per cent. of white, 89 per cent. of
124
Afro-Caribbean and 100 per cent. of Asian students who have completed their courses. This success is one of a long list of similar achievements and must be attributed to the quality and suitability of the training and the capacity of the board to respond quickly to needs of different industries and localities, and of course the availability of funds for the training schemes.
The provision of training and jobs is not an obligation put upon the GLC by statute, but the work of the training board is recognised to be of value in many circles. There is no provision in the Bill for the work to be continued. I am well aware that the boroughs are as concerned as the GLC about unemployment, and that they will do their utmost to alleviate and overcome its accompanying problems. However, their ability to cope with the needs of the unemployed will be limited by their ability to raise rates (the poorest boroughs are those which contain the most needy), the demands upon their resources for other equally important services, and their boundaries.
If we do not accept the necessity of separate economic development authorities for London and the metropolitan counties, more than 10,000 training places will be lost; many teams of skilled and dedicated training staff will be disbanded; public investment in resources, equipment and premises will be wasted, and several million pounds of investment by the European Social Fund will no longer be available. Most important of these will be the inability of the boroughs to provide training and jobs for those who fall outside the Government's training schemes. I ask the Committee to support this amendment.
Lord Elton: It seems that we all want all the best things that are done now to go on being done in the future. Therefore, I do not need to respond to all the credits which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have passed out to their particular favourite body. What I need to tell the Committee is that it will be possible for this work to go on.
The amendment seeks to enable it to go on by creating what was, when I sat down this afternoon, a residuary body and is now a joint authority. If the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, finds any lucanae in what I have to say, it will be attributable in part to the fact of this sudden and unexpected change. It would, in particular, provide these authorities with a power to set up and fund enterprise boards and training boards similar to those currently controlled by the GLC and most of the metropolitan counties, and it would allow them to undertake research to provide a framework for a county-wide programme of economic development.
The Committee knows my views generally, and those of the Government, on joint authorities. I shall not go down that particular course and I am sure the noble Lord does not want me to do so. However, I can tell him that without these authorities the borough and district councils are quite capable of taking over full responsibility for local economic development. The Committee has already heard what I have had to say about the resources that will be available to them, and boroughs and districts can spend the resources released by abolition on such activities if they wish.

125
The districts and boroughs already have a wide range of powers to pursue economic development. They include the powers under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 which they can use to provide the sort of assistance to which the amendment specifically refers. Many of the boroughs and districts are spending well below their limit and can therefore increase this expenditure. If your Lordships look at Clause 47(11), you will see that the collective funding for the voluntary sector under the clause will not constrain the use of Section 137 and will create some additional headroom under Section 137 for local economic initiatives.
Apart from Section 137, boroughs and districts have other powers available to them. A large part of local authorities' existing economic programmes involve the provision of serviced industrial sites and factory workshops. These are usually provided under powers contained in the Local Government (Land) Act 1963. Districts designated under the urban programme are also able to use the powers in the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. These will not be affected by the Bill.
The amendment envisages that the joint authorities would pursue a more strategic development role both through the hoards they would set up and through the proposed research and intelligence gathering activities. But using the resources and powers I have described this is something that districts will be perfectly able to do themselves either by taking over control of the enterprise boards currently operated by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, or by entering into joint voluntary working arrangements with each other to establish similar bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, spoke admiringly of the enterprise bodies and assured us that they are held in the highest of esteem. They already exist, of course, as, for example, in the Greater London Enterprise Board and the West Midlands Enterprise Board. They are private companies limited by guarantee. As such, their existence will not be affected by the Government's proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils. The boards are controlled at present by their parent authorities under the terms and conditions of their articles of association. But there is nothing to stop those being amended to allow the successor authorities to have powers to nominate members and directors to the boards and to make financial contributions just as the metropolitan authorities do now. In fact, in a number of instances, I gather that they have already done so. The districts in the West Midlands and the districts in West Yorkshire have agreed to continue support to these enterprise boards. So arrangements are already in hand; and if, as the noble Lord tells us, these bodies are held in high esteem, they will continue.
Where the training boards are in-house departments of the councils to be abolished, as in the case of the Greater London Training Board, their operations will cease. But the district or borough will have power and the extra resources to take over those schemes and to set up new ones. Some of the training boards are independent companies, as in Merseyside. This can continue with the support of the districts, as I have said.
There is more that I could read out, but the point I wish to make is a simple one. The resources and the
126
powers are available to the districts to continue this work. The work is widely recognised. It varies in quality. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, drew attention to the variations in quality. These variations will be reflected in variations of enthusiasm among the successor bodies as to whether or not to continue the work. But where the work is without doubt constructive and useful, there is the power, and I do not doubt that there will be the will, for it to continue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Since the Government office was aware, at the latest, by 10 a.m. today of the existence and text of the manuscript amendment I am at a loss to understand why it took until the afternoon to reach the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: I can tell the noble Lord that I have a great deal of work to do at the moment, most of it arising from his colleagues on the Benches opposite. It is normal to decide what one is going to do on the Marshalled List several days ahead, particularly when the change that the noble Lord adduced as his reason for tabling a manuscript amendment had been made perfectly clear last week.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene on that point. Apart from it being a problem for the Minister, is it not also a problem for noble Lords who are trying to follow this Bill if a long and important amendment of this nature is suddenly put down by way of a manuscript amendment? No doubt it is in order, but it is surely a highly inconvenient practice and somewhat unfair to your Lordships.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, I have already apologised to your Lordships about this matter and, if necessary, I shall repeat it. Unlike some, I am always prepared to admit when I make a mistake, and once again I am very sorry for it.
I am very glad that the noble Lord has replied. Unfortunately, he has not met the points that I wanted him to cover. He pointed out—and this is undoubtedly true—that a number of district and borough authorities have underspent their 2p rate yield under Section 137 of the Local Government Act. There are many others, particularly in the more distressed areas, which are already up to the hilt of their 2p rate expenditure on matters of this kind.
I had rather hoped that the noble Lord would repeat the indication that was given by his right honourable friend in another place on 5th October last, when he certainly paid a rather more fulsome tribute to the work of these enterprise boards than the rather grudging remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Lord. The noble Lord's right honourable friend said:
"Of course as the White Paper made clear, there might be a case for increasing the 2p limit to Section 137 expenditure if present funds prove inadequate, and we will be prepared to consider doing so if circumstances warrant such action".
The noble Lord did not confirm that indication and so I think that I am entitled to ask him whether, since that time, there has been a change of mind.
Moreover, I also draw the noble Lord's attention to the rather more complimentary remarks that fell from

