Sitting of 28 November 1985

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

      LOTHIAN REGION (EDINBURGH WESTERN RELIEF ROAD) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
      Order for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time upon Wednesday 4 December.

      PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
      Order for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time upon Thursday 5 December.

    NOTICES OF PRESENTATION OF BILLS
      FRASERBURGH HARBOUR
      Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Fraserburgh Harbour; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 15.]
      FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (No. 2)
      Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Fraserburgh Harbour (No. 2); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
      FRASERBURGH HARBOUR (No.3)
      Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Fraserburgh Harbour (No.3); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Johnson Matthey Bank
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a public inquiry into the Johnson Matthey banking affair.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): No. The City of London police announced this morning that its investigations had discovered evidence of fraud upon JMB in 1981, and a fraud investigation group has accordingly been set up.
    Mr. Dalyell: Given this morning's developments, and given what the Bank of England, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General knew, why did it take Ministers from October 1984 until July 1985 to call in the fraud squad? Why were they so tardy?
    Mr. Stewart: It is not for Ministers to call in the fraud squad. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in July when he made the announcement that a preliminary police investigation was to take place. He said that there was not, strictly speaking, prima facie evidence of fraud, even at that stage, although deficiencies of documentation created sufficient suspicion.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that criticism of this wretched banking company is not confined to the Opposition Benches? Is he aware that many of us deeply deplore the great worry caused to many decent people working in the Johnson Matthey company as a whole? To preserve the good name of the City, will he ensure that the matter is pursued with the utmost rigour?
    Mr. Stewart: I believe that the police, and the fraud investigation group that is now in being, will pursue the matter with the utmost vigour, but I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to say what he has said.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Does the Minister believe that the public have the right to express some outrage at the fact that offences in the City rarely appear to result in anyone going to gaol, whereas people are often successfully prosecuted for minor offences in their own community?
    Mr. Stewart: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is an unfortunate fact that the standard of evidence required to obtain conviction in cases of financial fraud has to be very high. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry commented on that fact in a speech yesterday. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Lord Roskill has, with his committee, been charged with considering the conduct of fraud trials.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Instead of constantly demanding inquiries into these matters, should we not be concentrating on the need to give fraud investigators much more power to obtain the evidence to bring to book the people concerned? Will the Government ensure that such powers are introduced in the Financial Services Bill?
    Mr. Stewart: I note what my hon. Friend said. The Financial Services Bill is not a matter for the Treasury, but I am sure that note will be taken of what my hon. Friend said. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said yesterday that further powers would be contained in the Financial Services Bills to assist investigators.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all hon. Members will be pleased with today's announcement, especially if it leads to criminals being brought to book, and allows me to get on next week with investigating the Lloyd's scandal? Should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to the Dispatch Box to explain how he said in statements on 20 June and 17 July

    999
    this year that there was no prima facie evidence of fraud, yet parliamentary answers to me in the past two weeks have shown conclusively that the Attorney-General and the Bank of England could have advised him that those statements were untrue?
    Mr. Stewart: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's welcome for today's announcement. The statements in June and July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were absolutely true. Had prima facie evidence of fraud been available earlier, no doubt the whole process could have begun at that time.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend accept that calls for a public inquiry have always been inappropriate, because an inquiry would have precluded the institution of criminal proceedings? Will my hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that the City of London fraud squad has sufficient resources to investigate frauds of this kind properly?
    Mr. Stewart: The Government fully recognise that adequate resources are needed for the fraud investigation group. The proper way of investigating criminal offences is investigation through the police and not through a public inquiry—a point that was made clear not long ago by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
    Mr. Skinner: Should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer these questions? Is he evading giving these answers? He knows that full responsibility at the end of the day should fall on him because as far back as 23 October 1984 and 11 November 1984, when I specifically called for the fraud squad to come in, he and the Attorney-General were dodging giving the answers. Is it not a scandal that the parent company, Johnson Matthey plc, has been able today to announce a dividend of £700,000 for a few of its shareholders, but it refused to bear the burden of its errant child, Johnson Matthey Bankers? The parent company allowed the brat, Johnson Matthey Bankers, to make money and to become involved in fraud, yet it got off scot free. Is it not time that the Chancellor resigned?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was too long.
    Mr. Stewart: The Johnson Matthey group had to inject a large sum—£50 million—at the time of the rescue. It would not be in its present condition if it, in turn, had not had a very large injection of cash by its own major shareholder, Charter Consolidated.
    Mr. Skinner: That is right: Charter Consolidated.
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman may not like the answer, but it is necessary to put the record straight. As for the allegations against my right hon. Friend, it behoved anyone at any stage in this story to make available for investigation any available evidence. Random allegations by the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) do not amount to evidence.
    Mr. Cockeram: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us are concerned about the Johnson Matthey affair, especially about the handling of the matter by the Bank of England? However, it is an abuse of the privilege of the House for hon. Members to make insinuations in the House, whether about colleagues in the House or persons outside, when they have every opportunity to take their evidence to the appropriate authorities.
    Mr. Stewart: I hope that Opposition Members will note what my hon. Friend has said about their conduct.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government cannot be let off the hook as easily as that? Does not today's news underline the need for a full public inquiry, for which I called as far back as July and which the Prime Minister refused five days before the Chancellor's announcement of a fraud investigation? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what is at stake is not just the issue of fraud, but, more important, the gross incompetence of the Bank of England in its supervision of the Johnson Matthey Bank and gross negligence by that bank? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that a public inquiry is instituted into those aspects?
    Mr. Stewart: Had the hon. Lady been listening earlier, she would have heard me answer her point by saying that the appropriate method for investigating criminal offences in this country is a police investigation, not a public inquiry. The hon. Lady can make any allegations that she cares to make about the behaviour and conduct of the Bank of England, but there is no obligation upon anyone else to do so.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Tobacco Products (Taxation)
    Mr. Nicholas Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which factors he takes into account in calculating the extent to which public expenditure is to be funded by taxation on tobacco products.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): Many factors contribute to the Chancellor's judgment at Budget time in relation both to the overall amount to be raised in taxation and to the contribution to that of individual taxes, such as those on tobacco.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the dumping of German cigarettes on the British market reduces the amount of revenue that is available to the Exchequer and also brings cigarettes within the price range of young people, to which both the Government and the British industry say they are opposed? Will the Minister say what steps the Government intend to take to prevent this abuse, or tell the House what alternative proposals he has in mind for raising revenue other than by the tax on tobacco?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's latter point must be a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer at each Budget time. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, whether or not there is evidence of dumping is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am informed that there is no such evidence and that imported products are subject to the same excise duties.
    Mr. Sims: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to examine the statistics in the document entitled "The Big Kill", which was issued a couple of days ago by the British Medical Association? Does he agree that an increase in the duty on tobacco products, even if it produced a lower revenue for the Exchequer, would be money well spent on reducing disease and death and that it would reduce the £111 million spent each year by the National Health Service on dealing with smoking-related diseases?
    Mr. MacGregor: The health factor is one among several that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes into account at each Budget time. However, I think my hon. Friend knows that the consumption of cigarettes has declined during the last five years by about 20 per cent. I guess that it is the perception of consumers about the health risk that has caused a decline in consumption.

    Inland Revenue
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current estimated savings per year from computerising the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): Major computerisation projects should produce staff savings over the next three years of 350 by April 1986, a further 1,900 by April 1987 and another 2,200 by April 1988, making a total of 4,450.
    Mr. Thurnham: Can my hon. Friend say whether this programme is running to schedule and when we can expect completion in the north-west?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend will be delighted to know—as, I am sure, will the whole House—that the computerisation programme is running to time and to cost. It is a good illustration of the excellent co-operation between the public sector and ICL on this contract. The expectation is that the computerisation programme in the north-west will be completed in August 1987.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how the level of income tax threshold for the single man in the United Kingdom compares with equivalent thresholds in other developed countries.
    Mr. John Moore: The United Kingdom tax threshold for a single person is close to the average for European Community and OECD countries as a whole.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, but is it not a fact that in the United Kingdom people start to pay tax at a very much higher basic rate than is the case in other countries, such as the United States, where they begin at 11 per cent.? Does not the combination of high basic rates of tax and means-tested benefits result in a very high effective rate of tax on the low-paid, which results in increased unemployment? Will my hon. Friends therefore concentrate on cutting rates, rather than on raising thresholds, to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that thresholds are only part of the story. Relative earnings are a key factor. My hon. Friend is also right to draw our attention to the starting rate. Hon. Members will be interested to know that, among our main competitor countries, the United States and Japan have a starting rate of 11 per cent. and France starts at 10 per cent., while our starting rate is 30 per cent. That shows that there is a clear difference in this area. That is unlike our average position on thresholds, where we are the second highest in the OECD.
    Mr. Ashley: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not be preoccupied only with single men when he considers tax thresholds, and that he will also take account of the problems of women and married couples? They have grave problems as well, especially those who are on low pay, and therefore need more help than those in the upper brackets.
    Mr. Moore: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. He will be aware that I was asked specifically about single men. I know that he will be delighted with the Government's record over the past three years of raising the tax thresholds by 20 per cent.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that single men start paying tax at 30 per cent. as soon as they earn £42·40 a week? Does he also agree that, as the national average wage is now well over £170 a week, this threshold is derisory and that the first priority for any tax cuts must be an increase in the threshold?
    Mr. Moore: I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is listening with great care and will consider that point when drawing up the Budget for 1986. The point that my hon. Friend was seeking to make was that both thresholds and rates can be a deterrent to the work ethic.
    Mr. Blair: Before the Financial Secretary gets carried away by the prospect of tax cuts, will he admit that were it not for the sale of £5,000 million worth of assets and special assets, as well as other sales, last year alone, the Government would be talking not about cutting taxes but about raising them?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government's ability or inability to raise taxation is a reflection of their overall ability to run a successful economy.

    Economic Progress
    Mr. Dubsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which economic indicators confirm his assessment of the progress of the economy.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Inflation is currently 5·4 per cent. and will continue to fall. Growth of national output is likely to be 3½ per cent. this year and is forecast to reach a further 3 per cent. next year. The number of people in work has risen by some 600,000 last year and is expected to go on rising.
    Mr. Dubs: When will the Chancellor stop deceiving the British public about the economy? Does he not agree that, compared with 1979 when the Conservatives took over, output and employment are down, and the only thing that is up is unemployment?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten that during the earlier period of this Government's office there was the worst world recession since the 1930s. Since then, we have had the strongest recovery that the nation has had since the first oil shock. Living standards are at an all-time record level and so are manufacturing exports and productivity, national output and investment. Those are facts.
    Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to spell out to the House and the country the

    1003
    extent to which the excellent prospects for inflation and improving prospects for employment would be vulnerable to another take off of unit pay costs?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Among the threats to our economic success, one of the biggest is an excessive rise in unit labour costs. As it is, unit labour costs are rising more rapidly than those of our major competitors, some of which have had a slight fall in such costs.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the Chancellor seen the latest quarterly survey from the Manchester chamber of commerce and industry? Is he aware that it points out that there will be an especially sharp fall in manufactured exports as a result of the high exchange rate? The Manchester chamber of commerce and industry knows little about monetary matters and other such factors, but it does know something about the state of its members' order books. Will the Chancellor listen to what is happening to industry, rather than listening too closely, as he does, to what is happening in the City of London?
    Mr. Lawson: I listen closely to the voice of industry and to what the CBI has to say. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the most recent CBI survey showed a further growth in manufacturing exports and manufacturing output in the coming year.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that with the entry of the main player—the United States—the group of five's concerted action in the foreign exchange markets was apparently a success? Will he now agree to persuade the United States to lead the group of five again in concerted action, this time to bring down US dollar and other major currency interest rates?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the shift in the United States policy on intervention in the foreign currency markets enabled the Plaza accord in September to be effective. I assure my hon. Friend that the accord is still in being.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the real rate of growth, defined by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in his speech yesterday, and what he thinks of that real statement to the country?
    Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in that over the period that the Government have been in office the average rate of growth has been slightly less than it was during the time the Labour Government, in which he served, were in office. However, if one leaves out North sea oil, the rate of growth is the same. The rate of growth under this Government has been as great as that under the Labour Government, despite the fact that we have had to undergo the worst world recession since the 1930s. Since that time, we have had the strongest recovery at any time since the first oil shock.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: May I ask my right hon. Friend to ignore the advice that he has received from ex-Prime Ministers and others and to use all the funds that he can find to raise tax thresholds? Is he aware that it is scandalous that we are taking £5 from the single pensioner with an income of £70 per week and giving over £100 tax free to 16-year-olds who deliberately make themselves homeless?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of getting income tax down. The Government have done that and we intend to continue to do so when the opportunity arises. However, it is clear that if, by any mischance, there were to be a Labour Government, income tax would be increased very substantially.
    Mr. Hattersley: If the Chancellor is as concerned about wage costs as he said a moment ago, why did the Conservative party's most recent party political broadcast boast that during its six years in office wages had risen more quickly than prices?
    Mr. Lawson: Because they have—very substantially indeed. That is why.

    Black Economy
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the proportion of national income represented by the black economy.
    Mr. Colvinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue in personal taxation and value added tax is estimated to be lost through the black economy.
    Mr. Moore: It is not possible to form any reliable estimate of the size of the black economy or, therefore, of the consequential revenue loss in personal taxation as outside estimates of its size vary very widely from 2 per cent. to 16 per cent. of GDP.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be a sizeable black economy for as long as personal taxation remains as high as it is and the bureaucratic impediments remain a numerous as they are? What hope can he offer that taxation will soon come down to the levels that he referred to in answer to a previous question, enjoyed by other countries? What progress is being made in amending the sixth directive on VAT within the Community to raise thresholds for registration?
    Mr. Moore: I shall try to concentrate on one of the questions. I recognise, as does my hon. Friend, that the reasons for the black economy are complex and uncertain and involve many social factors, but I do not think that any hon. Member would deny that a history of high taxation and high levels of bureaucracy have obviously been factors in encouraging the black economy. The degree to which we can reduce the levels of taxation and remove the burden of regulation on business will play a part in reducing the black economy.
    Mr. Colvin: What can my hon. Friend do to remove some of the bureaucratic burdens, particularly in connection with VAT, which at present drive people into the black economy? Has he seen the survey published in The Times of 28 October, which shows not only the party political allegiance of those in the black economy, but that members of the Social Democratic and Liberal parties are among those most likely to be on the fiddle?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend will remember the White Paper entitled "Lifting the Burden", which I had the privilege of introducing in the House in July. He will know of the commitment of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and that of the Government to reducing the burdens.
    The second part of my hon. Friend's question is somewhat subjective in character. However, when one

    1005
    considers the black economy, it behoves all of us to remember that there are two sides to transactions—those who receive the payments and those who make the payments. We should be concerned with that aspect.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does the Minister regard fraud in the City as part of the black economy, or what colour is it?
    Mr. Moore: The Government regard all fraud, of whatever character, as completely unacceptable.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should more civil servants be involved in pursuing social security fraud than Inland Revenue fraud?
    Mr. Moore: The pursuit of fraud is not simply a reflection of the numbers involved. Despite reductions in the number of Inland Revenue staff over the past six years, there has been an increased commitment to Inland Revenue staff in that area. Specifically, 920 were committed to that work in November 1983. The key to the detection of fraud and evasion is better targeting and greater cost-effectiveness. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment, he will be happy to hear that the yield from investigating evasion went up from £111 million in 1979 to £371 million in 1983–84.
    Mr. Stern: Would my hon. Friend care to estimate the effect on the size of the black economy of the SDP proposal to increase the basic rate to 39p, if it were ever to be implemented?
    Mr. Moore: It is clear from an earlier response that as our starting rate is so much higher than that of our competitor countries, it must have a significant impact as a deterrent to honest declaration of income.
    Mr. Weetch: Does the Minister agree that a great deal of the black economy is in the building industry, especially building contracts of small value? Does he further agree that that is caused by the steep rate of VAT on home improvements and extensions? Does he accept that VAT of 15 per cent. on such things is a retrogressive imposition, especially when the construction industry is flat on the floor in so many such places?
    Mr. Moore: I cannot begin to believe that one could make such a subjective and negative judgment about the building industry. It is difficult to understand why, when the rate of VAT is exactly the same for that industry as for others, that should be supposed to encourage evasion.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciate that if those who employ a person did not have to pay income tax out of already taxed income on behalf of that employee, the number of people tempted into the black economy would be vastly reduced?
    Mr. Moore: I have the distinct impression that that is one of our first Budget submissions, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard it.

    Inflation
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he uses in forecasting the level of inflation.
    Mr. Lawson: The details of the inflation forecast are set out in the autumn statement.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Chancellor seen the report of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which shows that pensioners'
    1006
    cost of living is going up more than the retail prices index, thereby pushing down pensioners' buying power? Since the Government have allowed for only a 1 per cent.—1p in the pound—increase for pensioners next year, what action will he take to remedy that?
    Mr. Lawson: The increase that pensioners get in the next uprating will be geared precisely to the increase in the retail prices index. If that increase is low, the whole nation, particularly pensioners, should welcome it. Pensioners had an increase of 7 per cent. this month. The pensioner prices index at 5 per cent. is less than the retail prices index at 5·4 per cent.
    Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend direct the attention of Labour Members to a fact that they seem to have a curious amnesia about—that the forecast rate of inflation at 4 per cent. is exactly half the rate of inflation achieved in the best month of the best year of the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right to point to that contrast. The highest monthly rate of inflation during this Parliament is lower than the lowest monthly rate of inflation in the previous Labour Government. It is extraordinary that Labour Members should wish for a high rate of increase in the pension, because, as that is geared to the RPI, it could only mean a high rate of inflation. Is that what they want?
    Mr. Ashton: As this year profits are expected to increase by 28 per cent. and wages by only 7 or 8 per cent. and as since 1981 profits have gone up in total by 96 per cent. and wages by 46 per cent., why does the right hon. Gentleman continue to demand cuts in wages to keep down inflation?
    Hon. Members: What has that to do with the question?
    Mr. Lawson: As my right hon. and hon. Friends point out, that has little to do with the question. Nevertheless, I am happy to answer it if you, Mr. Speaker, are happy that I should do so.
    I welcome the recovery in profitability in industry, which had reached absymally low levels under the previous Labour Government. That recovery has allowed investment to go ahead under this Government, leading to more people in work.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the combination of low and falling inflation with steady growth and a good level of company profitability offers the most favourable circumstances for creating new jobs?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is correct. It is that combination that we have secured. It is a prize which has eluded previous Governments and which we intend to continue to secure by continuing with the policies on which we have embarked.
    Mr. Hattersley: May I get the Government's view, position and policy on wages and inflation clear? A moment ago the Chancellor endorsed the party-political boast that wage settlements were running ahead of inflation. Is he glad about that, and does he want it to continue for the rest of the Government's lifetime?
    Mr. Lawson: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has such difficulty in understanding elementary economic facts. Under this Government, growth in living standards generally has risen far more than it did under the previous

    1007
    Labour Government. However, I regret that too much has gone to those in work, as a result of which those out of work have increased in numbers. Therefore, greater restraint by employers in awarding wage increases would lead to more people being in work. However, the total rise in living standards overall is three or four times as great as it was under the previous Labour Government.

    Pound Sterling (Value)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the trade weighted value of the pound sterling in October 1985 compared with October 1979.
    Mr. Lawson: The average value of the sterling index in October 1985 was 80·4 compared with 88·0 in October 1979.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is that not a further indictment of the Government's incompetence and a denial of all the promises made in 1979? Does it not underline the categorical statement made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that the country is now in a parlous state and that, if the trend continues, the pound will soon become confetti?
    Mr. Lawson: I am glad to note the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters, but I have to tell him that the main reason for the change has been a sharp increase in the dollar against all currencies over that period which has not fully unwound, despite recent events. It would be kinder to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) if I did not comment on the economic policies during his tenure of office. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no chance under this Government of the pound becoming confetti money.
    Mr. Latham: Should we assume from the previous supplementary question that the Labour party wishes to push up the exchange rate and thereby bankrupt British exporters?
    Mr. Lawson: It is difficult to discern the Opposition's policy on the exchange rate. Half the time they want a higher exchange rate, and the other half they want a lower exchange rate. Half the time they complain about the borrowing requirement being too high, and the other half they complain about it being too low. It would be instructive if, at some stage, the Opposition cleared their mind and said what their policy was.

    Age Allowance
    Mr. Andrew Bowdenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to his Department of the increase in the age allowance for the last financial year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Moore: The increases announced in the 1985 Budget will cost about £160 million in a full year.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my hon. Friend accept that increases in the age allowance are an excellent way of helping millions of pensioners? Will he urge the Chancellor to ensure in next April's Budget that the age allowance is increased at least in line with personal allowances?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has a long and successful record of trying to ensure real increases for the elderly, especially pensioners, so he will be pleased to hear me
    1008
    remind the House that since 1978–79 we have increased the threshold for the elderly by 10 per cent. in real terms. The threshold for an elderly married couple is the highest in real terms since the second world war. That is in startling contrast to the position under the Labour Government, when the tax threshold for the elderly fell in real terms.

    Inflation
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of inflation.
    Mr. Lawson: During the 12 months to October 1985, the retail prices index increased by 5·4 per cent.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some pay increases in the private sector, which have been excessive and not linked to productivity, will not only increase inflation but will affect our efficiency and productivity and the drive for jobs?
    Mr. Lawson: I agree with my hon. Friend that if private employers had a firmer grip on their costs, especially wage costs, it would benefit their companies, the ecomony, and, above all, the creation of employment. I was glad to hear the CBI preach that message loud and clear.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not one of the most worrying aspects of inflation the fact that, according to the Government's figures, inflation is running at 5·4 per cent., yet interest rates remain in double figures? In some markets, 13 and 14 per cent. rates are obtainable. Is not the real inflation rate the difference between the Government's figure and real interest rates? That is the problem that the Government must handle. During their tenure of office that gap has been twice as large as it was under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Lawson: It is perfectly true that although the Government have succeeded in reducing inflation to a low rate, which is coming down even further, under the Labour Government inflation went up so high that real interest rates were negative. That is nothing to be proud of.
    Mr. Freeman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under SDP policies—the SDP is not represented in the Chamber this afternoon—the current rate of inflation would increase significantly? If we reflated, we would not reach a maximum rate of inflation of 7½ per cent., as the SDP forecasts, but a rate substantially greater than that.
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. The chief economic spokesman for the SDP said recently that an increase in inflation to 7½ per cent. would be a good idea. My hon. Friend is right to say that it would not stop there, but would go much higher. The only question that I cannot answer is: where are SDP Members today?
    Mr. Ron Brown: It is abundantly clear that the Government have not solved the inflation problem. Is the Chancellor aware that his 1979 pound is now worth 53p? He seems to believe in mini-Budgets, mini-wages and mini-money.
    Mr. Lawson: Inflation has not yet been reduced to zero, but I am glad to say that we are heading gradually in that direction.

    Nationalised Industries (Assets)
    Mr. Penhaligonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the individual nationalised industries and their respective assets that combine to produce the £90 billion referred to in his speech on the address, Official Report 13 November, column 585.
    Mr. MacGregor: The electricity supply, gas and water industries account for about four fifths of nationalised industry aggregate current cost net asset values. We shall continue to return businesses to the private sector in accordance with our stated and highly beneficial policy.
    Mr. Penhaligon: How much of the £90 billion does the Minister regard as saleable, and for how much?
    Mr. MacGregor: It has already been made clear in the autumn statement that over the next three years we estimate the proceeds of privatisation to be £4¾ billion each year. We have already announced plans for British Gas, British Airways and the British Airports Authority. It is clear that these policies are sensible and right, for a wide variety of reasons.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Favellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that far too little publicity is given to northern industrial towns, such as Stockport, where rates are kept down, free enterprise is encouraged and new industry, commerce and jobs are attracted, and that far too much publicity is given to northern citadels of Socialism, such as Liverpool, which do little else but stand around with arms outstretched for Government handouts?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I warmly congratulate Stockport on its splendid efforts and the magnificent cooperation between the metropolitan borough council, the chamber of commerce and all the organisations concerned with getting more small and more new business into the area. They have been very successful.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Prime Minister realise that our closest EEC partners and our friends in the Commonwealth supported a resolution at the United Nations calling for negotiations on the future of the Falklands? Does she accept that that was because Argentina made a major concession by dropping its insistence on discussions on sovereignty and instead substituted
    "all aspects of the future of the Falklands"?
    Why does the right hon. Lady not respond to that and agree to restore diplomatic relations with Argentina and enter into discussions about the future of the islands?
    The Prime Minister: Anyone who thinks that a motion that contains the phrase
    "negotiations on all aspects of the future of the Falklands"
    does not include sovereignty must be absolutely bonkers.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 November 1985.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will not seek, nor encourage anyone else, to set obstacles in the way of the Ulster Unionists who wish to resign their seats to provide an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to express their opinion on the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
    The Prime Minister: I can reassure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will follow the habit and custom of his predecessors and accede to any relevant request that he may receive.
    Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the Falklands war—
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has only just walked into the Chamber.
    Dr. Owen: The Prime Minister has only just walked in, I might add—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
    Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the war against the Argentines in the Falklands she used the United Nations charter as the reason why we resisted the aggression of the Argentines? Is she further aware that that same United Nations charter imposes an obligation on Britain, as on all other countries, to try to settle their disputes by the use of negotiations—
    Mr. Churchill: Surrender!
    Dr. Owen: Negotiation does not mean surrender. It is perfectly possible to enter into negotiations on all aspects while reserving our position on sovereignty.
    It is high time that the Prime Minister and the Government recognised the democratic Government in Argentina and accepted that the democratically elected President of Argentina has criticised the junta which preceeded him.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have tried to negotiate with the Argentines on other matters. Indeed, we have tried to restore normal commercial relations, but they have refused. Nevertheless, we have permitted imports into this country from Argentina. Thus, there is nothing about which to criticise this Government.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the UN charter. He will be aware that we tabled an amendment to the relevant motion before the General Assembly. That amendment was designed to uphold the right of self-determination of the people of the Falkland Islands. The UN turned down that amendment.
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to reflect on the sense of despair and outrage that

    1011
    will be felt by the ratepayers of Southwark when they learn that Southwark council has allowed rent arrears to rise to a record £23 million?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that such high arrears are absolutely inexcusable, especially in view of the advice recently given by the Audit Commission. I hope that councils with such large arrears will soon take steps to diminish them.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Gas Bill is published today—[Interruption.] Is it not now clear that the Prime Minister, having frittered away the bonus of North Sea oil, is about to do the same with a great national asset that has provided the British people with a steady income and excellent service for many years? Why is the Prime Minister still insisting on giving away the public good of all for the sake of the private profit of a few?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman has actually been able to read all of the Gas Bill today, I congratulate him. Privatisation is this Government's policy. The assets will be sold to those who wish to purchase them. In particular, the employees will have an excellent chance to purchase shares—a chance that they have never had under any previous Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that the sell-offs that she has undertaken and the one that she now proposes will not bring people's capitalism. Only institutions and rich individuals have made a substantial killing. If the right hon. Lady is so concerned about the general welfare, will she put the interests of 16 million gas users before the interests of a small number of shareholders, whatever their current status?
    The Prime Minister: Most industries that have been denationalised have done far better under privatisation, and I believe that this one will do so. I believe in employees having a chance to have a stake in their business. I know that the right hon. Gentleman cannot stand it.
    Sir Fergus Montgomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend have time to look at The Observer for last Sunday, and particularly at the reference to a secret report to the national executive of the Labour party which expressed deep gloom at Labour's prospects of winning the next general election? Is that not proof, if proof were needed, that the successes—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister may be asked questions only on matters for which she has responsibility.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows, if it needed showing, that even in the Labour party there are people, such as their policy director, who know that the Conservatives will win the next general election?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome any conversion to realism and any conversion to the knowledge that this Government's policies, which are keeping down inflation, creating jobs, standing up to strikes and to places such as Liverpool are producing the right results.
    Mr. McKelvey: Did the Prime Minister hear about the military style coup that took place in the House last night, when members of the Scottish Back-Bench committee were ousted—or at least the chairman, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was ousted—by those right hon. and hon. elements from south of the border who were brought in as Lobby fodder—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, that is not a matter for which the Prime Minister is responsible.
    Mr. McKelvey: In that case, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that such antics are regarded by Scottish voters as demonstrating a lack of democracy? Will the Government take steps to stop it?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that is more a matter for the Leader of the House than for me.
    Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the institutional investor who has put money into British Telecom and who may invest in British Gas is using the savings of millions of small people who depend on that investment for their pensions?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that we firmly believe in the privatisation programme. It brings benefits to employees and investors, and a good income to those who invest in such companies.
    Mr. Foot: Will the Prime Minister answer the question that she failed to answer on Tuesday: when will the effective cut in the real value of child benefit be restored?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows the increases that have taken place over the whole social security system. He must wait until a White Paper is published to see what any future plans contain.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: If the hoped for improvement in cross-border security does not result in good time from the Hillsborough agreement, will the Government allow the agreement to lapse and pursue friendly and close relations with the Irish Republic through diplomatic channels and the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council which my right hon. Friend did so much to set up?
    The Prime Minister: We earnestly hope that there will be an improvement in cross-border co-operation which will lead to an improvement in security in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend will understand why I say that this agreement must be given a chance to work.
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave some minutes ago.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Has the Prime Minister read the report in today's Daily Mail, which claims that the 4 million unemployed will be able to work on Sundays without loss of unemployment benefit if the Sunday trading laws are changed? Will she give an assurance that, if the laws are changed, she will not change the rules?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read that report, but I do not accept that there are 4 million unemployed—[Interruption.] That figure is constantly being put about, but it is not correct. I hope that the Sunday trading Bill, which has yet to be debated by the other place and this House, will be passed. However, matters concerning any

    1013
    changes to the laws affecting unemployment benefit are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Mr. Gregory: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the early-day motion on the import of dangerous toys? Will she consider the possibility of placing the onus on importers rather than retailers, so that there can be happiness rather than misery at Christmas?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Some time ago, warnings used to be issued about certain toys. They have not been issued recently because there was some criticism of them. As my hon. Friend knows, there are certain prohibition orders, but it is for both the importer and the person selling the toy to have regard for its safety.
    Mr. Blairasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Blair: Why is it that many months after these affairs took place the case concerning Johnson Matthey Bankers is only now being referred to the DPP? Nothing has been done about insider trading with regard to BT, and nothing has been done about the scandal of the Lloyd's insurance markets. Why does the Prime Minister not realise that, to be effective, the rule of law that applies to the inner cities must apply with equal vigour to the City?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that matters of fraud are for the police and that matters of prosecution are for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The day that politicians interfere with prosecutions, the rule of law will cease to be upheld.
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: Has my right hon. Friend read the speech made by our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science on Monday, in which he suggested that there was still a lack of consumer choice in state education? Does she agree that the solution that he proposed—that the market has a role to play in assisting consumers of education to make their choice—was pointed to in "No Turning Back"? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that that pamphlet contains some solutions, to which many Conservative Members look?
    The Prime Minister: Earlier this week I was asked about the pamphlet, and I have read it. My hon. Friend is aware that the House is to consider an Education Bill, which will strengthen the voice of parents in running schools. I share his anxiety about parents not having a sufficient choice of schools. That is a matter to which we must pay earnest attention.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Dockyard Services Bill.
There will be a debate on a motion on the EEC sugar regime and on starch production refunds. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 3 DECEMBER—Opposition Day (1st Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on the problems of the Northern region. Afterwards there will be a debate on the Silentnight dispute. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motions on the National Film Finance Corporation (Dissolution) Order and the National Film Finance Corporation (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Order.
WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the European Communities (Spanish and Portuguese Accession) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 5 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Education (Amendment) Bill.
Motion on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 1) Order.
FRIDAY 6 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 9 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on the fixed channel link on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Relevant European Documents
Debate on Monday 2 December

(a) 8687/85

Sugar Regime: quotas and levies

(b) 8781/85

Intervention price for raw sugar 1985–86

(c) 9178/85

Production refunds on sugar used in the chemical industry

(d) 11172/84

Starch production refunds

(e) 8688/85

Starch production refunds

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 5-xxx (1984–85), para 3.

(b) HC 5-xxx (1984–85), para 4.

(c) HC 5-xxx (1984–85), para 15.

(d) HC 5-xii (1984–85), para 1 and HC 5-xxx (1984–85), para 13.

(e) HC 5-xxx (1984–85), para 13.]

Mr. Kinnock: I see from next week's business that there is still no time allowed for a debate on the autumn statement. That means that the debate will be at least a week later than it was last year. The autumn statement is looking more like a Christmas statement but, unfortunately, without the eventide benevolence. Will the Leader of the House tell us exactly when we shall have that debate, and accept that further delays will begin to look rather suspicious?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government will produce the White Paper on the so-called social security review? It has now been expected for
1016
several weeks. Why has it been postponed? Is it because the Government are embarrassed by its contents, or because they are hoping to slip it in shortly before the Christmas recess?
Why are the Government limiting discussions on the motion on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order to three hours next Thursday? The House should have a proper opportunity to consider the codes, especially as the Government are apparently so reluctant to give us a full-day debate on law and order, which we have sought on previous occasions.
Finally, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister makes a statement to the House on her return from the Luxembourg summit next week, and that she does not make do with a press conference, as she did when she returned from Brussels last week?
Mr. Biffen: I assure the Leader of the Opposition, that there is nothing suspicious about the timing of the debate upon the autumn statement, but I join him in recognising the importance of that topic. I assure him that I shall make provision for that debate in my statement next week. The social services White Paper will be published shortly and will provide further evidence of the Government's style and determination to win through to a third period of office.
I hope that the debate on Thursday on the motion on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 1) Order has been set in the context of business generally on Thursday and will enable a reasonable debate to take place. We may reconsider the matter if the right hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise.
I am happy to confirm that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will report to the House on the European Community summit meeting which will take place in Luxembourg.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend find some way of marking the fact that it is now 50 years since the number of days lost in strikes and industrial activity in this country has been so low?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. and learned Friend has said. It is a most welcome fact to which he draws the attention of the House. I have my difficulties in finding time, but he may be able to organise a stunning early-day motion on the topic.
Mr. David Alton: Will the Leader of the House say when time may be found to discuss the establishment of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier envisaged in the Hillsborough agreement?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. It is an important point, but I can offer no prospect of time in the immediate future.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he has just given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)? Should not our remarkable strike-free record be debated so that the House may make up its mind about whether further measures are desirable?
Mr. Biffen: I have to make a balanced judgment in all these matters. I still believe that a compelling early-day motion may be the precursor for further pressure.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that a gross injustice is being

1017
done to a small group of vaccine-damaged children, and that nearly 200 hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed early-day motion No. 74?
[That this House believes that the proposed £20,000 payment to vaccine damaged children is grossly inadequate for a lifetime of severe disability; expresses its strong support for the immunisation scheme; but calls upon the Government to provide the few tragic and unwitting casualties of this state-sponsored scheme with compensation comparable to that given to industrially injured people, or that awarded by the courts to those similarly disabled.]
The motion calls for a state-sponsored compensation scheme. May we debate that matter next week?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and the considerable number of names attached to the early-day motion. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the point.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will my right hon. Friend delay the publication of the social security White Paper until the Government's personal taxation proposals are known, so as not to rule out the integration of the system, because separate dates for the two papers will effectively rule out that highly desirable option?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the point made by my hon. Friend, but I believe that the House would like to have the social services White Paper in its possession as soon as practicably possible.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House bring early-day motion No. 56 to the attention of the Minister for Overseas Development? It relates to a new deal for the Third world and has been supported by 105 hon. Members.
[That this House supports the call by the Transport and General Workers Union for a new deal for the Third World and for Her Majesty's Government to expand overseas aid to one per cent. of the gross national product, which should be directed into basic rural development for the benefit of the poorest people in the Third World, particularly the continent of Africa; further supports the basis of the World Conservation policy for combined conservation and development to provide for the needs of the people for food, fuel, timber and conserve wildlife, plants, forests and estuaries; calls for preferential trade arrangements for the Third World with an emphasis on agricultural development; and supports substantial increases in aid as called for by the United Nations to help the poorest of the poor.]
The motion suggests a constructive way of giving positive aid to the poorest people in the world.
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly accede to the request that I draw the contents of the early-day motion to the attention of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the subject was extensively debated but a while ago in the debate on the Queen's speech.
Mr. Tony Marlow: How will the House decide on which side of the fixed Channel link we should drive? Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister toss a coin with President Mitterrand?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend can make precisely that pertinent and headline-catching point in the debate.
Mr. Dick Douglas: The Leader of the House has announced the Second Reading debate on the Dockyard Services Bill. Will he ensure that all hon. Members, especially Conservatives, are given some intimation of the views of the Select Committee on Defence, particularly its second report, which again rejects the Government's preferred option? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the information in the Touche Ross report which is available to private contractors on a restricted basis is made available to all hon. Members? It is wrong that this report is circulating in board rooms where directors are bidding for vital public assets but is not available to hon. Members.
Mr. Biffen: I agree that the Select Committee's report is one of a body of evidence that the House would like to consider during the Second Reading debate. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's second point.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to notices of motion Nos 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40 which relate to changes in Select Committees which have been effectively blocked by the efforts of the Liberal party, for example in notice of motion No. 39. As this is having a damaging effect on the Select Committee on Agriculture, which will be affected by notice of motion No. 37, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the blocking activities of the Liberal party are effectively stopped so that other Select Committees are not damaged by the efforts of that minority party?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is right in implying that when the Standing Orders concerning membership of the Select Committees were drawn up it was never intended that they should be subject to the kind of tactics that have characterised the Liberal party's behaviour in recent weeks. If the Liberal party wishes to be identified with a constructive role in the work of the Select Committees, no doubt it will have second thoughts.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Will the Leader of the house consider delaying publication of the building societies Bill until publication of the consultative document on how building societies can turn themselves into companies in order to provide adequate time for public discussion? Has not the Government's recent experience of legislating for an organisation like the Trustee Savings Bank—to turn from one type of organisation to another—suggested that extreme caution in such legislation is necessary?
Mr. Biffen: I am advised that the Bill as introduced will make only general provisions for building societies to convert themselves into companies if their members approve. More detailed proposals will be brought forward at a later stage in the light of views expressed on the consultative paper. There should, therefore, be sufficient time for comments to be taken into account. I hope that this meets the hon. Lady's anxieties. If she is still not happy, perhaps we could consider the matter.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the large number of letters received by hon. Members from constituents who are opposed to the proposed legislation on shop hours, especially as it affects Sunday trading? Will he ensure that the two great Christian festivals of Christmas and Easter are exempted from that legislation?
Mr. Biffen: The legislation is now before another place and it will arrive here in due course. In the light of its condition when it reaches us, we can take our debates further and my hon. Friend's points can be argued.
Mr. John Ryman: What is the Government's attitude to a debate on the new independent colliery review procedure? Last Thursday the Leader of the House undertook to write to me about it; he did not do so. Two weeks ago he undertook to speak to the Secretary of State for Energy about it; he did not do so. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of misleading me and the House on an important topic which now requires urgent attention because three pits are due to make application by way of appeal through the independent colliery review procedure. When will the Government make a statement?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes it sound as though he were taking on the entire Government machine. He has such heroic qualities that I know he can do that easily enough. I have written to him today.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many Members of the United Kingdom Parliament who want to see the Anglo-Irish agreement succeed and who would like to see the early establishment of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier? Will my right hon. Friend be slightly more optimistic in promising time for the House to debate the issue, to enable us to resolve to establish an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier as soon as possible, and to give every support to the initiative taken by the Governments and Parliaments of the United Kingdom and of Ireland?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot go beyond the answer that I have already given, but I am fully conscious of the anxiety that the matter be expedited.
Mr. Bill Michie: I am sure that the Leader of the House has read early-day motion 138.
[That this House congratulates the trade unionists at the Forgemasters Atlas site, Sheffield, in their stand for continued full trade union recognition; rejects the 1920 style management that has been brought in to manage the company; notes that this follows promises by the Government, when setting up Phoenix 3, that the management would work through the trade union organisation at the Atlas Works; and regrets that the actions of management in sacking the convenor of shop stewards, who had 45 years service with the company including 30 years as chairman/convenor of the Shop Stewards Committee, and the break up of the Shop Stewards Committee have succeeded in bringing about the longest dispute for over 50 years at the company which was supported by over 66 per cent. of the workers in a secret ballot.]
A series of problems has been caused by the strike. The steel unions have always in the past had good relations with the management. In view of the Government's rationalisation of their programme on steel, and the effect that it has had on morale, with the breaking down of all trade union negotiating machinery, contrary to the agreements made by the Government on Phoenix 3, is the Leader of the House prepared to consider initiating a debate on the subject next week?
Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. and
1020
learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I realise that it is an industrial dispute which has very serious implications for the steel industry in Sheffield.
Mr. Michael Mates: Why has not my right hon. Friend reintroduced the rule giving Mr. Speaker power to discipline the length of Back-Bench Members' speeches during times of great stress in the House? Is he aware that yesterday not one Back-Bench speech was less than 10 minutes, and that that was also the case on the previous day? If hon. Members are not prepared to discipline themselves, should not we pass the matter back to Mr. Speaker so that those who take an interest and want to make a contribution are able to do so?
Mr. Biffen: I take my hon. Friend's point. There are several procedural recommendations which I hope to be able to bring before the House in the very near future.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Supreme Court of Military Appeal in Turkey is about to make a decision which will affect the fate of the Turkish peace prisoners? In view of the fact that the Turkish authorities listen carefully to the views of this country, will he join me in appealing for clemency for those men and women who have suffered far too long simply for desiring peace in the world?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes his very moving appeal in the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: When those hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland leave us for a temporary period—obviously we shall miss them—what does my right hon. Friend propose to do about legislation concerning Northern Ireland? Shall we have a rest from it until they come back? I have especially in mind orders that are taken late at night. Would it not be sensible to hold up such matters until those Members return to the House?
Mr. Biffen: The Government of the United Kingdom, including all its component parts, will proceed whether or not there are by-elections pending.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House consider letting the House know as soon as possible the dates of the Christmas recess? It is important, before the recess, to have a statement concerning mineworkers and the non-payment of national insurance contributions, as their benefits run out on 6 January, the day on which we might be coming back.
Mr. Biffen: May I say at once how much I admire the skill with which the hon. Gentleman is trying to finesse out of me a date that I do not yet know. I am most concerned, for the convenience of the House, that it should know, at the earliest opportunity, the dates of the recess, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Roy Galley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Tuesday's debate on the Northern region will be broadly defined and will include the affairs of Yorkshire and Humberside? If that is not the intention, will he pursue that possibility through the usual channels?
Mr. Biffen: The motion will be in the name of the Opposition and they will draw it. However, I have a suspicion that if one is standing in Tyne Bridge, Yorkshire is almost in the Garden of England.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When will the House have an opportunity to debate the Select Committee of Privileges report on the confidentiality of the proceedings of Select Committees and when will it also have an opportunity to debate the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests on the declaration and registration of interests by parliamentary lobbyists? Could those debates be held in the near future—perhaps on a full day that is split in two?
Mr. Biffen: On the hon. Gentleman's second question about the Select Committee's report on the declaration and registration of interests by parliamentary lobbyists, I have already said that I hope that a debate will be held in the near future. As for his first question, I have nothing to add to what I said last week.
Mr. David Madel: Will the announcement of the rate support grant for England be made before Christmas? When it is made will my right hon. Friend ensure that the maximum amount of time is made available between the announcement and the voting of the necessary moneys through Parliament?
Mr. Biffen: I am not in a position to answer my hon. Friend's question but I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I realise that it is a very important topic.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that since October, when the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) made his extraordinary allegations against individual hon. Members over their handling of immigration cases the House has been unable to debate the matter? As there have been many requests for a debate on the operation of the immigration laws and the fear and insecurity that faces many immigrant families, can the Leader of the House hold out any hope of an early debate?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has received a number of requests and that he is considering them. The discussions that were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be initiated in due course and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are brought to their attention. In the meantime, he might like to reflect upon the fact that Home Office questions will arise on Thursday of next week.
Mr. Roger Freeman: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 71 in my name and those of many of my hon. Friends:
[That this House condemns any policy of Government direction of the investment of the funds of occupational pension schemes into a national investment bank; and confirms support for the freedom of trustees of such funds to invest their assets in accordance with their interpretation of the best interests of their members.]
Will he call together the trustees of the House of Commons pension fund and ask them whether they agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) of interference with the assets of private sector pension funds?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that point to the attention of the chairman of the House of Commons pension fund.
Mr. Jim Craigen: As the Prime Minister has now accepted the extent to which teachers' salaries in Scotland have fallen behind since the Houghton report, when may we expect a Government statement about how they will resolve the two-year crisis that faces Scottish education?
Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to dilute the question by incorporating the rest of the United Kingdom, he may find that he has a chance to put forward his arguments during the Second Reading of the Education (Amendment) Bill on Thursday next.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate upon the constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? There seems to be confusion in the House about its extent, in particular over jury vetting, Sunday shopping and other matters. There is to be an Opposition debate next week on the northern regions of this country, but it will stop at the Scottish border. When we hold that debate can we be assured that the Scots will not be held responsible for the Anglo-Irish agreement?
Mr. Biffen: As ever, I shall give compassionate and considerate attention to what has been requested, but we have had a fairly emotionally exhausting two day's debate about the problems of Northern Ireland, and that should be enough on constitutional matters for the time being.
Mr. Greville Janner: As it has been many years since the Law Commission recommended reform of the law on insurance, and in particular the removal of the scandalous rules on material non-disclosure and exclusion clauses in insurance contracts, are the Government proposing legislation on the subject? If the Government still refuse to legislate, can we at least have a debate?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot go beyond what was revealed in the Queen's Speech, but perhaps my most helpful course would be to draw the point made by the hon. and learned Member to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a debate on the workings of the Church of England and in particular the recommendations of the review body of the Crown Appointments Commission concerning appointment of bishops, and on the Church Commissioners and their current roles? That body has £240 million invested in shops and major stores that will be operating on Sundays, which is something to which the General Synod of the Church of England is completely opposed.
Mr. Biffen: The Government's ambitions are fairly fully extended with the policy proposals and legislation that we now have. Although the suggested topic is a highly entertaining and important one I hope that it will arise from a private Member's Bill rather than from one from the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When will the Leader of the House agree to the request that we have now been making for several weeks for a debate about the fraudulent activities within the City of London so that we can debate the whole question of the Johnson Matthey Bank and the