127
the lips of his noble friend Lord Bellwin when we were considering the interim provisions Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said:
"We are not in the business of halting such useful work as can be, and frequently is, carried out by, for example, the Greater London Enterprise Board and the enterprise boards set up in some of the other metropolitan counties. We accept that enterprise boards can help to forge a vital partnership between the public and private sectors".
I must say that I expected the noble Lord to respond in rather more positive and dynamic terms than to announce that the districts had the power to undertake these functions, that in some cases they had the funds, and that really all that was required was the will. The noble Lord rather understates the position. However, I am grateful to him for his reply. I am sure he appreciates that this is a matter to which we shall return at a later stage.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to ask whether, as regards Section 137. we are to be led to understand that the money which will go to economic development in the future will be part of the millions that were given this afternoon as voluntary body money. Will the same money be used for both purposes? Under the present plans a local authority in a non-metropolitan area will have access to a 4p rate yield under Section 137: 2p of its own resources and 2p from the county council. That will be 4p in the shire county areas that the districts can have. Does this not mean that the metropolitan authorities are back again with just 2p?—those being in very deprived areas where I believe the noble Lord the Minister himself has said that the work done by the enterprise boards and the economic development committees have really made an impact upon job regeneration. If what I said about the county councils and the districts which are in their county is correct, is it not unfair that they should have the benefit of 4p and does not this create a two-tier of local government finance? If I am wrong I shall be glad to hear the opinion of the noble Lord.
The other point I should like to raise is that mention of thousands of pounds has been bandied around in debates. I checked up with the Coventry local authority when someone said that the authority had millions of pounds in their area under Section 137. I have had authentic information from them. The true figure for Coventry is approximately £800,000; so I think it is important that when figures are bandied about by the Government they are really checked upon by the local authorities when their names are used.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: May I add one further question to those posed by my noble friend? What will happen to those schemes which have been partly funded by the European social fund and partly funded by the metropolitan counties? Will the successor bodies take over the responsibility for continuing those schemes?
Lord Elton: Your Lordships have tried me. The answer to one of the questions which has been raised—I think it was the last one—is yes. The answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, is yes. The metropolitan districts have a 2p rate to spend,
128
as your Lordships have suggested. The Section 137 money is supported by the transitional money but only if it is spent on bodies capable of being aided under the Local Government (Social Needs) Act. The noble Baroness looks suitably pensive about that. I think she will see what I mean when she looks at Clause 47 again tomorrow. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was not quite quick enough withdrawing his amendment to prevent my replying to his barbed remarks. I did not see my business here at the Box to cry out the excellent work of either the enterprise boards, where it is excellent, or the training boards, where it is excellent. My job was to reassure your Lordships that where it was excellent it could continue. That was the burden of what I said, and I said it briefly because I believe at this hour everybody wishes me to be brief.
It is perfectly true that my right honourable friend said that we would consider raising the 2p limit and we are still prepared to consider the circumstances of boroughs in difficulty but not until the Widdicombe Committee has reported on the wider question of Section 137; but the boroughs and districts have other powers not caught within the limits and therefore the reassurance that I gave earlier stands.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Will the noble Lord write to me on the point that I raised regarding 4p that goes to the districts that are in county areas under the two-tier system? Can he explain that in a letter to me?
Lord Elton: I shall be glad to do so, and I am glad of the opportunity of the respite to consider it because I have not replied to that aspect, but I shall do so. Following the conventions of the House, a copy will be put in the Library.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 136ZC:
After Clause 47 insert the following new clause:
("Report on equal opportunities for women.
. Before the abolition date the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the effects of the provisions of this Act on equal opportunities for women.)"
The noble Baroness said: At this time of night, I shall deal very briefly with this amendment. Its purpose is to draw attention to the effect that the abolition will possibly have on opportunities for women and women's work. In London the bulk of the grant funds, nearly 60 per cent., go to child care projects. I know that we hear very much more of the funny, offbeat, rather eccentric activities that sometimes take place. This is at the loss and neglect of the very worthwhile activities, very important ones, that are financed by the GLC and also the mets in their areas. One of the most important of those functions which have been undertaken by the GLC has been these child-care centres. Not only are they somewhere where children are well looked after and can develop, but they also enable the mothers to go out to work and know that the children are properly cared for.
In London, where 30 per cent. of women with children under five and more than 50 per cent. with children over five go out to work—that was in the 1981 census—a DHSS survey of three inner London boroughs in 1979 found that more than 90 per cent. of

129
mothers wanted, or needed, day care for their three to four-year olds and more than 70 per cent. for two-year olds. Nineteen per cent. of families with children in the GLC area are single-parent households, yet on average there were only 25 full-time nursery places per thousand children who were under five in London in 1981, and extremely limited after-school and school-holiday provision.
By the end of the 1985 the GLC had grant-aided over 200 voluntary organisations, which will provide 4,200 child-care places for under-fives and over 600 jobs at an annual cost of over £5 million, and 47 of these projects provide after-school, latch-key, and school holiday care for children. The women's work has been, as it always is, a significant factor in the voluntary sector for many years, and the types of project which have been funded include in addition to those for children, pensioners' groups, information and resource centres, women's centres, health and counselling groups, welfare and legal rights advice projects, ethnic minority women's projects, transport services for women, and groups providing specialised expertise, for example, in architecture or computers.
Many of these projects should command wide support. For instance, an interesting one—and this ties up rather with what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said on the last amendment on the provision of training projects—was in 1983–84, when the Greater London Training Board funded approximately 250 places for adult women to train for jobs such as computing and electronics, the construction trade, and motor mechanics—the sort of jobs for which otherwise there may not be opportunities for women to train. Almost all these courses have child care facilities or allowances to enable women with children to participate.
There is anxiety to know who will pick this up. It is not just the financial tab for this work, but it is also the opportunities for women to do this work and the child care centres which are important. It is not going to be reasonable or optimistic to believe or hope that the boroughs or district councils are going to be able to replace what has been done on a county-wide basis. It is for those reasons that I move this probing amendment. Obviously I am not going to press the amendment, but I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about it. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Before the Minister replies on this point, I should like to draw to his attention that the Conservative group on the women's committee at County Hall has consistently opposed and voted against all those particular child care facilities that the noble Baroness has just referred to. It has been a strongly political issue. The reason is that the Conservative group believes that these matters should come under the local borough. It is the local borough social services department which rightfully funds child-care facilities, not the Greater London Council. Therefore I consider that after abolition, when the additional funds are left with the local boroughs—if it is true that boroughs such as Lambeth, Islington and Southwark have applied for such vast quantities for child care facilities—they will be keen and will surely carry them on afterwards, particularly
130
as they will be getting this additional funding through the equalisation levy.
Baroness Birk: My I ask the noble Baroness, since she seems to be very involved in this: are the boroughs queueing up and fighting with the GLC because they, want to provide these child care centres which the GLC insists on doing? Is there that sort of situation?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I mentioned earlier in the debate that there was this agreement, which was strongly opposed by the Conservative Party, between the Labour boroughs and the GLC whereby the statement was made, "If you wish to avoid rate capping, push it all up here to County Hall and we will fund it and you will not rise above the rate-capped level". This has always been a deliberate and clearly agreed policy between the Labour boroughs, I may add. Whenever I spoke about that myself in the women's committee I was told that I should see that the Conservative boroughs applied for something. I regularly did and they never had the same success in getting anything.
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to support this amendment. When the Sex Discrimination Act was passed 10 years ago it was preceded by a White Paper which made it quite clear that in order to eliminate sex discrimination it would be necessary for a wide range of administrative and voluntary activity to take place to assist the proposed Equal Opportunities Commission in eliminating sex discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity between the two sexes.
There is no doubt that the work of the GLC and the metropolitan counties has greatly assisted the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission. The activities of the metropolitan counties and the GLC have fallen under two broad headings. The first is that of an equal opportunity employer. All the metropolitan counties as well as the GLC claim to be equal opportunities employers monitoring the progress that has been made towards the development of equal opportunities in their staffing arrangements; and, secondly, providing training and other facilities for women in spheres outside the immediate employment of the authority. Often that has taken the form of assisting voluntary organisations to undertake certain projects.
Thirdly, the metropolitan authorities have in this sphere been responsible for putting forward projects which have received EC funding which has brought additional funds into the country for the training of women in non-traditional areas. I know in my own authority in West Yorkshire there is within the engineering department a scheme for women technician trainees which is partly funded by the EC and by the metropolitan county. Likewise, in Tyne and Wear there is a scheme for training women in non-traditional areas which is funded half by the EC and half by the metropolitan county. In response to my question in the last discussion the Minister indicated that the successor bodies would be able to take over the EC funding, but one wonders who the successor bodies will be in schemes of this kind and whether the schemes will disappear.

131
11 p.m.
Additionally, there is another area for which, again, my own county authority has been responsible; and that is making a substantial grant to Bradford University to establish a centre for research on women. It will be the very first research centre of this kind in the United Kingdom. There are centres in other countries but this will be the first in the United Kingdom which will be adding to the work that is done in most of the universities where they now have a women's studies course either at degree level or at post-degree level.
There is a lot of work that has been done in this whole area by the metropolitan counties and the GLC and I think it would be helpful if we could have a report presented to Parliament which would indicate whether this work was going to continue or what gaps there might be; and, if there are to be gaps, if the work cannot continue in all these spheres, whether or not some other authority could be set up to take over.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: May I for one second support this amendment by giving just one other example in which I have myself been involved and which I think absolutely supports what my noble friend has been saying? This, again, is a training and education centre for women, this time in Haringey. Its present funding is made up of only 10 per cent. from the borough of Haringey, 40 per cent. from the GLC and 50 per cent. from the EC. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood has said, it is very difficult to understand how that funding, of which the borough is giving only 10 per cent. will be brought up to 50 per cent. quickly enough to guarantee getting the EC funding from the social fund.
To prove that this could make a great difference to equal opportunities in Haringey, of 1,266 students doing technical courses at a local college only seven were women. The unemployment rate for women in Haringey is four times greater than it is for men. The Haringey Women's Training Centre provides 86 per cent. of all training places for women in the borough of Haringey. I just wanted to add that one specific example which I think without any doubt proves that the GLC in this case has contributed a great deal to equal opportunities for women in Haringey.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness has advanced this as a probing amendment and she wishes to establish, I think, the light in which equal opportunities matters are seen and will proceed. I should start by putting the Government's credentials on the table and reminding your Lordships that we have continued to support the Equal Opportunities Commission and to build where necessary on the legislative framework of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act. We supported the code of practice on employment produced by the EOC which came into force on 29th April. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for employment has designated training bodies under Section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act to run special courses for women wishing to return to work or to enter non-traditional occupations. There are now over 100 designated bodies and we have supported the
132
Women Into Science and Engineering campaign run by the EOC and the Engineering Council.
The Civil Service also sets an example as an equal opportunities employer, and in February 1984 a programme of action on equal opportunities for women was circulated to departments for implementation. I am grateful for the opportunity of that plug. I make no apology for it, in part because noble Lords opposite use similar opportunities in a similar way and because it is relevant to what we are saying. It does show that the Government's heart is in the right place on this matter.
The debate today has been centred on collective grant-giving schemes. Perhaps I may spare a moment, however, to look directly at the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. As I understand it, boroughs and districts can already come together collectively under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the purposes which she describes. Therefore they are not inhibited in that way of proceeding by this Bill. If they proceed within the Bill, the successor bodies for the multi-borough activities will be the Clause 47 arrangements. If they are single-borough activities, they will be the boroughs or the districts. We have covered that ground already, and I am sure the noble Baroness is familiar with it.
In a case where the contribution made by a borough or a district is relatively small and that by the upper-tier authority is relatively large, then we have the arrangements I have already described, which include a recognition in the GREs, and so on, for the change of responsibility. So there is the opportunity for the transfer of funds without pain—and it will not be with pain, because the money spent by the upper-tier authority, as I have already explained, is money they have taken from the boroughs or the districts for the purpose and will no longer be taking from the boroughs or the districts. So the choice is with the boroughs or the districts whether to go on making that expenditure. The resource will be there already in the rate set in the previous year. It will not be necessary to increase the rate in order to create the resources, because the rate was set to provide for the precept and it is simply a question of maintaining the rate at the same level and using the money direct.
So there is no difficulty, and the step I have referred to, if it occurs, is one that derives from the inclination of the funding body and not from an administrative difficulty. We have proposed the transitional arrangements, which we have today increased and which your Lordships have welcomed, in order to get over that difficulty; so I hope the difficulties will be minimal. But my noble friend Lady Gardner lifted the lid off a fascinating situation, which shows how the proportionality of these things can be skewed by political arrangements. Nonetheless, what I said earlier holds good and the resources are there if it is intended to continue this work.
What I have said on this and on an earlier amendment and what I shall say on future amendments relates to all these activities. It is open to the successor bodies to support them if they are beneficial. They do have the resources; they will have the resources; they will in fact have extra resources from Government transitional aid during the

133
transitional period. So the acid test is whether what is going on now is something which the bodies which will in future be responsible for funding it want to go on. That is a question for each of them, but, where activities cross the boundaries of the boroughs, there will only be the one place at which it will be necessary to lobby under Clause 47.
Baroness Birk: I should like to thank the Minister for that very full reply. I was pleased to hear the way the Government's intentions were expressed so far as equal opportunities are concerned. I only wish I felt as optimistic and hopeful as the Minister evidently does about the resources and where they are going to come from. But at this time of night, I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 136ZD:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause
("Report on ethnic minorities. Before the abolition date the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the effects of the provisions of this Act on ethnic minority opportunities and facilities.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a similar type of amendent, though it deals with ethnic minorities. In recent years the GLC and the metropolitan counties have undertaken innovative programmes to combat racial disadvantage and encourage equal opportunities in the great conurbations. London and each of the metropolitan counties are very different from one another and have pursued programmes suited to their individual problems in an attempt to deal in the most appropriate way with very different needs in their own areas.
In the West Midlands, for example, where there are large communities of Asian and Afro-Caribbean people in the urban centre, aid programmes have concentrated on specific grants to small, often local, groups. In Greater Manchester, with its 10 districts and more distributed ethnic minority populations, aid is limited to core funding of county-wide bodies, with a particular concentration on training. In South Yorkshire a significant aid programme provides positive assistance for the county's more than 40,000 unemployed young people. In London since 1981 voluntary and community-based organisations have, through the GLC's grant-aid programme, benefited to the level of £5 million.
If the current level of funding is not maintained, a number of essential services and projects will be lost which are London-wide or county-wide. The fact that the boroughs and districts do not fund many of the ethnic minority organisations is largely due to the area-wide nature of many of these bodies which do not serve the immediate community, but have an extensive and far-reaching network of activities, and a wide variety of groups benefit from the grant-aid programme. In the same way that the Minister attempted to give some reassurance on the question of opportunities for women, I hope that he will give us assurances that an adequate and proper level of funding to match that of the GLC's and the metropolitan counties' level will continue, and that there will be proper consultation with the ethnic minority communities themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My noble friend Lord Pitt expressed his fears this afternoon, in our first debate, at the deleterious effect which this clause could have on the provision of funds for the work of the ethnic minorities and their organisations. I want simply to emphasise that, and to add one further word.
I think that the answer to the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and, indeed, to the point which was repeated by the noble Lord the Minister, as to whether the present opportunity for funding of such bodies is to be open to increase and decrease, was in fact contained in subsection (6) of the first amendment which we discussed this afternoon, Amendment No. 135ZB. The subsection states:
"Each authority shall annually review the social needs of the inhabitants of its area".
Why do I say that? It is because, following on the speech of my noble friend, Lord Pitt, we are worried, and people in these areas are worried, that once the overall authority goes, once there is one body responsible for assisting the ethnic minorities, the separate boroughs, particularly those which do not have any substantial number of ethnic minorities within them, may very well not be prepared to contribute, as is done now, to a general fund, and that, in this way, it may very well be that the amount of funding diminishes under the new arrangements.
Beyond that, even if the funding and the equalisation fund keep up the present level of funding, the administration and application of that fund could surely be done much better by a single body; but we have dismissed that. The only alternative to that is surely to have the social information available and that is what this amendment proposes: that there should be a report on the effects of this Bill on ethnic minority opportunities and facilities. Only with that information will it be possible to bring pressure to hear for the work that we all know should be done to be accomplished.
11.15 p.m.
In conclusion, I do not think any of us would minimise the importance of this work, but, if we do, let us listen to the words of one of the most respected Members of our own House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who wrote in November 1981:
"The evidence which i have received"—
reporting on the Brixton disorders—
"leaves no doubt in my mind that racial disadvantage is a fact of current British life. It was a significant factor in the causation of the Brixton disorders. Urgent action is needed if it is not to become an endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very fabric of our society."
He finished by recommending that there should be,
"a well co-ordinated and directed programme for combating the problem of racial disadvantage."
The only way of getting and sustaining such a programme is to have the information there regularly, provided by the Government.
Viscount Buckmaster: I rise very briefly to support this amendment, which is on almost identical lines to the one which I did not move. I have already spoken to this earlier on, when speaking to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships very briefly that this is a wide-ranging