1023
way it was abandoned by the parent company, Johnson Matthey plc? Could we not also discuss the question of how Mr. Peter Cameron-Webb and Mr. Peter Dix took away £38 million from Lloyds and how the Government managed to find £250 million to bail out the Export Credit Guarantee Department when it went bankrupt? Do we not need this debate quickly, because all this fraud and embezzlement and bribery has now spread to the National Coal Board?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in deploring fraudulent activity wherever it occurs in the City, and will join me in saying that that undermines what is otherwise a widespread respect and enthusiasm for the free enterprise system. Having taken him with me thus far, I hope that he will now reflect with me on why, if there is an enormous and overwhelming national scandal, it is not featured on the first Opposition day?
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Tuesday evening, some of us attempted to have a debate on a progressive EEC directive on parental leave, a debate that was destroyed by the loutish behaviour of Conservative Members? Those scenes have been described as some of the worst that hon. Members who have been here for 30 years can remember. Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Conservative Members to persuade them to control their behaviour? Does he agree that it is not enough to be enthusiastic about the free market principles of the Treaty of Rome, but it is also essential to be enthusiastic about those principles that improve the rights of workers?
Mr. Biffen: It sounds to have been good parliamentary spectator sport and I much regret that I was not here on Tuesday evening, particularly as it was on one of those happy occasions when the House was rejecting the imperial authority of Strasbourg and Brussels. However, if any word uttered, or any behaviour, wounded the more tender susceptibilities of the hon. Lady, I regret it.
Mr. William McKelvey: Is the Leader of the House aware that the question that I asked the Prime Minister was referred to as his responsibility? As he is the protector of the interests of Back Benchers and particularly of Scottish Conservative Back Benchers, who are an endangered species, will he look into the fashion in which the Scottish Back Bench Conservative spokesman is elected?
Mr. Biffen: I now understand more clearly the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman, which concerns the conduct of the Scottish Conservative Back-Bench committee. I have a vested interest in the committee. I know, from my years in opposition, that if an Englishman turned up on a Wednesday night he would get notice of the following week's business much earlier. As a result, pairing arrangements were much more satisfactory. I have no responsibility here, but I have total faith in the way in which the arrangements were conducted. I have no doubt that it has been much to the discomfiture of the hon. Gentleman, who was hoping for a much greater row.

Foreign Affairs Council
4 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, I will make a statement on the Foreign Affairs Council held in Brussels on 25 to 26 November at which I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade represented the United Kingdom.
The Council agreed a mandate for negotiations with Mediterranean partners on the adaptation of their cooperation and association agreements to take account of Spanish and Portuguese accession. This covers measures designed to ensure that traditional trade flows from Mediterranean partners are not adversely affected. Agreement was also reached on a mandate for negotiations with Cyprus on a customs union.
The Commission reported to the Council on its recent visit to Tokyo for discussions with the Japanese Government on the Community's trade relations with Japan.
The Council also discussed the Community's trade relations with the United States, including the renegotiation of the 1982 carbon steel export restraint arrangement. The United Kingdom reserved its position on the proposed arrangement to allow time to consider the information the Commission had received from the United States about access to the United States market for semi-finished products.
The Council discussed the Commission's proposals for the 1986 generalised scheme of preferences.
The Council discussed arrangements for the forthcoming European Council in Luxembourg on 2 and 3 December, and adopted reports on European union and People's Europe which will be noted by the European Council without discussion.
A further session of the intergovernmental conference on the future development of the EEC was held at the same time, at which there was discussion of ways to accelerate progress towards our key objectives on the internal market.
Ministers also considered how to update the treaty to take account of the Community's role in technology and the environment. A meeting with representatives of the European Parliament was devoted to considering ways in which the Parliament might be able to express its views more fully before decisions are taken by the Council.
Mr. George Robertson: I suppose that we should be grateful that we are getting this report at all, but there is so little in it that I do not know what we have to be grateful for. However, next Monday the Prime Minister will attend the European Council, the EC Heads of Government summit, where the main item will be not citrus fruits in the Mediterranean area, trade with Japan or the generalised scheme of preferences but the proposed changes to the treaty of Rome.
Seldom has a European summit considered matters of greater importance or of more significance for the future, yet precisely what have we been told by the Foreign Secretary about the proposals that will be discussed at the summit or about the British position? The answer is: much less than we could have read in today's newspapers and those accounts are just as grey and confused, and almost as uninformative as the Foreign Secretary's statement.

1025
What we heard from the Foreign Secretary was a series of platitudes with no substance and no detail. The House is still in the dark on those issues.
What will be the Government's stand on the essential issue at the summit of the virtual abolition of the national veto on European Community decisions? Are we prepared to settle for a veto on only the trivia of the European Community? Will we give the veto away with reckless generosity when hundreds of issues ranging from drugs to safety standards need to be discussed? Why are we being told nothing about it this afternoon?
Where do the Government stand on increased powers for the European Parliament, which figures so largely in the original ideas for the intergovernmental conference? Will we really be pressing for more power for the unelected European Commission rather than for the Council of elected ministers representing Governments? What is the Government's position on the new treaty on political co-operation? We have not heard a word about that. If such a treaty is adopted and a secretariat is set up, and we hear that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are enthusiasts of it, what will happen at the United Nations when the issue of the Falkland Islands arises and we find ourselves isolated by our European Community partners, yet again, in the block-headed and intransigent attitude that we continue to take in that world forum?
Is the Daily Express right in its speculation that a deal was done between Chancellor Kohl and the Prime Minister? Was there a deal to get together to veto the proposals? Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House precisely what the Government's attitude will be? Most important, why is there nothing from the Foreign Secretay or any other Minister about the deliberations on the European Community budget, which overhangs every other issue that is before the Community? yesterday, ministers, including a Minister from our Government, agreed to £800 million being cut from the European Parliament's proposed budget. Why are our Government again in the ignominious position of being in the last ditch of slashing the social and regional funds? They are the two European funds which might make a difference to the 15 million jobless people in the Community.
At the same time, the Government leave the extravagance of agricultural spending totally unscathed. Since those social and regional funds are now frozen, but the books still do not balance and the European Parliament is still discontented, how is the next crisis to be resolved? If it is ever resolved will it again make the poorest and the most deprived nations with the highest unemployment pay for the profligacy of farm spending within the Community?
We have heard a completely unacceptable statement from the Foreign Secretary telling the House, yet again, nothing about the British Government's position on crucial and central constitutional issues for Britain. We must hope that under examination we hear more than we know now.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having sustained the excitement that he generated when I did not make a statement so that it greets the statement that I have made today.
There will be an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury setting out the details of what took place at the Budget Council.
Mr. George Robertson: When?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It will be given this afternoon.
I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity on the points that he raised about the Council, with which I was dealing, or on the alleged deals with Chancellor Kohl, even when they are reported in the Daily Express. The substance of what is taking place is that the political co-operation topics will be under consideration at Luxembourg. They are being actively considered largely on the basis of proposals put forward by the United Kingdom for the Milan summit.
On the subject of the existing arrangements, we have never argued that the treaty of Rome is immutable or should remain forever unchanged. We have said that it is for our partners to put forward proposals, which may or may not be justified. The conclusion will depend on whether they are likely to carry forward our objectives, above all the improvement of the internal market. The considerations for the Parliament are on the basis that I mentioned in my statement, to see whether it is possible for the European Parliament proposals to be taken more fully into acount while leaving the decision-making power with the European Council. There are no significant proposals for changes in the powers of the Commission. With regard to the veto, there has been virtually no discussion of the Luxembourg compromise at any of the recent meetings, and there are no proposals for changes.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be able to press on with the work of political co-operation, which is a desirable objective? If achieved, it might serve to prevent the ill-considered actions of some of our allies, which was demonstrated at the United Nations yesterday on the Argentine proposals.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Improved arrangements for political co-operation in the Community should enable us to achieve common positions on political matters more frequently, but one must not deceive oneself in respect of the Falkland Islands, because the United States, for example, has voted against us for three consecutive years on that, and by no means all of our Commonwealth partners have taken the same view. That does not mean that our position is wrong—[Interruption.]—despite the encouragement that I am getting from Opposition Members. Our position reflects consistently the needs that the House would regard as important—first to seek improvements in our relations with the Government of Argentina, but secondly to do so on the basis that we uphold our commitment to the people of the Falkland Islands.
Sir Russell Johnston: The Foreign Secretary referred to the intergovernmental conference. Does he agree that it will be impossible to improve the establishment of the internal market unless we improve decision making, which means a diminution of the veto? Secondly, will the Government reconsider their opposition to expanding the European Parliament's role, which was highlighted yesterday in the Budget Council, when Britain was isolated in the vote?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must choose his arguments a little more consistently. I am not sure that the role of the Parliament in relation to the size of the budget as it has manifested itself so far is one of the strongest arguments for enlarging the powers of the Parliament. With regard to those powers, it is important

1027
to see whether there are ways that give an assurance that its views are taken as fully into account as possible without impeding the decision-taking capacity of the Community. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, if we are to make progress towards the internal market as fast as we should like, it makes perfectly good sense to consider improvements in that decision-making machinery, including the possible scope for majority voting.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on one of the best statements on Europe that we have had for a very long time, but with regard to the People's Europe proposals, do the Government favour the plan for a European national anthem or a European flag? Can he say when he thinks those things should be sung or waved? Did he give the Council the reason why Her Majesty's Government changed their practice and did not vote against the proposal to give an extra subsidy to provide cheap, top quality beef to the Soviet Union at 15p a pound when they have always voted against such proposals in the past?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's final point must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He will have the opportunity to ask him about that later. The one point about my hon. Friend's intervention that alarms me is the enthusiasm with which he welcomed my statement. I can assure him that there are no proposals for either anthems or flags before the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. James Lamond: In the talks that the Foreign Secretary had about trade and so on with the United States and other countries, did he have a moment over his aperitif or even over his brandy and cigars to bring up the question of the multi-fibre arrangement, because jobs in my constituency and elsewhere are dependent on a strong MFA being negotiated? Many hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on that. Employers and trade unions are up in arms because they believe that British civil servants are taking the lead in making sure that a liberal MFA is negotiated.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have to confess that I was not smoking a cigar and I drank no brandy, and even over the modest aperitif, the topic suggested by the hon. Gentleman did not arise for discussion. However, it is an important matter and the Community is considering what attitudes should be adopted towards the MFA in the wider context of the GATT arrangements. As always, it will have to try to achieve a position that balances the interest expressed so inconsistently by both sides of the House in a sensible protection for our own textile industry, together with a liberal opportunity for the textile industries in the Third world. The problem remains to be solved.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me about a matter that I raised with him last week, when he said that he had no recollection about possible negotiations affecting article 236 of the Treaty of Rome? I refer to proposed increases in the powers of the European Parliament vis-à-vis the Council, the Commission and the Parliament which could enhance the powers of the Parliament at the expense of Westminster. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also assure me that the possible southern blocking minority,
1028
with the accession of Portugal and Spain, will not result in an increase in the common agricultural policy, and an increase in the budgetary payments for this country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, one of the arguments advanced is that all the proposals made so far for enlarging the power of the Parliament do not involve the transfer of democratic power from any national Parliament to the European Parliament. That is an important argument, which must be looked at carefully. Our concern is to see that the powers of the European institutions are adjusted to enable them to work effectively and continue to take decisions in a sensible fashion. With regard to the CAP, unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that arrangements for the support of agriculture in virtually every democratic country in the world involve a constant battle with rising costs in an endeavour to meet the technologically expanding production. I do not believe that that task will become any more or less difficult as the result of the accession of Spain and Portugal.
Mr. David Winnick: Do we take it that at the meeting of the Foreign Ministers, what is happening in South Arfica was not touched on? Certainly the Foreign Secretary did not report on that and I would not have expected him to take the initiative of raising it at a Foreign Ministers' meeting. Is it not appropriate that the Foreign Ministers of the EEC should consider the issue at their meetings, bearing in mind the heavy economic investment by EEC countries in South Africa? Even on the issue of Mr. Nelson Mandela, will not the Foreign Ministers take the opportunity of making it clear that he should be immediately released from prison without any conditions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Foreign Ministers' meeting during the past few days was not in the context of political co-operation. They were meeting on the agenda set out on the Foreign Affairs Council together with the important agenda before the intergovernmental conference. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate to deal with the matter. It was not on the agenda. However, the position of the Community has been stated many times, making it clear that we look for the unconditional and early release of Mr. Nelson Mandela as an important contribution to the prospect of stability in southern Africa, so there was no need to repeat it yet again this week.
Mr. Eric Forth: In the context of proposals to increase the role of the European Parliament in Community decision making, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with many members of the European Parliament who have taken the view for some time that that Parliament already has at its disposal more than adequate powers to exercise its influence on Community decision making? Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered the possibility that, because of its political nature and make-up, the European Parliament tends to be somewhat unstable and volatile, and lacks continuity in the thrust of its decision making? Does he agree that if its role were enhanced we could be in a worse position in terms of Community decision taking than at present? Have those thoughts gone through my right hon. and learned Friend's mind. Will that affect our position in the outcome of the intergovernmental conference?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not suppose that any parliamentary institution in the world could claim that it

1029
was always free from instability and volatility. It is right to take account of the special nature of the European Parliament, composed as it will be of representatives of 12 nation states which are sometimes drawn by their attachment to their own country as much as by their attachment to the varying political groups that make it up because it is a young Parliament. Therefore, it is also important to make sure that any change in the treaty does not inhibit the effective working of the Community. Even so, it has been a subject of legitimate study whether one can look at the arrangements for the Parliament and its influence without impeding the work of the Community.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the European Parliament has repeatedly voted for increases in the regional and social funds and that the Council of Ministers has repeatedly put a red line through its proposals? Would not it be a good idea to give the European Parliament more power, particularly if its budget proposals were at the expense of agriculture? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if politicians are elected to a Parliament to do a job of work, they cannot be urged to run and be hobbled at the same time?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that I can accept the description in the last part of the hon. Lady's question, although I know that she has considerable experience of the working of that institution. The difficulty with that Parliament, as with all others, is that it has to operate within a framework of budgetary discipline and one cannot give it an unbridled licence to increase expenditure on the regional fund without requiring it to have regard to the wider needs of budget discipline as a whole.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Did the Council discuss what has recently been graphically described by the Leader of the House as the imperial diktat of Strasbourg and Brussels—that there should be erected at every external port of the EC a massive sign in however many languages saying, "Welcome to the European Community"? If it was discussed did my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Commission that he thought that it was a daft idea and did he reinforce the policy of Her Majesty's Government that we believe in a Europe of nation states rather than a European nation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fear that that proposal, which has attracted my hon. Friend's enthusiastic attention, has not been discussed in my presence at any of the European gatherings.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Foreign Secretary mentioned that discussions took place on increasing trade with Cyprus. How is that trade with Cyprus to be increased and did the Ministers discuss the continuing and appalling division of Cyprus and the presence of Turkish troops in the northern part of Cyprus? Is it appropriate for countries within the EC to trade, possibly illegally, with the Turkish federated state of northern Cyprus, and what steps do the Ministers propose to take to hasten Cypriot unification?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and our attitude towards trade with Cyprus has been directed towards ensuring that the benefits of EC arrangements are applied equally to both communities. Article 5 of the co-operation agreement states that the rules governing trade between the Community and Cyprus shall not give rise to discrimination between nationals of Cyprus.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend expand a little on a subject not mentioned in his statement but discussed at the Council—the protected steel order with America which is slightly in the air?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the context of the arrangement that I described, the United States proposed to impose unilateral quotas for Community semi-finished steel of 600,000 tonnes for 1986, including 200,000 tonnes reserved for supplies from the British Steel corporation to the Tuscaloosa steel company. There will be scope for additional exports under short supply provisions. The United States has also shown willingness to examine a case from companies concerned for increased access for BSC supplies to Tuscaloosa for 1987 and beyond. We shall decide whether to lift our reserve when we have had a chance to consider the implications of the latest information received.

Farmers (Exceptional Weather Aid)
4.24 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I announced on 8 October that the Government intended to provide some help for those livestock farmers who had been most seriously affected by the exceptionally bad weather conditions earlier this year and, in agreement with my agricultural colleagues, I am now in a position to announce the details.
The Government intend to make exceptional payments to farmers with suckler cows and breeding ewes in certain specified parts of the less-favoured areas, and to farmers with dairy cows in certain more limited areas.
For suckler cows and ewes, the rates of payment will be £14 and 35p per animal respectively and the areas concerned will be the less-favoured area in Scotland and throughout Northern Ireland; in England the less-favoured areas in Cumbria, Durham, Lancashire, Northumberland, north Yorkshire, excluding the north Yorkshire moors, west Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear; and in Wales the original less-favoured areas in the counties of Gwynedd, Dyfed, West Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan and parts of the counties of Gwent, Powys and Clwyd. For dairy cows, the rate of payment will be £4·50 per animal which will be paid to dairy farmers in Cumbria, including the areas outside the less-favoured areas, in England; in Scotland, in the three regions of Strathclyde, Central and Dumfries and Galloway; and in Northern Ireland.
Those payments will be made to farmers in respect of the number of suckler cows, breeding ewes and dairy cows that they expect to have on dates which will be specified. The farmers concerned are being invited to put in their claims quickly. The agriculture Departments will endeavour to deal with them as rapidly as possible and will hope to pay a significant proportion before Christmas.
My colleagues and I recognise that the farmers in these specified areas are not the only ones badly affected by this year's adverse weather, but we believe that we have, in broad terms, selected for assistance those areas and enterprises where the situation is the most serious. In all, these payments are estimated to amount to about £16·9 million.
I am also in a position to announce the determination for hill livestock compensatory allowances for 1986. The agriculture Departments have now completed the annual autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands and, in the light of that review, my colleagues and I are proposing, subject to parliamentary approval, to increase the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances with effect from 1 January 1986. In the old less-favoured areas, the allowances for suckler cows will be increased by £10 to £54·50, for ewes of mountain breeds by 50p to £6·75 and for other ewes by 25p to £4·50. In the new less-favoured areas the allowances for suckler cows will be increased by £5 to £27·25 and the allowances for ewes will be increased by 13p to £2·25.
In addition, we are proposing to increase the maximum payment per hectare from £60 to £62·48 in the original less-favoured areas, in accordance with the revised maximum specified in the new EC structures regulations and to make a corresponding increase, from £45 to £46·86 per hectare in the new less-favoured areas. We are also
1032
proposing to introduce some changes in the detailed rules of the scheme in the light of the new EC regulation, including a provision which will enable an HLCA applicant, subject to checks to prevent over-grazing, who afforests part of his land to take the afforested area into account for the purpose of calculating his allowances for up to 15 years.
We shall shortly be laying before Parliament a draft statutory instrument giving effect to those proposals, which are also being notified to the European Commission.
The additional HLCA payments are expected to cost £10·9 million in a full year and will represent an increase of some 11 per cent. on the existing annual HLCA payments which are currently running at about £98 million per year. That represents a significant increase in the Government's support for the hill and upland areas of the United Kingdom.
The combined cost of the weather relief measures and the increase in HLCA rates in the current financial year will be £25·3 million; £5·3 million of this will be found from savings in programmes within my responsibility and that of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Detailed changes to cash limits will be announced later. The remaining £20 million will be a charge on the reserve. Following an announcement in October that the Government were considering these matters, expenditure on such measures was in prospect and can therefore be met within the estimated outturn for the agriculture programmes in 1985–86. The cost in future years of the HLCA uprating will also be met within the totals for the agriculture programmes published in the Chancellor's autumn statement.
Because of the need to make payments to farmers urgently, expenditure for weather relief estimates at £16·9 million will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund pending approval of the necessary spring Supplementary Estimates.
I am pleased also to announce other changes which will help livestock farmers who are facing difficulties as a result of bad weather. In England and Wales, farmers in the areas where the special weather assistance will be payable will be exempted, until the end of March 1986, from the charges normally made by the advisory service for the analysis of hay and silage samples. In Scotland, the suspension of charging by the colleges will apply throughout the country.
Agreement has also been reached in Brussels on arrangements which will enable us to make early advance payments of sheep annual premium to less-favoured area farmers in respect of the current marketing year; and we shall hope to make most of those payments before Christmas. Advances will be paid to less-favoured area farmers who have 10 or more eligible sheep at the rate of £2·10 per ewe in Great Britain and £4·70 per ewe in Northern Ireland. This early payment will clearly be welcome to the farmers concerned.
In addition, we have been able to obtain the European Commission's agreement to some changes in the rules relating to the suckler cow premium scheme, which will help farmers who may find themselves in difficulties over maintaining their cow numbers throughout the winter because of fodder problems or abnormal losses. A separate announcement about this will be made shortly.
Mr. Brynmor John: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his ready co-operation in making the statement. I know that he regards it as detailed, and, having heard it, I realise that we shall have some difficulty in taking in all the figures. However, the principles behind the statement are of great importance not only to the House, but to the many farmers who are desperately anxious to discover how they will feed their livestock this winter after the appalling summer. With the current bad weather, and snow coming early this year, the statement does not come a moment too soon. Indeed, the Minister should have acted earlier.
Last week, I accused the right hon. Gentleman of promising aid by the end of October. I apologise, because it was his noble Friend Lord Gray who gave us to understand that the aid would be available in weeks rather than months. We now know the converse to be true. The difficulties caused by the delay are mentioned in the final paragraph of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He talked of
"farmers who may find themselves in difficulties over maintaining their cow numbers throughout the winter because of fodder problems".
We are content with the geography of the bad weather assistance for suckler cows and sheep, but the selection of areas for dairy cows seems somewhat bizarre. Large chunks of England, the highlands and islands of Scotland and the whole of Wales are excluded. What is the reason for that? Did not the National Farmers Union of Scotland say that the rate of £4·50 per dairy cow means that in an average herd the farmer can feed two cows during this winter?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the £4·50 would be paid on dates to be specified. Will the Minister give us as much information as possible about the dates on which he expects that the livestock will be counted? The worst affected farmers this summer have already had to sell many animals just to keep going. It is important to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.
The HLCA increase is welcome—any increase is welcome to farmers in such a predicament. However, while the addition of suckler cows restores the HLCAs in real terms, the sheep categories are not restored to the real value of the payments in 1980 and 1981 when they were introduced. There has been an erosion of about 17 to 20 per cent. in the HLCAs for hardy and less hardy ewes.
The right hon. Gentleman said that expenditure would be met out of the agricultural programmes. That means that no new money is being made available, but that £20 million will be found from the reserve and £5·3 million from the budgets of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Can the Minister tell us how that money will be divided up, where it is to be found, and why the Government have chosen to make this small economy on something that could not have been covenanted? Why does not all the money come from the contingencies fund?
At a time when the right hon. Gentleman asks the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service to be more commercial, who will pay for the costs arising from the suspension of the charges paid to ADAS for the analysis of hay and silage samples?
We welcome the announcement and consider that it will go some way towards reassuring farmers. However, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the delay, of
1034
which his Ministry is guilty, in responding to the exceptional weather, has led to much economic and structural hardship in the fanning community.
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has asked many questions and I shall do my best to respond. I am grateful for his kind remarks at the beginning of his comments.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should have acted earlier, but, as I told the House last week, it was difficult to assess the areas that were hardest hit. We took much advice as we wished to make the best assessment of the areas for assistance.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman believed that the arrangements for bad weather aid were satisfactory for sheep and cows, but he questioned the assistance for dairy cows and asked why those areas had been selected. The advisory service's advice was that the best formula was to put the money into the areas where the dairy industry had been hardest hit.
The hon. Member asked about the dates for applications. For hill cows and sheep, we would expect 1 January to apply and for dairy cows, 1 December.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's welcome of the announcement about HLCAs. I thought it was a little hot that he talked airily about restoring the figures in real terms to their 1980 level, although he acknowledged that some have been restored. That comes very strange from the spokesman for a party which, between 1976, when the present arrangements were introduced, and May 1979, when they were hustled out of office, increased the payment for mountain ewes by only 50p to £4·10. For all other ewes and suckler cows, the 1976 figures remained. It is a bit offside for him to criticise us for not being generous.
Sir Hector Monro: I thank my right hon. Friend—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—for this valuable announcement. I thank him for dealing with suckler cows and breeding ewes and for bringing in dairy stock, which will be especially important to farmers in Dumfries, Galloway and Ayrshire. I thank him also for the addition to the HLCA and for his suggestion that there might be some flexibility on cow numbers, bearing in mind the severe losses caused by staggers as well as the fact that many farmers had to sell their beasts when they could no longer afford to feed them. I am glad that my right hon. Friend will consider paying the amounts as quickly as possible. Will he try to make the forms as simple as possible to speed payment?
Mr. Jopling: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's generous remarks. I assure him that we intend to pay the funds as soon as we can. For that reason, w e shall try to keep the forms as simple as possible, remembering that we must ensure that the scheme is properly administered.
Mr. Donald Stewart: If we may assume that representations were made by the National Farmers Union in the highlands and islands and by the North of Scotland college of agriculture, can the Minister explain the incredible omission of those areas from the dairy cow assistance? Those areas were also hard hit by bad weather. No one argues that Strathclyde and the other regions mentioned do not deserve the funds, but why were the highlands and islands omitted?
Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I said that the farmers who will receive assistance were not

1035
the only ones who had to cope with appalling weather. However, we have had to try to discover those who were worst affected and to concentrate on areas where the excess rainfall was highest. I appreciate the fact that other farmers had difficulties, but I believe that the hardest-hit farmers are covered by my announcement.
Mr. David Maclean: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Conservative Members who have many fanning constituents, who contribute so much to Britain, will welcome his announcement not just of the increase in HLCAs, but of the exceptional weather payments, especially since the latter have been extended to dairy cows on lower land, not just in less-favoured areas. From the mass of figures that he produced today, can he tell the House what it means in cash terms to average farmers, of whom there are many in his constituency and in mine?
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's generous remarks. Some of the figures are difficult to apply to the average farmer, but perhaps I could illustrate it by saying that a farmer with 40 hill cows and 500 sheep would obtain about £700 extra through the bad weather package.
Mr. Thomas Torney: Would not the adverse weather conditions have provided an opportunity to use some of our massive stocks of cereals as animal fodder, even if we had to give it away to the farmers? Does the Minister agree that that would have been a great saving to British taxpayers, who at present pay a colossal sum just to store the grain, which many people say is completely useless?
Mr. Jopling: Perhaps it has slipped the hon. Gentleman's memory that some time ago we made available some grain in Northern Ireland to meet exactly the point that he raised. The main difficulty in the areas that I mentioned is not a shortage of grain or of high-energy diet foodstuffs, but a shortage of fodder, or high-fibre products such as hay and silage. Therefore, we were right not to operate in the way that he suggested, but to have done what we did.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: If the farmers of Banff and Buchan cannot have a loaf, I am sure that they will be happy to accept a crumb. Farmers in Scotland lost £150 million because of the severe weather, and a similar crisis exists now. However, I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement on the HLCAs. Will he try to make the HLCA and less-favoured area payments sooner rather than later, bearing in mind the fact that we are about to enter the worst period of weather in Scotland?
Mr. Jopling: I do not know by what my hon. Friend sets his standards and how he would define a loaf and a crumb. All that I can say is that £16·9 million for bad weather assistance and a £10·9 million addition to the HLCAs is, in the view of most reasonable people, much more than a crumb. In reply to my hon. Friend's specific question, I recognise that farmers have cash flow problems. To help with those, we are considering making advance HLCA payments to eligible farmers in Great Britain early in the new year, and we shall announce details of that as soon as possible.
Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the Minister's long overdue statement. Although it sounded complicated, does he agree that many of its provisions were what the farming unions demanded at the beginning, and that even the areas—with the notable omission of the highlands and islands—are those which were predicted? Is the delay partly attributable to the fact that the Minister lost his battle with the Treasury and obtained only about two thirds of the money that he sought, and is now seeking to dress it up by linking the statement with the annual hill farming review, which simply restores in real terms much-needed money to the HLCAs?
Perhaps I did not hear the Minister correctly, but I understood him to say that the dates at which the livestock will be counted are December this year and January next year. Does he agree that that will not properly compensate farmers who have had to sell cows and sheep to solve their cash flow problems, and are not they the people whom the measures should help?
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman must not indulge in wishful thinking and try to read into the arrangements what he hoped would happen. We were right to consider the problem of hill land and the difficulties caused by the overall profitability, which was part of the autumn review, with the effects of the appalling weather. It was right to assess those together, so that we could get the whole picture and to give us a little time to evaluate the weather later in the autumn before we made this announcement. When we had a broader picture, we could provide a better solution.
Mr. Hugh Brown: While recognising the many problems associated with the special schemes, may I ask the Minister how much weather relief is likely to go to Scotland, how many beneficiaries there will be, and what the average payment will be? In view of the Government's philosophy on selective assistance, will a means test be applied?
Mr. Jopling: I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman without notice how much will go to Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here and if the hon. Gentleman puts a question to my right hon. Friend, I am sure tht it will be answered.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend the Minister recounted a long list of areas, but I did not hear Cleveland mentioned. I wonder how wet it has to be in Cleveland before that area is added to Durham, Northumberland and all the other areas mentioned in the statement. Farmers in my constituency have suffered just as much as others and there is no reason why they should be overlooked merely because Cleveland is a small county.
Mr. Jopling: I admitted in my statement that there would be some hon. Members whose farmers have suffered weather difficulties and that my colleagues would claim that they should have assistance as well. I recognise the difficulty expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) but I believe that the Government have to face my hon. Friend's potential criticism in an endeavour to help those farmers who have been worst hit.
Mr. Ron Davies: Can the Minister clarify the policy to extend payments to areas that have been forested and can he say whether any acreage limits will

1037
apply to HLCA payments? Will he confirm that the new arrangements will mean that HLCA payments and forestry commission grants will apply to the same area?
Mr. Jopling: I cannot go further than the comments that I made in my earlier statement on afforestation. That is a technical matter and the hon. Gentleman should reread my statement and study the words that were very carefully chosen. He will then realise what their effect will be.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has been successful in giving £17 million of extra money to the home livestock industry because of the exceptionally bad weather. If there is exceptionally good weather next will it be the Minister's policy to reduce subsidies? Can he say whether the Government have any plans to extend this new, generous policy to the ice cream salesmen of Southend and to the landladies of Blackpool, who are suffering severe cash flow problems and have had a disastrous year because of the inclement weather?
Mr. Jopling: It crossed my mind that my hon. Friend might be in the House when I made my statement. I confess that I was bemused as to what form of question he might have put to me, if, instead of finding another seat in the House representing Scotland, he had been re-elected to the House in a constituency with many upland hill farmers.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister's answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about the date of eligibility for payment mean that farmers who have already had to dispose of stock will not receive compensation or assistance? If the Minister has difficulty in understanding the difference between a crumb and a loaf, he should consider the view of the National Farmers Union of Scotland that the loss caused by the bad weather amounted to about £200 million. The Minister's additional money for the industry is only one tenth of the sum for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Jopling: I do not think that I have ever pretended, and nor have farmers asked, that the assistance that we were able to offer in these circumstances would fully make up for the losses that have been suffered. Farmers recognise that the commercial business of farming is hazardous and depends much on the weather. All that the payment is intended to be is a contribution to those farmers in the most difficulty.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Minister explain to the House and to the taxpayer why those who expect to be helped by the taxpayer in adverse times should not equally be expected to repay that money to the taxpayer when times are more favourable?
Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will know that there is an annual review of the incomes of hill farmers. We conducted that inquiry at the end of October and the beginning of November in the normal and traditional way, and all matters are taken into account.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Minister accept that many of the Ayrshire farmers, whom I have the honour to represent—many of whom are not as well off as Southend ice cream salesmen—have lost at least a quantifiable £20 million? Ayrshire farmers will consider £16·9 million—
1038
which is, after all, only 10 days' expenditure in the Falkland Islands at the present rate—to be too little, too late.
Will the Minister admit that there will be cuts in his budget and in the budget of the Secretary of State for Scotland to pay for this aid?
It is all very well for the Minister to say that claims will be met quickly, but the red tape of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry is well known to the farmers. How will the Minister ensure that the bulk of the money is paid before December, before some of my constituents go bankrupt?
Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would realise that the Government are intending to make weather assistance payments as early as we can and we hope to pay a substantial amount of this aid before Christmas. He would have heard also that we are hoping to make advance payments on the hill land compensatory amounts.
If the hon. Gentleman considers the part of my statement in which I told the House that the Government are hoping to make early advances on the annual ewe payments of £2·10 per ewe, I think that he will realise that it is unfair to suggest that the Government are not fully aware of the cash flow problems that beset farmers. We are taking positive steps to remedy the problems in the three ways I have mentioned.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. Friend say what help will be provided by his statement for the primary producers, fodder producers—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about steel?"]—and hay producers who are producing an unsubsidised crop—unlike steel producers? Primary producers are facing the greatest cash flow problems of all.
Mr. Jopling: I suspect that my hon. Friend is speaking on behalf of his constituents in Stirling, and I am aware of their problems. As I have said, it has not been possible to satisfy all farmers. The Government have had to concentrate on the worst hit and I believe that under the terms of the statement, a good many farmers in Stirling will receive assistance.
Mr. William McKelvey: Is the Minister aware that the rainfall in Ayrshire was exceptional and was 250 per cent. above average? As a result, much of the harvest remained unharvested and that which was harvested resulted in the ground being badly cut up. Will the Minister consider, at this late stage, a one-off reseeding, drainage and liming grant?
Mr. Jopling: I think the Government have done well considering the difficulties we have faced. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I can make no promises that the Government will move in that direction.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, I represent the underprivileged housing schemes of Perthshire and Kinross-shire. I congratulate the Minister—this is meant to be a compliment—on the surprisingly generous, although disappointingly small, sum. I suggest that the Minister takes action to ensure that most of the weather fund goes to Scotland as that was the worst hit area. Much of that fund should be spent on transporting, and not necessarily paying for, the ground crops of hay and other commodities which were grown in England, upon which

1039
God smiled more kindly. I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that that is done before farmers find themselves caught in the appalling spiral of the sale of beasts at low prices with consequential and damaging effects on ploughing, seeding and agricultural machinery for years to come.
Mr. Jopling: I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend has not heard the loud pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who has been drawing our attention continually to the problems of farmers in his area. I am surprised, too, that my hon. and learned Friend should say that all the aid should be directed to Scotland. I believe that we have dealt with the problem fairly. Those who represent seats in Northern Ireland, for example, have been drawing our attention to the difficulties that farmers are facing in the Province.
Mr. John: I am authorised to say that all the hill farmers of Glasgow, Cathcart, the constituency which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) formerly represented, are ecstatic at the aid which the Government are making available.
It is important to know how the Departments will slice up the £5·3 million of programme savings between them, what programmes will be hit and how ADAS is to be compensated for forgoing the charges that it makes normally for the tests that it carries out.
Mr. Jopling: I think that it would be better to answer in detail the hon. Gentleman's question about the finding of the £5·3 million, and I am not able to do so now. For the current year, my ministerial colleagues and I will be contributing some modest savings. As I explained in my statement, £20 million of the costs of the package will be a charge on the reserves.

Tobacco-Related Diseases
5.2 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: 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 publication of the World Health Organisation's report on the incidence of death from lung cancer and other tobacco-related diseases in Scotland."
The matter is obviously specific, because the report states that Glasgow has the second highest incidence in the world of death from lung cancer and other tobacco-related diseases. It is followed closely and tragically by Dundee, Aberdeen and various other areas of Scotland. The issue is extremely specific.
The importance of the matter can hardly be over-emphasised. I do not want to detain you, Mr. Speaker, or the House in emphasising the importance of the issue, which must be self-evident to all who have read the report.
The urgency of the need to debate the matter is a topic on which I shall dwell for two minutes only. A debate is crucial, for the simple and tragic reason that the Greater Glasgow health board and four other area health boards in Scotland have been told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that, because they are refusing to become involved in the privatisation of the three ancillary services, they must reduce Health Service spending by 10 per cent. That will amount to £9 million for the Greater Glasgow health board.
The matter is urgent because it is a disgrace that the health of the people of Scotland should be used as a battering ram or bludgeon to force health boards into something that they do not want to do, which involves giving away their services to private companies whose services have been found wanting.
The report of the World Health Organisation makes serious statements on the incidence of death from lung cancer and other tobacco-related diseases in Scottish cities, and accordingly I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the findings of the report of the World Health Organisation on the incidence of death from lung cancer and other tobacco-related diseases in Scotland."
I appreciate fully the importance of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House and I have listened carefully to what he has said. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Privilege
5.5 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was reported recently in the Glasgow Herald that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) had complained to you as a matter of privilege about undue pressure being put on him when

1041
a Mr. Ian Lawson was threatening to stand against him unless he changed his view on Gartcosh. Can you tell us how you will communicate your decision?
Mr. Speaker: I do not communicate matters of that sort. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) raised the issue with me and I am dealing with it.
Ministerial Statements
5.6 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a clear trend for Opposition spokesmen, when dealing with ministerial statements, themselves to make statements, which are sometimes as long as, if not longer than the Minister's.
Mr. Robert Hughes: They are usually better as well.
Sir Russell Johnston: Indeed, as was the case this afternoon with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the Foreign Secretary. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you give this new development some consideration. Is there any way in which these Opposition spokesmen can be restrained?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter which the entire House understands, but there is no way in which the Chair can influence the length of replies to statements or speeches. The Chair will be unable to do so at least until the matter is brought before the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to clarify the statement that you have just made and the advice contained within it. If you feel unable to curb the length of questions and statements asked or made by those who occupy the official Opposition Front Bench, would you feel similarly unable to curb the length of statements or questions made or asked by the spokesman of other parties?
Mr. Speaker: There is the convention in the House relating to Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. There has always been discretion to allow slightly longer questions from members of the official Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was called when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was answering questions on the statement that he made. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that when there are questions on statements, Liberal Members and Social Democratic Members are always called. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any complaint.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 16 DECEMBER
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Trevor Skeet

Mr. Peter Thomas

Mr. Mark Hughes

BILL PRESENTED
  GAS
  Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Brittan, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. David Hunt, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment and functions of a Director General of Gas Supply and the establishment and functions of a Gas Users' Council; to abolish the privilege conferred on the British Gas Council by section 29 of the Gas Act 1972; to make new provision with respect to the supply of gas through pipes and certain related matters; to provide for the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the British Gas Corporation in a company nominated by the Secretary of State and the subsequent dissolution of that Corporation; to make provision with respect to, and to information furnished in connection with, agreements relating to the initial supply of gas won under the authority of a petroleum licence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]
Orders of the Day

  Housing (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.9 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The main objectives of the Bill are to extend further our successful right-to-buy policy, by bringing new categories of tenants into the right to buy for the first time, and by increasing discount for large numbers of tenants living in flats. The Bill also aims to improve and simplify the building control system, by cutting down on unnecessary bureaucracy. The measure is in tune with a number of key elements of the Government's programme: it extends individual rights and freedom, it encourages wider ownership of wealth and property, it promotes the privatisation of large local authority estates, and it aims to cut out red tape. I believe that in all these respects it meets the aspirations of tenants and of the public at large, and I trust that the House will give it support.
  Our housing policy has a number of important objectives. First, we have sought to provide a greater freedom of choice in housing matters. Secondly, we have encouraged a variety of housing provision and types of tenure. Thirdly, we have aimed to make more diverse and human the monolithic and unpopular council estates, which have long been a dispiriting feature of public housing in Scotland. With these objectives in mind, it would be appropriate if I were to comment on the campaign which, as hon. Members will know, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has launched today to publicise its case for additional investment in public sector stock.
  I agree that councils face problems in alleviating disrepair, condensation and dampness, for example, in their housing stock, but let us not get the problems out of perspective. Over 80 per cent. of all council stock has either been built within the past 15 years or has been rehabilitated or modernised.
  Recently, much was made of the English report which suggested that £18·8 billion was needed south of the border for housing renovation and repairs. I understand that COSLA suggests that the equivalent Scottish figure is £7 billion, or twice as much per house as in England. I believe that this COSLA figure is substantially exaggerated. We have recognised that much work needs to be done and have increased the authorities' capital allocations this year for work on their own stock by over £50 million, or nearly a quarter, but our policies are designed to tackle the problem in a sensible and properly programmed way. COSLA seems to believe that the answer to all problems is just to throw money at them.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister just as he was about to fling money at the problem. In view of his assertion that the COSLA estimate is excessive, why has he refused to grant a housing condition survey in Scotland, which would be an independent inquiry into the condition of houses in our country?
  Mr. Younger: My judgment is that a housing condition survey would cover a small sample and as such would provide no new information. We understand that there is a major problem to be tackled, but it should be tackled within our resources, and we shall do so in a proper, sensible and programmed manner. That is what I am trying to suggest today.
  Let us remember, however, that many of the difficulties with housing today result from the spend, spend, spend policy of the 1960s and 1970s. COSLA is silent about the benefits that can be, and are being, obtained by increasing people's freedom of choice through, for example, the right to buy. Our efforts have been focused on increasing people's opportunities to own their own homes. Surveys have shown that owner-occupation is far and away the preferred form of tenure for the majority of people.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Before the Minister plunges into the main part of his address, I wish to question him a little further about his remarks on the COSLA survey. He has given the impression that there is no need for a housing condition survey in Scotland because we all agree that there is a problem. However, only a few minutes earlier he made some slighting remarks about the need to get the problem into perspective and suggested that COSLA had greatly exaggerated the matter. There is a serious disagreement, and surely it would be sensible to have the housing condition survey so that we can know what the argument is about and the scale of the problem. Will the Minister comment on the fact that the COSLA document, which he is attacking, has been supported and signed by a selection of district councils which are under Conservative control?
  Mr. Younger: We must work out whether such a suggestion would achieve any benefit. A survey equivalent to that done south of the border would cover only 900 houses. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on whether a sample of 900 houses throughout Scotland—with a lot of effort put into drawing conclusions and extrapolating them from that survey—would tell us anything apart from what we already know? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would show that there were no problems and no need for the rehabilitation of housing?
  We know that there is a vast amount to be done. We do not need a new survey, on a minor basis, to tell us something which we already know. We ought to expend our energies on putting the maximum resources into solving the problems. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that. Although I can see the cosmetic advantage of announcing a housing condition survey, it would be quite pointless and a waste of time.
  Our right-to-buy policy has been a massive success. When we took office in 1979, under 35 per cent. of houses in Scotland were owner-occupied, and this figure had hardly changed from the previous decade. Now the number of households in Scotland which own their own home is over 40 per cent. This is a major change in a little over five years.
  The Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 gave many people their first opportunity of turning into reality their aspirations to own their own home. Since the Act came into force, almost 75,000 houses have been sold by district councils, the new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association. What is more, nearly 7,000 sales are at an earlier stage in the process. The hon. Member for
  1046
  Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will no doubt attempt to evade the issue by claiming that the right to buy is of interest only to a minority of tenants who have bought or who are in the process of buying. I believe that any hon. Member who makes that point has misjudged the situation and is out of touch with the feelings of tenants. The right-to-buy policy has been a success with tenants who have bought or are in the process of buying and with tenants who may have no immediate intention of buying but who nevertheless welcome the fact that they have the right to buy their home at a reasonable price in the future.
  Mrs. Anna McCurley: Is it not a tribute to the success of our housing policy in Scotland that the Opposition have radically altered their policy on the right to buy?
  Mr. Younger: I hope that my hon. Friend's assumption is right and that her optimistic hopes w ill be fulfilled, because that would be a tribute to our policy.
  One of the most important facts about sales is that they release resources for re-use by councils for the benefit of other tenants. This year, councils in Scotland will be able to spend more than £100 million from sales, which is money which would not otherwise be available. It is a massive injection of extra money to help authorities to deal with housing need.
  In line with our objective of extending opportunities for tenants to buy their homes, clause 1 will extend the right to buy to tenants of registered housing associations. These tenants have previously enjoyed security of tenure under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, as well as the other benefits of the tenants' charter. However, they have not been able to buy their homes except at the discretion of their landlord.
  For some time we have been unhappy about the way in which the housing association movement in general has been operating the voluntary sales policy. Up to March 1985, housing associations had sold only 83 homes to their tenants, 60 of them at a discount. This is a small proportion of the association's total general needs stock. The movement is now well established in Scotland, and the arguments which led us to exclude housing association tenants from the original 1980 legislation, which were that Scottish associations were less well developed than English associations and thus less able to divert Their energies to sales no longer carry such force, as the movement has gained in maturity and associations have acquired more stock.
  Housing associations have been given every opportunity to prove that a voluntary sales policy could work, but a number of associations have chosen to adopt policies which preclude sales while others, with positive sales policies, are unwilling to offer discount. We have therefore come to the conclusion that tenants of registered housing associations can no longer be denied the rights which are enjoyed by other public sector tenants in Scotland, and indeed by housing association tenants in England and Wales. It is especially relevant that housing association tenants in England and Wales have had the right to buy since 1980. Suggestions that the movement would be seriously weakened as a result have proved totally unfounded, and I do not see why the case should be any different in Scotland. Some 30,000 housing association tenants will stand to benefit from this new right.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations would contest what he has just said. Why has there been no consultation with that federation for about a year and a half?
  Mr. Younger: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. There has been frequent contact between my hon. Friends, myself and my Department with the housing association movement and the Housing Corporation. I do not know that they would all necessarily disagree with many of the things that I have said. I appreciate and understand the excellent work that housing associations have done. I am a great admirer of that movement, but feel sad that tenants in housing association properties are precluded from the right to buy their homes, which have been built substantially with public money, such as other tenants have. We should not lightly deny them that right.
  Clause 1 also extends security of tenure and the right to buy to tenants of regional councils, police authorities and fire authorities. I recognise that there are houses which those authorities need to retain for operational purposes, such as houses which are being held temporarily, pending development, or houses which they need to let to employees in connection with their work with the authority. Provision is made in the legislation to exclude houses of these types from the right to buy. When houses do not fall into these categories, we have again come to the view that it is difficult to defend not extending to tenants of regional councils the right to buy their homes on the same terms as other public sector tenants in Scotland, and indeed as tenants of comparable authorities south of the border. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have had representations, some of them strong, from constituents who feel greatly disadvantaged by being denied that right.
  Clause 2 provides that the discount to which a tenant is entitled under the right to buy will be increased by 10 per cent. when the dwellinghouse being purchased is a flat. The purchaser will be entitled to discount at a new minimum level of 42 per cent. after two years, rising to 70 per cent. after 30 years. We have been concerned that flats, which account for almost half the Scottish public sector stock, have been selling more slowly than other types of houses. When we undertook research into sales, it became clear that tenants of flats were being deterred from buying by the thought of expenses which might affect the purchase after sale, such as common repairs. It seemed to us fair that the sale price of flats should reflect these additional responsibilities—480,000 households stand to benefit from this change, if they decide to buy.
  Clause 3 provides that the rule under which discount may be restricted on newly built houses will be relaxed, by bringing forward the cut-off date from 15 May 1975 to 31 December 1978. I accept that landlords should not, in general, be required to sell houses under the right to buy at less than the outstanding debt. I believe, however, that the date can now be moved forward to the end of 1978 without breaching this principle. The advantages are that authorities will be spared the need to carry out complex financial calculations, knowing that, in the majority of cases, the outstanding debt would be likely to be less than the selling price, and an area of uncertainty is removed for tenants.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Can I take my right hon. Friend back to what he said about the difficulties
  1048
  concerning flats and the additional costs that tenants who become owner-occupiers will encounter for maintenance? I welcome the increased discounts, but does not the difficulty experienced in selling flats suggest that valuers are setting too high a price on them, as they are not taking account of those maintenance costs and future obligations?
  Mr. Younger: I see my hon. Friend's point. It is difficult for a layman, even a Secretary of State, to question the professional judgment of valuers. It would be rather easier in many respects if we could. It appears strange that valuations do not to some extent reflect the burdens on purchasers. I hope, however, that the proposed change in the Bill will go some way to right what some tenants regard as a potential liability which they are unwilling to risk.
  Clause 3 also provides that discount may be restricted when a house was modernised after the new cut-off date of 31 December 1978. We have received representations from a range of authorities in recent years that they should not be required to sell recently modernised houses at less than the debt outstanding on that work. There is evidence that some authorities were thinking twice about modernising houses which they believed might be sold. We concluded that it would be better for landlords and tenants alike if we made sensible provision for the treatment of modernisation costs in the legislation. I hope that tenants will accept that that is fair.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: There appears to be an anomaly in Scotland, because tenants of public authority housing cannot have their time as tenants taken into consideration when calculating discount, as happens in England. In England, tenants of the Inland Revenue, for example, can have that time taken into account. The Bill does not appear to remove that anomaly. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
  Mr. Younger: I had not met that point about the Inland Revenue. I shall be glad to consider it. No doubt it can be arranged in Committee if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is worth pursuing.
  Clauses 4 to 6 will give the Secretary of State new powers to intervene on behalf of tenants whose landlords might be putting difficulties in the way of purchase. The powers are necessary because some landlords seem ready to go to extreme lengths to frustrate and discourage potential purchasers. Most hon. Members will have had strong representation on that, too.
  Clause 4 will enable the Secretary of State to make directions requiring landlords not to include certain conditions in offers to sell when the Secretary of State is satisfied that such conditions would be unreasonable.
  Clause 5 will enable the Secretary of State to give financial and other assistance to purchasers involved in actual or prospective court proceedings against their landlord in connection with the right to buy.
  Clause 6 strengthens my existing powers to require landlords to provide information concerning right-to-buy sales. When this is necessary to help me intervene on behalf of tenants. I should perhaps mention here that the Bill also places a new requirement on landlords, under schedule 1, not to induce tenants to enter into agreements which purport to restrict that person's right to buy. This is directed at the type of agreement which Glasgow district council requires its tenants to sign, before houses are modernised, to the effect that the tenant will not exercise

  1049
  his right to buy for a period of years, or if he does seek to buy, will repay to the landlord a proportion of the modernisation costs. This also has caused a great deal of annoyance for potential buyers in Glasgow.
  Clause 7 will enable me to contribute towards the cost of schemes to make it easier for tenants to move to a house in a different authority's area. Clause 8 requires registered housing associations to make rules governing allocations. Clause 9 strengthens local authorities' lending powers.
  Clause 10 restores a ground for recovery of possession, where a landlord wishes to transfer the tenancy following the breakdown of a marriage or other relationship. The suggestion that it would be helpful to restore this ground came in a report from the Institute of Housing. We consulted widely on this proposal during the summer, in fulfilment of undertakings given to the House during the passage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. There was unanimous support for the proposal and we concluded that it would be appropriate to proceed.
  Clause 11 and schedule 1 amend and clarify further aspects of the right to buy and other rights of public sector tenants. Experience of operating the right to buy has suggested a number of ways in which the scheme might be amended to remove anomalies and make it easier for tenants to purchase, and to ease the administrative burden on landlords. A number of proposals are set out in schedule 1. In particular, the provisions governing qualifying time for the right to buy and for discount are clarified.
  In addition, the period within which a person who purchases his house under the right to buy is liable to repay all or a proportion of the discount received is reduced from five to three years. Suggestions that this will encourage tenants to take a quick profit on the purchase of their house are totally unfounded. Research has shown that the vast majority of tenants who buy their houses intend to continue living in them for a considerable period. Where tenants require to move, however, for job or other reasons, the present rules on repayment of discount represent an unnecessary barrier to mobility. We have concluded that it would now be reasonable, in the light of experience of operating the right to buy, that the rules should be relaxed.
  Clauses 12 and 13 will overcome certain difficulties being experienced by housing associations.
  Clause 18 amends the system of building control. Scotland's distinctive building control system has served us well over the years. Following a comprehensive review and wide public consultation, I concluded that the system, while basically sound, could benefit from the introduction of some measures designed to produce simpler and more efficient arrangements, in keeping with present-days needs. These were set out in my statement of intent on the future of building control in November last year.
  The clause also deals with changes which require primary legislation. Its provisions will allow exclusion from the full requirements of the building standards regulations of a range of small additions to buildings—for example, porches, car ports and lean-to greenhouses—where developers, householders and local authorities alike would benefit from a lighter hand on the controls.
  Similarly, the powers in the clause to introduce a measure of self-certification of design and a system of class warrants for standard building types will eliminate unnecessary administrative effort and generally speed up the process of obtaining a building warrant for the kind of
  1050
  work involved. The more flexible fee arrangements which I am seeking will, in particular, enable me to exempt from building control fees work carried out wholly for the benefit of disabled people, allowing the disabled in Scotland to enjoy a concession already available to them in England and Wales, and this will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: In relation to clause 18, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Government issued a consultative document on building regulations in 1982–83? May we have an assurance that the terms of clause 18 will not in any way presume to lay down the standards that the Government sought to lay down in that consultative document, for they represented appalling reductions in the sizes of rooms, kitchens and so on? If he will give that assurance, the whole of Scotland will be satisfied.
  Mr. Younger: I am glad that I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Space regulations and the like will be dealt with separately. They are not altered by or reflected in this measure.
  In different ways, these measures take further the process we have already started of cutting out bureaucracy, encouraging the privatisation of public assets and extending opportunities for home ownership. We are fast approaching the situation when, for the first time in many years, fewer than half of all homes in Scotland will be rented from the public sector. Our policies have led to a major transformation of the housing scene in one of the largest transfers of assets from state agencies to private individuals in modern times. The right to buy has undoubtedly been a major factor in this change.
  I come to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). I hope that during the debate we shall receive a clear statement about where the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the Opposition stand on this matter of the right to buy. I hope that he will give a clear and unequivocal statement that his party fully supports the right to buy—this important right for tenants. Such a statement would be welcomed by the vast majority of tenants in Scotland.
  I fear, however, that we may end the debate without having received such a statement, and I shall be disappointed if that proves to be the case. I hope that the hon. Member for Garscadden will not say that he is not opposed to sales in principle, but he believes that it should be left to the discretion of individual landlords to decide their positions. He cannot leave the debate today without making his position clear on that central point of the Bill.
  The public will not be misled by any fainthearted proposals that it should be left to landlords to make their own choices. After all, local authorities had a discretion to sell houses before we introduced the right to buy, and we know how few houses were sold and what tremendous efforts were made by many landlords and local authorities in those days to avoid selling to many tenants who desperately wanted the opportunity to buy.
  We require from the hon. Member for Garscadden a clear statement on whether the Labour party in Scotland is or is not in favour of the right to buy. Can tenants in Scotland look forward, should there ever be another Labour Government, to having the right to buy their homes? The hon. Gentleman is a straightforward person,

  1051
  who will have come to the debate with a voluminous brief. I hope that it contains a carefully drawn up set of words which will satisfy me, so that I shall know exactly where the Labour party stands on this matter.
  The Government have a real commitment to extending freedom of choice and to spreading wealth and ownership as widely as possible. The Bill will extend that process still further, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I must tell the Secretary of State that it has never been my political ambition to satisfy him, and I fear that he may yet be disappointed again, as he has so often been in his political career. He has had many bitter disappointments of late as Cabinet reshuffles have proceeded. However, I assure him that I shall discuss the Bill in depth, and he will welcome that serious and proper approach.
  I begin on a happier note. I wish to offer, even in his absence, my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on his election as chairman of the Conservative Scottish group. It is always good to see an hon. Member rising with the popular vote of his colleagues, and it is particularly touching when some of them travelled so far to support him. It is a tribute to his tact that he has decently absented himself from the field of triumph this evening. We shall watch him at work with interest in the months ahead.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman will read our comments about him in Hansard, so I must add that there is a note of caution on the Opposition Benches. The question being asked is whether the hon. Member for Tayside, North is doing too much. After all, he has great responsibility as his leader's personal representative in defence matters in Scotland. To take on that along with the chairmanship of the Conservative group must give rise to some anxiety. We can only wonder how so small a figure and so modest a frame can shoulder such daunting responsibilities.
  At the same time, we offer sympathy to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has momentarily left the Chamber. I feel sorry for him because we have all on occasions tasted electoral defeat. It must have been particularly wounding to discover himself being passed backwards and forwards between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House during this afternoon's proceedings as though he were an unwanted brown paper parcel. I hope that at some point he again finds a home in the Scottish Conservative party.
  Having properly recognised those dramatic happenings, I come to the Bill—the centerpiece, I understand, of the Government's legislative programme in Scotland, the height of their creative, imaginative endeavour in the Queen's Speech.
  In the recent reshuffle, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), was stripped of half his kingdom. For example, he lost home affairs, doubtless in the hope that better things would emerge from him by narrowing his area of responsibility. But sadly, the end product is this Bill, which seems to be nothing more than an apology and a non-event. Although we shall consider it very carefully in Committee, we cannot give it a very warm welcome.
  1052
  Schedule 1 alone would be the subject of a good Committee stage. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will be very active in that respect. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to answer my next question. It involves not a political point but merely a matter of machinery. As he knows, the amendments to the Housing Associations Bill 1985 form one of the important bases of the Bill. Clauses 12 to 15 are cast entirely in terms of amendments to that legislation. But, of course, that Bill has not yet been printed. It is not a case of it being hard to get hold of; it does not even exist. To find out what is in that legislation one has to go back to a Bill from the last session, Bill No. 198, and one has to look at column 1564 of the Lords Hansard for 30 October and translate the 16 amendments recorded there into Bill No. 198. I suppose that one might then have something that approximates to the measure that we are invited to amend. It is extremely inconvenient.
  Today, I tried to make inquiries through the Library as to whether the 1985 Act would be available soon, but no one seemed to know. Will the Minister give us a guarantee that the Committee stage will not start until the 1985 Act has become available? It is ludicrous to try to draft amendments or to try to understand the subtleties of some of the changes when we do not have the basic statute available in any form.
  I should like to know where the Bill comes from and why we are being lumbered with it. There have been all sorts of rumours about that, and I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) in his place. One of the rumours is that it is an essential part of the Edinburgh, West survival kit for the next election. That has a some plausibility to it. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman has pursued this issue enthusiastically. I understand that he has been under pressure from some of his constituents who might be thought to have an interest in the matter. He has been demonstrably unhappy, and on several occasions the corridors of Westminster have been filled with a persistent but well-bred bleat as he has expressed his distress. We are told that in Barnton people feel very strongly about these matters. Of course, if a Member of Parliament has a majority that has fallen to about 500, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that I introduced the Bill well before the election? Indeed, the leaders of every party voted on that Bill and expressed themselves clearly. But I introduced the Bill before the election and the electoral result had nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Dewar: It shakes one's faith in the ethical standards of public schools to hear the hon. Gentleman saying that with such immense and disingenuous authority. But, to be fair, there are other possible explanations, such as ideology and prejudice. The one that I favour is that the Bill has been introduced because the Government could not think of anything better to do. There was almost nothing for Scotland in the Gracious Speech, and I suppose that there had to be something. But the Secretary of State's explanation was not entirely convincing.
  We know that in the 1980 legislation no right to buy was offered to housing association tenants. In 1984 there was quite important amending legislation. In that year there was a specific Bill to amend the Tenants' Rights,

  1053
  Etc. (Scotland) Act. Again, there was no extension to housing association tenants. Indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West moved an amendment that was resisted by the Minister in quite interesting terms. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, said:
  "So far, there has been no clear indication of extensive interest by tenants in purchasing their houses, except in the case of the Link housing association, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West referred."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee: 8 December 1983, c. 402.]
  Therefore, at the end of 1983 the Minister conceded that there was no interest outside that little group of keen financial people in Barnton. There was no discernible interest in sitting tenants buying their housing association properties. We must ask whether there has been any evidence since then of a great growth of interest. I suspect that the answer is no.
  Most of us who have read the briefings sent to us know that on 27 August 1984—quite recent history—the Secretary of State opened Glasgow's 10,000th rehabilitated house in, I believe, Shettleston. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) will know, it had a nameplate on the door saying "John Wheatley". But the ironic comment that that embodied seemed to pass the Secretary of State by. I doubt whether he will be remembered as a great architect of enlightened housing legislation, but he opened that house, and in the following press conference he made one point perfectly clear. According to the housing journal, he "reaffirmed his belief' in the voluntary code and went on to say that there was
  "no need to introduce legislation."
  Thus, at the end of 1983 Ministers conceded that there was no interest in the measure. In August 1984 the Secretary of State made it crystal clear that he had no intention of pursuing the legislative path and totally backed the voluntary code. No real explanation has been offered for this volte face. In the Bill, we have a statement of bold Conservative policy, but that is not enough. We are entitled to examine the practical consequences of what is being suggested.
  If it is not thought unfair, I believe that we should take this legislation seriously today to see what will happen if it is implemented. Consequently, I shall ask a series of constructive questions which the Under-Secretary of State will no doubt deal with at the end of the debate. I understand that the discount for housing association tenants will be based on their public sector tenancy prior to becoming housing association tenants, or their tenancy of the housing association property which they want to buy subsequent to the passing of this Bill.
  Thus, in a year's time, when the legislation comes into operation, we may find that Mr. X, who has spent five years as a district council tenant and who has been nominated for a housing association flat, has moved in. He will immediately become eligible for a discount of about 50 per cent. if he wants to buy. Mr. Y, who lives in the same close, may have lived in and paid rent for his flat for 20 years before any improvement to it. If he then becomes a housing association tenant it may be thought that he is morally in a very strong position. But at that point he will be eligible for no discount whatever, because he will have no previous history of being a public sector tenant. What is the justice or logic in that? But it is certainly a consequence of this legislaton. One man would have a
  1054
  substantial right to discount and the other would have none, and would be starting from scratch. That is a rather perverse result, to say the least.
  The confusion grows. Once the right to discount has been earned by Mr. Y, just as it exists, rather surprisingly, for Mr. X, he will want to know what it amounts to. I understand that the fixed price would be not less than the outstanding debt or the market value, whichever is the less, if the house has been improved or rehabilitated after 31 December 1978. That means the vast majority of housing association improved property in Scotland. Thus the discount cannot take the purchase price to the tenant below the outstanding existing debt. That is extraordinary, because in practice it means that the debt will often be above the market price and so there will be no discount.
  Therefore, we are offering a rather peculiarly weighted discount package, which will not apply to many tenants. It will help the constituents of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West because their houses were built long before 1978. However, the vast majority of ordinary tenants will say, "I am entitled to a 50 per cent. discount," but will find that they are entitled to no such thing. Even if there were a gap between the market valuation and the book debt, it would almost certainly be only small, which would squeeze the discount.
  Let us assume that a flat is valued at £20,000, and the tenant has a discount of 50 per cent. He will think mat he can buy the flat for £10,000—I have looked into the matter and these are typical and plausible figures—but there may be a book debt of £18,000, in which case his discount will be limited to £2,000. The way in which the discount becomes available is arbitrary. Even if one is eligible for a discount, one may find that it is squeezed or eliminated by the chance factors of the unit cost of the flat. Discount will be arbitrary and confusing.
  Will the Under-Secretary clarify whether the outstanding debt includes acquisition costs? They are mentioned specifically in section 1(a) of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, but have disappeared from clause 3 (b): which refers to housing associations.
  No one will understand exactly how all those strange results happen. A person may have the same tenancy as his neighbour, the same valuation on his flat, and be entitled to the same discount, yet he may end up with a different end price. The Minister finds that funny, but he will have the greatest difficulty in explaining it. The end price will be different because the unit cost of improvement, which must be allocated on each dwelling unit, will vary from flat to flat. Therefore, even if one surmounts all the intermediate hurdles, the purchase price may vary because of the variation in the outstanding debt that remains over the property. Who will be able to explain or comprehend that? What justice and logic is there in the proposals?
  One of the unpleasant results—I am moving towards a matter of opinion—will be that the most profitable deal for sitting tenants will be in the most desirable areas: for example, in Partick in Glasgow. The housing association there has done a tremendous job preserving old tenement property in areas of the city by Dumbarton road. Valuations in such areas will be high. Thus, there will be a bigger gap for the discount between the valuation and the existing debt on the property. In other words, it will be an advantage to have been a tenant in a better area rather than, for example, in Shettleston, where the debt will often be more than the valuation.

  1055
  Barnton is an extreme case. I understand that the Link development went up in the 1960s, and that it is a pleasant middle-class residential development, where housing units are valued at £40,000 or £50,000. There will be no problem about any existing debt on these properties because they were built before the 1978 deadline, and a small number of extremely lucky people will make a substantial killing. I am not sure that that is the sort of social balance that should be prayed in aid to justify the policy. What is the justice and logic in that?
  Can the Minister say a word or two about charitable status? He will have expected that question and prepared an answer for it, which I welcome. In England, housing associations with charitable status are opted out of the right to buy. If one is a sitting tenant in those circumstances, one calculates what would have been available to one in discount and is given it in the hand as a lump sum subject to certain limits and rules. One vacates the property and buys in the private sector. That is an extraordinary arrangement. Obviously, the advice to Ministers regarding England was that if the assets were alienated for a consideration, and if there was a discount arrangement of the normal sort, housing associations would forfeit their charitable status, and with it a great deal of room for operation.
  I do not know whether the Minister has a guarantee that that will not happen in Scotland. Section 360 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and the attendant legislation apply north and south of the border. Will the Minister assure us that there is a guarantee from the Inland Revenue that in Scotland the arrangements for charitable housing associations, which have been avoided in such a complicated way in England, will not affect their charitable status? That is not a frivolous question. The Minister will have seen the letter from Castle Rock housing association, and the representations of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations on that point, and we are entitled to an answer.
  Many of my hon. Friends will take the point, as I hope Conservative Members will, that the whole scheme does not seem to have been designed for Scotland, although it is a Scottish Office Bill. I am thinking particularly of the arrangements for flats. The starting point of the discount is 32 per cent., and will now increase to 42 per cent., and the maximum climbs to 70 per cent. Ministers have spent many a weary hour in the House denying that the more desirable cottage-style, detached and terraced properties were being sold, but the arrangements are a tacit plea of guilty to that charge. That is undoubtedly why the arrangements have been introduced.
  Presumably the arrangements have been introduced to encourage tenants in multi-storey flats, and depressing five-storey tenements, which were built in the 1950s and 1960s in Glasgow, to buy their flats. It is a special incentive scheme—a sort of legislative equivalent of an autumn sale to shift unattractive stock. However, the definition of a flat means that the arrangement will inevitably apply to the sandstone inner-city tenements, where many of the housing associations operate. Those flats are not hard to sell. They are attractive, popular, and desirable, and will be available because under the Bill, the Housing Corporation becomes a lender of last resort. There is a danger that those flats, in conjunction with the
  1056
  fair rents policy, which puts them a good deal above the normal public sector rent pattern, will go like hot cakes in areas like Partick and Queens Cross.
  If we must offer a special heavy premium to encourage the sale of what the Government now admit to be unpopular properties, it is daft to have the premium in an area where that argument does not apply. The position is even worse—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and I feel strongly about this—because if one considers the horizontal definition—I suppose that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) knows all about horizontal definitions—it is clear that for the purpose of the Bill a flat will include four-in-a-block-type housing in areas such as Knightswood or Mosspark. That is the most popular of all types of council housing in terms of the right to buy.
  Such flats are selling well. In Knightswood we have sold more than 800 of them. Yet they will be classed as flats under the legislation, and houses which are not particularly popular will not be eligible for the premium, the 70 per cent. maximum or the additional early discount. It is ludicrous that the most popular parts of public sector housing stock in the west of Scotland, and probably the whole of Scotland, will be favoured in that way. There is no logic in it. The proposal has not been thought out.
  In Committee we shall seek safeguards to correct that. We may seek to restrict the premium to post-1919 tenements, to insist that the building must be of three storeys to overcome the four-in-a-block problem, or to suggest that community-based areas should be excluded. We shall try those formulas on the Minister, and I hope that he will respond, not necessarily by adopting one of them, but by finding some solution to that real and pressing problem.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to make a vertical proposition? He started his speech quite well—[Interruption.] I wish Opposition Members would wait for the end of my sentence—for him. He demonstrated the unfairness and absurdities, which we can all do by comparing different classifications. He is ending his speech with even more absurdities and unfairnesses by saying that the provision will depend upon the age of the house, the number of storeys and the size of the bathroom. He is falling into the trap which he invented to give himself something to say, which is little.
  Mr. Dewar: I am doing something which should be done more often. I am discussing the Bill and pointing out the consequences of a measure which no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his blind loyalty—that is not always his dominating fault—may support in the Lobby.
  The Secretary of State should accept that no one with practical experience in the housing association movement wants this measure. We can go to the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Glasgow forum of housing associations, individual housing associations, Shelter or anyone who has worked in the movement and we shall find no one who wants this legislation. There is a universal thumbs down for it.
  The Minister managed, slightly disingenuously, to suggest that there is support for the measure. Can he produce evidence of representations in favour of the Bill from any housing association in Scotland? He will be hard-pressed to do so.

  1057
  The reasons why housing associations do not want the Bill are easily outlined. First, it will make the management of their stock extremely difficult when it comes to holding empty property for decant purposes and when the rolling rehabilitation programme unrolls the sudden arrival of an application to buy can be awkward. If they sell a significant part of their stock it will be difficult for the small associations to maintain a financial base which will allow them to maintain their professional staff. There is the problem of conveyancing costs. I could go on and on. They do not like the Bill because they think that it will make life and the efficient management of their properties much more difficult.
  The Bill has serious implications for the future of tenements. Owner-occupiers will appear scattered throughout the blocks. The classic Glasgow tenement—I say this seriously as someone who has lived in them for a large part of his life—costs an enormous sum to repair and those costs could not be shouldered by the individual owner-occupier. Because they opted out in the past, the whole scheme of repairs foundered and we had a downward spiral. The position became worse and worse and ultimately the tenements fell into such a state of disrepair that a section 24 order had to be slapped on them. Tenements are not wally closes in Hyndland. They are not something owned by the family of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West in the royal mile. They are difficult and expensive buildings to maintain. I fear that as a consequence of this Bill we shall again put at risk housing stock which is undoubtedly useful and popular and which had been saved by the housing associations.
  I shall not say a great deal about the rural housing associations. The point will no doubt be raised in Committee. Oban and the Isle of Skye housing association is about the newest association to operate. It is possible that there will be sales and that property will move in sharp order into the holiday home market. That worries people who work in the housing association movement.
  Widespread sales will, by definition, impoverish private sector rented accommodation. In the 1979 Conservative party manifesto, there was a good deal of healthy—I say that because it made a fair point—rhetoric about the need to have a significant private rented sector. That sector has been squeezed year after year almost to the point of disappearance. It has been given a lifeline by the housing associations, but it is one that may well be threatened by this measure. That is something about which Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers should think seriously.
  There is a great deal more in the Bill that I cannot cover. I like some of it. Clause 10 is an honest attempt to deal with a genuine problem which occurs on the break-up of a marriage when the home has to be reallocated. Clause 13 is a common-sense measure which allows a committee member of a housing association to rent or buy from the housing association. The present split is far too rigid and leads to genuine hardship and frustration. There are other provisions that I do not like. I see no point in reducing the taper for the repayment of discount from five to three years.
  My overall impression is that the Bill is of almost stunning irrelevance when seen in the context of the Scottish housing crisis. Cuts in revenue support have made the housing support grant a fond and distant memory for many housing associations. Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, capital budgets have been inadequate and
  1058
  are often shakily based on flogging assets and obtaining the revenue from the sale. The fabric of the housing stock is crumbling. We have a dampness and latter-day dereliction problem which destroys choice for thousands of ordinary tenants. The Bill is the Government's only response to that crisis. It is the sum total of their commitment, and it is something of a bad joke.
  The Government say, in a sense genuinely, that they have done better for the housing associations than with other public expenditure on housing. That is a bit of a tack-handed compliment. In 1982–83, £117 million was spent on the housing associations. In 1985–86, £110 million will be spent. It is not all that good a record. In three years, it is a decrease in—
  Mr. Younger: Would the hon. Gentleman like to give a figure for the Labour Government's greatest help to the housing associations?
  Mr. Dewar: All that I am saying is—[Interruption.] I think that the Ministers' consciences are pricked on this subject. I am entitled to say, and do say, that they praise their record complacently. Spending in 1982–83 was £117 million and in 1985–86 it is expected to be £110 million. That is a cash reduction of £7 million in three years. If we apply the GDP deflator, it is a cut of £21 million, or 18 per cent. The Secretary of State is entitled to say that we did not do well, and no doubt the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) will say that, but I am trying to put into perspective the claims about the Government's alleged housing record and their complacency. They say that they have done well.
  Mr. Younger rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point.
  It is not just a matter of financial damage. I have a healthy respect—I speak for all my hon. Friends—for what has been done by the community-based associations, often in areas of great difficulty. They have done a tremendous amount in rebuilding not simply the housing stock but the community. The Government must take seriously what has been said by the housing association movement. I shall quote what Mr. Donald Maclennan of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations said:
  "Indications are that disenchantment may lead to desertion and the demise of the movement."
  The Secretary of State may pull faces at me, but that is what Mr. Maclennan said when he contemplated the damage likely to be caused by the Bill. It may not be so. Perhaps he is being alarmist. But there is much truth in what he said. It is a risk that we should not invite the House to run. It is for that reason that I hope that I shall be joined by many hon. Members, not just from the Opposition, in voting against this measure.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Alex Fletcher: It is some years since I participated in a debate of this kind. I listened carefully, in order to discover whether any of the arguments had seriously changed. I listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) with great care. He did not say anything about new policies or new ideas. He tended to put his head into the Bill, and it is what he did not say about Labour party policy that is interesting.
  I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the success of the house sales policies introduced in 1979. Nothing is more important for the Scottish economy, the

  1059
  Scottish labour force and mobility of labour in Scotland than that we should radically increase the number of home owners. The Government set out to do that in 1979, with great success. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am amazed at the ignorance of hon. Members, who ask why home ownership and mobility should be related. They seem to know nothing of the fact that static labour forces have contributed, among other things, to unemployment in Scotland, never mind to the failure to develop the economy as we should have liked to develop it.
  Someone said recently, in relation to lack of mobility in housing in Scotland, that it was easier to get a Scot to move from Glasgow to Rio than from the south side of Glasgow to the other side of the river. The housing policy pursued by Labour Governments contributed greatly to the lack of mobility of labour forces.
  What we do not hear about policy from the Labour party we can often read about, and we find that nothing much has changed in that direction. The more the party quotes higher and higher figures needed for newbuild and the maintenance of housing stock in Scotland, the more the party mocks its own policies. If the party ever had the opportunity, it could never find the funds for anything like the expenditure that it insists is necessary for public sector housing in Scotland. The party would rely, not on economic growth, but on public borrowing.
  In case Labour Members have forgotten what happened when their party was last in office, I recommend that on Sunday evenings they watch Channel 4, on which there is an interesting programme about the history of politics in Britain in the 1970s. The programme shows how the Labour party tried to spend its way out of trouble and failed miserably in the process.
  It is usually the Labour-controlled councils in Scotland with the most irresponsible rent policies which shout loudest for more capital. They seem to fail to see the connection between the income on the housing account and the ability of the housing managers to maintain the stock in an adequate manner.
  I am aware, as we all are on the Conservative Benches, and as many people are in Scotland, that in 1979 housing policy needed a new thrust, and the Government were correct then and since then to put the emphasis on home ownership. Most people recognised—including Labour Members—that the large public sector housing schemes were a mistake, not only on environmental grounds, but on social and good housing grounds. The Conservative and Labour parties both contributed to the building of large public sector housing schemes. The difference between them is that we learnt the lesson years ago, and are doubtful whether it has yet been learnt by Labour Members.
  Home ownership can go a long way towards remedying the problems and deficiencies of housing schemes and the mistakes that were made over the years, not least because home ownership helps to attract better facilities, including those from the private sector, into the large housing schemes. It also helps to raise standards in the local communities.
  I support the Bill and its continuing emphasis on home ownership, but, like the hon. Member for Garscadden, I am concerned about the need for rented accommodation, not least in the urban areas and in my own constituency of Edinburgh, Central.
  1060
  Probably all hon. Members have received letters about housing associations. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) recently met the Federation of Housing Associations in Scotland, which expressed to him its concern about rented accommodation and about who would meet particular problems and specialist demands if the houses under its management were to be sold.
  I have heard from the Fountainbridge housing association in my constituency, and I suggest that if housing association tenants are to have increased rights to buy, other means must be found to provide rented accommodation. Central Government have a part to play in that respect, alongside local government. I shall suggest shortly some ways in which that problem might be tackled, but first I want to make some observations about the problems that we face in the inner city areas, speaking particularly from my experience in my own constituency.
  There is the problem of slum landlords, which is creating very serious overcrowding in properties in Edinburgh. There is over-charging and, indeed, racketeering through DHSS frauds. These have been promptly investigated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in response to a request that I made to him and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but we have to be careful that we do not permit a spiv market to be created in city centres. Slum landlords, in buying property, can increase the prices for ordinary people. If they are able to influence the market to too great an extent, they can influence the amount of money that the DHSS will be obliged to pay to people who are seeking accommodation in town and city centres.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that type of activity can cause great difficulties in tenemental property? Although it is unlikely that a Victorian terrace will be bought and completely converted into bedsits, sometimes two or three flats in such a tenement property can be converted, causing great environmental problems for the other tenants.
  Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I imagine that, like me, he has had complaints from people—perhaps an old couple—who have lived for many years in such a property and know their neighbours very well. The flat next door is sold to a spiv landlord and suddenly, instead of having two people, they have 22 people living next door, with a very high turnover. It might be said that that is tough luck from a social point of view, but it goes beyond that, because of the behaviour of some of the tenants, with bicycles, motor cycles and oil on the stairs. I receive frequent complaints about such people, and I am extremely sympathetic towards the problems that can arise in those circumstances.
  It was for that reason that I asked my right hon. Friend to consider licensing the activities of landlords. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), from a sedentary position, says that it is a free market, but free markets of any kind work better when there is some regulation, whether we are talking about properties in Edinburgh, Glasgow or elsewhere.
  Edinburgh has tried to find some method of licensing and has run into difficulties. In response to my last letter on the subject, the Secretary of State, in his letter of 27 November, assured me that Edinburgh district council
  "have a variety of powers already available to them"