135
problem. There are something like 2½ million people of ethnic minorities in Great Britain now. There are just about 1 million in London, representing 18 per cent. of the population. Four out of six children in our ILEA schools are now from the ethnic minorities, and no less than 14.7 different languages are spoken in our London schools.
One of the problems is the very wide difference in the proportions of ethnic minorities in the different London boroughs. For example, Brent has the highest proportion of all at 33.5 per cent., Haringey has 28 per cent. Ealing has 25 per cent.—but, as I said earlier, Ealing is a non-caring borough, which creates a difficult problem—and then there are other boroughs like Barking and Bromley with only 3 or 5 per cent. So this is a difficult problem and I fully agree with all speakers that we must have a wide-ranging report to deal particularly with discrimination in the spheres of employment, housing and so on. I give this amendment my wholehearted support.
Lord Birkett: It might be worth taking just a moment to add the arts dimension to this debate. We have debated the arts so often that it would be foolish to go on at length about them, but over the last four years what the GLC has done for ethnic minority arts is something that is universally admired—at any rate, I hope so. Certainly, it has put an enormous amount of heart into a great number of ethnic minority artists, and that represents a range of arts that covers all the performance arts and most of the fine arts and crafts as well. It has put heart into those artists and apart from that—and this is often forgotten—it has given London an enormously exciting range of arts from a very exciting and talented bunch of people.
If, as I keep gloomily predicting, there will not be quite enough money to replace all the activities of the GLC and the metropolitan counties in the arts field afterwards, I can only beg the Government, and through them the Arts Council and the arts associations, to make absolutely sure that, if cuts happen, nothing too damaging happens to this section of our society, because it is one of the successes of recent years and it would be tragic to reverse it.
Lord Elton: It does not need a great deployment of debating skill or experience of social relations to convince the Government that the ethnic minorities are an important part of our communities and that the work of the commission is of great importance.
As to policy, the Government are firmly committed to good race relations. Nowhere is the implementation of policies to promote equal opportunities more important than in the field of employment. The Government have therefore given firm support to the code of practice produced by the Commission for Racial Equality. This was approved by the Secretary of State for Employment and came into force on 1st April last year.
We reviewed our own policies and procedures as employers in the report published by the Management and Personnel Office in December 1983, and we are again leading by example in arranging for the ethnic monitoring of the Civil Service to ensure that the Civil Service is, in practice, an equal opportunity employer.
136
Moreover, we have encouraged local authorities to adopt and implement equal opportunities and practices, with particular reference to ethnic minorities. Last year, Ministers in the Home Office and 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 grant, we require local authorities which seek grant aid to assist them in matching their employment policy to the special needs of minority communities to consult those communities before they make their application to us for such aid. Last year, nearly £80 million in grant aid was paid out in that way.
I am glad to report that many boroughs and districts are already doing a great deal to help and support ethnic minority communities in their areas. All the boroughs and districts have general powers which can be applied for the benefit of ethnic minorities. There is nothing unique about the GLC and the metropolitan councils in that respect.
The Government are supporting and helping local authorities to assist ethnic minority communities. Under the urban programme, more than £30 million was given in the last financial year to more than 1,000 projects of special benefit to ethnic minority groups. Since 1981 there has been a five-fold increase in the urban programme resources being devoted to such projects.
Urban programme grants have been used to support training centres, workshops and co-operatives; language classes and summer schools; bookshops and libraries; day nurseries and pre-school groups; hostels and housing advice centres: youth clubs and community centres, and many other kinds of projects either catering particularly for ethnic minority groups or taking special account of their needs. All these different kinds of projects have been put forward by the boroughs and districts, and have been financially supported by the boroughs and districts. The GLC and metropolitan authorities have no monopoly of support for the ethnic minorities.
Grants are also available under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to authorities taking on extra staff, in connection with any of their functions, to meet the special needs of ethnic minority groups. Last year nearly £80 million of grant was taken up in this way, as I said a moment ago. Before grant is paid under Section 11, local authorities are expected to consult with the local communities about the proposals that they put forward. That answers the point which one of your Lordships made a minute ago.
There are provisions in the Bill itself which will work to the benefit of ethnic minority groups. First, the new joint authorities will have a specific duty, under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, to make appropriate arrangements to eliminate racial discrimination in carrying out their functions. Many ethnic minority groups are helped by local authority grants to the voluntary sector. This brings me back—and I do not want to sound like a gramophone record—to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and others. If the proposal is good and if it is needed, and if the proposal is perceived as being good and needed, the resources are there under the mechanisms which I

137
have described. They are supported by the additional transitional aid I have also described, and they are protected from the adverse effects on the rate control mechanisms I have described.
Your Lordships, in saying that it is admirable and necessary, are saying in fact that it is more likely to go on than if it were not. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has focused on me suddenly as if to ask what I meant by that. What I mean by that is that the future of any of these activities depends now, as it always has done, on its excellence. It has never been the case that everything is going to go on for ever. There is always change in what is done in the voluntary sector. That will continue to be the case but the pressures will still he the same and the resources will be the same. The noble Baroness can therefore be reassured.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I put what he has said in context with this long list? Is he aware that collectively—that is, through the present joint funding scheme—the London boroughs' annual grant-in-aid in the work of promoting racial equality has totalled just 1 per cent. of their grants-in-aid to the whole voluntary sector?
Lord Elton: The noble Lord does not put the other half of the equation. There is the amount of money which the GLC puts into these things and which will now become available in the absence of a precept, through the local authorities.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am sorry, but we cannot go on like this. This is the problem. Before the GLC started making grants to the ethnic minorities they were getting none. It is no use saying that, having abolished the GLC, the grants will be available through the boroughs. If the boroughs will not do so, the grants will not be available. I had hoped that the Minister would say how the Government will make sure—perhaps they cannot make sure—or what they will do to encourage the boroughs to ensure that grants are available. But the Minister has at no stage said that. He merely says that the GLC grants will be available through the boroughs.
That does not help. I had hoped the Minister would understand the point that we are seeking to make. I spent several years as deputy chairman of the Community Relations Commission setting up the various CRCs. The boroughs varied in their attitude. Some boroughs refused to make any contribution. Other boroughs were very generous. That is the situation. What has happened in the past four years is that the GLC has taken over and, through the precept, using its power, has made grants to these organisations which have helped. The point is that now the GLC is being abolished it is feared that these grants will no longer be available. Theoretically of course it is the same money but since the experience is that the boroughs themselves will not do it—that is understandable as they do not all have large numbers of ethnic minority groups in their boroughs—this London-wide contribution which has been given so far may not be available. I am surprised that the Government are making such heavy weather of it.
All we are asking is that the Government should say how, now that the GLC will no longer exist, these
138
grants will become available to ethnic minority groups so that the work can continue. I do not think it is so difficult for the Government to say that they will monitor the situation and will report regularly to Parliament on how it is done. I cannot understand why there is all this song and dance about something which, as I see it at any rate, is quite straightforward and simple.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Is it not a fact that the urban aid programme has always helped the ethnic minorities quite a lot? Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether, with these additional moneys to be given, some similar system might operate so that, again, there might be a possibility for funding. It is a great encouragement to boroughs to put in funds if they feel they are going to get quite a slice of Government funds to assist them. That has been the case with the ethnic minorities in urban aid programmes in the past.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: The danger of sitting—and sometimes standing—behind this Box from half-past two in the afternoon until half-past eleven at night is that one sometimes forgets who has heard what one has said. I do not wish to weary your Lordships by repeating too much of what I have said before but I think that the noble Baroness recognises that I must say something to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt.
The noble Lord assumes that the increase in ethnic minority funding that has taken place over the past four years has taken place solely as the result of the nature of the GLC and has nothing to do with the passage of time and the change of climate of general opinion. I would remind him that the GLC is elected by the electors of the boroughs, who elect the councillors of the boroughs whom he now regards with such anxiety. They are the same people electing representatives to spend their money. They are to spend their money on the same projects. The noble Lord is afraid that because they are elected to the boroughs rather than to the GLC they will not see any merit in what the GLC has been doing for the past four years and that they will turn off the tap at source. There is no psephological justification for that that I can see. I can see no logic in it at all.
I do understand the anxiety to which he refers. I have referred to this very frequently, both before and after dinner. At present the money which the GLC spends on voluntary organisations, including the ones to which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, refers with such passion and conviction, is taken from the boroughs in precept. The boroughs get the money from their ratepayers. The ratepayers vote for the GLC just as they vote for the boroughs, so they can object to the precept just as they can object to the rate. The noble Lord is afraid that, because they can object to only one set of elected people, in some way the interests of the ethnic minorities will be reduced.
That brings me to the fears of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. That is why we have in Clause 47 a scheme for a simple majority to establish a collective scheme and for a qualified majority to require even the reluctant boroughs—I think he described them as the uncaring boroughs; I would not use that term myself, but I use it only as a label that he will understand

139
because he used it—who do not wish to take part in a scheme to do so by law.
I cannot really say more to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, but through him, to those whose interests he speaks for tonight. I would say that the Government's record on race relations in the particular aspect which I have recited is a not unimpressive one. We do regard good community relations as of the essence in the conurbations. There is already the commission to oversee and report on how these things are conducted. What I cannot do, but what the noble Lord would like me to do, is to say that the Government should say that this and this and this and this shall be done and you will pay for it whether you like to or not. That is not democracy. I do think that the fears of the noble Lord are exaggerated.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am saying that the Government should monitor the situation and be prepared to come to Parliament and make recommendations if the situation deteriorates. It is as simple as that.
Baroness Birk: The Minister has given a full answer but, like my noble friend Lord Pitt, I am not satisfied. He is taking so much for granted. First, he is assuming that the boroughs and districts will all carry out what is being carried out on a county-wide area basis. The fear is that even if they are willing to do it and have the resources to do it, it cannot be done properly and efficiently for the people unless it is done on a much wider area.
If this Bill is to make its ghastly progress through the Chamber, we shall have to wait and see how this works out. I should like to feel that this will work out well because then it will be better for the people concerned. However, I certainly feel that the ethnic minorities will suffer from the passage of this Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 136ZE had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 48 [Functions of staff commission.]
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 136A:
Page 31, line 10, at end insert—
("; and
(d) to advise the Secretary of State on the introduction of a scheme to permit and encourage employees of any relevant authority to retire early from their present employment, such a scheme to include provision for enhanced pension benefits and other compensation to be funded by the appropriate residuary body.")
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 136A, which I beg to move, we come now to a whole series of amendments which seek to provide greater protection for staff than is now explicitly given in the Bill. This is something which I am sure many noble Lords in all parts of the Committee would wish to do. However, whether at this hour we can do justice to a matter of such importance as the protection of staff rights and interests, frankly I very much doubt. Indeed, I go on to say that if we appear to suggest that we are doing justice to this important subject at this time, we will be in grave danger of aggravating some of
140
the anxieties and fears from which members of staff in the relevant authorities suffer.
However, I am quite sure that, even at this late hour, these amendments can serve a very useful purpose because they can be used as probing amendments, so that we can discover more clearly the Government's intentions with regard to some of these matters. Then we shall better be able to decide what further course to take at later stages of the Bill.
This particular amendment is a comparatively minor one compared with some of the other staff-related amendments which follow later. It merely seeks to add to the functions of the staff commission functions which are set out in Clause 48(2)(a)(b) and (c). We propose to add another one, in paragraph (d), which is to provide for schemes for early retirement on a satisfactory basis. I think that the provision of schemes for early retirement on satisfactory terms and conditions would be advantageous not only to the staff, who are in many cases very anxious about these matters, but also, frankly, to the Government themselves. I take the view that in the end the Government will find that it will prove cheaper to offer someone voluntary early retirement than to compel someone else to leave—and that would be the consequence of not providing adequately for early retirement.
Let me look very briefly at what I understand is the present position with regard to this matter, in the relevant authorities. If my understanding is in any way incorrect, I have no doubt that the noble Lord will correct me. My impression is that under the current regulations an employee may, by agreement with his employing authority, retire after the age of 50, drawing such superannuation benefits as he is entitled to. In such a case no cost falls on the employing authority, as the employee's benefits are paid from the superannuation fund. However, the employer has the discretion to award up to 10 years' additional service in calculating superannuation benefits. In such a case the additional cost is borne by the employer.
In practice different employers exercise their discretionary rights in different ways. Thus, similar employees in different authorities may or may not be permitted to take early retirement and may or may not be awarded a number of additional years' service for the purpose of calculating superannuation benefits. I should like to see an employee given the right to leave with the maximum added service, the additional costs being paid by the residuary body.
Let us for a moment think of the people we are considering. It seems that many of those who feel quite anxious about this early retirement question are people who can claim to have served both Labour and Conservative administrations to the very best of their abilities. Some of these members of staff in the relevant authorities have reason to feel aggrieved since, a decade ago, if they were not compulsorily transferred, they were actively encouraged to move to the county councils from the very authorities which will now take over their work. They were encouraged to move by a Conservative Government. Indeed, in the West Midlands, which has so often been referred to in the Committee this evening, there was a Conservative administration which, in the late

141
'seventies, offered county staff a no-redundancy agreement which led to the abandonment of a local redundancy compensation scheme.
The absence of such a scheme is one of the problems facing staff. This is only one of the many matters about which staff in the relevant authorities are anxious. It is my belief that the Government would wish, in the course of this Bill, to see the various provisions for staff harmonised throughout the different authorities. I hope that we shall find that the Government reply means that it will not be necessary to pursue these matters to the ultimate length at later stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, we pass now from the somewhat elevated debates that we have been having so far on the Bill about the constitutional role of the House and the political assumptions behind the Bill to consider the consequences for the staff. We shall be arguing that the Bill, in many respects, contains a number of very serious consequences for the staff which derive from the fact that for almost the first time—although not quite—the Government are departing from established principles for dealing with staff problems in matters of reorganisation that have governed these things almost since the years after the Second World War, for 37 years or so. The Government are fundamentally departing from those principles.
One of the consequences—it is behind the assumptions, I believe, of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—is that the Government accept that this reorganisation is going to produce considerable redundancy. Indeed, in the Bill itself the Government calculate that there will be something like 7,100 redundancies as a result of the Bill. It does not tell us very much about where they will occur or about those who will be affected. But there will be widespread redundancy. What this amendment says is that in order to mitigate the consequences, one of the principles of good industrial relations that has been developed is to facilitate early retirement. It seems to me that the Government might well start off this section of the Bill by accepting the spirit behind the amendment.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): I am very pleased to be able to say that I welcome the spirit and purpose of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. Indeed, we have gone so far ourselves as to put down an amendment to Clause 57 which provides the powers needed to set up the very kind of scheme which the noble Lord envisaged. I can assure the noble Lord that it is not necessary to place a duty on the staff commission to advise my right honourable friend to bring in a voluntary early retirement scheme. The commission has already told him of the value that it sees in such a scheme.
In the light of this advice and of the representations we have received recently from the West Midlands branch of NALGO, in what, as a result of the very unfortunate silence of that union's national representatives, we must take as the real voice of the metropolitan county council staff, we intend to put forward a scheme. That is why we have proposed the
142
amendment to Clause 57. The Committee need have no doubt that we shall use our very best endeavours to get a scheme off the ground with the agreement of those who will have to operate it.
Against that background, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that the immediate goals of his amendment have already been met by the action of the staff commission and the Government. Moreover, its underlying purpose will be secured if the House agrees to the powers provided for in our amendment. Perhaps, with those assurances, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the words that he has spoken. Naturally, I shall want to study them carefully. But it seemed to me that he gave assurances which, on this matter, were wholly satisfactory. Of course I agree that there are many ways of doing the same thing. It may be the case that the Government have found a better way of making this explicit than the way I suggested. I am most grateful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 136AA:
Page 31, line 11, at end insert—
(" ( ) If either generally or in relation to any successor authority the commission forms the view that the interests of the staff or any class or description of staff or individual members of stall of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council are not being adequately safeguarded as regards either recruitment by successor authorities or the arrangements for any transfer of staff to successor authorities, they shall recommend and the Secretary of State shall on receipt of such recommendation designate such staff or category of staff or individual members of staff under section 50 below to such successor authority as recommended by the commission.")
The noble Lord said: The aim of this amendment is to give the staff commission, which is set up under Clause 48, a positive role in safeguarding the interests of the staff in authorities which are to be abolished. What we are suggesting in the amendment is that if the staff commission—the composition of which is a matter for the Government; we do not know the details of the composition of the staff commission—are convinced that a section of the staff affected by the changes implicit in the Bill is:
"not being adequately safeguarded as regards either recruitment by successor authorities or the arrangements for any transfer of staff to successor authorities, they shall recommend and the Secretary of State shall on receipt of such recommendation designate such staff or category of staff or individual members of staff… to such successor authority as recommended by the commission".
In other words, if in this particular area the staff commission considered that the staff concerned were not being adequately safeguarded, they could make recommendations to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State, under the terms of this amendment, would have to carry out those recommendations.
I fully accept, and no doubt the noble Minister will say, that this is to give the staff commission responsibilities and functions which staff commissions have not had in the past. It is true that previous staff commissions have had general powers and that they have been advisory to the Secretary of State. However, previous staff commissions in previous reorganisations