  1061
  concerning the licensing of such properties.
  My right hon. Friend said:
  "The Housing (Management of Houses and Buildings in Multiple Occupation) (Scotland) Regulations 1964 provide for control by the local authority of aspects such as state of repair, cleanliness, water supply, heating, ventilation, disposal of refuse and escape from fire."
  Those regulations are an important piece of legislation. My right hon. Friend referred in his letter to byelaws with which Edinburgh district council had some difficulty but it should be able to overcome that problem. Most importantly, my right hon. Friend said:
  "Stirling District Council operates a registration scheme under the 1966 Act and…Glasgow and Clackmannan District Councils are in the process of promoting such schemes."
  There is an ability to license, and I would press all local authorities, not least mine, to take advantage of it.
  The secretary of the National Union of Students in Scotland, Mr. Paul Carroll, has complained about housing in city centres, and specifically about what appears to be an accommodation bureau. A company, Home Locators, seems to be good at taking £25, usually from students, and sending out a rough list of names to landlords. An enterprising survey by Mr. Carroll and other NUS members showed that few people were satisfied that a serious attempt was made to find them accommodation. As Mr. Carroll comes from my constituency, I have suggested that if he cares to send the papers to me I shall pass them on to Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading, to investigate the extent to which the company is breaking the law.
  Mr. Bob McTaggart: It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman were to contact the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I raised that matter in a parliamentary question, and the Solicitor-General said that he was investigating it.
  Mr. Fletcher: That is extremely helpful. There are sometimes several ways in which problems can be tackled. Because of my recent experience, I immediately thought of the Director General of Fair Trading.
  Clause 18 refers to building control amendments and regulations. There is no question but that the Government's improvement grants policy has been of great benefit to inner city areas. I think that both sides of the House agree. One difficulty is over complaints about workmanship. Much of the workmanship appears to be very slack. The blame can be levelled not just at the workers, or even the contractors—although one feels pretty sore at them—but at the architects and surveyors.
  After all, the professionals are spending a great deal of public sector money, and I am often infuriated by the absence of any checks by them on the standards of workmanship. I have taken this matter up with Edinburgh district council, which has tried to be helpful by putting more inspectors on to the task of ascertaining what might be done. I remind the professionals of their responsibilities in certifying work, especially in view of the public expenditure involved and the heartbreak caused to families.
  A lady who came to see me said, "I have told the workmen to stay out, although the improvements have not been completed, because they are not renovating but destroying my home." I have received many letters on this subject. Such complaints are regrettable, especially as the improvements often involve the largest single repair contract ever undertaken on a person's property.
  1062
  Rehabilitating the cities and towns is an important part of housing policy. We must ensure that administration is as efficient as possible.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that £100 million would be added to housing capital this year from council house sales. I have never understood the Labour party's reluctance to accept council house sales. Owner-occupation can contribute to housing capital. I hope that my colleagues will continue to ensure that the Treasury does not steal too much of that money, because the money can be applied to the local good. We must ensure that those local authorities which are capable of spending it wisely on housing have the opportunity to do so.
  It is ironic that in Edinburgh alone there are about 2,400 empty local authority houses, many of them in a bad state of repair, and many in undesirable areas. What a waste of resources. It is not enough for a local authority to say to central Government, "Give the council money so that we can repair these houses." It is necessary to constrain public expenditure. It is not enough, when rented accommodation is so scarce, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to watch the problem without trying to ascertain what can be done.
  I suggest the setting up of a partnership between the local authority, which owns the properties, the private sector, which might be willing to develop the properties, and a third party, which might manage them. I envisage management under which the properties are repaired to a certain standard and are then let to those in need of rented accommodation.
  If Labour Members and their colleagues in local government would not resent private sector funds being applied in this way, public-private sector rented accommodation might begin to become available in our city centres. Such a scheme might lead to improvements and increases in this kind of accommodation. More rented accommodation obviously means better use of resources.
  I fully support the push towards home ownership, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take steps to assist in the provision of rented accommodation, especially in urban areas. If we are to help people in need, the Labour party has an important part to play. Private rented accommodation is scarce because no one thinks that it would be a good investment. People think that as soon as any move was made in that direction the Labour party would say, "We shall nationalise and take it over if we ever return to office." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That may seem to be such an obvious remark that it gives pleasure to Labour Members, but that attitude does not help the very people about whom Labour Members usually claim to care. Private sector resources are available, but a partnership between the public and private sectors could result in their being applied to renovation of public sector housing along the lines that I have suggested. This could help to alleviate the serious problem that exists in Edinburgh and, I have every reason to believe, in many Labour constituencies.
  It is hard to believe that public sector resources and houses are being properly utilised when about 250,000 local authority houses in Scotland lie empty. That is not a good use of resources. It does not help the very people who are the subject of this debate. The sooner the Labour party applies some imagination, the sooner we can assist those in need of rented accommodation.
  6.29 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am not clear whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) said that his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, lacks imagination. I suspect that he was, although he was too polite to say it overtly.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that there is no evidence of a demand for this legislation. He is right. It is difficult to understand why, other than for the doctrinal beliefs to which the Government cling, it has been introduced. Far more important matters should be given priority.
  I do not deny that the Bill contains useful and helpful proposals. Reference has been made to clauses 10, 12, 13 and 18. However, the main thrust of the legislation is not well thought out and could do damage. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the joint local authority campaign in Strathclyde are not the only groups who believe that the major problem is lack of investment in new housing stock and in improving and maintaining the existing housing stock, including substandard stock. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central also knows as well as I that this is the main problem. Every time that I hold a clinic or open my postbag I am faced with appeals for help in obtaining housing. I support the right to buy in principle, but I do not believe that it should be an unconditional right. That was our view about the 1980 legislation.
  There is also a right to rent. The Government have profoundly neglected that right, and it was the main thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. Spending on Scottish housing has been halved since the Government came to office in 1979. Public sector house building is lower than at any time since 1945. The result is lengthening waiting lists, of which all hon. Members have experience. Furthermore, 45,000 to 46,000 jobs in the Scottish construction industry have been lost since the Conservative Government took office. These are major issues for Scottish housing, but the Bill does not address them.
  Equally, the Bill contains illogicalities and weaknesses. Some have already been referred to by the hon. Member for Garscadden, but I should like to refer briefly to a few of them. First, we have not yet received an adequate answer to why, in the Government's judgment, the voluntary code is unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Garscadden reminded us that it was only just over a year ago that the Secretary of State was praising it. The Under-Secretary shakes his head.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): It is not true.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I understand that in August 1984 the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was satisfied with the operation of the voluntary code. Furthermore, I do not think that the Under-Secretary will deny that the housing associations have actively encouraged and helped owner-occupiers, so I do not understand why it is necessary to introduce legislation.
  Secondly, there is confusion over charitable status. I am sure that the Under-Secretary knows that the housing associations are concerned, if not alarmed, about their charitable status. I understand that on the radio this
  1064
  morning in Scotland the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) referred to this matter. The only charitable associations that will be exempt are those which cover the whole of the United Kingdom—for example, the Salvation Army or the British Legion. Charitable associations that are based only in Scotland may not be exempt. Their status is determined by the Inland Revenue in Edinburgh.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clarify that important point when he replies to the debate and say what effect the legislation will have on associations that have charitable status granted to them by the Inland Revenue and operate only in Scotland.
  Thirdly, there is a serious risk that rural areas will be drained of accommodation that is available at a fair rent. The Bill will not improve the position; it will make it worse. I repeat that I am in favour of sales, but there must be a balance. Local authorities must be able to make provision for continuing need. However, they are unable to do so. My constituency does not experience the same kind of difficulties as are experienced in inner city constituencies, but 1,200 houses in my constituency are classified as being below the official tolerable standard, while over 11 per cent. of the houses are classified as having more than one person per room. There is also a long waiting list. The waiting list in Inverness is as large as it was when I was elected a Member of Parliament. That should not and need not be the case.
  Fourthly, I understand that housing associations in England are given financial help under the Housing and Building Control Act 1984. It enables tenants to leave and buy elsewhere. That is a much better method than the Bill's proposals. I do not understand why the provisions of the 1984 Act cannot be applied to Scotland.
  Fifthly, the hon. Member for Garscadden stressed the problems that are faced by those who live in tenements, especially in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee. Community-based housing associations are special to Scotland. In some places they have helped to bring about a remarkable regeneration of neighbourhoods. They have led to areas being upgraded, and that has had a marked effect on the private sector. The result is that property is very attractive and marketable.
  For the purposes of the Bill would it be possible for the definition of "flat" to exclude pre-1919 stock, thus safeguarding Scottish tenements? I do not need to repeat the problems that surround the obtaining of agreement on roof repairs. Multiple ownership can produce such problems and the housing associations have tackled them very well.
  The Bill is a sad reflection of the Government's priorities. It shows that they have no understanding of the clamant housing need in many areas of Scotland, including the rural areas. There is not evidence that the voluntary code is not being operated successfully by the housing associations, but there is evidence aplenty that much more important work is crying out to be done.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Gerald Malone: I welcome the Bill. It marks another step in the Government's housing policy, and it will be given a broad welcome throughout Scotland.
  I am upset that the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about the Bill were so slight. He failed to refer to two important points. First, this

  1065
  Government's policy of selling public housing stock has largely been conceded by the Opposition. They know that they could not reverse that policy. When the Opposition were given the opportunity to say what they would do, it was notable that the hon. Member for Garscadden sat firmly in his place. He did not tell the House what he would do if he were in office. Although the Opposition may contest many of the Bill's provisions, I think that they will find, as they have found with other housing legislation introduced by the Government since 1979, that at the end of the day they are forced to concede that the Government's policy is right.
  The Bill represents another thrust in the Government's policy of handing housing stock back to the people who should have the greatest interest in it—those who occupy it. I do not concede that it represents any threat to the housing associations in Scotland.
  Mr. John Maxton: If the hon. Gentleman has such passion for handing houses over into owner-occupation, why does he not persuade his hon. Friends to extend the right to buy to those in private accommodation?
  Mr. Malone: There is a simple answer. The proportion of public housing stock sold into private ownership was extremely small, but, without any encouragement, a significant proportion of the private rented sector has voluntarily been sold into owner-occupation. I do not understand how the Labour party can say that there should be a vibrant rented accommodation sector when it is as a result of its policies that the private rented housing stock has been sold into owner-occupation as it has fallen vacant.
  Mr. David Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, if he can, of any owner of private rented accommodation who sold any of his stock at a discount?
  Mr. Malone: A significant proportion of the private rented housing stock has been sold into owner-occupation. If the hon. Gentleman understood the Government's policy properly, he would know that it is to encourage the sale of public sector housing and to satisfy the principle of owner-occupation that discounts have been provided. That is fairly clearly stated. There is nothing reprehensible about that. It should be positively encouraged.
  I should be interested to hear from the Labour party whether it believes in the principle of owner-occupation. If it does, I would be interested to know why it might oppose the Bill tonight, because the Bill will extend the principle of owner-occupation, which the Government have sought sought to extend since 1979. The Conservative party is faced with a problem that our policy was an initial success, but sales peaked in the first quarter of 1983.
  It is extremely disappointing that flatted property did not form a significant proportion of council house sales. In Scotland, the proportion of flatted accommodation in the public sector stood at about 49·5 per cent. Of the public sector housing sold in 1985, only 11·5 to 12 per cent. was flatted accommodation.
  It is logical, when faced with such statistics, that a Government who, unlike the Opposition, are pledged to return as much of public sector housing stock into the hands of those who occupy it and into their ownership
  1066
  should seek to extend whatever encouragement they can. The Bill provides such encouragement and will be a useful step to increasing the proportion of flatted accommodation in the public sector that is sold into owner-occupation.
  I have listened with some sympathy to a number of points made by the Labour party about the difficulties of maintaining flatted accommodation and of common ownership and the expenses that can arise, but I take exception to a number of points that have been made. The historical difficulty among tenement proprietors in Scotland has not been that they have found it difficult to maintain the property but that factorage, certainly since the war, has not proved a satisfactory way of maintaining property.
  In many areas of Glasgow and Aberdeen of which I have experience, many properties have had their factors removed and owner-occupiers have taken on the management of property. Where that has happened, the property has been properly maintained and many of the difficulties and fears that have been raised this evening by hon. Members have been overcome. Common maintenance no longer represents the difficulty that it used to represent. That problem can be tackled and need not cause insuperable difficulties.
  Mr. William McKelvey: I have several examples in my constituency of council houses that have been sold—not necessarily tenement houses but semi-detached—where repairs common to those houses have been delayed because the owner-occupier refuses to pay his share. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the council should go ahead with repairs and sue for the money, or should the council tenant have to put up with such an outrage, where he might have a leaky part on a common roof and have to put up with it because the person next door refuses to share the costs?
  Mr. Malone: I cannot speak about the hon. Gentleman's experiences, but I can speak from my experience and my constituency case load on such properties. Often, owner-occupiers find that the boot is on the other foot. They find it difficult to get the local authority to pay for repairs on the other side. Although there are problems, it is not beyond our wit to solve them and it is certainly not for owner-occupiers who take on properties such as that to make sure that that problem is solved.
  I should not like housing associations to feel that the provisions of this legislation represent an assault on the work that they are trying to do. It would be wrong if Labour Members represented the legislation in that way. Many housing associations in my constituency do a tremendous amount of good work. Not only do they provide a high standard of basic housing at reasonable rents, but many of them provide for minority interests, which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will concede is a vital development.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have enthusiastically taken on the challenge that housing associations have provided and since 1979 have given a substantial amount of finance, whereas before only token amounts have been provided. The hon. Member for Garscadden shakes his head, but he could not be drawn to give the Labour party's best figure for financing housing associations for the simple reason that it was £40 mill ion during the Labour Government's period of office. That

  1067
  figure is very much below what the Conservative Government have provided on a year-to-year basis, and I take pride in that.
  Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when the Labour Government were in power, the housing association movement was, to some extent, in its infancy and had not reached the development stage at which it was demanding large sums of money? Over the past three years, taking the estimated figure for 1985–86, there has been an 18 per cent. drop in real terms and a £7 million cash drop. Does the hon. Gentleman support that?
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that, in absolute terms, the Government are supporting housing associations to a much more significant extent than did his Government. If housing associations have developed in the past few years, it is purely because of this Government's policies in seeking to fund the good work that the housing associations have done.
  I pay tribute to the work that housing associations have done in my constituency. They operate principally within inner cities, and have rehabilitated many areas of Aberdeen, where the local authority had been inactive. They have not only improved existing housing, but have provided, by and large, a better environment for their tenants than have many local authorities.
  Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the housing association movement—to use the repulsive term that he used—was in its infancy when the Labour Government were in power. Who was the accoucheur of the baby in the first place? It was people with modest respect like myself who put money into the first housing associations and set them up. The Socialists then stole the baby and "malnutreated" it.
  Mr. Malone: I think that that is what my hon. and learned Friend has done to the English language on this occasion. He is usually extremely precise. I am prepared to concede that he may well have been the father of the housing associations. I shall not go into any other area. There seems to be some competition among Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) may also be the father. We should not go back into the question of the progenitors of those associations but simply say that they fulfil an exceptionally useful function and provide diverse housing accommodation.
  The Bill does not represent an attack on housing associations. It was never expected that they would have a permanent and long-term hold on the housing stock. It matters little to them that the houses that they built for the original leaseholders are eventually sold. It is not as if the housing stock has been lost, as Opposition Members seem to believe. By and large, the houses are still available for the occupation of the sitting tenants, and I do not think that the Bill damages the work that housing associations do. Indeed, it may allow them to move on to fresh frontiers because within Scotland there are frontiers enough for them to tackle. I do not believe that anything in the Bill represents a long-term threat to them. It might help them to continue in their work and to carry on with different work.
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: My hon. Friend is referring to the movement away from normal housing by the housing associations. Many housing associations in Scotland are putting their main effort into housing for the elderly, the handicapped and the sick. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we would like to see the money released by the Bill channelled into the avenues that he was talking of just now.
  Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. He will have experience of housing associations in his constituency that provide such housing. The associations have fulfilled a need that has not been fulfilled in Scotland before. They should be encouraged to do that and to devote any funds that they may get from the sale of their properties to continuing those exercises.
  I know that the sale of surplus regional council properties will please several of my own constituents who have had difficulty in attempting to buy property of that sort. In one or two cases there has been a rather strange difficulty. The district council in Aberdeen has entered into missives for the sale to a sitting tenant and it has subsequently been discovered that the ownership of the property rests not with the district council but with the regional authority. I hope that the Bill will deal with that, among other difficulties, and will allow those council houses to be sold.
  I welcome the Bill, but it is a limited measure. Although we have sold a relatively significant proportion of our public sector housing stock since 1979, we have taken only one or two bites at the cherry. The Bill represents another small bite, but it does not make inroads into what I think is the principal problem associated with housing in Scotland, which is that far too high a proportion of our housing stock is owned by local authorities. Local authorities, in the face of grave housing difficulties, which are conceded on both sides of the House, have not acted promptly in many cases even when solutions have been presented to them. Glasgow district council's disgraceful treatment of an offer of development of Hutcheson town E block is but one example of political intransigence damaging the prospect of rehabilitating the housing stock in Glasgow. I suppose that that applies to the rest of Scotland.
  Surely there must be some common ground, no matter who owns the property, whether it be local authorities, housing associations or shared ownership schemes, whether it be by selling to building societies that are prepared to undertake the rehabilitation of long-since derelict property. Whether it be all of those things or any one of them, we should not have closed minds to developments that could improve the housing stock and give a better life to tenants and owners alike.
  Much has been said from the Labour Benches about the lack of resource. The sad truth, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), is that a substantial amount of the resource, because of the way in which it was planned and built, is now standing unoccupied. The fact that we have such a high vacancy rate in our public housing stock in Scotland and long housing waiting lists is nothing short of a public scandal. Many local authorities simply refuse to look at other forms of ownership and stand in the way of schemes that would rehabilitate that stock, such as different rented terms or selling the property into private owner-occupation.

  1069
  If we could get rid of much of the dogma that surrounds public housing stock in Scotland and realise that mixed ownership is the best way to promote the interests of those who rent houses and owner-occupiers, perhaps we would increase the value and habitability of most of our housing stock in Scotland. The Bill represents a step towards that objective. I hope that Ministers' thoughts on Scottish housing will not stop there. I hope that they will go further and that local authorities will be encouraged to move away from the stalemate in which they seem to find themselves so that all of us in Scotland may benefit from a more flexible and better housing stock.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Bob McTaggart: When the Government announced their intention to introduce the Bill they promised:
  "Bills will he introduced to extend the rights of public sector tenants."
  Hearing such a promise expressed in such language, one could be forgiven for assuming that the Government really did have the interests of public sector tenants at heart. Anyone who was tempted to think along those lines would have been grossly mistaken, because the Government definitely do not have the interests of public sector tenants at heart.
  In the six years that the Government have been responsible for public sector policy, they have inflicted more spending cuts and caused more widespread damage to the interests of public sector tenants than any other Government since the end of the second world war.
  The Glasgow and West of Scotland forum of housing associations has provided a useful summary of that record. It is using it to promote the case for increased public spending on Scottish housing. The summary is equally useful for pointing out, and putting in its proper context, the Government's real attitude towards public sector tenants. It shows that spending on Scottish housing has halved since 1979. Public sector house building in Scotland is at its lowest level since the second world war. Home improvements have slumped since the general election in 1983 and rents are increasing far faster than the rate of inflation.
  Those statistics help to show that while the Government shout from the rooftops of their concern for the welfare of tenants in the public sector, they are acting to threaten and undermine whatever security and well-being those tenants are able to enjoy. There is no doubt that the Government have concentrated their attack on public spending on public sector housing. There is no doubt that they have consistently pursued a policy of promoting home ownership at the expense of those who cannot afford or do not want to own their own homes and opt instead for renting in the public sector.
  Public subsidies to home owners have been maintained at a time of cuts in public spending, but only because cuts could be made elsewhere and with less electoral damage to the Conservative cause. Having heard some of the speeches today, I have no doubt that the Government believe their policy of extending the right to buy their homes to public sector tenants to have been electorally successful. The right to buy one's council house or now even one's own housing association house has been extended to many tenants, but, again, only at the expense of other tenants and would-be tenants in the public sector. Labour Members are all in favour of extending choice. We
  1070
  should like everyone to be able to choose whether to rent or buy the home in which he lives, but we draw the line when one person's choice restricts the choice of others. That is where we differ fundamentally from the Government and the proposals in the Bill.
  The Government's attitude to housing has been consistently divisive since 1979. Their reaction has been determined by the potential for maximising the electoral advantage to the Conservative party. Their main concern with tenants' rights is whether those rights can be translated into votes either for the Conservative party or against the Labour party. The Bill must be seen in that light. The question arises why legislation is necessary in certain areas.
  In 1980, when the Tenants' Rights, etc. (Scotland) Bill was enacted, the housing associations were successful in convincing the Government that the best course was to exclude housing association tenants from the right-to-buy provisions. Rather than forcing them to comply with the right-to-buy clauses, the Government decided to introduce the voluntary code arrangements whereby the decision to sell or retain for rent was left with the housing associations. After all, they knew better than anyone else, in relation to their own housing stock, which type of tenure balance was desirable and best suited to their local circumstances.
  After all, we have the voluntary management committees, unpaid and giving their free time, committed 100 per cent. to the improvement and rehabilitation of the communities in which they live, and they are in the best position to assess the level and nature of local housing demand. They know how long their waiting lists are. They know the individual needs of those on the waiting lists. They know the housing demand in their localities, whether for special needs or otherwise.
  That has been recognised by successive Labour and Conservative Governments. Indeed, the work of housing associations has generally been recognised as one of the outstanding successes in housing. In Glasgow they have made a tremendous impact in transforming areas of the inner city which previously had deteriorated under private landlords and owner-occupiers.
  It is just over a year since the Secretary of State was in Glasgow to open the 10,000th improved flat, and he declared himself completely satisfied with the way in which the voluntary code arrangements were working. We know that a week is a long time in politics, but, regardless of the view on how time changes politicians' outlooks, the case is yet to be made on what has happened in the intervening period to change the Secretary of State's mind. If he was satisfied with the voluntary code then, why is he not satisfied now? Which specific changes have occurred to change satisfaction to dissatisfaction and therefore into the proposals in the Bill?
  Mr. McQuarrie: I had considerable experience of housing associations in 1967, when the housing association of which I was chairman built 67 houses in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). The hon. Gentleman was asking what made my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State change his mind. Would not it be fair to say that the main reason why he has introduced the Bill is the desire of the occupants of housing association houses to become owners? That is the right which we are trying to give the people of Scotland.
  Mr. McTaggart: The Secretary of State has not even tried to say that at the Dispatch Box. No evidence has been brought before the House to tell us why the Secretary of State has changed his mind.
  I believe that the real motivation behind the Secretary of State's change of mind is entirely party political. In the Government's opinion, it was electorally popular to give the right to buy to council tenants in 1980. They hope fervently that it will be electorally popular to give the same right to buy to housing association tenants in 1985–86.
  With the prospect of annihilation in the regional council elections next May, it is time for any and every desperate political remedy. As an attempt to restore the Tory party's electoral credibility, the Bill is doomed to fail, because it will have a disheartening effect on the management committees of housing associations. Having given so much of their time and skill, and having contributed so successfully to the transformation work of the past decade, they will now see that work threatened by the disruption that will be occasioned by the Bill.
  The only houses that will be sold will be those that the housing associations have already improved. They will therefore have to carry a far higher overall proportion of loss-making, unimproved houses. That must threaten their scale of operations and financial viability. The morale of voluntary committee members will be undermined as they see the housing assets of their associations sold at knockdown prices. That must be considered before we turn to the enormous problems of attempting to pursue a sales policy for housing association properties that can even begin to be accepted as fair or will not prove to be scandalously wasteful of public money.
  As I understand it, the cost of buying an improved flat from a housing association will depend on several factors. Among them will be the date when the flat was improved by the housing association and the amount of rehabilitation work carried out at that time. Flats improved, say, 10 years ago were rehabilitated at much lower costs to the housing associations than flats improved over the past year or so. Moreover, flats requiring a lot of remedial work will necessarily cost more than flats requiring much less work. In the sale of housing association flats, the sale price must never fall below the cost floor debt—the amount of public money spent on acquiring and rehabilitating the flat. That debt will, of course, vary from flat to flat, depending both on the scale of work and on when it was carried out. Flats requiring little work and completed some time ago will have a lower cost floor debt than those needing extensive work and completed only recently.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has just explained the protections for the housing associations. Why will housing associations make a loss when they sell properties? Surely if the tenants become owner-occupiers, they will pay a management charge, as opposed to a rent, giving the housing associations an income.
  Mr. McTaggart: I speak as a former member of a housing association in Glasgow. One of the biggest problems that housing associations face in formulating a plan for rehabilitating a number of flats, close by close, is acquiring those properties, decanting the tenants and getting on with a block project. Once flats that have been acquired and rehabilitated—with rents having been received for them—are sold, the housing association will be left with empty flats awaiting rehabilitation, with less income coming from its tenants. That is the reality.
  1072
  Situations could also arise where two similar flats in terms of size and location have different cost floor debts. That could mean that two tenants, entitled to the same discounts and buying similar flats of similar value in the same neighbourhood, could end up paying significantly different sums for their flats. The calculations required are not only complex and time-consuming, but are guaranteed to give rise to grudges, ill-feeling and a sense of unfair treatment among those who believe themselves to have been disadvantaged.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Supposing, in the most perfect of all worlds, everybody could buy an identical flat for the same price, would the hon. Gentleman be in favour of these proposals?
  Mr. McTaggart: I said earlier that Labour Members are in favour of choice. We wish that everyone had the choice to rent or buy their flat. We differ fundamentally only because we object when the choice of one person affects the choice of others.
  One way out of the present situation could be for the Government to disregard cost floor debts by treating all buyers in the same manner, irrespective of the public investment in their particular property. It would thereby be possible for buyers to be treated equally. But if that were to happen, what then of the public interest? What about the taxpayers' money? What does the taxpayer get in return for large investment in housing association properties? The answer seems to be very little—a huge amount of public money for a relatively low level of home ownership in improved properties.
  If the Government were genuinely concerned with helping housing associations, they would listen to what those associations are saying. They should listen when they are told that there is an identified need to rehabilitate and or build about 500,000 houses for people in need. They should listen when the associations identify the capital costs of such a programme as £5 billion at present day prices. They should listen when the associations ask for an increase in their capital allocations to achieve a 7,000-house programme by 1988. That is the way to begin to tackle the housing problems which confront the Scottish people. The Bill is irrelevant to that task and in the areas that I have mentioned it can only make matters worse.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I welcome the Bill, and I welcome it for a fundamental reason. The state should never intervene between a citizen and his home. That is a fundamental principle which did not exist before 1945, except in the most limited sense, and that has had one of the most disastrous effects on industrial, economic and social prosperity in Scotland ever since.
  It was Labour Governments and Labour administrations in Glasgow which destroyed the centre of the greatest Victorian city in Britain, once known as the second city of the empire; second, as it then was, to Calcutta, not to London. In that great city, which rose from about 150,000 inhabitants to nearly 750,000 in the short space of 40 years, some of the greatest housing was created and was owned and lived in by people whose poverty was comparatively massive when judged by the standard of anybody who now lives in an equivalent housing association house.

  1073
  Most of those great houses, with all their grandeur, which escaped demolition by Labour administrations in Glasgow, have, under this Government, provided magnificent homes in the centre of Glasgow, but around them there is a necklace of some substandard filing cabinets for the unfortunates who have been driven, by the terrible policy that everybody should be in the maw of local authority officials, to live in the great conglomerates of Easterhouse, Blackhill, Nitshill and Castlemilk. That is the shame of Scotland. I accept that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) has been converted to the concept of choice, but Labour Members, in their heart of hearts, believe that the road to political thraldom is to have everybody in a local authority house of some kind. That is at the centre of the philosophy of Labour Members.
  Lest I depart from the dictum of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), that I do not always appear to be a sycophant, I shall say something about the Bill before I come on to other matters. I do not imagine that there are many people who, if they looked at this document, which is some 31 pages in length, and who own a house, or are tenants, or wish to own a house or to obtain a house, or to understand what they would have paid in the way of a rebate, or how many years had to elapse before they qualified, would understand it. I do not myself. I say that because the hon. Member for Garscadden is a solicitor, and solicitors always suffer from an inferiority complex because they are in some way the junior half of the profession and send to counsel for their opinions. Let me get over the unfortunate paranoia of the hon. Gentleman. He is a clever man. He has understood the Bill. I cannot understand it. He is the senior in this matter and I listened to his opinion with relish, because I knew that it was wrong.
  That does not alter the need for a simple Bill giving people the right to buy their house after having had the most evil landlord of all, the state, which is much more inscrutable than all the officials with whom the unfortunate tenant must deal. In the most enlightened areas, such as Perth and Kinross, let alone in Glasgow and Strathclyde, the state is the most insensitive landlord.
  Mr. David Marshall: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously asking us to accept that a district council, even a Conservative-controlled one, is a worse landlord than the Rachman-type landlords, such as Norman Properties in Scotland? That is nonsense.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Rachman lived in England, not in Scotland. I do not know Rachman's type, because I never met him. I do not believe that he was a type.
  No one is more insensitive than the officials of housing departments when they deal with their tenants. There may be nice officials and difficult tenants, but it is an artificial and bad relationship. People should own their homes, and be able to choose and to change their homes. The format of the Bill is incomprehensible to any ordinary person likely to be in that position.
  When the late Lord Milligan was Lord Advocate, he made a speech in the other place in which he pointed out that if Parliament decided to legislate that only six people should be allowed to sit at any one time in a railway carriage, it would be unable to pass a Bill to that effect. The Bill would have to state that notwithstanding the provisions of the Railway Act 1953, and as not excepted in schedule 1 of proviso 2 of this Act, under part IV it shall
  1074
  be impossible for any persons to occupy a railway carriage except as so hereafter provided. I agree with that. We should have a simple Bill to do a simple deed. This simple deed is one of the most blessed that any Government can do, and one of the most excellent that this Government have done.
  The right to buy has allowed people to wrench their nest and home, which surrounds them perhaps for ever or only temporarily, out of the hands of Departments and Local authorities. That is of immense emotional and psychological importance and has a huge effect on people's respect for themselves. Whether a house is in a good or bad area, or in the middle of a council scheme, whether it is a police house or a fireman's house, those that are privately owned are those that are made proud.
  Who would spend money on his home if an official could come along and say, "I order you to have a new front door because everyone is getting one," or "I forbid you to have a new sink because nobody is getting one"? That is an appallingly arrogant attitude to the home, which is the womb of the family. It is important that people should have a choice.
  When housing associations were first set up, it was thought strange that a few people could get together, buy shares and provide the money to do up a building so that families could buy it and live there. The money was used to do up the next building. That is how housing associations and the Link association were set up—but not in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton).
  I set up a housing association and did up little houses in East Lothian, Edinburgh and elsewhere. The idea is to generate funds to restore houses so that people can own them and say, "This is mine. This is my family's home," and not feel, as people do when they are in the Army, that they are the temporary residents of a hut or camp. Home ownership is the thrust of democracy and human decency, and is essential for a healthy society.
  Many of the calamities with which I and the hon. Member for Garscadden must deal, have arisen from the terrible circular cities of concrete and negativity that have been built by Socialist councils. The Government have been accused of throwing away the family silver, but we cannot excuse the Earl of Stockton because, as Housing Minister, he probably encouraged those councils to build as they did.
  Many local authorities, housing associations, police authorities and fire authorities wish to keep their empires, staff numbers, importance and power over helpless people. They frustrate the purchase of houses by those who live in them. That effective policy has been achieved by delaying conveyancing and by complaints of lack of staff so that the empire can be increased. They try to persuade the Government that it is a suitable bribe to say that more solicitors are needed in the legal department so that staff can be doubled and the pyramid can rise higher. They say that the local authority grants are being cut, but that they need more money because if the Government say that they must sell council houses, more officials and more conveyancers are needed. That excuse is not overcome by the Bill.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to consider carefully whether the Bill empowers those officials to frustrate the tenant's attempt to purchase his home. Let us not overlook the cruelty of that, because it frequently makes the price to the

  1075
  tenant greater and beyond his reach. It is essential to prevent that from happening. It is fatuous for an official or an authority to stop, by delay, the purchase of a home.
  Clause 7 introduces a new section to a different Act, which it is bound to do, because it would upset anyone who drafted a Bill to make it comprehensible. The problem of mobility comes into play when a secure tenant of one landlord becomes, at his request, the secure tenant of another landlord. Frequently, housing authorities will say, "We cannot give you a house in Crieff because you already have one in Greenock." If the housing authority in Crieff says, "We cannot give you a house in Crieff because you do not have one here," how can a person become a secure tenant? Many people cannot take up jobs because they cannot move house. Their housing authorities are too stick-in-the-mud. Their attitude is extraordinary when one considers that a huge proportion of their properties can be empty at any given time, and frequently are empty for long periods.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden made an extremely valid point at the beginning of his speech when he asked about the category of houses in which some tenants live. For example, the Gorgie and Dalry housing association in Edinburgh has renovated many houses there. Indeed, one of the housing association's tenants was my late client, Mr. James Steel, who used to forge 2s 6d pieces, and latterly florins, because ICI, without telling him, narrowed the strip from which he had made half crowns. His consent was needed before the entire block could be renovated.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: What is the hon. and learned Gentleman talking about?
  Mr. Fairbairn: His name was Steel; no doubt he was a member of the family of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who usually sits in front of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
  My hon. Friend should consider whether the point made by the hon. Member for Garscadden is correct. It would be unfair if someone who gave up his private tenancy or ownership to enable a scheme to be carried out did not benefit in the way that someone who joined the association would benefit. I do not know—because I do not understand the Bill—whether the hon. Gentleman is correct, but assuming that he is, the matter must be rectified.
  I do not accept that it is unfair if someone is offered an equivalent flat, which was the hon. Gentleman's next point. I bought a house on the other side of the Thames that is the same distance from Big Ben, on a diameter, as is a house in Marsham court. The house that I bought is infinitely better than any house that I could have bought in Marsham court, and it cost about one twentieth of the price of the latter. I am not impressed by the concept of comparative value, because there are so many differentials that it is difficult to make a comparison. I should be happier to live in any of the restored flats in the Trongate in Glasgow than in the newest houses in Easterhouse.
  The concept of unfairness arises in our postbags every day. Our constituents write to us saying, "Miss Snodgrass got a two-bedroomed house before I did, but she is an unmarried mother and I am a married mother." People will
  1076
  always complain when the local authority is the provider, but one does not hear such complaints when the property is in private hands.
  I cannot welcome enough the surge in home ownership. It is essential to human dignity, to the stability of the family and to people's ability to change jobs. If a man has an asset to sell, he can go wherever he wishes and buy another asset with the proceeds of that sale. Tenants locked in the grip of an authority and its officials do not have that certainty. It is extremely difficult for my constituents to move from one part of Perthshire to another, despite the fact that all houses are administered by the same authority. It is even more difficult to move from one authority to another. Part of my constituency used to be in Central region and part in Tayside. The difficulty of persuading Central region to house someone who already had a council home in Tayside but who wished to move was almost insurmountable. That difficulty would be completely removed by more ownership of houses.
  I would go further than the Bill and introduce a simple measure entitled the Housing (Scotland) Bill (No. 2) which would say simply that anyone who lives in a house owned by a local authority is now its owner for a grassum of 1p. There shall be an assumption that it has been conveyed, and all housing authorities will be removed.
  Mr. William McKelvey: I do not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's passion for giving local authority houses to their tenants. In many ways I share his view that everyone should be a home owner, but why not apply this to the private sector? Not all private accommodation is of Victorian or Georgian grandeur. I lived in a single-end in houses that were built beside the mill so that the workers would all live nearby. Our family of four were overjoyed to move from a single-end to a council house. Why not extend the right to some of the more desirable areas in the private sector? Tenants who have paid their rent for up to 40 years have the right to home ownership and those houses should be handed over for a penny, on the ground that the landlords have been receiving rent for such a long time.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I have no more fondness for the mill owner than I have for the local authority, which also holds people in thrall. It is abominable, and that is what I wish to remove, but a local authority has no interest in its property, except in retaining its empire. A landlord, or a person who owns a house—I do not like the word "landlord"—which he does not want for the moment, just as one might not need a pair of glasses or a book, should be able to lend it and to get it back again.
  Mr. McKelvey: It is a business.
  Mr. Fairbairn: For some people, it may be a business. The trouble is that the private rented sector, which could have resolved many problems, was destroyed because it was assumed to be wicked. If a man cannot lend his house for as long as he wishes in the knowledge that, eventually, he will get it back, he will not lend it at all. The private rented sector should be infinitely more fluid. Houses do not matter to a local authority. The director of housing is not dealing with a house which he will need back again.
  Subject to allowing those who cannot provide for themselves to rent houses, the more home ownership there is, and the more rights people have to transfer, the happier

  1077
  will be our society in Scotland. I am appalled that such a huge proportion of the population of Scotland are the serfs of local authorities, and I wish that to end totally as soon as possible.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is well known for his wild exaggeration on almost every subject under the sun.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Snap.
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman usually represents nobody but himself and he does not seriously believe what he says on this matter. He would have us believe that everybody is in a position to buy his own house.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Give them their houses.
  Mr. Hamilton: Who will pay for the houses? Will it be the much maligned state which the hon. and learned Gentleman talked about? Millions of people are incapable of buying a house, and more so in Scotland now than for many a long year. Hundreds of thousands in Scotland have been flung on to the dole by the Government.
  The Prime Minister lives rent free in a state-owned house. She obviously objects to that because she is buying a house less than a mile from where I live. Unfortunately, my house has declined in value since that was confirmed.
  I took the trouble of obtaining brochures from Barratt, the jerry-builders in Scotland. However, the Barratt houses in Dulwich are not jerry-built, and I shall read out what will be in the kitchen of the Prime Minister's new house when she moves there from her wretched state-owned home. The following appliances are included in the kitchen: a gas hob, an electric oven, an electric microwave, an electric barbecue grill, a hob ventilator system, a fridge, a dish washer, a sink and tops. Purchasers will be able to choose the colour and pattern of floor and wall tiles. The master bedrooms include a whirlpool bath, two basins, a separate shower, bidet and W.C. all with gold plated fittings. The Prime Minister can buy such a house and the Government are telling the people of Scotland that they shall have the freedom of choice, but they are not telling them that they will not be able to avail themselves of it. Is that the object of the Government's housing policy?
  It is idle to attempt to debate and discuss housing policy in a vacuum, separate from other Government policies. The Secretary of State's speech was an appalling example of how a problem of serious and catastrophic dimensions can be treated with the smug, smiling complacency for which he is renowned.
  The Bill is monstrously irrelevant when considered in relation to Government policy as a whole. The crime statistics for Scotland since 1978 show that robbery has increased by 18 per cent., housebreaking by 46 per cent., vandalism by 40 per cent., fire raising by 63 per cent. and serious assault by 51 per cent. However we interpret the facts, they are catastrophic and terrifying.
  In the same period, unemployment in Scotland, not least among building trade workers, has increased. The monthly average in Scotland in 1980 was 207,900. In 1984 it was 341,600, and in the first nine months of this year
  1078
  the average monthly figure is 353,000. That is an increase of over 75 per cent. in the six years that the Government have been in power.
  These rises in crime and unemployment have been recorded since 1979 when 23,782 houses were completed. In 1984, that figure had declined to 18,670. That is the way in which the Bill must be considered.
  The three crucial areas of escalating crime, rocketing unemployment and virtual extinction of local authority house building for rent are closely interlinked. The increasing feelings of hopelessness, frustration and anger lead to social frictions and to the crime figures that I have mentioned.
  The Church of Scotland Committee on Church and Nation reported to the General Assembly in May and quoted the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations which stated:
  "Scotland is still desperately short of housing for all types of needs…At the present rate of building, demolition and household formation, each new home built will have to last 300 years if the housing stock is to replace itself."
  That is the measure of the problem as deduced by the housing associations and supported by the Church of Scotland, the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and by every responsible authority in Scotland and the United Kingdom. That is also the view of two royal princes—and they should know what they are talking about in this matter—Prince Philip and Prince Charles, who have both repeated precisely what has been said by other authorities.
  The Secretary of State rubbished the reports of COSLA although its view is shared by all the other authorities that I have mentioned. A year ago, Shelter calculated that in real terms, between 1979 and 1986, public expenditure on housing in Scotland will have been slashed by over 50 per cent. Whatever authority one considers, from the highest in the land to the lowest, the story is the same. There has never been a more devastating story of negligence and incompetence in housing than in the past four or five years.
  Nobody can accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of not doing his homework. He does more homework than many Ministers on housing matters. Many of the Ministers did not know what my hon. Friend was talking about and the Opposition will be very interested in the Under-Secretary's answers to my hon. Friend's questions. I suspect that he will not answer half the questions because the answers have not yet been prepared by his civil servants. No doubt we will get them in due course in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden accused the Government of having produced in the face of all the evidence an ill-thought-out, ill-conceived and irrelevant Bill. When the Bill reaches the statute book, not one extra house will have been provided as a consequence. There will be no diminution of waiting lists. Young people who are getting married now will not move up the queue. In fact, I received a letter only last week from the Glenrothes new town development corporation. People often write to me asking if they can exchange houses or if a daughter can be placed on the housing waiting lists because she is getting married. The Glenrothes corporation said that it is precisely because it is not allowed to build for rent that it has been compelled to sell. Therefore there is less and less of a pool for renting, and the problems are much more difficult to solve as a direct—
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: No, I shall not give way. I promised to make a short speech and before I resume my place I wish to say something about clause 18, which refers to building regulations. I intervened during the Secretary of State's speech to seek some assurances from him. He smiled and told me that I need not worry as building regulations would not be dealt with directly by the Bill. However, he explained that the Bill would lead to minor improvements, which will be welcomed by my hon. Friends and myself. But there is no doubt in which direction the Government will move in subsequent legislation. It is clear from their intentions that they will allow jerry-builders like Barratts a free hand to build what they like within the minimal requirements that will be provided in the new regulations.
  The Government's intentions for building regulations have been clear for over two years. The Government propose to remove minimum space and other standards for housing in Scotland. In early June 1984, they issued a consultative paper in which it was clear that their intention was to allow builders such as Barratts to do just about anything they liked. The Government faced opposition from Kirkcaldy district council, Dunfermline district council and from every other local housing authority in Scotland. They did not want Barratts to be allowed to build to such regulations, but the Scottish Office overruled them and allowed Barratts to build the rabbit hutches that are now to be seen in Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and other areas.
  In the consultative document to which I have referred, there is no mention of minimum ceiling heights. Is that what the Government intend to set out in subsequent legislation? Are they content that Barratts shall be allowed to build for dwarfs or those who are stunted, like a number of Conservative Members who are now in the Chamber? Under the terms of the consultative document, tiny boxes could be built and be called bedrooms. The proposition was to reduce the minimum space to 70 per cent. of what is provided in the current regulations. The kitchen could be an area below a stair with no natural lighting and consisting of a sink, a cooker and about a cubic yard of storage in some adjacent area. That was described by the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers as "ridiculous".
  The Prime Minister is responsible for that. She will not have a 5 ft ceiling in her home. She will not have a kitchen below a stair. She will have the sort of properties which I have described. No Tory Minister—not even a Tory Back Bencher—would live in the sort of house or hutch that is proposed for tenants in Scotland. The Minister does not understand. No Minister in this Administration understands the housing or other problems of ordinary people who are living on the bread line and are desperately anxious for some shelter. The Under-Secretary should not smile so smugly. Smugness and complacency must be infectious in the Scottish Office.
  The Minister refused to meet the Kirkcaldy district council to talk about its massive problems. It could spend tens of millions of pounds on housing improvements, and the Minister knows well what I am talking about. The district council could spend huge sums on bringing the properties under its control to a decent standard. I have in mind the prefabricated houses and other properties which were built in immediately after the war and still exist throughout Fife.
  1080
  The Government are introducing the Bill because they wish to create the illusion that they are anxious for freedom of choice. They wish also that more people will own their own homes. I recall many years ago that Nye Bevan said that he did not object—nor do I—to anyone owning his own house. I own my house. Nye Bevan objected—and this is my objection—to someone owning someone else's home.
  Mr. Donald Thompson (A Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Like local authorities.
  Mr. Hamilton: Yes, and private landlords. At least a local authority is elected, and if the people do not like what it does they can kick it out. I suspect that many Tories in Scotland will be kicked out in the elections of May 1986. The Tories are in ill repute in Scotland. They can do what they like in the Bill, or in any other measure, but there will be fewer than 10 Tories representing Scottish constituencies following the next general election. The Bill will do nothing to solve the enormous housing problems in Scotland and for that reason my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will oppose it when the Division takes place.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to welcome the Bill. I wish especially to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office for extending the right to buy to tenants of regional councils. When I raised the matter in Committee on what was then the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State assured me that he would consult COSLA prior to considering legislation. I felt that that was a sort of ministerial put down and that nothing further would be heard about the matter. I congratulate him on incorporating in the Bill the right to buy for tenants of regional councils. I know that the provision will be welcomed widely in my constituency.
  Equally, the extension of the right to buy to tenants of housing associations is only fair and proper. As a Conservative Back Bencher, I confess that hitherto I have had a slight prejudice against housing associations and the funding thereof. I realise that if the alternative was to fund district councils and the housing authority for the provision of more housing, that would carry the right to buy, whereas it would be voluntary with the housing associations.
  I have a number of specific questions which come from my reading of the Bill. I find the measure extremely difficult to understand as it refers back almost constantly to previous legislation. In some instances I may have missed the point.
  I should like to know which housing associations will be excluded under paragraph 1(f)(ii) of schedule 1. What proportion of the housing stock of regional councils will be excluded by paragraph 18 of schedule 1? We all welcome the improvement in the discount arrangements and the alterations in the cut-off dates, which bring the arrangements into line with what has happened since the right to buy was first granted. In clause 3(1)(b), what is meant by
  "improvements (other than by way of repairing or maintenance)"?
  It seems that that is a potential loophole which could be exploited by local authorities that are concerned to avoid tenants purchasing their properties.
  Do the changes in clause 3(2), to include modernisation costs in the debt to be recovered, affect tenants who are

  1081
  currently in the throes of buying their properties? If it catches those tenants, will the Minister give us an assurance that, in Committee, amendments will be tabled to protect those people? Can he qualify clause 3(3) on the calculation of outstanding debts with regard to housing associations?
  I apologise to the House for asking all these detailed questions, but it is important to ensure that the spirit of these important changes is carried through by the local authorities.
  The Bill will be welcomed by tenants who are unfortunate enough to live in Labour-controlled authorities which are still doing their level best to prevent home ownership. The prevention of the imposition of unfair contract conditions is welcome. What will be done for those tenants who already suffer from unfair conditions? Such help would encourage tenants to take action against district councils and encourage the transfer between councils. The requirement for housing associations to publish their allocation system is also welcome.
  Although I welcome the Bill, it is something of a disappointment. Why has my hon. Friend the Minister not embraced a rather more radical approach? Why has he not listened to views which have been expressed by the Opposition? They are quite right to point out that, for the vast majority of tenants in the public sector, home ownership and the right to buy is not an option. There is a variety of reasons for that—perhaps the property is less desirable, perhaps the tenants are in flatted accommodation. An increase in discount would help to some extent, but they might simply not be able to buy. For them, the prospect of home ownership is as elusive as ever.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) has said, such people are at the beck and call of the officials who are responsible for managing local authority housing. It may not be a malign intention on officials' part, but tenants who depend on their efficiency and good will for repairs and allocations are sadly disappointed and left with the feeling that they are treated like numbers or items to be disposed of.
  Would my hon. Friend the Minister consider taking whole housing estates or groups of properties and vesting ownership in tenants' organisations? The privatisation of whole estates under the ownership of tenants as a corporate group would, I am sure, be welcomed by the Opposition.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Minister to adopt a more imaginative and generous approach to the value of co-operatives, which, I think, would be of enormous benefit? I recognise that there are three schemes now before us for piloting, but I hope that something of this sort could be included. I hope that the hon. Member agrees with that.
  Mr. Forsyth: I should like to go further than the hon. Gentleman. I would like whole estates to be handed over to tenant organisations for management, perhaps under partnership with building societies and other financial institutions. In that way, estates will be managed according to the needs and wishes of the tenants, and will be better for it. It is significant that the people of Thamesmead, when given the opportunity to vote on how they would like their estate to be managed within the GLC area, contrary to popular expectation, voted convincingly to opt for the private sector rather than conventional local authority management.
  Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend may like to know that one of the last acts, and certainly the most civilised and successful, of the Edinburgh district council before it fell into the hands of the lunatics who now run it concerned Pilton estate, which was said to be an undesirable area in which criminals were supposed to live. The council sold that estate to a private organisation which did it up, and it is now one of the most sought after places in Edinburgh to live in.
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I proposed to mention that example as another strategy for dealing with housing problems.
  I am not talking about a scheme to turn all tenants into owner-occupiers. On the contrary, I am talking about a scheme of vesting ownership in co-operatives which will then be able to manage those estates much more effectively and responsibly. We have already recognised that many tenants would benefit from that for whom ownership is not an option.
  We are all aware of the report on the state and fabric of housing. We do not need to be reminded by management consultants or chartered surveyors that our housing estates are falling to bits. Direct labour organisations are unable to respond to the demands upon them for a variety of reasons. How are we to find the capital and resources to put this right? Much could be clone with an injection of private capital.
  It is right to remind the House of what has been done in Pilton. I pay tribute to those Labour authorities throughout the country who, perhaps biting their ideological tongues, have successfully gone ahead with such schemes. I hope that other authorities will follow. Some authorities—Glasgow's Hutcheson town E block was a celebrated example—are less than enthusiastic to bring in private developers to develop the estates and sell them. My hon. and learned Friend has already pointed out the extraordinary transformation in an area where people would not live in any circumstances as a tenant, with the result that those properties were left empty, but as soon as the properties were done up the same people were the first in the queue of people wishing to buy.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Or rent them.
  Mr. Forsyth: Will the Minister institute a new right to allow private developers to identify blocks on estates, or indeed whole estates, which are being left empty and derelict, as many thousands of houses are throughout Scotland? If private developers could introduce a procedure to bid for ownership of such blocks and rehabilitate these properties for sale in partnership, with or without the support of the local authorities. There are far too many properties in Scotland which are empty and decayed because local authorities think that they may be able to get the money to carry out repairs on them. However, the resources are not available from any Government. The resources will not come from the public sector but are available from the private sector. The tenants would prefer such development.
  If we are serious about mobility—the Bill does something to improve it—we should be aware of the catastrophic effects of the Rent Acts. They dry up the supply of accommodation, prevent the development of rented accommodation in the private sector and tie people into their communities. The Rent Acts have locked them in. We must all know tenants who say that they could

  1083
  perhaps get a job down south but that they cannot afford the housing there, that they cannot give up their council house, that they have a garden and that it has taken 20 years to get that high in the pecking order. Reform of the Rent Acts would open a new vista of opportunity for people to move to find employment and it would free the market.
  Reform can be achieved without in any way upsetting security of tenure and control of rents for existing tenants. By deregulating all new lettings, we could create a new supply. If hon. Members are honest, they will admit that they know young couples and others who have no prospect of being housed by the local authority and who are unable to buy. If we had a new supply of rented accommodation which is now lying empty or being used for holiday or company lets, such people would thank us for it. It is no use saying that we will protect people against market rents and eviction when the owner wants the property back if the price of that is nowhere to live.
  I have already stated the obvious—that there are people who cannot afford to buy. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider imaginative schemes, perhaps working with local authorities and building societies, to introduce low-cost mortgage schemes for young couples, for example, whose income might not be high enough at the start of their careers to take on a mortgage but whose earning power will increase at precisely the same rate at which the burden of the mortgage declines? There is an opportunity for action there.
  We consider it right to subsidise people who cannot afford to pay their rented housing costs, so what is wrong with subsidising people to enable them to meet mortgage payments? How can it be right for vast sums of money to be spent on bed and breakfast accommodation—the sums are substantial—to keep people in accommodation which they are thrown out of with their families at 8 am so that they must wander the streets until they are let in again at night when that costs many times more than subsidising the same people to have their own private accommodation?
  I am not suggesting that we establish a system which renders the state open to exploitation by the unscrupulous who might think that there is a good way of getting the state to buy them a house. Many people find themselves in bed and breakfast accommodation, however, and for a variety of reasons. We should not be afraid of what might be considered novel or extraordinary and allow ourselves to be trapped into perpetuating a system that wastes public money, does not provide the best for the people who we are trying to help, and restricts our ability to extend home ownership.
  I welcome the Bill. It is a step in the right direction, but my hon. Friend the Minister is being a little too timid. We have a monumental housing problem on our hands, partly because of Socialism, partly as a result of demographic change, and partly because of the system of subsidies that has operated in the housing market. The radicalism that I have described, extension of choice and releasing the energy of the market and the private sector has far more to offer people. The Government should embrace those opportunities. Such action would be popular and they will win a great electoral victory on the strength of such policies.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I find myself in the alarming situation of having to agree with a great deal that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said. He seemed to be considering housing with fresh eyes. Although I did not agree with everything that he said, especially his clarion call at the end, the extent of our housing problem is such that fresh ideas are needed.
  If the Bill is the flagship of the Government's housing programme for 1985–86, I can only say that it has not impressed me. It is very much like a guttering candle. The Government have built on the tenants' rights legislation—irrespective of whether we agreed with that, it was certainlyradical—but now we have just bits and pieces. The Bill is a rag-bag and I am not excited in the slightest by it. I shall vote against it, largely because I disagree with housing associations being compelled—for that is what it amounts to—to sell some properties.
  I know that housing association properties are in great demand in the inner-city areas that I represent. Their success is demonstrated clearly by that demand, just as the condemnation of the products of the housing policies pursued in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s is represented by people fleeing the concrete mausoleums that were put up in the name of progress and which have trapped many.
  We have a serious housing problem. In Dundee the number of council houses exceeds demand but there is a striking shortage of the homes that people want. We have built the wrong type of house. If they had been built in areas that could have been garden suburbs or if they were terrace or semi-detached hoses or could be described as having defensible living space, to use the current jargon, they would be in demand. Instead, we have soulless walkup blocks. People are voting with their feet. They refuse to take houses in some areas and press for housing association properties in better areas. I find it alarming that the Secretary of State was willing to admit that the condition of the housing stock is catastrophic but that he seems unwilling to provide the resources necessary to do anything about it.
  It is worth refreshing our memories of the figures. Some 71,000 houses in urban and rural areas lack inside toilets or hot water supplies, heating, lighting or adequate ventilation and suffer from serious disrepair. We need a massive programme to rectify that—to get rid of what are effectively slum houses. For most of my political career we have described such houses as unacceptable, but, like a blemish on society, they are still with us.
  As if that was not bad enough, several hundred thousand houses on modern housing estates built by district councils suffer from dampness or other conditions in which people do not want to live. They tell us of their problems and we batter at the local authorities' doors on their behalf. However, we are aware that local authorities are short of money for rehabilitation work. It is difficult to explain to tenants that the conditions of which they complain—they show us clothing that has gone blue with mould to show how bad their homes are—might be the result of design problems or simply the lack of cash. Nevertheless, it is the tenants who have to live in such conditions.
  We shall make a mistake if we ignore the extent of the problem and we shall let our people down if, through our failure to put pressure on the Government, we do not get fresh funds.

  1085
  I agree with the hon. Member for Stirling that there are several ways of dealing with the problem. I am not against enabling unwanted empty council houses to be converted or improved within the private market. It makes sense that houses that fetch no rent and which may be vandalised because they are standing empty or which may cause a problem to other homes nearby should be put right by the private sector if the public sector is unable to tackle the job.
  It is equally right to invite housing associations to take over, say, certain blocks and to concentrate on special housing needs in the inner cities. We should use all the means available to obtain a diversity of housing to satisfy demand. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Stirling call on the Government to respect the principle of co-ownership or co-operative housing. The attraction of such building has never been fulfilled in this country, whereas other countries have done much to extend that form of ownership.
  We should remove the big brother of the housing management sector and allow people more control over their lives, without exposing them to other problems that can arise. I have in mind people being left bereft if it turns out that the homes that they have bought are in extremely bad repair and they have no money to put them right. In other words, we must maintain a balance.
  Many officials and councils do not like the concept of tenant management. Indeed, I sometimes suspect that tenants might not want the responsibility to be wished on them. I agree that it is better to decentralise control over housing to tenants so far as it is possible to do that.
  Although we all agree that special needs must be satisfied—sheltered housing, housing for the disabled and houses in the inner cities—we are no longer concerned with the crude "roofs over people's heads" policy that existed in the past, when we talked not so much of building homes but of building housing units. Those very units are today not recognised by people as real homes.
  We must consider the rehabilitation of housing. However much we may change the method of management or the type of tenure, we still have the problem of lack of quality. Many existing houses were jerry-built, with concrete shells lacking sufficient insulation or having inadequate ventilation. Many design problems cost a great deal to put right, and while the Government have a duty to help put them right, there is no sign in the Bill that a sound maintenance policy is to be followed.
  People suffer draughts in their homes, leaks in their roofs and wood rotting away because the local authority is obliged to extend the period for painting or attending to repairs beyond the usual cycle. Anyone with experience of property will appreciate that it is bad policy not to paint the external woodwork. To do so means a larger bill at a later date. Modernisation schemes for improving our housing stock have largely ground to a halt because of the calamitous decline in the provision of finance by the Government.
  I have no objection to increasing discounts for the sale of flats. Indeed, perhaps a provision to that effect should have been included in the original legislation, to which I objected because of the compulsion on local authorities to dispose of the more attractive properties. They were, naturally, the properties that tenants wanted to buy.
  1086
  I am not saying that there is anything wrong with tenants wishing to purchase the sort of properties they desire, but as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) pointed out, there also exists the right to rent a reasonable house. Because of the Government's policy, many of the semi-detached and similar houses that people desire are no longer available. That has led to frustration, particularly where a new build policy is not pursued by the local authority.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: Would not the valuation of a house have some impact on decisions of that kind? The valuation of a semi-detached house, because it is a more desirable property, will be much higher than that of a third floor flat. To some extent Mat will compensate for the difference, and the discount will help to compensate more.
  Mr. Wilson: In theory the hon. Gentleman adduces a sound argument. It does not work in practice, however, and the Government have recognised that fact by increasing the discounts for properties that people are not keen to take on. After all, living in tenemental property—I will not mention buying a multi-occupation flat, if one were completely daft, or buying a maisonette in a walk-up block—involves the problem of collective maintenance. Private occupiers are bound to be frightened if the roof is in disrepair or if dry rot develops.
  I speak of that from experience, because in the early days of my marriage we lived in a tenemental flat which suffered a slight attack of dry rot. We felt great fear and alarm when we received big estimates, before getting a local joiner to do the job, although after the work was done I had to crawl under the basement floor in darkness and scoop up bits of rotting timber that had been left there.
  I fear that the Bill does not attempt to get at the root of difficulties that are faced by hundreds of thousands of tenants, and I do not exaggerate when I say that. The hon. Member for Stirling was right to criticise the Government for lacking imagination on this issue. They have failed to live up to the obligations that are placed on them, by virtue of their office, to improve the residential accommodation of many of our citizens.
  8.26 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: The one issue on which we can all agree is that housing is vital. It is a subject about which there is a new Bill every year for Scotland, and the same probably applies to England and Wales.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) was right to concentrate on the poor quality of much of our housing and the problems about which we hear regularly in our surgeries. They are particularly the problems of dampness and condensation, with the vicious circle that those problems produce. Condensation usually occurs through lack of ventilation, yet tenants in difficult areas cannot go to work and leave their windows open, because of a fear of their houses being vandalised.
  I am glad that the Government have recognised that this is a serious issue. I hope that if my hon. Friend has money available for housing in future, more will be spent on improvement grants. Expenditure of that kind in recent years has been the most effective way of improving the nation's housing stock.
  We should couple the Bill in broad terms with the building societies Bill which will come later. The more

  1087
  opportunities that are provided for home ownership, the better, and if the building societies had a wider remit, greater opportunity would be provided for home ownership.
  I welcomed my right hon. Friend's remarks about the need to extend the right to buy and I am glad that, through the policy of the purchase of council houses, about £100 million has been ploughed back into housing. I welcome the clause dealing with housing associations in relation to the right to buy, because that, too, will extend home ownership. Will those provisions cover health authorities as well as the regional councils and police and fire service houses? They need a stock of houses to accommodate their staff.
  I must say, "Well done, indeed," to the housing associations for the tremendous work that they have done, particularly in making dramatic advances during the past six years. This year's programme involves about £110 million, and this is the fourth consecutive year in which more than £100 million has been spent on new housing accommodation. That is very good news and we should say, "Well done," to the Housing Corporation and the housing associations for their extremely good work. I hope that they will continue to expand their programmes, wherever possible, into rural areas. By that I mean the smaller towns in Scotland, which are keen to have more housing association accommodation and particularly sheltered housing.
  Those of us who have seen some of the sheltered housing built in the past few years know how highly commendable it is. I refer particularly to the sheltered housing that helps the disabled and infirm. A nice community spirit is engendered by grouping the houses around a central community center. We must encourage all that, and I hope that the Government will do what they can in that regard.
  Tonight I shall concentrate on the wider issue of housing in the countryside. I know that Rural Forum has done much to produce good work on this subject. Indeed, I was glad that my hon. Friend the Minister went to Galloway a few weeks ago to speak to Rural Forum and to show that he believed in its work. We are all keen to try to stem rural depopulation, yet many planning authorities seem to be determined to prevent the construction of houses in the countryside. If we do not have good housing in the countryside, we will end up closing village schools and village halls, and that community spirit that is so vital to the countryside will be lost.
  I hope that the enlightened new circular that was introduced a few months ago to replace circular 40/1960 will be welcomed by planning committees. So far, I have seen little evidence that they realise the opportunity presented by the circular to adopt a more flexible approach towards planning in the countryside. Hon. Members will know that the circular that has been in operation for the past 25 years was very restrictive. However beautiful the countryside might or might not be, new building had to be attached to agriculture or forestry. Of course, the number of those employed in agriculture or forestry is falling, and it is unlikely that anyone would want to build new houses for that purpose. Thus, the new circular is welcome.
  It is worth pointing out that the guidelines are still carefully drawn so that there will be no impact on green
  1088
  belt areas, or ribbon and scattered developments. Nothing detrimental will happen to the scenic beauty of our country. There is now an opportunity to approve more rural developments than in the past. A good house, built with the right materials and to the right design, often enhances the countryside. One need look only at the farmsteads and houses that were built in the 18th and 19th centuries. They enhance the countryside, and there is no reason why houses built in the 1980s and 1990s should not do the same for the next century.
  We have an opportunity to stem the move away from the countryside by making a modest increase in the number of houses built there. We already have an effective appeal system. In the past, reporters have all too frequently been able to found their decisions on the 1960 circular, which has now been replaced. Appeals should now be won more frequently by applicants for planning permission in the countryside. They cannot be turned down purely because of their lack of involvement in agriculture or forestry. In the months and years ahead, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do more to publicise this valuable change in planning policy, as it seems to be taking far too long to sink into the minds of many planning officials.
  I am particularly interested in the countryside and its conservation, but there is nothing frightening about people having the power to give approval to the right developments. No one is saying that that power must be exercised, but perhaps we can now come down more on the side of the applicant if he fulfills all the ideals of quality that I have outlined. Given the importance of housing in the countryside and the quality and quantity of urban housing, I certainly support the Bill.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Allen Adams: By way of an aside, I must say that the Scottish electorate will no doubt take note of the fact that some Conservative Members have suggested that the de-industrialisation of Scotland during the past six years is somehow due, in part or in whole, to the immobility of the Scots. It seems to be suggested that if people would chase factories all over the country, all would be well. It is implied that because Socialist authorities in Scotland built council houses, people became immobile.
  The population of Scotland stands at about 5 million, yet there are 20 million people of Scottish descent living outside Scotland. That points to the fact that the Scots are very mobile, and may have been more mobile than they really wanted to be. If there had been more money with which to build more good quality public housing in Scotland, some of those 20 million mobile people might still be in Scotland.
  Whether or not the Government like it, municipal Socialism is popular in Scotland. Most of the major housing authorities have been controlled by the Labour party for the past 50 or 60 years. The people have voted that way time and again because Labour local authorities in Scotland have done their job. Unlike some authorities in other parts of the country, who talk about Kit-Kats in canteens, Ireland and about issues involving Africa and Latin America, Labour local authorities in Scotland have got on with their job quietly and efficiently.

  1089
  Anybody who visits the centre of the city of Glasgow or Paisley and Renfrew can see that, even in the past 20 years, immeasurable and lasting improvements have been made.
  Mrs. McCurley: With Conservative Government money.
  Mr. Adams: We shall see where you are at the general election.
  Mrs. McCurley: Still in the same place.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is not where I will be at the next general election. I shall look after myself.
  Mr. Adams: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  About a week ago I went to Celtic park to see St. Mirren, my local team, play Celtic. My son and I left Celtic park at 5 pm and took a bus along the London road past Bridgeton cross to Argyle street. At one time that was the east end and one of the most notorious parts of any city in Britain. The slums were appalling. Within 30 years what was an unattractive area has become an extremely pleasant one. The change is phenomenal.
  The same change occurred in my constituency. Only 20 years ago, when I was going to school, the slums and rabbit warrens still existed, but they do not exist now. The Government and their supporters suggest that all was well when it was left to private enterprise alone, but it was not. In my constituency we had the highest tuberculosis rate in Europe at the turn of the century. We inherited that legacy from private enterprise in the 19th century. It was said that Glasgow had the worst slums in Europe outside Vienna.
  People voted Labour in Glasgow and the west of Scotland simply to get rid of the slums, and to be fair to the Labour party, that is exactly what we did—we got rid of the slums. [Interruption.] When hon. Gentlemen have finished, I shall continue. That is not to say that we did not make mistakes. They must be freely and frankly admitted. At a huge tenement block about four storeys high in Fergusley park, I counted about 70 children in one close, yet people wonder why we have social problems. Such blocks were certainly errors of planning and judgment. No one regrets more than I do the break up of the extended family that has occurred because of that.
  The mistakes were largely brought about because of the great pressure on local authorities to build as many houses as possible, as quickly as possible, to house many people in as short a time as possible. The whole project was greatly under-capitalised. Many contractors seemed to receive more for a three-apartment tenement house than for a three-apartment semi-detached private house. Mistakes were made, but great pressure was exerted on local authorities to build quickly and cheaply. We should not make that mistake in future.
  In the public sector we have tended to make it difficult for an individual tenant to identify with his house. There have been far too many silly, bureaucratic and often unnecessary rules. It is nonsense to tell a tenant that before he puts a picture on a wall he must have an inspector come to tell where to put the nail. There is no point in having every door—
  Mrs. McCurley: That is Socialism.
  Mr. Adams: It is not Socialism, but downright stupidity. There is no point in having every door in one street painted the same colour.
  Mrs. McCurley: That is Socialism.
  Mr. Adams: The hon. Lady is confused. That is not Socialism, but bureaucratic stupidity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Socialism.
  I understand why people became a little alienated. They always had the feeling that the house did not belong to them, but belonged to factors, and that there was little point in investing money in it. A solution is to devolve power from the centre of our cities and our district housing authorities to the periphery. We should give people a real and meaningful say in how their council houses are run. We want power devolved to the streets. The people in those areas know best how they want to live, and they should be allowed to live as they wish.
  The vast majority of people in Scotland continue to live in municipal housing. Frankly, they do not seem to have much choice. There is a great demand for council housing because attitudes in Scotland to public housing are different from those in England, although they are changing. We can argue until the cows come home that that should not be so, or that if this or that had happened in history the position might have been different, but the fact remains that attitudes are and will remain different for the foreseeable future.
  The solution is not deliberately to stimulate demand for private housing by creating a vacuum, cutting the sums available to local authorities, rendering authorities unable to build the sort of municipal housing that people want, and then saying, "People do not want the housing anyway. They want private houses built by Barratt and Salvesen." Yet that is what the Government are doing. They are ensuring that people have no alternative.
  Let us consider an average couple in their early 20s who are getting married and who were brought up in a decent four-apartment semi-detached council house. They put their name down on the local authority list and ask what the chances are of a decent house. They are frequently told that in a few years they may get a three-apartment flat on the fourth storey of a tenement, but on the other hand that they may not and that they certainly will not get a semidetached house with a front and back garden. They are forced either to take a house that they do not want—it is not desirable to bring up a family in those circumstances—or go on the open market. They want certainstandards—standards have risen, which is a good thing—and to bring up a family in a good environment.
  Mrs. McCurley: Will the hon. Gentleman give me an idea of the number of his colleagues who live in local authority housing and the number who live in private housing? Will he say why those who live in private housing do so?
  Mr. Adams: I am coming to that point. It is alwayssuggested—wrongly—that the Labour party is against people owning houses.
  Mrs. McCurley: The hon. Gentleman said so.
  Mr. Adams: No, I do not say that. I said that the economic reality makes it difficult for people to my houses. There is nothing wrong with the principle of buying a house, but it is difficult to do so. People are being deprived because local authorities are being starved of the funds to build proper and substantial council properties.

  1091
  The young average couple whom I mentioned are then forced to go to Barratts, Salvesen or whoever else is building houses. Incidentally, some of the houses are in-substantial and may create problems in 20 years' time.
  Many young couples are being robbed of their youth. Every penny that they earn has to be spent on their house. They cannot move, and they cannot go out. Everything down to the last cigarrette must be budgeted for. Young couples are putting off having families until their mid or late 20s because they are up to their necks in mortgage repayments.
  Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend have the same experience in his constituency as I have in mine? It is one which, unfortunately, is increasing. Families who are owner-occupiers come to local councillors or myself to see whether we can assist them to obtain a council or housing association house because they have been unable to keep up high mortgage payments or have lost their jobs as a result of the Government's policies. The Bill will do nothing to help those people. It will make it more difficult for them to be housed.
  Mr. Adams: My hon. Friend is correct. Many people come to my surgery every month looking for local authority housing because they have lost their jobs. Many of my constituents have lost their jobs. The state is expected to pick up the tab and provide those people with housing, yet it is being under-financed and put into a difficult position. I, like my hon. Friend, have noticed that that problem is growing alarmingly.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that some building societies are giving redundancy insurance with mortgages. The cost per month is trivial. As he said, people take out a 20-year contract. They assume that if they lose their jobs the state will pick up the tab. I should be happy to see it made compulsory for building societies to build redundancy insurance into the mortgage.
  Mr. Adams: I have no objection to that proposal. As my hon. Friend has said, many people are being forced to seek local authority housing because they have been evicted from the house that they were attempting to buy because they have lost their jobs. That point should be rammed home.
  The state is trying to renege on its obligation to maintain the housing stock. For example, the grant available to repair and maintain roofs in the private sector has been cut from 90 to 50 per cent. When, in the last century, the state withdrew from its obligation to maintain the housing stock and it was left to laissez-faire capitalism, we had appalling housing. Glasgow had the worst housing in Europe. My constituency had some appalling housing, which resulted in premature deaths. Intolerable housing conditions resulted in a life expectancy of 40 to 45 years. The Labour party's policies changed that. I say to the people who want to buy the council houses that those houses would not have existed if it had not been for men like John Wheatley and the Labour party. During the early part of the century they built many of the council houses that those people now wish to purchase.
  Does the Minister agree, as his Department apparently does, that three quarters of all public expenditure cuts in
  1092
  Scotland over the past five years have fallen on housing? What does he say about housing expenditure which has been cut by 31 per cent. in real terms since 1979? I ask the Minister to answer those points when he replies.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Barry Henderson: I recommend all Opposition Members who have been elected since the Government came to office to read Labour's consultative document on Scottish housing published in June 1977. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who subscribed so much to that document, is in the Chamber yet again for one of our housing debates. If the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) had read the Labour Government's Green Paper he would have learnt a great deal to his advantage, not least on mobility, to which he referred.
  Page 38, paragraph 4.13, of that document states:
  "People should be able to move from area to area as job opportunities change. If the housing system makes this difficult, it hinders Scotland's economic progress…or where ready access to local authority sector depends on residential qualification."
  We put that anomaly right under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. We removed applicants' dependence on residential qualifications. The document continued:
  "The problem is aggravated by the decline of the private rented sector which in the past was able to offer temporary accommodation to incomers until longer-term housing was available. Public sector allocation policies must try to ensure that the advantages to industry and the community of facilitating mobility are balanced realistically against the needs of local residents."
  I hope the hon. Member for Paisley, North will accept that Conservative Members have said that mobility has been a problem and that a factor in that problem was the large public rented housing sector.
  Mr. Allen Adams: It is a question of the Sabbath being made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that we should move all the people to the factory or move the factory to the people?
  Mr. Henderson: That brings me to the next point in the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Gentleman accepted that great mistakes had been made in the past. I honour him for being straightforward about that. We are all aware of that. Few people can avoid blame.
  Those mistakes were exacerbated by Socialism for one reason if for no other—the lack of a substantial alternative market prevented people from showing their preferences and having them responded to in the market place. He referred to houses built by Salvesen. The private sector's great achievement is that it responds to the needs of the market place. It provides the houses that people want. If the market place had determined the type of houses built during the 1950s and 1960s at the time of the council house boom we would have far better council houses today, but no, the Socialist planners knew better. Nowhere did they know about it better than in the Scottish new towns. Most of the people who planned the new town houses lived outside those towns.
  I welcome the Bill. It has a number of excellent features. Some are better known than others. We all know that one of the Bill's important features extends the right to purchase to housing association tenants. Perhaps even better known is the fact that it will increase the discount available on sales of flats under the right-to-buy policy.

  1093
  That is good. There are many other useful provisions in the Bill, but I will deal with two relatively minor but important points.
  Under clause 11 and schedule 1, as the explanatory and financial memorandum says:
  "The period within which a person who has purchased his house under the right to purchase shall be liable to repay all or a proportion of the discount received is reduced from 5 to 3 years."
  When we were going through the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill, we spent some time on that question. It was a matter of concern that people might do quick deals that were not beneficial to housing or to the objectives of the Bill. I think that we were over-cautious and that, in the light of the experience with the sales of council houses, the reduction of the period can be seen as a beneficial provision. It will help in cases where otherwise there might have been unfairness and hardship when people's circumstances changed and they had to move house through no choice of their own.
  As the explanatory and financial memorandum says:
  "Clause 10 restores a ground for recovery of possession of a dwelling house: that the landlord wishes to transfer the tenancy to one of the parties to a marriage, or other relationship, which has broken down, the other partner having hitherto been the tenant."
  That will be a very helpful provision, and I welcome it.
  Earlier in the debate, there was reference to the mistakes of the past, and to a need for a house condition survey. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to it, as did the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). I agree with the Government that a house condition survey would be a waste of time and money. We do not need to be told the extent of some of the past mistakes which urgently require action.
  I served on the Select Committee which examined the problem of dampness in houses. We identified several of the problems, and concentrated the minds of some of the experts on the need to find solutions to them. The Select Committee's report was valuable. We do not need more surveys to tell us the scale of the problem. We need a consensus and an understanding of the scale of the problem and the priority that must be given to it if it is to be solved.
  Failure to tackle the problem has not been due to lack of money from the Government; it has been due to the refusal of many local authorities, particularly those most seriouslyaffected—notablyGlasgow—to give the same priority that hon. Members generally feel should be given to the rehabilitation of houses which suffer from dampness or the errors of the past. Indeed, Glasgow forwent over £5 million that it could have had for that sort of work because it insisted on a low-rent policy which simply transferred the cost of housing benefit from the taxpayer to the ratepayer.
  The housing associations are currently running a campaign for still more public money. The extreme case is that of the Tayside, Grampian and Fife forum of housing associations, which is urging that the Government should provide more money for housing associations. The secretary of the association said that the associations were
  "having to postpone much-needed developments because of cuts in Government funding".
  That was in the Courier of 2 November, which reports that he
  "warned yesterday that continued under-funding could lead to a return to slum conditions for many people".
  1094
  Those words would cause anxiety to any of us. But, in the same piece of mail from that gentleman, there is a coloured glossy brochure telling of the progress of housing associations in Grampian, Tayside and Fife. It says:
  "Investment by housing associations funded by the Housing Corporation"—
  that is taxpayers' money—
  "in Grampian, Tayside and North Fife over the past five years is shown graphically below. The upward trend is clearly visible."
  Investment has risen from just over £2·5 million to over £17·5 million during the lifetime of this Government. Far from underfunding, that is an eightfold growth. The housing association movement requires a better campaign than that if it wishes to obtain more taxpayers' money.
  The convenor of housing in north-east Fife district—who should know better but was clearly caught up with this kind of nonsense—said:
  "In this area we have a large and increasingly elderly population."
  That is true. He continued:
  "This Government's claim that they are caring and have the interests of the elderly at heart has now been exposed."
  Yet the truth is that in 1979, when the Government came to office, there were 12,570 sheltered houses in Scotland. There are now 34,438, so nearly twice as many have been built by the Goverment as they inherited.
  In north-east Fife, there were 42 sheltered houses in 1979. There are now 318—seven and a half times as many—and the Liberal chairman of the housing committee in north-east Fife does not even know it.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am proud that, when I served on Glasgow district council, I saw the community-based housing associations develop in a big way. I am proud of my connection with the Assist project in Govan when I was a councillor. The project was run by a development officer, Raymond Young, who is now the director of the Housing Corporation in Scotland. He is doing an excellent job. I watched the Mansel-St. Monance housing associations develop into the Springburn-Possil Parliamentary housing association in my area of Springburn.
  It is not fair for Conservative Members to criticise housing associations in Glasgow. Those associations would say that the co-operation that they have had from Glasgow district council officials has been second to none. The council has set up a department to work with community-based housing associations. One need only to go through any Glasgow district to see the evidence of rehabilitated tenements—the type of work that could not go on unless the district council and the housing corporation co-operated.
  Governments of both persuasions have been helpful to housing associations. However, this Government are cutting expenditure. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to reassure the House and the housing associations that expenditure will not be cut. About 90 per cent. of the people involved in housing associations are volunteers. In effect, they are doing the job of local government and central Government.
  I have corresponded with the Under-Secretary of State about a housing co-operative that has been set up in Possil Park. This local authority area has deteriorated to such an extent that few people will take a house in it and the majority who live there want to leave. The co-operative was set up to get the houses made wind and watertight. It

  1095
  is an indictment of society that, in this day and age, people need to set up an organisation to achieve that objective. The people want to modernise their houses. By forming a co-operative they have, in effect, set up a housing association. The Under-Secretary of State has told me that there is not enough money to go around and that Possil Park will not be included in the first round of new housing co-operatives in district council areas.
  I ask the Under-Secretary of State, as a second option, to allow the Possil Park co-operative to be registered with the Housing Corporation. That would give the people the power to borrow money. They would be under the wing of the Housing Corporation.
  Mr. Anna McCurley rose—
  Mr. Martin: I am sorry; if I had the time, I would give way.
  A number of tenement dwellers in Balmore road in Possil Park want their houses to be rehabilitated. The Springburn-Possil Park housing association is willing to do that work. Unfortunately, Glasgow has many mines which were worked out many years ago and the foundations are unstable. This may also be a problem in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). The Scottish Development Association is responsible for strengthening foundations before modernisation is carried out, but there does not seem to be any liaison between the housing corporation and the SDA. Consequently, these houses cannot be modernised. It would a pity if they had to be demolished, but that is what will happen unless something is done about it.
  I am disappointed that the Bill contains no provision for improving the quality of life of those who live in multi-storey flats. Certain right hon. and hon. Members have described them as concrete mausoleums. Some of the multi-storey flats in Glasgow are in very high demand. Before the points system was introduced people had to wait for 10 or 12 years before they were housed, and pensioners were housed in multi-storey flats in my constituency that are now being vandalised.
  Vandals are doing a great deal of damage. It is a pity that money cannot be provided to ensure protection for those who live in multi-storey flats. Nobody is prepared to take on the responsibility of protecting property. Populations equal to the size of a small village live in multi-storey flats but no protection is provided for them. Lifts are put out of action by vandals. People with heart conditions and other serious medical problems then have to climb the stairs to reach their flats on the 19th or 20th storeys. If security were provided for multi-storey flats that type of vandalism could be avoided and the people who live in them would have peace of mind. They would be able to go out at night without having to fear the kind of vandalism that I have described.
  I am disappointed that the Bill contains no provison to encourage the setting up of community-based housing associations in new developments. Many housing associations have modernised their properties. They have also earmarked sites for new development. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that he intended to cut through the red tape, but he did not point out that the community-based housing associations have a great deal of red tape
  1096
  to cut through before they can build the type of sheltered housing that was referred to by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
  If the Secretary of State is serious about providing good housing for those who live in constituencies that are similar to mine, he should consider encouraging housing associations to build new houses. It is nonsense for the Secretary of State to say that, because few flats are being sold, he will provide bigger discounts. He thinks that few flats are being sold because people worry about the responsibility for common repairs.
  All that I can say is that the Secretary of State does not know Glasgow or Edinburgh, because the majority of people in those cities have had to put up with common repairs, and that has not been a deterrent and will not be one in the future. The Secretary of State knows that many of the tenements and housing estates in Glasgow are in a deplorable condition and that the local authority cannot even let such properties, let alone sell them. We need not discounts but rehabilitation to get rid of dampness and to improve the quality of life in the tenements before we get on with the business of selling them. Discounts are not the answer.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I begin by agreeing with one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). One of those points is that put to him by the Possil park steering committee, which has been in touch with me as well—only today, I spoke to the secretary on the phone. If my hon. Friend joins me in the Committee on the Bill, we shall put down amendments to try to ensure that the Minister does something about this.
  I agree also that some high-rise flats within Glasgow are highly desirable, and people want to live in them. There are two such blocks in Mount Florida, in my constituency. That is the area of Glasgow in which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food believes that all the farmers reside. These flats are highly desirable; one of the reasons for that is that they overlook Hampden park and with a good pair of binoculars, one can watch the games from the top flats.
  Having watched Tory Members come and go tonight—they have gone more often—and heard of the events within the Conservative Back-Bench committee, I am reminded of a story told by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). Just after the election he was sitting on the Government Benches when a young Conservative sat beside him. The young Member turned to the hon. Member for Aldershot and said, looking at the Opposition Benches, "It is nice to be able to sit here and look our enemies in the eye." The hon. Member for Aldershot said, "No, you have got it wrong. Those people over there are our opponents. Our enemies are behind us." How true that is of the Scottish Conservative party today.
  The Conservative party in Scotland, with constituency parties threatening mass resignations, the candidates association up in arms and refusing to support the Government, with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—he made a speech, but he has not yet returned—wanting to drag ex-Conservative candidates to the Bar of the House because of what he considers to be contempt, while he organises a putsch against the chairman of the Back Bench committee, with the 1922 Committee changing the rules tonight to ensure that that