143
of this size and importance have worked within a context which was much more acceptable to the staff concerned. It is true that the staff commissions have only had general powers. However, the legislation has been accompanied by detailed statutory instruments which protected the staff; which protected the conditions of the staff; and which in effect were designed to ensure that the overwhelming majority of them were transferred to new authorities and were in post before the old authorities were abolished. In fact, they were based upon the Crombie code.
However, in this case the Government have not produced regulations of that kind. On the contrary, as we have said, the Government are suggesting that a significant number of the staff concerned will not be re-absorbed, and they have told us that only a relatively small number will be directly re-engaged, or will be directly transferred, by the Secretary of State. Moreover, they will not specify in any detail who they will be.
Therefore, it is in that context, in the absence of a detailed statutory instrument which protects the interests of the staff, that we are suggesting that the Government should consider giving their own staff commission some direct power in this respect. They would not be giving the staff commission a responsibility in a new area, in an area not envisaged by the Government because of course the Bill itself says that the staff commission should be concerned with the conditions and the safeguarding of the conditions of the staff.
However, under the Bill all that the staff commission can do is make recommendations and react to intitiatives taken by the Secretary of State. There is no guarantee whatever, in the absence of the type of regulations that existed in previous organisations, that in fact the Secretary of State will take any notice. Indeed, the whole direction of the Bill suggests that one of the Government's aims is to produce significant redundancies. In that context we believe that the amendment is justified. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: I should like to support this amendment and in so doing it may be for the convenience, and even I suspect at this hour the relief of the Committee, if I speak also to Amendment No. 136AD, which covers much the same ground but takes the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, a stage further.
Amendment No. 136AD: Clause 50, page 34, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) by order designate for transfer to an appropriate successor authority all persons who immediately before the abolition date are in the service of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council (in this section referred to as the "employing council") not having taken the option of voluntary early retirement or redundancy and who are under a contract of employment which would have continued but for the abolition of that council and who are wholly or mainly engaged in discharging any function which by virtue of any provision made by or under this Act will become a function of a successor authority including a residuary body; and

(b) by regulation ensure that proper arrangements exist for consultation with the employing councils, the successor authorities and the employees of those bodies and in the case of both individual and collective disputes, that appropriate appeal procedures exist.")

144
The amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to designate for transfer to an appropriate successor authority under their existing employment conditions all staff who immediately before the date of abolition are in the service of the GLC or a metropolitan county council and who are wholly or mainly engaged in functions that are to be transferred.
One of the main purposes of the amendment is to ensure that there is equality of treatment as regards the employment conditions of all staff who are transferred to a successor authority, rather than that there are eventually two sets of people working alongside each other, one having preferential treatment over the other. The amendment does not even seek to place a limit on the number of redundancies that, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has just said, there might eventually have to be, but rather aims to ensure that in conformity with past practice they occur only at the final stage if, following reorganisation, a successor authority needs fewer employees.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment aims to remedy other deficiencies in the arrangements now contemplated under the Bill by requiring the Secretary of State to make adequate consultative arrangements and particularly to provide individuals or groups of people who feel that they have been unreasonably or unfairly treated with an appropriate appeals procedure.
In speaking to this amendment there is one group of people about whom I am particularly concerned. In the Bill as it is now framed there is no provision to ensure that training, particularly training of young people, which has not been completed at the date of abolition is continued under a successor authority. Now I know from his record that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is a supporter of such training, and I should therefore like to ask him what assurances he can give us that these people in particular will have continuity of employment.
I do not for a moment suggest that the wording of this amendment cannot be improved. Indeed within it in relation to the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy has just moved, and one he may move later, there may well be elements of duplication, even possibly inconsistency. If only for that reason, I do not propose to press it further tonight, but I hope that the noble Earl will find it possible to respond positively to these amendments in a way which will give solid grounds for hope to staff who are now deeply troubled about their future.
Lord McCarthy: Now that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has, as it were, moved his own amendment, I would agree and we on our part would agree with everything that he has said about his amendment. They are two alternative ways of doing much the same thing.
Lord Birkett: I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for taking those two at once because I was quite in two minds as to which to speak to. I should like to speak to them for a short time, however, because I control a department of the GLC which actually employs 2,000 people; and they are very worried, indeed in some cases deeply dismayed,