  1097
  does not happen again, with Back Benchers ensuring that the chairman of the Conservatives on the Select Committee remains the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—another decision that has been taken tonight—is in chaos. Despite all this, these people spend most of their speeches demanding what our policies are, saying that we are disunited and claiming that they represent the party with the popular policies in Scotland.
  However, in election after election—district, regional or general—Scottish Conservatives go down and down. They will lose control of the regional elections next May. The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) will not be here, and neither will the Minister. Hon. Member after hon. Member from the Scottish Conservative party will be knocked out. They claim that their housing policies are popular with the people of Scotland, but the district elections, in particular, proved that their housing policies are not popular. Housing is the function that district authorities have. It is almost the only function that they have. In Glasgow, in district council after district council, it is the Labour party that is returned and as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) said, it is the Labour party that is popular in Scotland.
  Mr. Malone: If the policies are so unpopular, will the hon. Gentleman undertake, from that Dispatch Box, to reverse them if the Labour party comes into office?
  Mr. Maxton: There are many aspects of the Government's housing policy that we shall be reversing when we come into power. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. Conservative Members have an obsession with our housing policy and what we are going to do after the next election but the question is worth asking only if they believe that we will win the next election. It does not have any meaning if we do not win. I know that we will win—[Interruption.]—and I am glad to hear that Conservative Members believe the same thing.
  I want to ask the Minister the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Why is the Bill put before us today? What change has taken place in the past 12 months that means that we suddenly have to give tenants in housing associations the right to buy and that we have to change the discount for the sale of council houses? What has happened is that the Secretary of State said in August 1984 that he fully approved of the voluntary sales scheme practised by the housing associations. The Minister shook his head earlier on that. I want to know whether he is calling all the witnesses a bunch of liars, or will he give us a different story? We want to know why it has happened.
  I believe that that has happened for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, it is the lifebelt, or whatever one likes to call it, for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). It is the attempt to save that tiny 500 majority. He was not present when I was naming the hon. Members who will not be here after the next election, but I would certainly add him to the list. Secondly, it is because of the obsession that the Conservative party has with home ownership. Conservatives seem to believe that our society
  1098
  and our industrial position will improve in a home-owning democracy. I am delighted to see that Conservative Members are nodding happily. But let us look at some of the international examples of home ownership to see whether their argument about higher industrial output and more flexibilty in the economy is true.
  The country with the highest gross national product in Europe, in fact one of the highest in the world, is Switzerland. That country has a 30 per cent. owner-occupation rate. West Germany has a 37 per cent. owner-occupation rate and Sweden has 38 per cent. Are Conservative Members saying that those countries are dismal failures because they do not have an owner-occupation rate that is equivalent to ours? That is not the case. One can go further. I know that it is a meaningless statistic, but the country that has the highest owner-occupation rate is Bangladesh, with the lowest gross national product in the world. I shall not make any great point. I do not think that it follows that there is a link between owner-occupation and the economy. But Conservative Members cannot argue that if we increase the owner-occupation rate in Scotland we shall somehow improve our economy and achieve greater mobility of labour.
  Some of the people in my constituency who are in owner-occupied tenement property that has not been taken over and improved by housing associations are trapped into owner-occupation because major structural repairs are required and they cannot sell the property. Even if they happen to get a job, even if they manage to find the place somewhere in Britain where jobs are still available, they cannot move because they cannot sell the property that they own. That is as much a trap, if not more, as being tenants in council houses.
  The obsession with owner-occupation does not extend to tenants of privately owned property. I never understood why the Minister and his hon. Friends believe that somehow they must extend owner-occupation only to local authority tenants and never to those who rent property in the private sector.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: It is taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Maxton: Let me explain. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and I have houses in our constituencies that were built and are owned by the Western Heritable Investment Company. They were built with taxpayers' money in the 1930s. Those properties have no discount on them. They are sold, but at high prices, and rarely to sitting tenants. No right to buy is available to the tenants. Equally, large numbers of other privately tenanted properties in Scotland are suitable for habitation because of taxpayers' money, because grants have been given to the owners to make them habitable. That is the only reason why they are habitable. I gather that tenants in property owned by Lothian Estates—
  Mr. John McWilliam: Lothian Estates has received no grants.
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is wrong. I gather that Lothian Estates has received large grants to put the houses right, yet the tenants do not have the right to buy at a discount.
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has refused to tell the House whether his party would take away the right

  1099
  to buy. He now sounds as if he is against the improvements grants that the Government approve of. Will he take them as well?
  Mr. Maxton: To imagine that we opposed improvement grants is ridiculous.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maxton: I shall not give way. I have given way enough. The time available to me has been cut short by my allowing Conservative Members to make interventions.
  If the Government hold the ideal of extending home ownership, I do not understand why they limit it to the public sector, not the private sector.
  With his usual skill, my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden dealt with the case against the Bill. I should like to take up a couple of his points, particularly his point about extending home ownership. It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) should make a passionate plea for more rented accommodation in Scotland and at the same time support a Bill that will remove rented accommodation from Scotland. That is exactly what giving tenants the right to buy from housing associations will do. It will take rented accommodation away from housing associations.
  Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman might just acknowledge the fact that I referred to the 2,400 empty local authority houses in Edinburgh and suggest one way in which they could be rented to those who want accommodation.
  Mr. Maxton: Of course we want all the empty accommodation to be rented, although many of the houses in the public sector that the hon. Gentleman claims are vacant are not because they are not fit for habitation due to dampness and other defects, which are not repaired because of the cuts imposed by the Government on local authorities. That is why properties are empty now.
  The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is not present, but he gave us a remarkable historical analysis of housing in Glasgow which completely ignored the enormous slums that existed there right up until the 1940s. He also said that housing associations were part of the large bureaucracy of local council tenancies. He seemed to ignore what the Bill was about. Most housing associations in Scotland are community based, with the committee that controls them made up of volunteers elected by the tenants to run those housing associations. How he could call that a faceless bureaucracy is beyond me.
  The Government's dismal failure to consult those housing associations, combined with the fact that the housing associations will no longer be able to control their housing policy because of the right to buy and the enormous anomalies that will be created by the discount system in the housing associations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred, will lead to many of the most experienced volunteers within the housing association movement chucking it in. We shall lose many good housing experts as a result. All right, they are volunteers, but they have been in the business for many years and many of them will say that enough is enough and that they are no longer interested.
  1100
  If we give tenants the right to buy we shall go back to exactly the sort of circumstances that the housing associations were formed to stop—multiple ownership of tenemental properties in cities such as Glasgow. There are such properties in my constituency. They are not owned by housing associations but by individuals. Some parts are owner-occupied while others are privately rented. If there is a major structural fault in the roof those who suffer are those who live in the top flat. It might be five years before the dampness reaches the ground floor. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling makes a lot of noise but I hear about this week in and week out at my surgeries. People come to me with the problem of how to get people together to ensure that repairs are carried out. Even when a section 24 order is imposed by a local authority it may take two or three years before the work is done.
  Housing associations have done a magnificent job in stopping that particular problem. If we now start selling housing association property within these tenements so that some still belong to the housing associations while the majority are owned by tenants, even the factoring rights of the housing association may be lost. If we get that we are returning to the situation of multiple ownership that housing associations were formed in the first place to cure.
  My other objection to the Bill is the discounts that it makes available. Even if one accepts the principle of the right to buy, it is not right that such discounts should be given. The Minister has made the great claim that his policy of selling council houses is a success. The fact that he is changing the discounts in the two ways is evidence that the policy has failed completely. What Labour Members said would happen in Committee in 1980 is happening. That was that it would be the best houses and not the flats that would be sold. It would be houses in rural areas and in smaller district councils that would be sold, not those in the city areas. That is exactly what has happened.
  Mrs. McCurley: Ridiculous.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Lady says that that is ridiculous, but 88 per cent. of properties sold by local authorities up to the end of March were houses, and only 12 per cent. were maisonettes and flats. That is why the policy has been a dismal failure.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: That is why we need a Bill.
  Mr. Maxton: It demonstrates that the policy has failed and should be withdrawn completely, not that a Bill is needed.
  The period during which the discount must be repaid has been reduced from five years to three years. There are flats in Glasgow, in Mosspark and Knightswood, that could sell for their market value of £27,000 or £28,000, but which will be sold for under £10,000. Within three years, those houses could be sold for almost £30,000 if inflation is taken into account—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) would love to see that return on his capital investment.
  The Bill is a dangerous irrelevance because it detracts from the major housing problems of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) was correct to say that we wish people to have a choice of houses; but that choice must be equal. A person who buys his house has a decent environment, whereas those who live in council houses face dampness, lack of repair,

  1101
  ever-increasing rents above the rate of inflation and a poor environment linked with social deprivation and unemployment. That is what the Government have done to the council house tenants who do not buy their houses, and that is why we shall vote against the Bill.
  9.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box, although we have seen him there at Question Time. We greeted his appointment with interest, especially for its effect on the image of the Scottish Labour Front Bench, which is now 25 per cent. educated in the state system and 75 per cent. educated outside. That compares fairly with the four Ministers, two of whom were state educated. I am sure that this will improve the style of the Opposition front Bench. After five years' experience, it needs that improvement.
  With some disappointment I have to say that the hon. Member for Cathcart is no quieter than his predecessor, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). I pay a sincere tribute to the hon. Member for Maryhill for his work on the Opposition Front Bench.
  The debate shows the fundamental differences between the two sides of the House.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister answer the questions?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions later. He signally failed to answer the only question that he was asked. Our arguments are based on realism and common sense and the Opposition's argument is based on confusion mixed with ideology, which is an indigestible cocktail.
  The Bill has been welcomed by Conservative Members because it provides an extension of choice. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends pressed me to go further. The speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was interesting because he spoke, not on the principle but on the detail. Perhaps he does not intend to serve on the Committee; he was dealing with the Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Cathcart was in strict contradistinction. He used the opportunity to launch what I cannot call a new political attack, but it was a political attack none the less. It is charming to note that he believes that if he says over and over again that the Labour party is popular in Scotland it will help him at the next election. He named several Conservative Members who he said would lose their seats at the next election, but I recollect him doing much the same in 1981. He named me and several of my hon. Friends and said that we would not be returning to the House. If his predictions are a correct as they were last time, we should be extremely pleased by his remarks.
  The debate devolved into several areas, the first of which was resources for housing. It is surprising to hear repeated claims of reductions and cuts in public sector housing in Scotland, when last year £50 million more was made available for the current year than was available in the previous year—an increase of nearly 25 per cent. It is also difficult to understand the claim that the Government are presiding over deteriorating private housing in Scotland. We inherited about 121,000 sub-tolerable standard houses in 1979, and by March this year the figure had been reduced to 63,000.
  1102
  The hon. Member for Garscadden talked a great deal about a house condition survey. I have always been prepared to consider such a survey, provided that I can be persuaded that it would provide more and better information than is available to me now. I am continually told to consider the English example, but were I to use the sample size taken in England we should have had a sample of 900 houses across Scotland. It would be ridiculous to suggest that, on the experience of 900 houses, we could get any information in terms of specific need or of geographical breakdown which is not already available to us. A series of ad hoc surveys, the labour force survey and the housing check list provide us with a picture of the problems in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden accused the Government of cutting housing finances. I wish to quote some figures that were published in a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Maryhill on 11 November 1985. The figures show the gross capital expenditure by all the housing agencies, local authorities, housing corporations, the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new towns for certain years. In 1974–75, at the beginning of the Labour Government's period of office, gross capital expenditure was £1,197 million. By 1978–79, it had decreased to £575 million. I am talking in real terms. On the same basis, during the six years that we have been in office, the figure has decreased to £519 million. When one considers that more than half of the reduction took place under the Labour Government, it is hard to take the accusations that they have been throwing at us.
  Mr. McKelvey: The Minister may be surprised to learn that he may have an ally as regards the value of a housing survey. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs said clearly—I am sure that the Minister will accept the figures—that Scotland needs about £157 million to start to cure the problem of dampness. No housing survey would do other than underline that. Of course, the Minister did not provide the money. He provided only a small amount—about £3 million—to tackle that huge problem.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that we considered the Select Committee's report carefully, and that it was reflected in the 25 per cent. increase in the housing revenue account allocations that we made last year. Within that 25 per cent., we said that we had supplemented what would otherwise have been given by £16 million directly to reflect the problems of condensation and dampness. Of course, we did not believe that that was the only money that needed to be spent on solving the problem, but we believed that, by giving that enhancement, we would encourage local authorities to undertake such work.
  The second general subject in the debate was the right to buy. I agree with my hon. Friends who said that this policy has been popular, not only because it has enabled people to buy but because it has given a right to buy to people who may not wish to exercise it now but who may wish to exercise it in the future. Every survey carried out in Scotland shows that that policy is popular.
  Mr. Martin: Is the Minister aware that some property owned by housing associations is not necessarily being modernised because the necessary capital is being delayed? Will he allow sitting tenants in unmodernised property to buy their homes?
  Mr. Ancram: The sitting tenants of housing associatons have precisely the same rights as other public sector tenants. The restrictions announced in the Bill relate to the discount which can be applied if modernisation has taken place so that the overall discount is not more than the outstanding debt on the house.
  The hon. Members for Garscadden and for Cathcart failed to answer a simple question: Do they support the right to buy? I began to ask that question in November 1983. I was told then that it was too early after the election and that the Opposition had not formulated their policy. I have asked the question on a number of subsequent occasions and have always been told that they are thinking about it. They have failed to give an answer again tonight. They have not even provided half an answer; they have not given any answer. Perhaps the hon. Member for Garscadden would like to speak on Labour's housing policy for Scotland? Having listened to the debate and compared it with other comments from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, I find it difficult to understand what that policy is.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said on 9 June this year:
  "There is nothing particularly Socialist about public landlordism on a grand scale. After all, Socialism is about real choice and giving people control over their own lives."?
  That suggests, as the Labour party conference suggested, that there is a weakening in the opposition to the right to buy.
  I read a letter sent to a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) from Mr. Alex Wood of the City of Edinburgh district council, who is a Labour councillor. In it Mr. Wood says:
  "We are not only opposed to Council house sales, but while recognising that legally we cannot stop them, we will do nothing which makes such sales easier or quicker and indeed will do all in our power to convince potential buyers of the immorality of such sales".
  That is another Labour voice speaking.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart, who is the Labour party spokesman on these matters, said that the right to buy is an irrelevance. He may be interested to know that Glasgow district council, by its own calculations, will overshoot its receipts estimate by about £2 million this year, and that council has not exactly gone out of its way to sell council houses.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart calls that an irrelevance, but the extra £2 million could have allowed the Glasgow district council to modernise an extra 620 houses within Glasgow. He may think that it is an irrelevance, but I suspect that the tenants of those 620 houses would not see it as such. The right to buy as it relates to housing associations—
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I have given way on a number of occasions, so I shall not give way now.
  The first accusation made by the hon. Member for Garscadden was that the Government were not sufficiently financing Scottish housing associations. I find that hard to accept in view of the sums of money made available to the associations by the Labour Government.
  The housing association movement in Scotland in 1985–86 will have a capital programme of about £110 million. That will be the fourth consecutive year in which
  1104
  the programme has exceeded £100 million. In the six years since 1980–81, capital expenditure by housing associations in Scotland will be more than £600 million. That reflects Government support for the housing associations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) said, when pressed the housing associations have to concede that.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said that there is no demand or need for the Bill. He wanted to know why we had introduced it. If there is no demand, and if there are no tenants of housing associations who wish to buy the houses in which they are living, I fail to see why the associations are so concerned about the Bill. I believe that they are concerned because they know that some of their tenants have wished to buy at a discount on the same basis as other public sector tenants. They are in housing which has been built by public money and they have been prevented from buying by the failure of the associations to operate the voluntary code.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a strong demand among the tenants of housing associations to purchase with a discount and not to be disadvantaged in comparison with other public sector tenants in Scotland and in the rest of Britain? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the demand is present in much general needs housing throughout Edinburgh and is not confined to certain housing association schemes?
  Mr. Ancram: That has been my impression too. I have received a number of representations as a constituency Member and as a Minister. We have received letters from tenants who have felt resentful for a long time because they were within the only group excluded from a right that was otherwise universally available. They realised that the right was available to those south of the border.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden wanted to know what was wrong with the voluntary code and asked why it was not working. Of the 72 associations which were expected to operate the code, 24 chose to adopt the policies that firmly precluded sales and 15 have yet to decide their policy after all this time. That is not a sign that the code has been working. If that needs to be proved, we have only to consider the pathetic number of houses that have been sold at a discount by the association over the past years.
  Mr. Maxton: What did the Secretary of State have to say about that?
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman refers to some remarks that my right hon. Friend is alleged to have made. The reports which I have read in the newspapers are based on a misrepresentation of what my right hon. Friend said. he made it clear—he has repeated this since—that the continuation of a voluntary policy was dependent upon a more effective response from associations. That response has not been forthcoming, and for that reason we have taken legislative steps.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden remarked on the effect that the Bill, when enacted, would have on the rented sector. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) that we would like to see a healthy rented sector and that we shall be looking for ways in which that can be encouraged and promoted. It is going rather far for the hon. Member for Garscadden

  1105
  suddenly to be concerned for the rented sector when it was his party which effectively slit the throat of the private rented sector.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden raised a point of detail about the printing of the Housing Associations Bill. I hope that it will be possible for the Bill to be printed in time for the Committee stage. If it is not, we shall ensure that photocopies are available for the Committee that considers the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden talked about arrangements for flats in tenements and four-in-a-block flats as well as for high rise flats. The definition of a flat is widely drawn, it is closely similar to that which appears in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966, which was introduced by a Labour Government. The definition has been widely drawn deliberately. The measure is not aimed primarily at multi-storey blocks. Flats of all types have sold more slowly than other properties, and that includes tenement flats and four-in-a-block flats as well as multi-storey flats. The exceptions are certain blocks which are popular. If we were to introduce exceptions to the definition, we would make it more complex and would undermine the basic purpose of the provision.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked also about charitable status in section 360 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. The Bill provides an exemption to the right to buy for charitable associations that are registered under the Charities Act 1960. That is necessary if we are to avoid specific conflict with statutory registration.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about a guarantee. There is no question of a guarantee from the Inland Revenue about sales at a discount. It could not be given. This is a complex area and we will be able to discuss it in greater detail in Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a number of other questions, but I have not the time to deal with them all. He asked about the discount varying, depending on whether the tenancy was in the public or private sector.
  Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as I realise he has only a few minutes left. I can hardly believe my ears. If a charitable association in Scotland sells one of its houses under the discount arrangements, which, as far as I can make out, it has to do under the Bill, can the Minister give any assurance that it will be able to preserve its charitable status and the tax advantages which go with that?
  Mr. Ancram: If they are registered under the Charities Act 1960—several are—they are exempted. I understood the hon. Gentleman to be asking a wider question, which is complex and will have to be explored in greater detail in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) asked about the fact that the discounts would vary depending on whether the previous tenancy had been in the public or private sector. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Garscadden finds this difficult to accept because it is precisely how the law has operated in relation to the right to buy with regard to public sector tenancies. There will be no change from the present law.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) asked about the position of tenants whose houses are owned by Grampian region but let by Aberdeen
  1106
  district, and whether the Bill would give them the right to buy. We have been concerned for some time that certain district councils have sold houses to regional councils which then leased them back to district councils which then sublet them to their tenants. The result was that the tenants lost their right to buy because the district council was not the owner of the property. However, once regional council tenants are given the right to buy the Secretary of State will be able to use his existing powers under section 1(a) of the Tenants Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 to intervene on behalf of tenants who would otherwise be denied their rights.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross talked about the complexity of the legislation. I apologise to him for the fact that in many respects, the legislation is difficult, but this arises partly because we are amending legislation which was so perfectly drafted in his days as Solicitor-General for Scotland. He also asked whether there was still scope for local authorities to frustrate the right-to-buy legislation. I share my hon. and learned Friend's concern about councils which use delays and other tactics to discourage purchasers.
  The 1980 Act gave tenants some important safeguards, including the right to have recourse to the Lands Tribunal to resolve certain disputes. We believe that these safeguards could be strengthened. That is why the Bill includes new powers to intervene on behalf of tenants who are experiencing difficulties. My hon. and learned Friend also spoke about clause 7, the mobility scheme and his difficulties with this clause. Under existing schemes which help tenants to move the fact that the tenant who wishes to move or exchange to another already has a home is not a consideration in deciding whether he could be eligible for assistance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) raised several specific points—those which I cannot cover I will reply to later. My hon. Friend asked why there was no provision to prise derelict or rundown local authority property out of the hands of local authorities and to put it into the hands of willing developers. I heartily encourage such trends, and I am willing to discuss and consider any ideas along those lines with the developers and with the authorities.
  This Bill is about a simple and fundamental principle. The principle is that a basic and popular right should be available to the widest possible number of people, if not to all—it is fundamentally wrong for a right to be prohibited to one category of people for unsustainable reasons—and it is the sort of right which is included in the right to buy and to own one's own home. We are not forcing, nor have we ever forced, anybody to buy his own home. We are giving people a right to do so if they wish. We have protected the rights of individuals in legislation that we have passed previously and are doing so again today. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:-
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 70.

  Division No. 13]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Ancram, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Tom

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Benyon, William

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

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

  Blackburn, John

  1107

  Body, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

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

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Knowles, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Knox, David

  Bright, Graham

  Lang, Ian

  Brinton, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Lester, Jim

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Lilley, Peter

  Budgen, Nick

  Lord, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Butterfill, John

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Chapman, Sydney

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclean, David John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Coombs, Simon

  Malone, Gerald

  Couchman, James

  Marlow, Antony

  Crouch, David

  Mates, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Mellor, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Merchant, Piers

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Dover, Den

  Moate, Roger

  Dunn, Robert

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Durant, Tony

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Evennett, David

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Murphy, Christopher

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Neale, Gerrard

  Fallon, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Favell, Anthony

  Newton, Tony

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Onslow, Cranley

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Forth, Eric

  Osborn, Sir John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Freeman, Roger

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Galley, Roy

  Pollock, Alexander

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Porter, Barry

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Portillo, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Gow, Ian

  Price, Sir David

  Gregory, Conal

  Raffan, Keith

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ground, Patrick

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Sims, Roger

  Harvey, Robert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Speed, Keith

  Hawksley, Warren

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hayes, J.

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Hayward, Robert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Barry

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hicks, Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Hind, Kenneth

  Waddington, David

  Hirst, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Watson, John

  Holt, Richard

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

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

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wolfson, Mark

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Wood, Timothy

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Mr. Peter Lloyd and

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

  1108

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Lamond, James

  Barron, Kevin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McKelvey, William

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

  McTaggart, Robert

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Marek, Dr John

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Buchan, Norman

  Martin, Michael

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Maxton, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Michie, William

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Nellist, David

  Clarke, Thomas

  Patchett, Terry

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Corbett, Robin

  Pike, Peter

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Prescott, John

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Redmond, M.

  Deakins, Eric

  Robertson, George

  Dewar, Donald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Eadie, Alex

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Harry

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

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

  Snape, Peter

  Freud, Clement

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Strang, Gavin

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Welsh, Michael

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing (Scotland) Bill ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any—

  (a) sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants, loans or other payments, and for any other expenses of his, by virtue of the Act;

  (b) administrative expenses incurred by him by virtue thereof;

  (c) increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are paid out of money so provided; and

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums failing to be paid into that Fund by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Neubert.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  SUMMER TIME
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd July, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Neubert.]
  Question agreed to.

  Matthew Brown
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
  10.10 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that I applied for the Adjournment debate which, according to the Order Paper, concerns
  "the future of Matthew Brown, following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Inquiry."
  The subject for tonight's debate is the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, yet it is noticeable that the Department of Trade and Industry has refused to send a Minister to the House to answer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the choice of which Minister replies to the debate is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Earlier I sought to place on record the fact that I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been sent to the House instead of a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry. Although I have every respect for the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think that she has been briefed in a way that will help us to debate the matter effectively.
  I rise to raise a matter of deep concern to me, to my hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and to nearly 200 hon. Members who have signed early-day motion 137. I refer to the current hid for the north-west based brewer Matthew Brown by Scottish and Newcastle breweries, which is one of the big six brewers in the United Kingdom. As anyone who has visited the north-west during the past few months will be aware, a huge groundswell of popular opinion against the proposed takeover has been building up. There have been marches through the streets of the north, letters by the hundred to local newspapers, petitions signed in pubs and on street corners, and all sorts of activity supporting the board and the employees of Matthew Brown in their fight against this unwelcome and unnecessary bid.
  This takeover bid should not be taking place. We do not want it, and I appeal to all shareholders tonight, both private and institutional, with all the powers I have at my disposal, not to sell their shares. Please do not sell to Scottish and Newcastle at any stage.
  One of the most remarkable aspects of this affair has been the quite inexplicable response of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In this instance, despite a strong reference by the Office of Fair Trading, the commission appointed has singularly failed in its duty to protect the public interest. The report's conclusions are a farce, a miscarriage of justice and a betrayal of its own so-called commitment to objectivity. The conduct of its investigation is riddled with irregularities, some of which demand the closest of inquiries by the Minister. No wonder the board of Matthew Brown found its recommendations staggering, especially since, as some hon. Members have now been informed, those people seem to have been the last to have been informed of them.
  One must ask, whose unseen hand is to be discerned in the presentation of the report? Who is behind its
  1110
  conclusions? Was it the members of the Commission? Was it the Scottish Lobby of Members of Parliament? They are certainly not registered as having made a submission, and my inquiries show that they were not active. Was it the Scottish brewing lobby? We do not know, but we know that the Scottish Department of Industry recommended in favour. That is remarkable because in making its recommendation it was supporting the closure of breweries in Workington and Carlisle. Every utterance of Scottish and Newscastle should have told the Department that it should have been aware of the dangers. Heads should now roll. The Department had no right to support a case which involved the closure of plants in England. It has exceeded its responsibilities. It is not the task of a Conservative Department of Industry in Scotland to approve the closure of profitable industry in England. Its task is to support the further expansion of industry.
  On every issue affecting the public interest, the Commission's findings were inconsistent with the evidence. The Commission acknowledged the inevitable reduction in competition as "undesirable" but regarded it as "insignificant". How many of the Commission bothered to go to Cumbria and Lancashire to see what statistical reduction in competition meant? Most of the national brewers choose not to trade there. The loss of choice, the closure of village pubs and the disappearance of the amenity in rural areas will be disastrous in every way.
  The Campaign for Real Ale has repeatedly expressed anxiety about the effect on consumer choice, and with reason. Scottish and Newcastle's past record on acquisitions shows no commitment to the preservation of local beers. It seeks one result from the takeover only—more outlets from which to sell its products, and thereby to minimise surplus capacity in its existing plants. Yet it talks about
  "some reduction in licensed outlets trading,"
  and the fact that
  "those trading would in general he improved and would operate to better standards."
  It does not matter to Scottish and Newcastle that a tenant or manager should lose his livelihood, or that the customer must travel twice as far for a drink. The public interest is again the loser.
  I mentioned surplus production capacity. At present Matthew Brown operates four breweries profitably in areas where unemployment is running well above the national average—in particular, in Workington and Carlisle. A job lost there is a catastrophe, and closures will condemn hundreds of people to a lifetime on the dole. Yet the report positively encourages Scottish and Newcastle to rationalise production, with its immediate redundancies, not to mention the knock-on effect on local contractors who rely on the local brewery for work. All that is supported by the Department of Industry in Scotland.
  The Government profess to support small businesses. They even give grants to enable small firms to start. Why then can they not prevent this unnecessary take over, which is unanimously opposed by customers, tradesmen and employees alike, and seems destined to achieve nothing but gratuitous redundancies? Even at this late stage I call upon Scottish and Newcastle's board to stop misleading the public about the continuation of brewing production, and to give some categoric unertakings about current employment levels at all Matthew Brown's breweries. It has refused to do that to date.

  1111
  In its submission to the commissioners, Scottish and Newcastle said:
  "We have stated categorically, publicly and in writing, that without any question whatsoever the Blackburn and Masham breweries are sacrosanct for continued brewing purposes."
  No such assurances have been given for Workington or Carlisle.
  Mr. John Watson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Masham brewery at Theakstons which, as he will be aware, is in my constituency. Is he interested in knowing that the pledge to maintain brewing facilities refers to only six jobs out of 50 and that well over 80 per cent. of the jobs at the Masam brewery remain uncovered by any pledge that might have been given by Scottish and Newcastle?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman only further confirms my view that that company has made many misleading statements. I was under the impression that that brewery was to be kept open. We now find that it is to be kept open with a substantially reduced work force.
  The commission went on to say:
  "the continued operating of all four breweries of Matthew Brown could prove uneconomic in the longer term and its programme of rationalisation could result in brewing being discontinued at Workington, Carlisle or both."
  To add the final injustice to injury it concluded:
  "In due course the Carlisle and Workington breweries would be closed by Matthew Brown even if the company remained independent."
  That is nonsense. It is a lie. Matthew Brown has repeatedly given me assurances about the future of brewing in Workington. Its representatives have told me in writing and in conversation that that brewery is safe. I regard its future under Matthew Brown as as safe as the Bank of England, as I have said previously in the House.
  Mr. David Maclean: I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman's argument and share his anxiety and indignation that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has come, in my opinion, to the wrong conclusion on the evidence. Does he not find it extraordinary that the commission says that there is no real risk to jobs and no evidence that the breweries will close while extolling Scottish and Newcastle's marvellous redundancy scheme?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman, as his hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson) did, further shows the misleading nature of Scottish and Newcastle's claims.
  Matthew Brown is a well-run, profitable company with a proud history of over 150 years of brewing in the northwest. It is not a lame duck and nor does it need Scottish and Newcastle's help. It should not be sacrificed to fulfil Scottish and Newcastle's objectives of solving its internal commercial problems and consolidating its position in the national brewers' league table.
  The two companies' philosophies are completely opposed. Matthew Brown is a regional company with a strong involvement in the local community, locally based management and short lines of communications. According to the submissions, Scottish and Newcastle is proud of its successful policies, as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, in handling redundancies and
  1112
  closures. I can understand that. It has had its fair share of them as, indeed, it has had its fair share of industrial action. There has been a seven-week strike in Manchester which has only been settled during the past few days. I can only assume that Scottish and Newcastle's management is appalling. Its work force has been reduced by nearly 7,000, or 25 per cent., since 1980.
  In contrast, Matthew Brown can be proud of its employment record—an increase of nearly 500 jobs, or 30 per cent., over the same period. Matthew Brown's industrial relations record shows only four days' work lost in the past 20 years and one 10–day work to rule in 1983. What a record. It must be unsurpassed in the British brewing industry.
  In employment terms, the takeover will do nothing for Matthew Brown other than to turn back the clock five years. In every respect, in recent years Matthew Brown's performance is superior to that of Scottish and Newcastle's. I call upon the House to applaud Matthew Brown's profit performance—£7 million on a turnover of £44 million last year; to applaud its contribution to the prosperity and quality of life of the regions, in particular Blackburn, Workington and Carlisle; and to applaud the way in which it has served its employees, customers and shareholders well. The fate of Matthew Brown now lies with the shareholders.
  I sincerely hope that institutions and individuals alike remember the part that management and employees of Matthew Brown have played in the successful growth of their investment in the past. They deserve better than to see their company go under the hammer to satisfy the desperate desire of a national giant to expand at all costs and resolve its own internal problems. Matthew Brown deserves better than to see the company broken up, with wide-scale redundancies. I emphasise that it deserves the right to continue to operate as a successful, regional, independent company.
  The final two paragraphs of the conclusions of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission read:
  "We discern no material advantages to the public interest arising from the proposed merger; but the question before us is whether the merger may be expected to operate against the public interest, and in our view there are not sufficient grounds for such an expectation.
  We conclude that the merger situation which will be created if arrangements in contemplation by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries plc for the acquisition of Matthew Brown plc are carried into effect may be expected not to operate against the public interest."
  What could be more against the public interest than a reduction in competition? What could be more against the public interest than a reduction in consumer choice, an increase in prices, a loss of employment and a rationalisation of amenities—all admitted tacitly in the export?
  That brings me to an area of the whole affair which certainly needs further examination. Paragraph 7.27 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report says:
  "We accept that Matthew Brown has no present intention of closing these two breweries, but we believe that in the long run the closure of one or both of them might come to appear to Matthew Brown to be inescapable in the interest of greater efficiency and cost saving. We believe that, whether the merger takes place or not, the future of these breweries cannot be regarded as totally secure."
  That is a remarkable statement. Indeed, the commission has no right to make it. It is not its role to propose the closure of highly profitable breweries, or to talk about something being

  1113
  "inescapable in the interest of greater efficiency".
  Who do the members of the Commission think they are? What are they trying to do—make recommendations to the management of a company? It is none of their business. They should have kept their noses out of our affairs. It is not their role to interfere in the management of Matthew Brown. They have exceeded their responsibilities and gone beyond their remit.
  The Fair Trading Act 1973, in placing investigative powers in the hands of the commission, was never intended to be used in this way. It was never intended that the commission should sanction the closure of profitable enterprise. Why should the members of the commission have the right to overrule Parliament in such issues? one third of the members of this House signed the early-day motion, and if Conservative members had been free to sign it a majority of this Parliament would have signed it. It opposes the takeover. Should not the Government now repeal legislation that removes from Ministers the right to protect jobs in the public interest?
  Why not amend the law to give the Secretary of State the power to consider Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommendations on takeover, but reserving to him the final right to decide for himself or herself, after parliamentary debate and/or consultation? Surely it is the government that must be accountable. It is the Government that we hold accountable in terms of job losses on this occasion.
  Another solution would be to require that it be proved that a takeover is in the public interest as against the need to prove, as at present, that the matter is not in the public interest. On that benchmark, without doubt, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would have refused approval in this case. It is quite unreasonable to leave it to a so-called independent committee of inquiry or commission to decide on such matters. The old proposals, which were also the subject of a committee of inquiry, will be coming before this House. The House will have a vote. We need legislation to control the reaction of creditors who are out to secure closure to resolve their own commercial problems.
  Two weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—told us that the inquiry into the leak which took place on the Thursday would be dealt with internally within the Department. He would not give undertakings that the findings of that inquiry would be brought before the House. I, along with some of my hon. Friends, will start pressing the Minister in a few weeks for the conclusion of that inquiry. We believe that we are entitled to know what happened. We believe that, if we are not told, a cover-up must be going on. That would be against the interests of the House.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am sorry if the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was expecting another Minister to respond. However, the Order Paper states that the hon. Gentleman
  "proposes to raise the subject of the future of Matthew Brown, following"—
  I stress the word "following". My Department has responsibilities for the brewing industry.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not "before."
  Mrs. Fenner: The Order Paper states:
  "following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Inquiry."
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing this opportunity to debate the future of the company, not least because it has allowed us also to focus more generally on the future of the brewing industry in the light of the recent report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations about the impartiality of the commission. It is an independent body. Its role is to evaluate the varying views put to it. The commission could only take the evidence and the views put to it by the parties. They made a categorical statement about the future of the brewery at Masham. They intend to continue to brew there and to market this traditional brand. It is not for me to defend the statements to the commission by either party. The report fairly sets out the evidence and arguments that were put to the commission. Although I respect the hon. Gentleman's right to take a different view and to reach different conclusions, I cannot accept that the commission did other than examine the facts objectively.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced a review in 1986 of competition legislation.
  I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for the future of Matthew Brown, a company acknowledged to be a highly successful regional brewer making a valuable; contribution to the local economy and amenity in the hon. Member's constituency and, more generally, in the north of England. Much of the evidence that was before the commission argued for its continued existence as an independent brewery and for Government action to prevent its acquisition. I would not want to say anything which detracts in any way from the deserved tributes paid to the company. One must be clear, however, about the role of the Government in these matters.
  In making its report, the commission is obliged by the Fair Trading Act 1973 to report if
  "a merger situation qualifying for investigation has been created and the creation of that situation operates, or may be expected to operate against the public interest".
  It is only if the commission so finds, and specifies the adverse effects that it foresees, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is empowered by the Act to intervene. In this case, the commission's report makes it clear that, while the commission could discern no material advantages to the public interest arising from the proposed merger, there were not sufficient grounds for a conclusion that acquisition of Matthew Brown plc by Scottish and National Breweries plc might be expected to operate against the public interest.
  Dependent on one's point of view, of course, it is possible to argue over the details and the balance of the evidence that the commission received. Naturally, both sides put forward claims and counter-claims, allegations and denials.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister answer a simple question? Is the loss of 170 jobs in the county of Cumbria in the public interest?
  Mrs. Fenner: The commission's view was that the merger is not against the public interest. Furthermore, representations from different interests, unsurprisingly, took different views on the desirability or otherwise of a merger, reflecting, of course, differing perceptions about the effects of a merger. No purpose would be served by

  1115
  our debating tonight the differing views expressed. The commission's task was not an easy one, but its report sets out very clearly the evidence it received, the conclusions it reached and its own careful reasoning. As was made clear in the statement on the report on 13 November, in the light of the commission's conclusion, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no power under the Act to prevent the acquisition nor to attach any conditions should a renewed bid involving the two companies in their present form be successful.
  I understand that, following the MMC report, Scottish and Newcastle has renewed its bid, which the board of Matthew Brown continues to find unacceptable. There being no grounds for Government intervention, the future of Matthew Brown lies in the hands of its shareholders.
  I recognise, however, that the hon. Member for Workington is concerned that if the bid is successful the merged company may, as part of a rationalisation programme, decide to close the brewery in his constituency with the resultant loss of jobs. He is, perhaps understandably, not persuaded of the fact that the future of this brewery cannot be regarded as completely secure, even if, the merger does not occur. Nevertheless, that was the conclusion that was reached by the commission after careful study of all the evidence. I recognise that that conclusion offers little comfort.
  The question of reduced competition in north and west Cumbria and in the north east in both the tied and free on-trade should the merger proceed, was one that concerned the hon. Members for Workington and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in their submissions to the MMC, which the commission studied very carefully. The commission's well-argued conclusion was that the merged company's increased share of business in the north west would not affect the ability of other brewers to continue to compete for the free trade business there. It noted that the merger would have little effect on competition as far as tied houses were concerned because Scottish and Newcastle currently owns relatively few public houses in the area. While accepting that in principle the elimination of Matthew Brown as a separate competitor in the north east was undesirable, the commission noted that the company's presence there was not yet a significant factor in
  1116
  competition and concluded that the likely effects of the merger on competition in the north east would not be detrimental to the public interest.
  The hon. Member also expressed fears that Matthew Brown's smaller public houses—he mentioned village pubs—would be under threat of closure by the merged company, that there would be the loss of amenities in small communities in his constituency and that this would affect tourism, which is very important to Cumbria. This question was fully exposed and thoroughly aired in the commission's report—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: But it ignored it.
  Mrs. Fenner: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was fully exposed and thoroughly aired in the commission's report, but it did not see closures of pubs as being a material consequence of the merger.
  In the short time remaining in this debate I should like to say a word about the wider issue which concerned many people with an interest in the future of our brewing industry. There has been considerable speculation that if this bid were allowed to proceed, it would signal to the major national brewers that the Government would take no action to restrain a flood of takeovers of the smaller regional brewers. While the Monopolies and Mergers Commission found no grounds for Government intervention in this case, it made clear its view that in the interests of healthy competition, and also in the general interests of the areas in which they operate, it is desirable that there should continue to be viable and vigorous regional brewers. It forewarned that there could well be a strong case on public interest grounds against acquisition of a regional brewer by any of the five largest national tied estate brewers. That message is clearly one to which the Government must pay full regard in considering whether any bids arising in the future should be referred to the commission.
  The hon. Member for Workington raised another point at the end of his speech. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced, an investigation is under way to establish whether a leak occurred. However, it has not been the practice of this or previous Governments to publish reports on internal inquiries.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Fraud Squad (Solicitors)
  Fraud Squad (Solicitors)
  Magistrates
  Magistrates
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Unlawful Sex (Report)
  Unlawful Sex (Report)
  Parole
  Parole
  Victims Support Schemes
  Victims Support Schemes
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Police Injuries (Cleveland)
  Police Injuries (Cleveland)
  Fingerprinting, Detention and Body Searches
  Fingerprinting, Detention and Body Searches
  Stop and Search
  Stop and Search
  Miss Sara Keays
  Miss Sara Keays
  Greater Manchester Fire Authority
  Greater Manchester Fire Authority
  Fires in the Home (Deaths)
  Fires in the Home (Deaths)
  Greater Manchester Police
  Greater Manchester Police
  Trade Unions (Prison Board Access)
  Trade Unions (Prison Board Access)
ENVIRONMENT
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Housing (Welwyn Hatfield)
  Housing (Welwyn Hatfield)
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Wirral (Labour Statistics)
  Wirral (Labour Statistics)
  Homelessness (London)
  Homelessness (London)
  Crown Suppliers
  Crown Suppliers
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  House Purchase (Searches)
  House Purchase (Searches)
  Leasehold Property
  Leasehold Property
  Housing Committees (Tenants Representation)
  Housing Committees (Tenants Representation)
  Home Purchase Costs (Government Contributions)
  Home Purchase Costs (Government Contributions)
  Noise Insulation
  Noise Insulation
  Housing Standards
  Housing Standards
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Truscon Houses (Liverpool)
  Truscon Houses (Liverpool)
  Coalfields Community Campaign
  Coalfields Community Campaign
PRIME MINISTER
  Rail Travel
  Rail Travel
  MSC (Education and Training)
  MSC (Education and Training)
  News Blackout (Criteria)
  News Blackout (Criteria)
  Southall
  Southall
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Public Money (Allocation)
  Public Money (Allocation)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Regional Selective Assistance
  Regional Selective Assistance
  Overseas Mail
  Overseas Mail
  Universal Postal Union Congress
  Universal Postal Union Congress
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Hong Kong Festival
  Hong Kong Festival
  Electronics Industry (United States Inspectors)
  Electronics Industry (United States Inspectors)
  United States Distribution Licence Regulations
  United States Distribution Licence Regulations
  Soviet Union
  Soviet Union
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Students
  University Students
  Part-time University Students
  Part-time University Students
  Student Awards
  Student Awards
  Open University
  Open University
  University Employees (Salaries)
  University Employees (Salaries)
  Geophysics
  Geophysics
WALES
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Welsh Language (Farming Consultations)
  Welsh Language (Farming Consultations)
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
  District Health Authorities
  District Health Authorities
  Homes Insulation
  Homes Insulation
  Housing Regeneration
  Housing Regeneration
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Job Start Scheme
  Job Start Scheme
  Regional Tourist Boards
  Regional Tourist Boards
  Youth Training (Deaf People)
  Youth Training (Deaf People)
  Disabled People (Employment)
  Disabled People (Employment)
  Community Programme (Deaf People)
  Community Programme (Deaf People)
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Youth Training (East Midlands)
  Youth Training (East Midlands)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
SCOTLAND
  Young Persons (Detention)
  Young Persons (Detention)
  Prosthetic and Orthotic Aids
  Prosthetic and Orthotic Aids
  A92 (Ellon-Bridge of Don)
  A92 (Ellon-Bridge of Don)
  Examinations
  Examinations
  Scottish Examinations Board
  Scottish Examinations Board
  Nuclear Reprocessing Plant, Dounreay
  Nuclear Reprocessing Plant, Dounreay
  Islands Councils (Inquiry)
  Islands Councils (Inquiry)
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Fire Services (Discipline)
  Fire Services (Discipline)
DEFENCE
  Aeronautical Quality Assurance Directorate
  Aeronautical Quality Assurance Directorate
  NATO (Ammunition)
  NATO (Ammunition)
  NATO (Reserves)
  NATO (Reserves)
  Cyprus Secrets Trial
  Cyprus Secrets Trial
  Colombia (Rescue Operations)
  Colombia (Rescue Operations)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Intergovernmental Council
  Intergovernmental Council
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Public Libraries
  Public Libraries
  Air Rifle Clubs
  Air Rifle Clubs
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Public Expenditure (Benefit Take-up)
  Public Expenditure (Benefit Take-up)
  Benefits (Cost)
  Benefits (Cost)
  Doctors (Computers)
  Doctors (Computers)
  Orthotic and Prosthetic Aids
  Orthotic and Prosthetic Aids
  Widows (Maternity Allowances)
  Widows (Maternity Allowances)
  Blood and Blood Products
  Blood and Blood Products
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Benefit Statistics
  Benefit Statistics
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Single-Parent Families
  Single-Parent Families
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Salmonellosis
  Salmonellosis
  Hospital Patients
  Hospital Patients
  AIDS Project (Manchester)
  AIDS Project (Manchester)
  Acute Psychiatric Beds
  Acute Psychiatric Beds
  Board and Lodging (Statutory Instruments)
  Board and Lodging (Statutory Instruments)
  Fraud Investigators
  Fraud Investigators
  Renal Dialysis
  Renal Dialysis
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  Health and Personal Social Services (Statistics)
  Health and Personal Social Services (Statistics)
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Pharmacists (Contracts)
  Pharmacists (Contracts)
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Banks (Lending Activities)
  Banks (Lending Activities)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Firemen (Bounty Payments)
  Firemen (Bounty Payments)
  Pound Sterling (Value)
  Pound Sterling (Value)
  Exchange Control Act 1947
  Exchange Control Act 1947
  Employees (Profit Sharing Schemes)
  Employees (Profit Sharing Schemes)
  Nationalised Industries (Sale)
  Nationalised Industries (Sale)
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Johnson Matthey Bankers
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Public Sector Pay
  Public Sector Pay
  South-west Cumbria
  South-west Cumbria
  City of London (Insurance)
  City of London (Insurance)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Economic Strategy
  Economic Strategy
  Scientific Research
  Scientific Research
  Economic Progress
  Economic Progress
  Heritage Assets (Taxation)
  Heritage Assets (Taxation)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Customs and Excise (Prosecutions)
  Customs and Excise (Prosecutions)
  Motor Tax
  Motor Tax
  Trustee Savings Bank
  Trustee Savings Bank
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Futures (Taxation)
  Futures (Taxation)
  EC Budget Council
  EC Budget Council
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Soil Research Survey
  Soil Research Survey
  Shardlow Hall Laboratory
  Shardlow Hall Laboratory
  Food (Nutrition Labelling)
  Food (Nutrition Labelling)
  Dumping at Sea
  Dumping at Sea
TRANSPORT
  Mhari L
  Mhari L
  Channel Link
  Channel Link
  M1
  M1
  Traffic Statistics
  Traffic Statistics
  Underpasses
  Underpasses
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Stoke-Derby Link
  Stoke-Derby Link
  British Rail
  British Rail
  M25 (Construction Defects)
  M25 (Construction Defects)
  Docklands Light Railway
  Docklands Light Railway
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits

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

BBC and ITV: Anti-Competitive Practices
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will draw the attention of the Committee on Financing the BBC (the Peacock Committee) to the fact that the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (The British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Publications Limited) published in September 1985 states there can be no doubt that the relevant policies and practices of the BBC and ITV do in fact prevent or restrict competition in a number of ways (par. 6.4).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we doubt whether the report is central to the matters which the committee is addressing and therefore do not propose to draw it to their attention. It is of course entirely open to the noble Baroness to do so herself.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while regretting that unhelpful Answer, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I have here a copy of a Government press notice dated 11th September, a copy of which I hope is also in his brief, in which the commission put forward five suggestions supported by the Government? Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made with those five suggestions and with the discussions with the broadcasting organisations which the Government, in that press statement, undertook to have?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I regret that I do not have a copy of that particular press notice with me. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that the Government have said that they agree with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that the BBC and independent television companies should in their journals be responsive to public requirements. We have written to the BBC and to Independent Television Publications Limited asking for their reaction to the commission's report. We have not yet received their reaction.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I do not wish to appear rude, but I suggest that a copy of the release should have been in the Minister's brief. Will he ask the department to provide him with a copy of the press release from his own Government dated 11th September? Will he then examine the five suggestions put forward by the commission, which are supported
970
by the Government in that statement, and note that one of them suggests that consideration be given to the possibility of waiving copyright in weekly schedules at times of industrial dispute? To save the time of the House and to save my time—not to mention that of the noble Lord—will the Minister give me a Written Answer in Hansard, so that we may all know the present position?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it was because of the concern which we felt that we wrote to the BBC and to Independent Television Publications. When we receive their answers we shall be in a position to give the information which the noble Baroness seeks. If she will put down a specific Question for Written Answer, I shall be delighted to answer it.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am sorry, but I have asked the Minister a very simple question. Will he please read the Government press notice dated 11th September when a copy is in his possession? When he has read it, will he be kind enough to answer my question in the light of it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall of course study the press notice with great care. However, I cannot give a Written Answer without the noble Baroness tabling a specific Question. If the noble Baroness wishes me to write to her, of course I will do so and a copy will be placed in the Library in the usual way.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may revert to the original Question, is it not also fair to say that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, while pointing out anti-competition practices in various instances, decided that those practices were not contrary to the public interest? Should not that be made perfectly clear in any Answer to this Question? Furthermore, can the noble Lord the Minister enlighten the House as to when it is likely that the Peacock Committee will be reporting?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right when he says that the conclusion was that the practices in question were not contrary to the public interest. So far as the Peacock Committee is concerned, I can say only that it will be reporting round about the summer. I cannot be more specific than that.

Coolscar Limestone Quarry, Yorkshire Dales
3.10 p.m.
Lord Hunt: 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 take enforcement action against Eskett Quarries Ltd., to restrain that firm from continuing to extend their operations in Coolscar limestone quarry, in advance of a decision by the Government whether to permit such an extension in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): No, my Lords. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently considering appeals by Eskett Quarries Ltd. for planning permission to extend Coolscar Quarry. For him to institute enforcement proceedings could prejudice his decisions.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that following the expiry of its permission to quarry at Coolscar, which ran out last January, and without waiting for a decision by the Minister's right honourable friend on the application to extend the operation at that quarry, Eskett Quarries has continued to quarry limestone at Coolscar at a greatly increased rate—more than double the previous rate—over the last 10 months? Does not that make a mockery of planning regulation procedures sufficient to justify the noble Lord's right honourable friend in using his power to intervene and stop those unauthorised operations, and to refuse the request made to him?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the powers available to the Secretary of State have never been used and are reserved for major breaches of national importance. If he were to use them, it would clearly prejudice his decision on the appeal itself. If the local authority were to use its enforcement power under Section 87 of the Act, that would be subject to an appeal under Section 88 of the Act. Both the substantive appeal and that appeal would be heard together and there would therefore be no advancement of the proceedings. However, I can tell the noble Lord that the decision should be made very soon.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is complete illogicality between the position relating to the very serious damage now occurring at this particular quarry in the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the attitude of the Government to the loophole preventing comparable damage to sites of special scientific interest? How can the Minister reconcile those two attitudes? Ought not the Government to address their minds to some way of meeting this situation when, instead of a three-month loophole, there has already been a 10-month loophole allowing very damaging work to be undertaken in a national park?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I accept that it is unfortunate when an organisation acts without permission to do things for which permission is required. I do not accept that there is any lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government for the enforcement of legislation about SSSIs, to which I think the noble Baroness referred. However, in this case the saga should, as I said, very shortly draw to a conclusion.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a director of the London and Northern Group, which is the parent company of Eskett Quarries. Will my noble friend bear in mind that this particular planning application for an extension to the quarry has now been pending for more than four years, and as a result previous reserves of limestone have been exhausted? Is my noble friend aware that the
972
Steetley Company has stated that any interruption in supplies of this sole United Kingdom source of this particular grade of limestone could jeopardise some 600 jobs in Hartlepool? Is he further aware that the North Yorkshire County Council has informed Eskett Quarries that if the current workings are carried out in accordance with the conditions attached to the pending planning applications as they are, it is not minded to pursue enforcement action in this instance?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I must of course take careful note of what my noble friend says; but for reasons of the quasi-judicial position of my right honourable friend I cannot comment on his remarks.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the Minister if he will also take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I always take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says.
Lord Walston: My Lords, will the noble Lord assure me that I heard him right, or correct me if I heard him wrong? As I understood him in an earlier answer, he said that the Government have no power to prevent unauthorised work from proceeding in the national park or its neighbourhood. Is that what he said? If so, and that is the position, does he not think something should be done to put that right?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord marginally misheard me. I said that the only power available to the Secretary of State lay in Section 276(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That was reserved for use in matters of even greater importance than this case. To have used it in this case would have implied that the activities going on at present were so deleterious that the Secretary of State could have determined the appeal in only one sense, and he would thus have forfeited his discretion in the matter.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he could not reply to his noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. However, can he confirm that it has been four years in the planning process? If so, is it not also true that the Government bear considerable responsibility for any breach undertaken by this company?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not quite as simple as that. A planning application was submitted in 1981 and an appeal against a refusal in 1982. There was then a public inquiry in 1983 for the purpose of determining that appeal. In the course of that appeal, the inspector decided to recommend a limit of 100,000 tonnes extraction per year which, if adopted, would make the workings acceptable. However, the applicants objected to that condition and there was therefore the necessity for a further appeal because they said that this condition had not been considered by the first appeal. That all sounds very involved but, in fact, we are trying to protect the interests of all the parties involved.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his department has not only failed to make a

973
timely decision on Coolscar but also in the case of Topley Pike Limestone Quarry in the Peak District National Park? Is a decision to be made soon in that respect or is there to be further delay until the inquiry into the Eldon Hill Quarry is finished, too? It was originally decided by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, when he was Minister for Housing and Local Government in 1953, that that quarry should close by 1997. Application has now been made for extension into the 21 st century. Is the Minister aware that there is general dissatisfaction by a great many people interested in the national parks, and otherwise, with the delays which are occurring and the damage caused while decisions are awaited?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the application referred to in the Question on the Order Paper is not the one to which the noble Baroness addressed her question. If she wishes to table a Question I shall be happy to answer it. I cannot accept that there has not been a timely decision by my department. On the contrary, we received the inspector's report only in September and we shall shortly give our decision.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does not the noble Lord at least agree that Yorkshire Dales National Park—and to a great extent the Peak District National Park mentioned by the noble Baroness—owe their unique scenic attraction, and indeed scientific value largely to the limestone geology in those areas? Is that not a compelling reason for imposing the very strictest limitations on quarrying operations in those national parks which do such irreversible and extensive damage?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is certainly true that the national parks owe a great deal of their attraction to the geology of the ground on which they are placed. It is a sad fact that some of that geology offers resources which are not available elsewhere. These are matters which we must balance carefully and which my right honourable friend will balance carefully when he decides this appeal.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if it is true that the company is working in an unauthorised way, without permission, why could not an injunction be applied for which would establish the status quo? Is that not the way round this tricky and diverse problem?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is already a procedure available to the local authority, who have considered and rejected it. I do not think it is for me to advise them how further to proceed.
Baroness David: My Lords, finally may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is prepared to apply the strict criteria which were laid down in 1949 by John Silkin—I am sorry, by Lewis Silkin—when he was Minister of Town and Country Planning?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am well aware of the exchanges in which the father of the present noble Lord, Lord Silkin, engaged with my noble friend Lord Molson, which are recorded in the Official Report of
974
31 st March 1949 at col. 1466, but I shall not weary the House with them.

Parliamentary Constituencies: Electorates
3.21 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: 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 which are the largest and smallest parliamentary constituencies in the country; what is the population in each; and what is the average size throughout the country
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the largest constituency is the Isle of Wight, with 97,608 electors, and the smallest is the Western Isles, with 23,035 electors. The average electorate for all the constituencies in the United Kingdom is 66,355.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative and revealing reply. However, would he agree that the electorate of the Isle of Wight—and I must declare an interest—has a fairly poor deal? Is the noble Lord aware that the island has special problems, with an annual growth rate of 1 per cent., an overworked Member of Parliament, and an under-represented electorate, and that it deserves to have two Members of Parliament? Would the noble Lord further agree that the matter should not be left to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission to consider in, say, 10 years' time, but should be reviewed now?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are difficulties associated with the "co-terminusity" (if that is the right word to use) between different boundaries—boundaries of local authorities and of constituencies. However, I do not think that this matter can be looked at earlier than when the Boundary Commission is scheduled to consider it, which will be between 1993 and 1998.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the reply that he has just given merely underlines the inherent difficulties with our first-past-the-post system, and that it really is time we went over to a system of proportional representation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it may indicate all sorts of things, but I think that comment goes wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, would it not be advisable for this House to leave to another House and those who are elected the question of deciding parliamentary boundaries? Is the noble Lord the Minister of the opinion that it is asking for trouble between both Houses if we seek to decide constituency boundaries?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount puts his finger on a very good point.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, while I thoroughly agree with the point of view that has just been expressed. I

975
think your Lordships will recall that we discuss in this Chamber the reports of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission. Does the Minister recall that when we debated the 1983 report there was some criticism—and I was one of the critics—that the Commission had to base its electoral findings on when it first started its review, which meant that the electorate figures on which the Commission reported were seven years old? Do the Government have it in mind to look at the entire rules of the Boundary Commission and have discussions with the political parties about amending the rules?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have said that we should like the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place to carry out a review of the procedures. Failing that, we shall look at the other ways in which a review could be undertaken. There is still plenty of time before the Commission starts work.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with regard to something which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said earlier, would the noble Lord the Minister not agree that it might be unfortunate if stating that the Isle of Wight was served by an overworked Member of Parliament and was under-represented should be thought to be a criticism from this House of a Member in another place?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think I commented on those particular remarks of my noble friend. I am sure they will be taken in good spirit in another place.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight is an outstanding Member of Parliament, even though he comes from the Liberal Party? What my Question was seeking to bring out—which, I say in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is a serious matter—is that one Member of Parliament is representing in this case 97,000 people and in another case only 23,000 people.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I realise that, but I cannot go any further than I have done. These matters will be considered when the Commission looks at them in years to come.

PBI and NSDO: Possible Privatisation
3.26 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have come to any decision about the future of the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Seed Development Organisation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this matter lies within the joint responsibilities of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for
976
Education and Science and agriculture Ministers. On 21st May 1984 I informed your Lordships that the Government were examining the possibility of privatising the National Seed Development Organisation. However, in the light of the Government's policy to encourage industry funding of research and NSDO's close dependence on plant breeding at the Plant Breeding Institute, consideration is now being given to the possible privatisation of applied plant breeding at PBI as well as of NSDO. We are still examining the matter and shall inform your Lordships' House of the Government's intentions as soon as possible.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that so far as farmers are concerned, it looks as though we are now starting on the gold plate before we have finished selling the silver? Is the noble Lord aware that PBI, East Craigs and Aberystwyth, along with the selling organisation NSDO, have since they were initiated done more for farming than possibly any other research organisation? If, as he said to us, it was last May—one-and-a-half years ago—that consideration of this subject began, is it not pretty obvious that this is a difficult operation which should be left alone?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is clear that the applied plant breeding work at the Plant Breeding Institute is critical to the future of the National Seed Development Organisation, and that is why we are looking at the two together. It is the Government's policy both to encourage industry funding of agricultural research and development and to consider privatisation, where this might foster sound management, commercial efficiency and good value for money for the taxpayer. Therefore I do not agree with the first words spoken by the noble Lord in asking his supplementary question.
Lord Walston: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the very serious effects that his Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will have on those who are at present engaged in plant breeding? Is he also aware of the already falling morale in agricultural research centres throughout the country as a result of the Government's attitude toward their activities? Is he further aware of the impossibility of extricating the basic research, which is essential for plant breeding and many other forms of research, from the more applied research which is presumably what the Government have in mind when they talk of privatisation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the staffs are of course the main assets of the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Seed Development Organisation and, despite the uncertainty about the future, the morale of key staff is holding up very well. It is important to end the uncertainty, and the Government will be seeking to take decisions as soon as possible. The staffs will be consulted through the respective governing bodies about the form of privatisation, if that is to take place. With regard to the more general remarks which the noble Lord made about Government support for research and development, the amount of

977
Government money being put into agricultural research and development is still very large indeed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept from me that there is acute concern in Wales about the future of the Welsh plant breeding station, which has made an outstanding contribution to agriculture in Wales and, indeed, abroad in the third world as well? If this plant breeding station is working so well, and bearing in mind its contribution, why are the Government interfering with it at the present time? Why are they interfering with the two institutes to which my noble friend has referred, if they are as successful as we know them to be? Will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that there will be no reduction in the status of the Welsh plant breeding station and that the Government will not make it an out-station, but that it will enjoy the same status as Hurley, near Reading?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Welsh plant breeding station does not fall within the scope of the Question, nor of my Answer, save to this extent. If the NSDO is privatised, it will mean that the AFRC and the agriculture department in the Welsh Office will need to consider separate arrangements for the marketing of future varieties from that station. I should have thought that that would not be particularly difficult to arrange.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister recall that earlier this year the Plant Breeding Institute was given the impression that he was awaiting a report from the Priorities Board, due to be published at the end of the summer, so that he could resolve some of the uncertainties? Can he say whether the board has reported and, if so, whether the report is available for outside scrutiny? If not, will he tell us what decisions he has made as a result of the report?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Priorities Board has not yet reported. We await the report imminently.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister laid great stress on profitability, presumably to private enterprise, and so on, which will ultimately help the industry and the Government. I am sure that he must have looked at the profitability figures of the NSDO and will be aware that the royalties from the PBI which must ultimately have found their way to the Treasury are enormous. I doubt very much that he can make a calculation to show that the Treasury or anybody else will be better off after this move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, we went over this ground last time. The difficulty, which is not the fault of anybody working at the PBI or the NSDO, is that the real costs of government R & D on material passed to the NSDO are not paid for directly. We therefore do not have a way of knowing exactly what are the costs for the applied plant breeding work of the PBI; and we believe that it would be more efficient commercially to consider privatisation of the NSDO and, indeed, of the applied plant breeding work of the PBI. That is what we are considering at the present time.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is to include research institutes not carrying the ideology of privatisation to grotesque and absurd limits?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have just said. The arrangements whereby payments are made by the NSDO for the varieties that it receives are unusual. It makes no payments at all, but has a royalty sharing arrangement with and pays a dividend to the Exchequer. The net result is that nobody knows precisely what the applied plant breeding work at the PBI with the varieties going on to the NSDO is costing. That was the basic reason why we originally started looking at the matter.

Business
3.32 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment 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 exceptional weather aid scheme for farmers.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal in accordance with recommendations of the law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission of certain enactments which, except in so far as their effect is preserved, are no longer of practical utility; and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Prevention of Oil Pollution Bill [H.L.]
Lord Walston: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit the discharge from vessels of oil or mixtures containing oil into certain United Kingdom waters; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Surrogacy Arrangements (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to surrogacy arrangements and to amend the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Cawley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor)

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

McNair, L.

Mancroft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Statutory Instruments: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuant of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures;
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any
980
services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it, and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.
That the Lords following, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, be named of the Committee:

Airedale, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Denington, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Henley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Commons: and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee or the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.
That the Committee do meet with the Committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday, 3rd December at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(Lord Aherdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill extends the powers of the Commonwealth Development Corporation so as to enable it to arrange for both borrowing and lending overseas on a more flexible basis by means of a wholly-owned subsidiary. At present, under the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978, as amended in 1982, any subsidiary of the corporation established overseas may carry on its borrowing and investing activities only in one country. This is inhibiting, for fairly obvious reasons. Moreover, it is impossible under present legislation for subsidiaries of the corporation to lend money to financial institutions which would in turn lend, as many of the best of these institutions do, to more than one country.
The Bill would overcome these difficulties and would enable the corporation to set up a subsidiary to borrow in foreign currency for investing abroad; in doing so no additional burden would be put on the total of our own public expenditure. All borrowings by the wholly-owned subsidiary would be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, and could be supported by his guarantees. Borrowing by the corporation itself is guaranteed by the Treasury. We are also taking the opportunity of this proposed legislation to give enabling powers to the Secretary of State to provide grants to the corporation as well as loans.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation, or CDC as it is normally called, has made a major contribution to British efforts through both aid and investment to increase the prosperity of developing countries. The corporation is a public sector institution and a statutory body which invests on a sound and businesslike basis and seeks a fair return on the money it invests. Indeed, it often invests in projects which attract the support of private sector finance, whether it be from this country, from other industrialised countries, or from the country in which the project is situated. Your Lordships will know that one of the aims of the Government is not only to provide an efficient and sustained overseas aid programme, but also to encourage private sector investment in developing countries. The CDC's activities are very much in line with these objectives.
But the CDC is not just another financial institution. Over the years it has built up a very deserved reputation for sensitivity to the needs of developing
982
countries, knowledge of their particular circumstances and economic potential and interest in the development of their human resources. It is no coincidence that of the 482 employees working for the CDC, 298 are working abroad.
The CDC has financed pioneering developments in a number of places. For example, in Swaziland it promoted the first irrigation project in that country and also the first commercial forestry. In Vanuatu it has invested in the development of a cocoa estate which includes a factory processing the produce of nearby small farmers. It has, indeed, done a great deal to assist the smallholder. In Kenya the Tea Development Authority, for which the CDC provided financial support, embraces the products of more than 150,000 small farmers; and in Africa it has pioneered the whole concept of nucleus estates. These are estates growing cash crops for centralised processing and marketing; the workers on them also grow food for themselves and for local consumption. In that continent the CDC has investments in nine nucleus estates, and 33,000 smallholders are involved in them.
In particular, the CDC has for a long time given very valuable assistance to the training and management of projects with which it is associated—both agricultural projects and those needing technical support. The aim of overseas development must be to assist developing countries to strengthen their own economies and provide their own skills and effective management. The CDC's record here is exceptionally good.
The CDC also accepts as one of its major responsibilities the provision of finance to projects in poorer countries and, in particular, to projects dealing with agriculture and renewable natural resources. Some of these projects would not easily attract private sector finance from those who are looking simply for a quick profit. A few figures might be helpful. In 1984 57 per cent. of the CDC's new commitments were to renewable natural resources projects, and 74 per cent. to poorer developing countries. To give a proper measure of the size of the CDC's operations, new commitments in 1984 totalled £101·4 million and total disbursements in that year £109·4 million. This is a very substantial programme.
This year, when the problems in African countries have been so much in all our minds, it is particularly interesting to note that the CDC has a long and fruitful association with Africa. For example, of 31 projects to which it made new commitments in 1984, 16 were in Africa. The CDC is particularly concerned with the problem of food in Africa, which we all recognise needs a long-term solution, even more than immediate injections of relief. The corporation has promoted substantial projects for food for local consumption in Africa and it manages a number of these projects. An outstanding achievement of the CDC in Africa is the foundation and continued management of an international agricultural centre in Swaziland, which aims to develop the abilities of nationals of developing countries to plan and run agricultural ventures including irrigation projects. This is a very important area, as recent events have so tragically shown.
There is, therefore, a very good reason to provide the CDC with concessional loans for the aid programme, as we do and propose to continue to do.

983
But this is not the only source of finance on which the CDC can draw. Since it is an investor in a wide variety of sound projects, its activities naturally generate substantial repayments and returns. In addition, the CDC has borrowed money at normal rates from the National Loans Fund. The main purpose of the present Bill is to widen the scope of the CDC's borrowing by allowing a wholly-owned subsidiary to borrow for investment abroad. With these various sources of finance, we envisage that the corporation will be able to sustain a sizeable investment programme.
I now turn to the Bill itself. The main proposals are in Clause 1, which makes various amendments to the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978. I should like to mention briefly what would be the effect of various subsections. Subsection (2)(a) would allow the corporation to carry on undertakings in overseas countries and to promote or expand new or existing enterprises in those overseas countries. It would also enable funds provided by the CDC to regional bodies to be used in countries other than those where particular bodies are incorporated.
Subsection (2)(b) would allow the corporation to establish a wholly-owned subsidiary which, on its own behalf, may give financial assistance to other bodies, as well as assisting the corporation to achieve its objectives. This subsidiary could borrow money for investment in projects. We intend that the borrowing would be in foreign currency. I should point out that since the subsidiary will be wholly owned by the corporation, there is no question of its pursuing policies of which the corporation does not approve. Subsection (2)(c) would allow the CDC, if necessary, to give assistance to such a subsidiary financially and in other ways, so that it might in turn assist other bodies or persons to carry out certain of the CDC's objectives.
Subsection (3) ensures that the borrowing of the new wholly-owned subsidiary, like the borrowing of the CDC itself, should be subject as to amount, source and terms to the approval of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, given with the consent of the Treasury. Subsection (4) empowers the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to make grants to the CDC. This is essentially an enabling measure. Before grants were provided there would be careful discussion and consultation with the board and management of the CDC. The possibilities we have discussed with the CDC include using grants to enable them to undertake specific activities which are sometimes difficult to justify on purely commercial grounds such as the provision of certain kinds of technical co-operation for projects in which the corporation is involved. Use of grants on a wider basis to fund the corporation's mainstream activities would need to be considered with special care as it could affect the way the corporation is regarded by its overseas partners.
Subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to guarantee borrowings made by a subsidiary of the CDC. This should enable the subsidiary to borrow abroad at rates from½ per cent. to 1 per cent. lower than would otherwise be possible—a substantial advantage. We do not envisage that the wholly-owned
984
subsidiary of such a prudently managed organisation as the CDC would invest in such a way as to necessitate calling on these guarantees, but this subsection and subsection (6) ensure that the Secretary of State could ask the CDC to repay any sums called upon. The subsections also ensure that Parliament is properly informed of any transactions.
This is a short Bill and a technical one, but it is a Bill that will enable the corporation to continue and strengthen its activities, which have brought a higher standard of living to many people, the majority of them very poor, in many different countries in the world. I congratulate the chairman—the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley—the board of the CDC, its new general manager and its highly professional and devoted staff on their record, and wish them continuing success. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Young.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill in such a clear way and for explaining it to us. As she has said, it is a short technical Bill, and so far as we on this side of the House are concerned it is a welcome and uncontroversial Bill. But it gives us an opportunity to comment upon the work of the corporation, and I was glad that the noble Baroness took advantage of that opportunity to describe some of the work that CDC does.
As I see it, this Bill is yet another step in the development of the powers of the CDC in keeping with the changing needs of developing countries and of the expanding role of the corporation as the years go by. It brings to my mind an earlier Bill, for which I had some responsibility in another place, which gave the corporation powers to operate in overseas countries which were not members of the Commonwealth. As I understand it, this new Bill gives powers to enable the corporation to escape from the inhibiting effect of national boundaries. I can well imagine that in the practical day-to-day operations this flexibility will help the corporation in a very practical way.
This linking of business enterprises across national boundaries is very much in keeping with a general trend that one can detect and which is becoming more and more in evidence as the years go by. In trade and in technical assistance under-developed countries are increasingly able to help one another and not be solely dependent for aid and technical assistance on the developed world. The addition to the operations which is envisaged in Clause 1 can be seen as one aspect of the growing collaboration among third world countries.
I wonder whether, when she comes to reply to the debate, the noble Baroness could give the House an example or two of the kind of project which Clause 1 would facilitate. I can readily see the general principle as being acceptable; but I should appreciate having a rather more concrete idea of what would be the kind of project which would be facilitated.
On earlier occasions I have made clear my view that the work of the Commonwealth Development

985
Corporation is one of the great success stories of developing the economies of under-developed countries. I have had the privilege of seeing the work of the corporation in the field in various countries. For a short while I had the privilege of serving on its board. From those experiences I have every confidence in supporting the increased powers which this Bill provides to the corporation. I have also in successive, more general debates on developing countries made clear my own views about the kind of development that one seeks to encourage. Broadly, I would sum up those views as being the need for a greater emphasis on agriculture and on rural development, and the use of grass roots organisations capable of serving the needs of the peasants in the fields.
It was with that background and those ideas in mind that I read the last annual report of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I am glad to see that both the chairman in his report, and the general manager in his, gave prominence to those priorities to which I have sought to give some emphasis in the past.
I recall that five years ago the CDC was given certain guidelines offered to it by the Overseas Development Administration. It was suggested that the corporation should place emphasis on helping poorer countries; and that it should give priority to investing in projects concerned with the renewal of natural resources. The noble Baroness quite rightly pointed to evidence that the corporation has been following those guidelines. Indeed, the chairman in his report makes specific reference to those guidelines and claims that they have been faithfully followed. The report further on gives clear evidence that that is so. For example, I was glad to read that in 1984 the poorer countries received no less than 82 per cent. of the £109 million to which the noble Baroness referred as being the disbursements from the CDC in that year. I have read elsewhere that there has been an emphasis on its work in helping small farmers. That to my mind is a particularly important aspect of development policy and I believe that the example set by the corporation in these matters could well be followed by other development agencies.
I particularly admire the work under the heading of nucleus estates because it is those projects which I think are distinctive as being put into operation by the CDC. It has always seemed to me that the nucleus estate is an effective means of combining the provision of central support services with a maximum of independent operation by the peasant smallholder. It seems to me a very practical way of getting the best of both worlds. But in connection with the nucleus estates, I was sorry to read in the report that the establishment of a nucleus estate and smallholder oil-palm project in the Philippines has not proceeded. This is disappointing. The reason given in the report is that there was a lack of local government funds for a road to lead to the proposed estate, but I am wondering whether there were not political difficulties as well, about which we read in earlier years, which had something to do with the postponement or non-fulfilment of that project.
I hope that the necessary lessons have been learned from the CDC's experience in the Philippines, not least that when a project is envisaged the very fullest
986
regard should always be had to the sensitivities of the local populations. It seems to me that possibly in the case of the Philippines that regard was lacking.
In the report by the general manager he stresses the economic plight of the poorest developing countries largely due to the drought, a subject which has been a matter of debate on many occasions in this House. In particular, the general manager points to the debt problem which is arising in the extremely stressful circumstances that the developing countries now face. It is a debt problem made worse by the high international interest rates. In that connection, I am hoping that the powers provided in the Bill to make grants in addition to loans will be of some assistance in helping to alleviate the debt problem. I suppose from what the noble Baroness said that it is not envisaged that this power will be used to any major extent but it is at least pointing, as I see it, in the right direction because it must happen very often that a project emerges which is highly desirable on developmental grounds but cannot be justified financially because of the burden of interest charges and capital repayment obligations. I can, I hope, well see that the power to make grants will enable the CDC in specific cases to overcome that problem.
It is not only the quality of the work which the CDC does which is impressive. It is important too in quantitative terms. The CDC's disbursements last year were £109 million. That is something like one-tenth of the size of the disbursements of the Overseas Development Administration all told. This figure of £109 million was as much as had been achieved by the CDC in the two preceding years, a very commendable development. Moreover, as I have indicated, it is my view that the money which the CDC disburses provides soundly-based projects calculated for the maximum benefit to the economies of the countries in which the corporation operates. I would just venture this comment. I only wish that the whole British aid programme was expanding at the same rate as the CDC's programme seems to be expanding and with the same degree of effectiveness.
I have no hesitation whatever in welcoming this Bill on behalf of my noble friends. It gives new powers to an organisation which has used its previous powers in the most responsible and effective way. I am confident that this Bill will enable it to continue with its excellent work.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, at the outset may I declare an interest in the CDC, however remote, having been closely associated with the organisation until some three years ago and still retaining a very great admiration and affection for it.
It is, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said, a first-class organisation which has done, and is still doing, and will continue to do, a first-class job for this country and, above all, for the developing countries in which it operates. One matter which is perhaps not sufficiently realised when talking about the CDC is the fact that everything which it does is long-lasting; its effects continue long after the project has perhaps been forgotten and may well have passed out of any control of the CDC. Therefore, it is not

987
simply a "one off' operation; it is of lasting benefit to those countries in which it operates.
Like the noble Baroness, I should like to pay tribute to those who are responsible for the CDC. I begin with its founding father, that great man the noble Lord, Lord Reith, who was the chairman who really put the CDC on the map. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Howick—another very great and impressive man. The present chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, is their worthy successor. However, it is not only the chairmen to whom we should pay tribute. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, we should also pay tribute to the general managers—Sir William Rendell, Sir Peter Meinertzhagen and now Mr. John Eccles. They are all people well worthy of their very important position and of the great tradition which they carry on.
However, it does not stop there. We must remember all those who work for the CDC both in London and overseas, because it is upon them that a great deal of responsibility lies. These people must not only be experts in their subject, be it agriculture or whatever else, and they must not only be sound businessmen who can understand balance sheets and ensure that the operation is profitable from a financial point of view: they must also be leaders of men, able to inspire and encourage their own staff, whether they be expatriate staff or staff from the country in which they operate—and sometimes conditions are not all that easy. However, perhaps most important of all they must be people who have a real political flair and a nose for politics—people who can understand the politics of the county in which they operate and the important issues and the motivations, and who know those people who are likely to take control, those who will be helpful allies and those who should be treated with caution. In that respect the CDC is enormously fortunate in the staff which it has throughout the whole of the area—one could almost say the whole of the world—in which it operates.
As the noble Baroness has said, it is big business. It is purely commercial, but its commercial aspect grows bigger and bigger every year. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, gave your Lordships some figures, and I shall give a few more. By the end of this year the total investment of the CDC and the commitments into which it has entered will be approaching £1 billion—a very substantial figure in any context. Every year the CDC pays the interest that is due on its borrowings from the Government, it pays the interest that is due on its commercial borrowings—its more recent ones—and it repays the capital as it becomes due. It pays income tax in the countries in which it operates and it also pays income tax in this country. On top of all that it has substantial surpluses-which every year are reinvested and carry on the good work.
As the noble Baroness has pointed out, this Bill will, in a modest way, help the CDC in the very fine work that it is doing. However, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question. She has mentioned the matter already in passing, but I should like to press her a little more closely as to why there is the provision in Clause 1(4) as regards making grants available to the corporation. There is the old saying, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. If you are offered a grant you
988
should take it with both hands and be grateful for it". There is also the story—and I do not want to impute any evil motives to the noble Baroness—of the Trojan Horse. While it does not do you much good to look a Trojan Horse in the mouth, you have to look at it in other places extremely carefully. I personally can see no need for this provision whatever. I do not see that it will have any effect as regards making the CDC more commercial and more successful. Indeed, I consider that it may possibly hinder its activities.
As has been said—and I have said it myself—the CDC is a commercial concern; it is not geared to aid-giving. If it becomes an agent of the Overseas Development Administration by handing out grants on its behalf, its character will alter and it will need entirely different types of people. I hope that the noble Baroness can assure the House that there is no intention whatever of it being used in that way. Such a course could also have an adverse effect on the relationship of the CDC with its clients and its partners overseas. Hitherto it has been solely a business relationship, and everybody knows it. There has to be a prospectus, a good balance sheet and good commercial business management. However, if the CDC were thought, however unjustly, to be associated with aid-giving and not solely with investment, the relationship with the governments in those countries in which it operates would undoubtedly change. There is the risk that some of those governments would expect from the CDC not investment but straightforward aid.
It seems to me rather surprising that the Government—particularly this Government, with their very great emphasis on the need for commercial management—should attempt in any way to graft aid-giving on to a commercial operation. Therefore, here again I hope that the noble Baroness may set my fears at rest.
Also, if grants are to be made rather than commercial or soft loans, there is the danger of increasing bureaucratic interference. Hitherto the CDC has operated very happily with the officials in the Overseas Development Administration. The relationship is exemplary. However, once the CDC becomes involved in aid then surely there is the risk that officials would have more say in its displacement, and its commercial autonomy may be eroded.
I do not wish to sound an unduly discordant note in my remarks because in my view the Bill is useful and will, in general, help the CDC to continue to perform its valuable functions. However, there are doubts which have come to my mind and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to allay them when she comes to reply to the debate. Apart from that, I welcome the Bill and wish it well.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, my own interest in this particular Bill, which I welcome very much, is that for many years I was a director and for some time chairman of the Barclays Overseas Development Corporation and we worked very closely with the CDC, but very much in its shadow, and were involved in joint projects with it. I formed a very high opinion of its efficiency, which has been proved over the years to be quite correct.