145
people at this moment, for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy mentioned, that nobody quite knows what is going to happen. It is true that the famous figure of 7,000 or 7,100 has been mentioned in connection with redundancies, but there is no indication, apart from a slightly vague feeling, that it is about half in London and half in the rest of the country, as to what these jobs are, how many are in London, how many in the various metropolitan counties, and why the redundancies will occur. It suddenly occurred to me that I can put my finger on at least one redundancy but the other 6,999 still remain a puzzle to me.
When I say that I have 2,000 staff in my department who are worried I suspect that there are a great deal more than that if you multiply that across the GLC. However, I am not an expert in the staffing matters of the GLC, though I should be surprised if the worries of my department and my 2,000 were not, by extension, to be seen not only in the rest of the GLC but in the metropolitan counties as well.
My 2,000 are an extraordinarily varied crew. I have mentioned before many of the little specialist teams that I worry for. I shall not elaborate on them again but simply remind your Lordships that I was talking about such teams as teams of dog handlers, special duties men, the entertainments branch, tree pruners, a large and distinguished body of landscape architects, sports grounds attendants and specialist sports grounds' groundsmen—a whole range of dedicated specialist people.
If the parks and the open spaces which they service—I am talking now only about this element of the work of arts and recreation—are devolved to a number of small, large and middling bodies, then the point of a centralised service will be quite lost unless all the authorities to which these services pass will, of their own free will, put them together as a central pool of resources. I wish I could believe that they would. I do not believe that they will, and a great part of those specialist services will be lost unless something is done.
That is not the end of it. A large proportion of the staff in my department—and I am sure in others—are not tiny specialist peripatetic units; they are simply people who do solid work in a solid place. I confessed to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the other day that I was indeed the very bureaucrat that he was dreading in the speech he had made a few moments earlier. On reflection, I am not as bureaucratic as all that, because I looked at my department wondering whether I could honestly stand up in front of your Lordships and claim that it was run on an economical basis in terms of the number of service staff and the number of active staff.
I worked it out that 87 per cent. of my staff—that is just over 1,700 of them—are people who do things out on the ground. They staff the Festival Hall; they mow the lawns; they patrol the parks; they are active people. A small number on top of that, some 158, are people who service that activity—for example, the landscape architect I have spoken of. Only 110 out of the whole lot are simply there to look after the others. That is to say, they carry out the administration and manage the finance. And, after all, they must be paid and looked after.
146
I think it is fair to say that the administration shape is good. But here are these 2,000 people with no indication at all of what their future is to be. In many cases one feels perfectly logically that if functions are to be transferred to successor bodies—and this is not the moment to argue the case all over again, but we know that the intention of the Government is to pass the parks to those local authorities within whose boundaries they reside, presumably sorting out the famous boundary disputes matter—the logical thing to do is to suggest that in the first instance all the people who worked in those parks and had made them should go to the successor authority.
In the fullness of time they might complain that there were too many, or too few; that they did not like the designations; or that they did not like the shape of it: initially, however, you would think that the humane and sensible thing to do would be to pass them over. No doubt it will be said that that is an imposition and a slightly draconian measure, and one would much rather not make rules upon successor authorities. The passing of those rules in the first place was fairly draconian. That was itself an imposition and I should have thought that it was far from illogical to add to that imposition the imposition that the staffs of bodies being transferred should be initially transferred with them with all the pay and conditions equal. I am no expert in these matters, but I say that it is reasonable—that is to say, it is a matter of common sense—and it is humane, and these two points are uppermost in my mind. I think that is the nature of it and I look to the Government for some comfort in that direction, not for me, but so that I can pass it on to the very many worried people who are in my employ.
12 midnight
The Earl of Gowrie: It is very late, but this is an enormously important issue. I want to put on the record a serious statement of the Government which, even if the nation is not at this moment hanging on my lips, I hope that those worried and concerned people at a later stage will read what I have to say. The fact is that this exercise of abolition where posts and employment are concerned is not an exercise designed to make a large number of people redundant. It is an exercise designed over time to reduce posts which are publicly funded by local government. That I believe is right. But there is a great and sharp distinction between the reduction of posts over time and the making of individuals presently in work redundant. If may use an analogy, we are trying to move on to a four-cylinder fuel-efficient car away from an eight-cylinder fuel-guzzling car, but the transition takes a certain amount of time.
In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill we said that there would be some 7,100 fewer posts in local government in these areas. But the number of redundancies will be far fewer than this, particularly by use of the voluntary—I emphasise that word—early redundancy scheme which we have said we shall introduce under an amendment to Clause 57 and which we had a word or two to say about during the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. As to where redundancies will occur, Ministers have said that roughly half the 7,100 reductions in posts will arise in London, the other half

147
being spread among the six metropolitan county councils. The main areas have been identified as falling in planning and highways, where there is duplication between the two tiers. The other obvious area is in central administrative services.
Most genuinely operational staff of the kind whom the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has in his care engaged on functions can expect to be re-employed by successor authorities, but it will be for the successors to recruit them.
I acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that this reorganisation differs from its predecessors in a number of ways which necessarily affect the way in which the provision is made for staffing the new structure. In 1965 and 1974 in previous reorganisations each authority had a clear successor. Moreover, these successors were generally larger bodies, covering bigger areas, discharging more functions; in fact, with increasing rather than gradually decreasing staffing needs. This allowed for a different general approach to redistributing staff to where they were needed and for compensating those who were no longer needed. In essence, staff were grouped into the new, larger bodies by means of transfers by statute, the new employers were left to sort out a wholly new set of terms and conditions and the principal lineal successors were left to deal with the few no longer needed.
This approach which is being urged on us would not be practical in this reorganisation, but we expect that the majority of staff—firemen, non-uniformed members of the police, and ILEA teaching and other staffs, for example—will be transferred by order under Clause 50. The staff engaged on the majority of GLC or MCC functions will have to look to the borough and district councils for continued employment on those tasks. Not only are these successors more numerous and smaller than the GLC or MCCs; they already have their own staffs and their own fully-developed terms and conditions. That is why we have said that it must be for them to decide how many staff they need and to recruit them on their terms and conditions but giving, so to say, first refusal to GLC and MCC employees.
Before noble Lords say that this is not fair compared to 1965 and 1974, the Committee should remember a simple fact of contemporary life; that is that the position of employees at large, the position of employees generally, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, knows well, is now protected by a number of statutes passed since 1974. It is no part of this Bill to deprive employees of their rights or their liabilities under statute or under contract. We have been at great pains to mesh our provisions in with these other measures. Indeed, I would point out that much of the wording of these clauses derives from that used in employment protection legislation.
I recognise that behind the complexities of the language of Parliament and the language of statutes which I perforce have to use and which we are using here today there lie the very real interests and anxieties of individuals, the staff affected by the Bill. We do have the interests of these people very much in mind and that is why, at each stage in the development
148
and elaboration of these proposals, we have invited unions and employers to discuss with us matters affecting the staff. That is why I so much regret and believe it to be such a pity that most of the relevant unions and employers have not responded to these invitations. Indeed, they have gone further. They have refused to talk to the staff commission, which is the subject of this very set of amendments, and have sought to penalise individuals or union branches who have decided that their interests are best served by sitting round the table to discuss these matters. I am glad to say that some have had the courage and commonsense to meet us and we have kept firmly in our minds that we should prevent undue difficulties for staff within the inevitable constraints which I have described.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned the important matter of training. There are of course trainees and training programmes in the GLC and the MCCs. This is very much the kind of area where we would have hoped that the unions and the borough and district councils would already have made plans together to take over these initiatives. The fact that they are not letting anyone, including their prospective employees and union members, discuss future arrangements of this kind is damaging to the interests of those very staff; and I hope that, again, when in the light of a clearer and another day these words are read, second thoughts will be given to that issue.
What I have tried to signal is very simple. This is not an exercise in making people redundant. It is an exercise in gradually reducing certain numbers of posts in local government. Modern employment legislation embraces a great deal of statutory protection for employees; and employees in the public sector are seldom—with the signal exception of Ministers—ever dismissed without generous compensation. I hope the words that I have said will give some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and others; and I do believe that many of the fears are displaced.
Lord McCarthy: I am amazed at the general arguments of the noble Earl. It seems to me that each one he advances contradicts the one before. He says that this is not an exercise designed to make large numbers of workers redundant. There might have been an argument for saying that one could not have accepted one or other of our amendments if indeed it could be admitted that it was an exercise designed to make large numbers of workers redundant. However, if, as the noble Earl said, it is an exercise to shrink the labour force over time, and if the number of the redundancies or the number of the run-down in the labour force, mentioned in the Bill as 7,100, is a greatly exaggerated figure and if the numbers are very small, then this emphasises our case that people could be given a general guarantee. It is only if the Government really intend to dismiss large numbers of people that either of these amendments would be dangerous to them. But if they mean what they say, then certainly there is no reason that I can see why the Government should not accept Amendment No. 136AD which is put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
I come to the second argument advanced by the noble Earl. He said it would not be practical to give

149
this kind of blanket undertaking. But it is not a blanket undertaking. What does the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, say? It says that employment in effect should be offered to those who are wholly or mainly engaged in discharging any function which by virtue of any provision made by or under this Act will become a function of a successor authority. In other words, if there are planners, central administrative bodies, if there are personnel officers or chief executives who will be dispensed with and will not be required in the way that the Government suggest when the GLC and the other authorities are disbanded, then they will not be needed to be re-engaged and will not be discharging any function. The people who will be re-engaged and transferred in a civilised way are the people that the boroughs or the quangos in fact require. If the noble Earl is telling me that he is not desiring to make large numbers of people redundant, I say that if he looks very carefully, especially at Amendment No. 136AD, I do not see why he cannot accept it.
But the most astonishing thing he says is that we can avoid all this—I think I heard him say this—because of employment protection legislation passed since 1974. It is true that there was some extension of the unfair dismissal legislation of 1971 passed between 1974 and 1976; and almost all the effectiveness of it, and a great deal besides, has been done away with by successive statutes which the noble Earl has put forward from the other side of the Chamber. Now because of extensions of worker-rights since 1974—after the 1980, 1982 and 1984 legislation—he has the cheek to stand up and tell me that he cannot do decent, honest things because of the legislation put forward by this Government since 1974.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 136AB not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Remuneration of employees]:
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 136AC:
remuneration payable in respect of service before the date on which the order is made or compensation paid or payable before that date.")
The noble Earl said: With this amendment we move into the rather difficult world of Clause 49. This clause is included in the Bill for the same purpose as Section 261 of the 1972 Act, on the wording of which this clause is closely modelled. As some of your Lordships may recall, the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Redcliffe-Maud found that during the run up to the reorganisation of local government in London in 1965 some of the expiring authorities were giving their staff late and unduly large increases in pay and gradings. No doubt they felt they were rewarding their good and faithful servants before they parted company. But such increases are doubly inequitable. They are inequitable between employees giving some undue advantage over others; and they are inequitable in requiring the post-reorganisation employers and their ratepayers to bear either the cost of continuing to pay those inflated salaries or buying out the excess. Anticipating that such increases would be granted by
150
expiring authorities in the run up to the 1974 reorganisation, the local authority associations asked for a provision meeting the Royal Commission's concern. This Parliament did, writing Section 261 into the 1972 Act.
As my right honourable friend announced in Parliament on 1st March 1984, the Government consider it right to include in this Bill a measure based on Section 261. This is to preserve equity between employees of all metropolitan authorities including the new authorities, and it is drawn up in terms which will ensure that any late unjustified increases are not carried through into the new structure.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that these objectives are exceptional, but I am sure you will also agree that such a measure should not give rise to cases of employees having to pay back sums received in good faith only to find at a later date that the relevant increase in pay or grading has been declared to be unjustified.
Following discussion in another place we have examined the wording of the clause closely. The possibility of clawback arises before abolition only if my right honourable friend were to issue a direction which had retrospective effect. I assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend would consider doing so only in the most extreme cases. That is where the unjustified payment was so large that the recipients could not in good faith have believed it justified when they received it. I hope that in practice none of the authorities will act so irresponsibly as to necessitate such an undesirable direction from my right honourable friend.
The amendment that we propose addresses the circumstances of increases, identified after the abolition date. It will rule out the possibility of clawback without losing the essential protection that the clause is designed to give successor employers against last minute abuses by the GLC or the MCCs. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord McCarthy: I have no objection to the amendment. My objection is to the clause. But that will be raised when the noble Lord, Lord Irving, moves his opposition to the clause standing part.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 49, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Irving of Dartford: I should like to express the anxiety of the unions, particularly NALGO, at this clause. It is felt that the whole of Clause 49 is unnecessary, cumbersome and draconian. It is copied largely from Section 261 of the Local Government Act 1972, as the noble Earl indicated; but in fact the machinery created by Section 261 was never invoked at all. Bearing in mind that the 1974 reorganisation of local government affected far more councils and employees than are affected by the current proposals to abolish the GLC and metropolitan county councils, it seems totally unnecessary to make the complex and onerous provisions of Clause 49 when experience shows that they are superfluous. If the whole 1974 reorganisation could be done without Section 261 of the 1972 Act

151
being used even once, surely this current Bill does not need to contain the same provisions. In another place at Committee stage, the Minister, Mr Kenneth Baker, said that Section 261 arose from experience of the London reorganisation of 1965, but did not comment at all on the fact that Section 261 was never invoked.
Furthermore, the clause is most unsatisfactory in that it does not require the advisory body to consult employee representative organisations. It does not require the advisory body to notify affected employees or their representatives of its decisions or evidence. It does not provide any right of appeal for employees against a decision of the Secretary of State. It allows for a decision of the Secretary of State to operate retroactively, which could make an employee have to pay back to the employer some part of his salary received in the past in good faith. The noble Earl expressed a view about this and it is very difficult at this late hour to absorb the implications of everything he said. But for the reasons I have given I oppose the clause.
The Earl of Gowrie: I gave the substantive reasons for including this clause in the Bill in moving the previous Government amendment, and I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to go over that ground again at this hour. But may I remind the Committee that the clause draws very heavily on Section 261 of the 1972 Act. That, in turn, had its origins in comments made by the Royal Commission on Local Government. That commission identified the granting of late, unduly large pay increases by expiring authorities as unfair. It was unfair on the staff who were not so lucky and it was unfair on the ratepayers of the successor authority who had to pick up the bill.
Clause 49 is therefore intended to provide for a means of holding the ring between employees and between employees and ratepayers. It has been seen by some as a move to penalise staff. That is not the case. It can only be in the interests of staff as a whole that they should know that no authority anticipating its own demise is going to give irresponsible increases in pay and gradings to a favoured minority. That is what I argued on the previous amendment.
The clause expressly allows for nationally negotiated changes in pay and gradings. It is not intended in any way to interfere with the normal procedures in any authority for determining promotions, special responsibility allowances and the myriad other forms of payment made in the normal course of events. In short, we see no basis for intervening in the normal management responsibilities of the authorities in the metropolitan areas. We have, however, to take account of the findings of the Royal Commission and the views of the local authority associations in 1972. Both concurred in the opinion that irresponsible manipulation of pay and gradings can occur when authorities are facing abolition. I hope that this clause is not needed in practice—as, again, I have said—but the Government have a duty to ensure that equity is preserved. The clause provides for a fair and efficient machinery to do this and I beg to move that it stands part of the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Anyone who remembers the transfer of housing authority staff from the Greater London Council to the local boroughs comparatively recently will recall the great embarrassment and difficulties caused by the upgrading of salaries just before the move, and the local boroughs then receiving the new staff found the position quite impossible. That has shown in practice how important this clause is.
Lord Irving of Dartford: It is very late at night and I should like the opportunity of considering the implications of what the noble Earl has said, perhaps coming back again at Report stage.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Power to transfer staff]:
Lord Rochester had Lord Rochester had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 136AD:
[Printed earlier: 20/5/85; col. 143.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. There were two points about the noble Earl's reply that I noted specially. One was where he regretted that certain unions had not joined in consultations with the Government about some of the matters involved. I had some sympathy with him on that point. Certainly I should like to use what little influence I have in the matter to encourage such consultations.
The second matter is this. If I understood the noble Earl correctly, he was saying that in the matter of recruitment of employees by boroughs, first refusal would be given to people employed by the Greater London Council and the greater metropolitan councils, as the case may be. If I have understood the Minister correctly, that represents an advance on anything I have earlier heard in respect of that particular point. If I am right in my understanding, that much is to be welcomed.
I was less happy, as was the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about some of the other points made by the noble Earl. If I am in order in suggesting this to the Committee, I believe that the best course I can take is not formally to move this amendment now but to study what the noble Earl has said and to reserve my position, so that if after reading in Hansard all that has been said, I wish to pursue this matter, I may return with an amendment on similar lines at Report stage.
[Amendment No. 136AD not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments]:
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 136B:
Page 35, line 9, after ("1972") insert ("such regulations to be made by the Secretary of State and to provide for compensation giving benefits broadly comparable to, or greater than, those available prior to 2nd March 1984 to employees in any similar local authority affected by this Act").
The noble Lord said: I shall at this hour be as brief as I can.
Lord Denham: Before the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, continues, I may point out that we have

153
only a little time left. If the noble Lord can be very brief, we can possibly take this amendment now, but if he cannot be brief, perhaps we should leave this amendment until the next Committee day.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the noble Lord. In the light of what he has said, I believe that it would be wise to leave this amendment for now.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past midnight.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC TRUSTEE ADMINISTRATION
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC TRUSTEE ADMINISTRATION
  KILBRANDON INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS: GOVERNMENT POLICY
  KILBRANDON INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS: GOVERNMENT POLICY
  PORTUGUESE WORKERS: ACCESS TO EC LABOUR MARKET
  PORTUGUESE WORKERS: ACCESS TO EC LABOUR MARKET
  SRI LANKAN TAMIL IMMIGRANTS: GOVERNMENT POLICY
  SRI LANKAN TAMIL IMMIGRANTS: GOVERNMENT POLICY