989
However, there are just one or two matters in the Bill which have made me stumble a bit. First, the opening sentence of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum refers to the purpose of the Bill as being:
"to enable the Secretary of State to make grants to the Corporation;"—
that is all right—
"and to enable him to impose restrictions on, and give guarantees in respect of, borrowings by the Corporation's subsidiaries".
I stumbled over that because the word "restrictions" worried me in case there is to be some reduction in the complete freedom of action of the CDC in managing its financial affairs, which it has always done extraordinarily well. This is evidenced by the figures in the last balance sheet which show that it has accumulated over £100 million of free reserves and added no less than £9 million to them last year. In the tricky atmosphere in which it has to operate this is a highly commendable record.
Secondly, in Clause 1(4), which the noble Lord, Lord Walston. spoke about, until the noble Baroness explained the position I did not understand quite what the grants meant. I had hoped that it did not mean that the whole policy of funding was to be changed, with more restrictions on the activities of the corporation. I find myself disagreeing entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said. I believe that the method regarding grants for these doubtful advances and investments, of which I have had so much experience in my life, is really equivalent to putting up equity. There is no equity in this company at all, except its own free reserves. If this is what is meant by these grants, I welcome them. Finally, as the chairman and the general manager of the company are listening to this debate I should like to congratulate them on a splendid record and wish them all the best for the future.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have had a short but useful debate. I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Oram and Lord Walston, for their warm welcome to the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for what he has said about the work that has been done by the Commonwealth Development Corporation, especially the nice things said about the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, and the managing director and the staff. A debate such as this presents us with an opportunity to say in public what we so often think but do not usually get an opportunity to say.
The kind of examples which have been given about the work of the CDC were welcome, and not surprisingly on an occasion such as this we discover not only that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has served on the CDC board, but I think everyone who has spoken has had some personal connection with the CDC in some way. The debate has ranged over a much wider measure than this rather technical Bill before us. Although the Bill is acknowledged to be a useful measure, it is of course focused on a limited area.
I have been asked a number of questions, and I shall try to deal with them in the order in which they arose. First of all the noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked whether I would give some examples of the kind of project that
990
Clause 1 would facilitate. Perhaps I may give him this particular example. The Commonwealth Development Corporation has provided funds for Shelter Afrique, a Kenya-based organisation which in turn supplies finance for housing activities in a number of countries in the continent of Africa. Because of present legislation CDC has had to confine the use of this finance to Kenya itself. But when the Bill is enacted the CDC could, if it wished, provide finance for Shelter Afrique to support housing developments in other countries. In other words, this is simply an example of how the CDC, with the enabling powers in this Bill, can extend its work in a way that we would all wish.
The noble Lord also raised a point about the Philippines and the development there. It is correct to say that the only reason the CDC has not pursued the possibility of further projects in the Philippines is lack of local finance to provide infrastructure necessary for the development to take place.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, focused on the provision about grants. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that I hope I can set all his fears at rest. Whatever else the CDC may, or may not, do I do not think that anyone wants it to become a Trojan horse anywhere. It certainly is not intended to have the kind of outcome which he suggested might be worrying some people.
On the question of grants the Bill aims to empower the Secretary of State to provide grants as well as loans to the CDC. It might, for example, be useful to provide on a grant basis technical co-operation direct to the CDC for certain projects where the country in which the CDC is operating does not request this help as part of the normal bilateral aid programme. The CDC recognises this. There might, for example, be a case for providing the CDC with funds from the aid programme at terms even more concessional than our present soft loan; that is, on grant terms. Obviously this would give the finance a greater net value over a period, but before such a step was considered we should have to hold most careful consultation with the CDC.
I am delighted to confirm to the noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Seebohm, that the Government have no intention of changing the character of the CDC's activities, nor of increasing government control over its activities. The Government are content with the current types of activity undertaken by the CDC and with the current relations between the Overseas Development Administration and the CDC.
I hope that with those remarks I can set at rest the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, as well as indicate that there is no intention in the Bill of making matters more restrictive. On the contrary, the purpose of the Bill is to enable the CDC to expand its activities in a more effective way where it is shown that one would follow sensibly from the other.
I am glad that the work of the CDC commands such a wide measure of support. It is, indeed, a unique institution in this country, combining, as it does, sound business practice and an enterprising response to the needs of developing countries. This Bill will

991
enable the corporation to continue its excellent work at a time when the developing countries greatly require new investment from both the public and the private sectors as well as management skills. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
4.18 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This nation is proudly one of animal lovers. Our history of care for animals in second to none. It was that care which led to the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 to control animal experiments for medical, physiological or other scientific purposes calculated to inflict pain. This Act has adapted to the huge advances in biomedical research since then more easily than its authors could conceivably have imagined. But its relevance could not last for ever, and it is now high time to replace it with an up-to-date statute and modern guidance.
Although the number of experiments has fallen sharply, from 5½ million in 1976 to 3½ million in 1984, it remains essential to use animals in biomedical research. Much of the reduction has been because of the increasing use of alternative methods. But for many projects there is no foreseeable prospect of any alternative. The need exists both in fundamental and in applied research. Physiologists must find out more about how the healthy body functions. The causes of disease and the effectiveness of different ways of curing it must be explored further. The safety testing of medicines, vaccines and other products must continue. I wonder how many of us in this Chamber are alive as a result of discoveries from experiments on animals. What we must not allow are unnecessary experiments or unnecessarily painful experiments, or experiments that use unnecessarily large numbers of animals.
The Bill before your Lordships has had a long gestation. The Littlewood Committee, which reported in 1965, recommended new legislation. Your Lordships' Select Committee on the Laboratory Animals Protection Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, reported in 1980 that all its witnesses considered the present law in some ways unsatisfactory. The Council of Europe has prepared a convention, which is about to be opened for signature, which the United Kingdom played a leading part in drafting. It will set a common minimum standard. But our proposals go further than that.
In 1981 the Home Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments reported on the framework of new legislation, and we have largely followed their proposals. In March 1983 the British Veterinary Association, the Campaign for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments put forward their own proposals. They, too, have greatly influenced our proposals. In May 1983 the Government published the White Paper Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. We consulted very widely and received many
992
comments on the proposals, which we developed further in the supplementary White Paper, also called Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, which we published in May of this year. After further consultation we drew up this Bill, which closely reflects the proposals in those two White Papers.
The new controls we now propose are contained in the Bill and are amplified in the draft guidance on the operation of the new legislation. Copies of the draft guidance have been made available to your Lordships. The key principle in the proposals is the dual system of licensing. The personal licence will be issued to people competent to carry out particular procedures on animals. The project licence will be issued if the Home Secretary considers the programme of work it describes is justified. Both kinds of licence must have been obtained before any work can be done on the animal. All applicants for project licences will be required to assess the severity that their work will involve and the licence will put a limit on how far they can go. There will be new provisions for the care of animals in laboratories and, for the first time, the breeding and supplying of the commonest laboratory animals will be controlled. And the new controls will cover not only experiments but also other scientific procedure such as the passage of tumours, the production of antisera, and the breeding of laboratory animals with physical defects.
I should like to pay tribute to the great contributions we have had from so many quarters in drawing up our proposals. I have already mentioned the veterinary profession and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. Under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the Campaign for the Reform of Animal Experimentation has given unstinted co-operation. Sir Andrew Huxley, as president of the Royal Society, has taken a close interest in our work, and the Royal Society, together with the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, is preparing recommendations on the care of laboratory animals and their use in scientific procedures. I have already mentioned the interest taken by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We have consulted widely and deeply, both on points of principle and on the details of our proposals, all the major organisations of science and industry. The Home Secretary's Advisory Committee has been, and is, a key source of advice to my right honourable friend, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, chairman until earlier this year, and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, a member of the committee until earlier this year, have played a great part in its work.
I am bound to recognise that the Bill does not and cannot satisfy those who believe that all scientific procedures using animals must be stopped at once. We may all respect the sincerity of those who think that. But I must say this. Their cause, and the cause of animal welfare generally, is not helped in any way by the outrageous behaviour of the extremists——
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Glenarthur:——who commit violent assaults on laboratories and scientists:
"the animal hooligans"—
as Sir William Paton has described them,

993
"mostly of the healthiest generation this country has ever seen because of past medical research".
This behaviour is a menace which the Government take very seriously, and I am glad to say that the Metropolitan Police are co-ordinating police efforts throughout the country to ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes are brought to book. This small minority of extremists must not deter us from our aim of bringing into being effective new controls which satisfy the needs of the community both for the maintenance and advancement of biomedical research and development and for the maximum possible protection and welfare of the animals which need to be used.
The Bill before us is not as terse as the 1876 Act; but much of the detail of the new controls will depend on its administration, and our proposals on the details of the administration arrangements are described in the draft note of guidance. The guidance is still in the form of a draft. We have sent copies of it to many people who helped us in preparing it, and would welcome further comments on it from them and, of course, from your Lordships and anybody else who would like to make them.
The Bill will apply throughout the United Kingdom, like the 1876 Act. In England, Wales and Scotland the regulatory authority will be the Home Secretary, in Northern Ireland their Department of Health and Social Services. I do not intend at this stage to explain each of the 30 clauses and four schedules at length. But it all hinges on Clause 3, for which Clauses 1 and 2 make preliminary provision. Clause 3 prohibits anybody from carrying out a regulated procedure on a protected animal unless authorised under the legislation. He must hold a personal licence. The procedure must be part of a programme of work authorised by a project licence. And the procedure must be carried out at a place authorised both in the personal licence and in the project licence. Normally this will be an approved laboratory, but other places will be allowed for some experiments by naturalists which necessarily have to be conducted in the wild.
Clause 1 explains that for the purposes of the legislation "a protected animal" is a vertebrate other than man. Under the Bill, unlike the 1876 Act, the protection covers animals in their immature forms once they have reached a specified stage in their development. What is "a regulated procedure" is explained in Clause 2. It is any experimental or scientific procedure which may cause the animal pain, distress or lasting harm. There are some exceptions; humane tagging; veterinary, agricultural and animal husbandry practice; and humane killing by a method described in Schedule 1 to the Bill. Schedule 1 is not, and is not meant to be, a complete list of all the humane ways of killing animals. It is only a list of the commonest methods of killing experimental animals; and the Home Secretary would be ready, in suitable circumstances, to allow other methods—but they would need to be licensed. There is, of course, a power to amend Schedule 1.
Clauses 4 and 5 contain further provisions on personal licences and project licences; and in Clause 10 there are requirements on the conditions to be included on the licence. It is of course essential to pay great attention to the qualifications, training and
994
experience of every applicant for a personal licence. This we shall do. Each personal licence must, as a result of Clause 10, contain conditions about the limits on the pain that may be suffered by an animal The conditions themselves are not included in the Bill, but in the guidance note. Control by the Home Office inspector is a much more effective means of enforcement than control by the criminal courts, and it is impossible to define concepts such as pain and severity with the precision necessary in an Act of Parliament.
To enable the Home Secretary to decide where to draw the balance, each project licence applicant will (as the guidance note explains) be expected to make the best assessment he can of the likely outcome of his work, including the severity of its effect on the animal in three categories: "mild", "moderate" and "substantial". The applicant's assessment of the severitv that his work will involve will, in turn, be assessed by the inspector and possibly by an independent assessor. No prediction about the results of scientific research can be completely reliable but the best estimate we can get will be of great help to us in considering whether to grant licences and, if so, under what conditions.
Clauses 6 and 7 allow the Home Secretary to control laboratories and breeding and supplying establishments for the commonest laboratory animals. Each of these establishments must be designated in a certificate issued by the Home Secretary, and each must have a named person responsible for the day to day care of the animals, and a veterinary surgeon.
Under Clauses 11 to 13 we allow somebody aggrieved at not obtaining the authority he wants, or at the prospect of losing it, to make representations to an independent, legally qualified, adviser, whose views the Home Secretary will take into account before reaching a final decision.
It is only right that the Bill should limit the circumstances in which an animal which has been used once in one set of procedures can be used again in a different set of procedures, as did the 1876 Act. But Clause 15 supplements existing limitations by requiring animals to be humanely killed when the work on them has been done only if they are then suffering or likely to suffer adverse effects. If not, the animal could be kept alive, for example as a pet.
No legislation of this kind can be any better than the people who make it work, and Clauses 18 to 20. which are about the inspectors and the Animal Procedures Committee, are therefore especially important. Clause 18 requires the Home Secretary to appoint inspectors with either medical or veterinary qualifications, and describes the duties of inspectors. In practice, the inspectorate visit the places where the work is done, nearly always without notice. The success of the 1876 Act has depended very largely on the relations between the inspectorate and the scientists, and for the new legislation a strengthened inspectorate will be just as essential.
Clauses 19 and 20 establish the Animal Procedures Committee. This committee will replace the present non-statutory advisory committee, and its duties are set out in the Bill. Two-thirds of the members must be scientists but not more than half the numbers can be current or recent licence holders. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has much to be grateful for

995
in the present advisory committee. I am very glad to say that Sir Andrew Huxley has just become a member of it.
The remainder of the Bill contains a number of supplementary provisions. Under Clause 21, the Home Secretary will publish, and will lay before Parliament, the guidance to which in its draft form I have referred earlier; advice on the care and use of animals, probably in the form of adopting the advice which the Royal Society is currently working on; and annual statistics. Clauses 22 to 26 provide for the punishment and enforcement of criminal offences under the Bill and Clause 29 for its application to Northern Ireland. The most serious offences under the Bill are triable either summarily or on indictment and, if they are tried on indictment, carry penalties of up to two years' imprisonment, or a fine, or both. It is right to have the capacity to deal firmly with the most flagrant infringements of the law.
I am confident that the new dual licensing system, stringent controls on pain and on places where procedures are carried out and animals held will give us a flexible but demanding framework of control to meet today's needs and those of tomorrow. We shall confidently rely, as we have done for over a century, on willing co-operation between scientists and the Home Office. Scientists have made it clear to the Home Office that they enthusiastically support the modernisation and strengthening of the law.
And may I add that I have been profoundly struck by the sense of responsibility and ethics displayed by all those who care for animals in science at every stage; those responsible for their husbandry, and those who undertake the detailed, painstaking and very advanced work on them. In visits I have made, their commitment, not only to their research but to the well-being of the animals under research, stands out a mile. They are surely all lovers of animals.
Without the tireless support and encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, we might never have arrived at what I hope will be, as our 1985 White Paper said:
"a workable and progressive Act of Parliament in this difficult and sensitive area of public policy"
If, as I most sincerely hope, Parliament passes this Bill, we shall be well equipped to ensure the protection of live animals used in science for years to come: all the more important at a time when there are many serious, unsolved problems for researchers to conquer: cancer, multiple sclerosis; heart disease and the latest menace of AIDS.
Many of your Lordships are to take part in this debate, and of course we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo. The challenges which I have just described are challenges that an advanced society like ours must take up, using every technique at its disposal. This Bill is not designed to hinder that work; rather, it is to put it on a sounder footing so that all animals, including man, can ultimately benefit. That is the basis on which I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)

Livestock Farmers: Weather Relief Payments
4.36 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with your permission I should like to 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:
"I announced on 8th October that the Government intended to provide some help for those livestock farmers who had been most seriously affected by the exceptionally bad weather conditions earlier this year and, in agreement with my agricultural colleagues, I am now in a position to announce the details.
"The Government intend to make exceptional payments to farmers with suckler cows and breeding ewes in certain specified parts of the Less Favoured Areas, and to farmers with dairy cows in certain more limited areas.
"So far as suckler cows and sheep are concerned, the rates of payment will be £14 and 35p per animal respectively and the areas concerned will be the Less Favoured Areas in Scotland and throughout Northern Ireland; in England, the Less Favoured Areas in Cumbria, Durham, Lancashire, Northumberland, North Yorkshire (excluding the North Yorkshire Moors), West Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear; and in Wales the original Less Favoured Areas in the counties of Gwynedd, Dyfed, West Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan and parts of the counties of Gwent, Powys and Clwyd. So far as dairy cows are concerned, the rate of payment will be £4.50 per animal, which will be paid to dairy farmers in Cumbria (including the areas outside the Less Favoured Areas) in England; Scotland in the three regions of Strathclyde, Central and Dumfries and Galloway, and in Northern Ireland.
"These payments will be made to farmers in respect of the number of suckler cows, breeding ewes and dairy cows they expect to have on dates which will be specified. The farmers concerned are being invited to put in their claims quickly; the Agriculture Departments will endeavour to deal with them as rapidly as possible and will hope to pay a significant proportion before Christmas.
"My colleagues and I recognise that the farmers in these specified areas are not the only ones badly affected by this year's adverse weather but we believe that we have, in broad terms, selected for assistance those areas and enterprises where the situation is the most serious. In all, these payments are estimated to amount to some £16.9 million.
"I am also in a position to announce the determination for Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances for 1986. The Agriculture Departments have now completed the annual autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands and, in the light of that review, my colleagues and I are proposing, subject to parliamentary approval, to increase the rates of Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances with effect from 1st January 1986. In the old Less Favoured Areas, the allowances for suckler cows will be increased by £10 to £54.50, for ewes of mountain breeds by 50p to £6.75 and for

997
other ewes by 25p to £4.50. In the new Less Favoured Areas the allowances for suckler cows will be increased by £5 to £27.25 and the allowance for ewes will be increased by 13p to £2.25.
"In addition, we are proposing to increase the maximum payment per hectare from £60 to £62.48 in the original Less Favoured Areas, in accordance with the revised maximum specified in the new European Community Structures Regulation and to make a corresponding increase (from £45 to £46.86 per hectare) in the new Less Favoured Areas. We are also proposing to introduce some changes in the detailed rules of the scheme in the light of the new EC regulation, including a provision which will enable an HLCA applicant (subject to checks to prevent over-grazing) who afforests part of his land to take the afforested area into account for the purpose of calculating his allowances for up to 15 years.
"We shall shortly be laying before Parliament a draft statutory instrument giving effect to these proposals, which are also being notified to. the European Commission.
"The additional HLCA payments are expected to cost £10.9 million in a full year and will represent an increase of some 11 per cent. on the existing annual HLCA payments, which are currently running at about £98 million per annum. This represents a significant increase in the Government's support for the hill and upland areas of the United Kingdom.
"The combined cost of the weather relief measures and the increase in HLCA rates in the current financial year will be £25·3 million. £5·3 million of this will be found from savings in programmes within my responsibility and that of my right honourable friends, the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Detailed changes to cash limits will be announced later. The remaining £20 million will be a charge on the Reserve. Following an announcement in October that the Government were considering these matters, expenditure on such measures was in prospect and can therefore be met within the estimated outturn for the agriculture programmes in 1985–86. The cost in future years of the HLCA uprating will also be met within the totals for the agriculture programmes published in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.
"Because of the need to make payments to farmers urgently, expenditure for weather relief estimated at £16·9 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund pending approval of the necessary Spring Supplementary Estimates.
"I am pleased also to be able to announce certain other changes which will be of help to livestock farmers who are facing difficulties as a result of bad weather.
"In England and Wales, farmers in the areas where the special weather assistance will be payable will be exempted, until the end of March 1986, from the charges normally made by ADAS for the analysis of hay and silage samples. In Scotland, the suspension of charging by the colleges will apply throughout the country.
998
"Agreement has also been reached in Brussels on arrangements which will enable us to make early advance payments of sheep annual premium to Less Favoured Area farmers in respect of the current marketing year; and we shall hope to be able to make most of these payments before Christmas. Advances will be paid to Less Favoured Area farmers who have ten or more eligible sheep at the rate of £2·10 per ewe in Great Britain and £4·70 per ewe in Northern Ireland. This early payment will clearly be very welcome to the farmers concerned.
"In addition, we have been able to obtain the European Commission's agreement to some changes in the rules relating to the Suckler Cow Premium Scheme which will be helpful to farmers who may find themselves in difficulties over maintaining their cow numbers throughout the winter because of fodder problems or abnormal losses. A separate announcement about this will be made shortly".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. I should like to say that there has been criticism at how long the Government have taken to produce this Statement, but personally I appreciate the difficulty. It is very difficult in the circumstances to decide on areas etc. and who should get help in this very difficult year, weatherwise, for farmers. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether there was any survey made as to where the losses were greatest? It seems to me that there were areas of arable, particularly where people had gone out of dairying, and with lower grades of land, where in some cases there would have been lost 100 per cent. of the arable crops. Yet they do not come into this picture at all.
If the noble Lord had motored, as I did—and perhaps he did so—through northern England, southern Scotland and right up through the east of Scotland, he would have seen the appalling destruction of crops. There is no other expression to use but the "destruction of crops". It seems strange that the emphasis has been put on the less favoured areas and all, of course, on stock.
The losses there were summer losses of fodder; for it could hardly have been anything else. It was very wet, but there was no snow or anything like that. Quite frankly—though I do not want to criticise my fellow farmers in these areas—many of them have relied for far too long on hay and have not gone in for silage. I know one can make silage in wet weather, though the quality is not so good; but it can be made at least. Many of them relied on hay and in many cases, of course, just did not get any fodder at all. I should like to know whether there was any survey made to see whether these losses were any greater than in some of the arable areas that I know.
So far as the Statement is concerned the figures that it gives will be of considerable help in many cases. The increase in the 1986 payments will also be welcome to these farmers. I am interested in this question of afforestation in parts of the lands and so on which I

999
think is a good thing for these farmers to do. Encouragement there is very welcome indeed. I do not know how far the £16.9 million will go. Of course they will not know until they get their claims in.
I note that they are going to claw back from somewhere the £5.3 million mentioned in the Statement; but I feel that the Minister has been very coy about from where it is to be clawed back. I should be interested to know from where this amount will be clawed back. I hope that it is not coming off some of the arable areas that I have been speaking about. Giving assistance in regard to not paying charges for analysing silage and hay seems a very small thing to do. Anyway, I hope that it is retrospective; because if they have not had their hay and silage analysed by now, they jolly well should have! However, that is by the way.
I would reiterate the point that I feel that these areas have been given this help to the exclusion of areas which I am absolutely certain suffered much greater losses. I am not talking about the east of England or the better parts of the east of Scotland, but about areas which may have gone out of stock and gone into cereals and crops. I know any amount of farmers who have lost 100 per cent. I should welcome the Minister's comments on that.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and, perhaps somewhat to his surprise, congratulate him upon it. In spite of the complaints to which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, referred, I think the department has acted relatively quickly in what is a very complex matter. While it would be nice to see the help spread to others who undoubtedly have suffered very much, particularly the arable farmers in certain parts of Scotland and in the north of England, I accept the fact that Government finance is limited. What is more, at the risk of making myself unpopular with my farming friends, I would say that the weather is one of the hazards that farmers have to take into account themselves. They cannot always look to the Government to help them out.
Having said that, I think it absolutely right that on this occasion the Government should help those areas which are most severely hurt. I think that they have in general picked up those areas. I should like to ask the Minister two questions. How have these areas been selected? Have they been selected by a pretty detailed survey of damage that has been done not only in these areas but in adjacent areas, or is it simply for administrative convenience a matter of taking those which are already classified, as they have been classified in the Statement?
The second question is: on what basis has the rate of compensation been worked out? As the noble Lord must know well, the price of hay delivered to those parts is now astronomical, and by my very rough calculations a farmer with 500 ewes, who is going to be in receipt of 35p per ewe, is going to receive something like £175 which, according to my information, is barely sufficient to cover the purchase and transport of one extra tonne of hay. That does not give very many pounds per ewe to help them throughout the season. Is the noble Lord satisfied that in fact this is going to be of significant help to those farmers who undoubtedly
1000
have suffered a great deal, or is it simply a small palliative which will make the hurt rather less severe than it otherwise would have been? I note, too, that suckling cows are also to receive a certain amount. The same questions apply to them as I have put to the Minister with regard to ewes.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of this Statement. May I first try to answer the question asked by both noble Lords, as to whether the payment was based on any form of survey. It is the case of course that there has been some time in which the farming community, which has suffered so terribly in the North of England and especially of course in Northern Ireland and in Scotland and parts of Wales, has been waiting because some of them are literally facing a crisis, for the reasons which both noble Lords deployed in their remarks. My right honourable friend, together with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, during that time consulted very seriously indeed with the advisory services in all four parts of the United Kingdom in order to try to see where, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, quite rightly said, the available resources—because obviously there is a finite amount of money, although a very great deal is involved in this package—could best be brought to bear. We felt that the areas which have been chosen were the places where the situation was most serious.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—and I in no way contradict him when he says it—made the point that there are arable areas, not only in the North of England but in Scotland as well, which have suffered very much indeed. I think I must simply say that we are trying, with the weather part of the package, to deal with a crisis. That was more or less what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said: I think he referred to bringing resources to bear where they were most needed. But so far as some livestock owners are concerned it is literally a crisis as to whether they will have enough fodder to take them through the winter. We have tried to help. We bore in mind of course that cereal farmers, although they have suffered in places very grievously indeed this year, have had perhaps a better crack of the whip in previous years than the livestock men have had.
Both noble Lords asked: how far is this going to go? The losses will vary from area to area. In some areas the extra costs of feed could be as high as £140 to £200 per cow and £18 to £20 per sheep. There will be other losses as well. But I must be absolutely open about this. The Government cannot be expected to make good all the losses. We can only give help which will be of real help, and in that context a very rough estimate is that somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 farmers may benefit and the average could be—this is again a very rough estimate—in the range of £170 to £350 per farmer. However, may I just point out to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that a LFA farmer with an enterprise of, say, 40 cows and 500 sheep would be receiving around £700.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked about the reference to £5·3 million, which he felt was in some way going to be clawed away. May I say that the measures referred to in this Statement were in

1001
prospect at the time of the Autumn Statement and can be accommodated within the estimated out-turn for the agricultural programmes which were part of the Chancellor's Statement a few weeks ago.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to ask one further question? I fully appreciate that the Government cannot make good all the damage that was done by the summer's weather but would he bear in mind the enormous cost of importing freight into the part of the world where I live, in Orkney and Shetland? If we have to import large quantities of feed, the price really becomes astronomical. Would he look at whether it would be possible to give any help over freight charges on the import of hay and suchlike feeds, if it is essential in Orkney? I am not quite certain yet how far we are affected but no doubt he will have figures in his survey, and if he could bear that in mind I would be grateful.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, may I make it absolutely clear to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that this is a very long and complicated Statement and I know he will perhaps wish to look at it more closely. In the early part of the Statement it does make it clear that for suckler cows and ewes the rates of payment will be £14 and 35p per animal respectively and the areas concerned will include the whole of the less favoured areas in Scotland as well as throughout Northern Ireland; and of course Scotland is covered to a very considerable extent by LFA status.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can explain how this arrangement can possibly be fair, farmer against farmer. For instance, why is it that the new less favoured areas in Gwynedd are not receiving help? So far as I was aware, the rain fell on my head as much as on those 10 miles away. I would ask my noble friend: will not this Statement cause just the same problems as the unfairness of the recent designation of the new marginal lands has caused? Would it not have been far better had this money been put towards the long-term restructuring and guidance of agriculture? It is just not good enough for my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture to say, as he did yesterday, that all is well in the farming scene.
I, like the noble Lord, Lord Walston, thought it was the farmers' job to cope with the weather; but what we cannot cope with is the politician, and a French one in particular. What is needed is help there. In particular, I would ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the recent loss of the special export certification of ewes is far greater than the 13p he has just offered in the Statement to certain less favoured areas.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must say I am disappointed by the reception which my noble friend has given to the Statement, although I do realise that he has suffered along with the rest of the farming community throughout the United Kingdom, and not least in Wales. I think I am right in saying that my noble friend comes from a part of Wales which will benefit.
1002
My noble friend has said that it is wrong to draw lines to decide who is to get the special weather package and who is not. I really think that if we had not taken the decision to draw some lines as to who would benefit under the special weather package, there would not have been realistic amounts of money coming to those most in need. May I remind my noble friend that all those who are in the less favoured areas and in the extended new less favoured areas which, despite my noble friend's remarks, were widely welcomed throughout the United Kingdom as being a very good piece of negotiation by my right honourable friend, are now going to benefit to the tune of an increase of an 11 per cent. improvement on HLCA rates not only for this year but for years to come.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for this prompt and generous help to the less favoured areas? As one who very nearly lost all his hill cow subsidy, because of a little local difficulty of the number of one cow, may I particularly welcome the flexibility that he is introducing into the hill cow subsidy scheme? This is a year when many people will not be able to maintain their numbers as the scheme demands. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned the hardship inflicted on the corn growing areas. I hope my noble friend agrees that the lesson we have all learned from the bad weather is that people will soon have to stop growing corn in unsuitable areas. May I ask my noble friend whether we could have a debate on this subject? I think that he touched on a very important issue. He started to stray in his statement into the whole question of land use. Does my noble friend realise that there may well be a case for more afforestation in grade 3 land, but there is certainly no case for more afforestation in moorland?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball for his references at the end of his question to its now being possible to retain the suckler cow premium, even though cow numbers may have fallen away on an individual farmer's holding through no fault at all of the farmer, but because of fodder problems or abnormal losses. Indeed, do not let us forget, too, that the sheep annual premium in the less favoured areas is to be brought forward to the tune of 30 per cent. of the payment, as a payment, we hope, before Christmas. I hope that that will be helpful, too. I was interested in what my noble friend said about farm woodlands. The Ministry of Agriculture, together with the Departments of Agriculture in Scotland and in Wales produced about two months ago a report called Woodlands as a Farm Crop, and that might form part of any debate which my noble friend is seeking. This is something which we ought to pursue through the usual channels.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
5.2 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I count it a special honour to be asked to follow the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships will have noticed

1003
that not only has my noble friend Lord Mishcon paid me a generous compliment, but I am permitted to take his place for a few moments without moving my own, for which I am very grateful. It would not do for my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I to get too close together.
I am very moved by the comments—unduly generous, I think—that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, made about my part in getting to this stage with this Bill. But I think we ought to pause for a moment and take note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is the first Minister of the Crown to rise at the Box and introduce a Government Bill on animal experiments for over 100 years. That is a distinction which I hope he will bear with equanimity. The last time that this was discussed was when the Cruelty to Animals Bill was introduced by the Earl of Carnarvon, presumably in this Chamber, on 22nd May 1876. That was very late in the day to get any Bill through the House before it rose for the summer recess and, by the time the Bill came to its later stages, the House was in a hurry.
Apart from that, the Bill was more of an anti-vivisection Bill to begin with than it finished up by being when the medicine men had repulsed attempts to erode the sovereign state of science, notwithstanding the fact that the Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill in 1876 had the formidable support of Queen Victoria and the RSPCA.
I have views about the working of the 1876 Act and the probable reasons why no amending legislation was ever introduced. It would take rather too long to explain them, but there are some morals in that which we should bear in mind in connection with this Bill. One is that if you have a Bill that is so loosely worded and contains so many words bearing so many interpretations and without having the power to go to the court to get a determination of disputes, then you are in for a Bill that can be pushed about like a statutory jelly. That is exactly what happened to the 1876 Act. No case went to the court to interpret it, because nobody could go to the court without the sanction of the Home Secretary; nobody could prosecute those who held a licence for any misdeeds in the course of their work because the punishment for that was reserved wholly to the Home Secretary who, before a prosecution could be undertaken, had to give his consent.
Another point is that an Act which has been exploited for so long by so many interests who have cover under it, but for whom it was never intended, is bound to work well because they say it has adapted to changing needs. But think, my Lords, of all the mercenaries who got into the cover of the 1876 Act, with repetitive procedures under the guise of being experiments, which most certainly they were not. This is the sort of problem which has to be cleaned up in future legislation.
The other approach to legislation is to put it all in the statute law, or at least make the effort; define your terms; have voluminous schedules. Have it all there in the statute law. But what a tedious operation. What a problem to put to Parliament in both Houses to construct a Bill of that kind related to medical and surgical procedures which, by their very nature, are
1004
most difficult to define and prescribe. How many Acts of Parliament define how surgical and medical procedures shall be undertaken on human beings? I know of only one. What the statute law does in that connection is to prescribe the qualifications of those who are to be entitled by law to undertake them, and to make it an offence if anybody else attempts them.
The third way is the way that we have adopted. I say "we" because some of us have had special privileges in consulting with the Home Secretary and his Ministers on the structure of this Bill. I strongly favour the method we are adopting now, which is to try to define first principles, to erect the framework of the statute law and then say where responsibility for administration shall lie, what powers he shall have, what consultations he must make, what advisers shall be provided for him and what opportunities he shall have for giving non-statutory guidance to those engaged in this work. This is what we have done and I shall come back to that in a few moments.
But before you can do anything about preparing a Bill, you have to get people together. You have to try to combine differences of opinion, many of which it is very difficult to bridge. Animals are an emotive subject. They are most difficult to deal with, people quarrel about them so much and they lack the capacity for peaceful persuasion and for bringing opposites together.
The most valuable experience I have had in trying to find the secret of bringing opposites together was in seven years a chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. That was splendid groundwork for trying to bring together dedicated and difficult people in the animal welfare movement. It was that that I had to attempt, with the aid of one of the most capable and persevering workers for this cause I have ever come across. I refer to Mr. Clive Hollands of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Vivisection in Edinburgh. There is a man with perseverance and a capacity for merging black and white and bringing together a combination of dissimilar people of different outlooks.
This Bill stems from the pledge given by the Conservative Party in 1979. That was when animals went into politics. All good causes have to go into politics if they are to succeed, because all roads lead to Westminster. There is no escape. If one wishes to change the law, there is no escape from coming here. To come here, one has to enter the realm of different political policies and outlooks and try to make the best of them to further the cause one supports. I did my best to put animals into politics. When we did get them into politics, we said that they should be included in the manifesto.
I am not sure whether I shall live to regret that suggestion as time goes on. Putting undertakings into manifestos is a very dangerous thing to do. However, it was done, and years later we had to rely on a pledge being a pledge and on the Conservative Party and a Conservative Government, who had given that pledge, to fulfil it. Indeed, it is being fulfilled today.
Television and the rest of the media have done an enormous amount to popularise the relationship between mankind and the animal kingdom. An outstanding man in that field is David Attenborough.

1005
Animal programmes on television—and there are many of them—are very popular. Hardly a day goes by without something about animals being shown or heard. That is a splendid state of affairs.
After a great deal of trouble and very slow progress we found ourselves moving towards the promised land. Reference has been made to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. There is no doubt that he was a pathmaker and pacemaker in introducing the Bill that he did, so highly skilled and sophisticated as it was. It went to a Select Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Ashby. For six months we provided evidence from sources which had never before in our lifetime come together to give such evidence. We were able to remodel the Bill. We thought that we had something which would stick, but the time for reform had not then come. It did not matter how good the noble Earl's Bill was, because time could not be found for it in another place.
However, I am sure the noble Earl's efforts made a notable contribution to progress. I recall the late Lord Piatt, as a former president of the Royal College of Physicians and as a former member of the Home Office advisory committee on the 1876 Act, bringing his weight to bear in trying to achieve unity among opposing forces, which was an essential condition of progress. The late Lord Piatt would have been a proud man had he lived to see this Bill being introduced in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
The most notable recent contribution to bringing this Bill before the House came from the triple alliance of the British Veterinary Association, the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experiments, of which I have the honour to be chairman, and FRAME, the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. That combination of professional standing and of political understanding assisted the ministers at the Home Office to make plans and preparations for a consensus Bill. I must say that remarkable progress was made in the Home Office where Mr. Leon Brittan gave his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Mr. David Mellor his head to collaborate with all who would come together to produce a Bill that would command a high degree of support and get a fair wind in both Houses of Parliament. That was the aim, and I believe that it has been achieved.
The Bill is an attempt to vest in the Home Secretary powers he has never before had and responsibilities which have not hitherto been his, to equip him with a high-standing statutory advisory body to advise him on difficult matters, and to provide him with a large and highly qualified inspectorate—because more responsibilities will rest on the inspectors than hitherto. It is not generally known that under the 1876 Act the Home Office inspectors had no statutory authority to enter a laboratory to look around and see what was happening there. The Home Secretary had no statutory authority to question the value of work being undertaken in research laboratories. He probably had to encroach on a authority that he did not really possess in order to discourage people from embarking on work that was particularly distasteful, but his statutory powers were very few.
The Bill remedies the Home Secretary's weak position under the 1876 Act. Not all Home Secretaries
1006
who looked at this problem would have welcomed the responsibilities which this Bill would have placed upon them, because they felt that they would be accountable to Parliament (as they will be), and that they would be shot at by hostile forces (as they will be). They were not anxious to add to the many problems which Home Secretaries have. It is a notorious fact that the Home Secretary is probably the only Minister in the Government who, when he wakes up in the morning, does not know what will await him when he arrives at his office. That is always a worry to those who occupy that position.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, the main feature of the Bill is the project licence. The Home Office had to make it clear that the licence is fundamental to the Bill and it has to be accepted. It is that licence which will give the Home Secretary the power to take difficult decisions on sensitive matters. When it comes to weighing up the degree of pain and suffering which the animals have to go through, and putting that against the value of the work which it is proposed to undertake, no one will envy the person who has to tip the scales one way or the other. That is a problem which cannot really be defined without a good deal of statutory jargon in the law.
As the noble Lord has said, the test of this Bill will be in administration. It will take some years before the full effect of the new law can be seen. I am quite sure that those of us who had a great deal to do with the preparation of the Bill, as it now is, will find our confidence justified as time goes on. It is not a Bill which is full of prohibitions and taboos, but it is a Bill which allows the Home Secretary to have his own prohibitions and taboos and to be accountable to Parliament for the use of them; and to be accountable for any decisions he may take which are contrary to the recommendations of the Animal Procedures Committee. I am grateful to the Home Secretary of the day for accepting this network of responsibility and power in such a difficult and complex field. All of us should help the Home Secretary to discharge these responsibilities.
My final word is this. I plead with the animal welfare organisations who are displaying a good deal of militant activity at present to regard this Bill as an opportunity which opens the way for them to indulge in constructive work on this matter for years to come. No animal welfare organisation need fear that it will be put out of business because all will be well. This Bill can be watched and monitored from different angles as to what decisions and what policies the Home Secretary follows. Intelligent critical observation in the field of animal use in laboratories will, I think, be a good thing as long as it is not full of venom, hostility and intransigence to the extent that we are getting from some quarters at present. These deep, moral divides have had to be overcome, bridges have had to be built, and I sincerely hope the co-operation will now be forthcoming from both sides to make this Bill work. I commend it very strongly to the House. I am personally fully committed to it and will support the Minister right to the end of the Bill.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, it is as much an honour for me to be speaking after the noble Lord, Lord

1007
Houghton, as he said it was for him to be speaking after the Minister. I can join with the noble Lord in giving approval to this Bill. Indeed, it would be astonishing if in the field of scientific research, of all subjects, we could not do better than in 1876. The world of scientific research today must be a totally different world from the world in 1876. I am sure that this Bill must be an improvement. I am not saying that it cannot be improved, and I look forward to a very interesting Committee stage where I am sure we can improve it. I already have one or two amendments in mind, but I shall not worry your Lordships with them today because they are rather detailed matters.
I should like to say a few words about more general matters. I thought it useful to look back to the debate we had in the summer on the most recent White Paper to see how we stand now with this Bill in relation to the matters which were of concern to noble Lords during that debate. I have been very much helped by the very copious guidance notes which the Home Office has produced, explaining the manner in which it set about interpreting the different clauses of the Bill.
I have two quarrels with the guidance notes. The first is with paragraph 50. I quarrel with the short sentence which reads:
"Fundamental research where no immediate benefit other than the increase of knowledge is sought is a valid and permitted purpose".
I take it that here we are talking about random research in the hope of a spin-off. I know that great scientific discoveries have emanated from spin-offs. In our debate in the summer I ventured to cite as an example of this the discovery of penicillin by Sir Alexander Fleming, because Sir Alexander was not looking for penicillin when he made the discovery. However, neither was Sir Alexander conducting random research. He was researching on a fixed narrow objective and penicillin appeared from nowhere and interfered with his researches. It enabled him to switch his research from one aspect to the other. Therefore, if we now say that there shall be no random research on living animals, and if that had been the case in Sir Alexander Fleming's time, that would not have inhibited Sir Alexander in making his great discovery. He would still have made it.
Let us suppose a researcher goes to the Home Secretary and says, "I wish to conduct experiments on animals for pure research without any fixed objective in the hope that a spin-off will emerge". I hope that the Home Secretary will say, "You might be lucky in the same way as you might be lucky and win the football pools. On the other hand, you might be unlucky and be struck by lightning. These are very remote contingencies and my task throughout this Bill is shown to be that I have to balance the welfare of animals against the prospect of useful scientific discovery. I am not going to let you experiment on animals unless you can find and give me some specific objective which you are in search of in conducting your experiments. You can research in many other ways, randomly, without conducting experiments on animals". That is my quarrel with that paragraph.
I quarrel also with paragraph 64. This envisages a situation where the researcher expects that greater severity upon the animal is going to be required than
1008
is allowed for in his certificate. He can go to the inspector and the inspector will have authority to grant interim permission for greater severity for up to 14 days, pending the final decision on the matter by the Home Secretary. I do not think that is good enough. An awful lot of severity upon animals could be inflicted in an interim period of 14 days, after which the Home Secretary might decide against and say that no such procedure should take place. Therefore, I hope that paragraph 64 will not survive.
I now turn to the question of supply establishments. There will be breeding establishments and supply establishments. They will not be the same, though I suppose in most cases they will be very closely connected. I imagine that not all the animals supplied will have been specially bred. I do not suppose that that is possible. However, I hope that the supply establishments will be able to evolve procedures which will satisfy people who have terrible fears that their pet animals may one day go astray, be stolen and end up in a laboratory. Many people have these fears. Elderly people with perhaps one pet animal would like to be assured that there is an avenue leading to the laboratory through a supply establishment which can make quite sure that no pet animal which has strayed goes through that channel. Such an assurance would be an enormous relief to those people.
I wish just to mention the matter of the release of laboratory animals. Hitherto people have said, quite rightly, that no laboratory animal ever emerges; they enter that establishment under sentence of death; mysteries take place behind those walls; nobody knows what goes on—and we have the gravest fears about it. The Minister has told us this afternoon that the situation will change. There is no reason why an animal which emerges quite unharmed from an investigation should not live the rest of its life as a family pet. I cannot think of anything which would make for better relations between animal lovers and the laboratories than if animal lovers could meet socially domestic animals which had played their part in scientific experiments in a laboratory and had emerged perfectly healthy and were to be seen enjoying the rest of their lives as family pets.
Yet I foresee administrative difficulties here and I am not sure that these difficulties have all been taken into consideration. For instance, I should like to know—I am not expecting the Minister to be able to answer this question this evening, but I should like to know some time—how many domestic animals are expected to survive their laboratory experience and emerge quite unharmed and be available to be given away as family pets? Will there be enough homes available for all these animals, or will each animal have to take its chance on whether it finds a good home to go to or whether it has to be destroyed because no kind home can be found?
I wonder whether here the supply establishments could be brought back into the picture? Let them operate a two-way system: let them supply the animals to the laboratories and receive back from the laboratories the animals which are fit to be given away and found homes as family pets. Let them evolve a procedure—which will not be terribly easy—for finding as many homes as possible for these domestic animals. I believe that if those things can be done, the

1009
fears that people entertain about the laboratories will mostly be dispelled.
I have dealt with only a few aspects of this rather large subject, but there are many noble speakers to follow me who no doubt will deal with the others. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in welcoming the Bill.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I am deeply aware of the honour of addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, I hope to merit the tolerance that is shown to speakers on such occasions.
To my mind, man is totally dependent on animals and indeed plant life for food in order to revitalise, to restore waste and to grow. As the complex web of life rapidly develops and spreads, so the search for solutions to man's problems is also rapidly widening. Inevitably, the solutions that we seek involve the use of animals for experiments. Clearly no steps short of complete abolition of animal experiments would satisy the wholesale abolitionist. The widely voiced views of this minority have hardened over recent years. They have become better known, whereas the scientists, whose work is largely unpublished, would prefer to work with unfettered hands and without supervision and controls. Both extremes appear to be unrealistic at the present time. Clearly for the benefit of man, medical research into cancer, muscular diseases and all the other forms of medical disorders must and will continue unabated.
It is worth remembering that it took more than 30 years of intensive research on animals—mostly dogs—to discover insulin for the treatment of diabetics. More recently, it was heartening to read in the press that, as a result of techniques used on rats and mice, research had begun on the treatment of cancer using cells from human embryos. Surely this must reflect consideration of the proper use of animals for the benefit of mankind.
Everyone hopes that the time will one day come when animals no longer need to be used in scientific experiments, though there are only a few organisations committed to immediate abolition. As the voice of the minority has become more vociferous and achieves wider publicity in the media, so has a genuine, growing concern about the welfare of laboratory animals. On the whole this has led to a better informed, much calmer, and indeed more objective dialogue on present-day problems, which is in contrast to the often bitter and at times brutal controversy of the last century. I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, that this is reflected in the fact that there have been no criminal proceedings brought under the 1876 Act during the last 70 years, despite a very sharp rise in registered experiments from some 273 in 1876 to well over 3½ million last year, which is quite a staggering figure.
Referring again to the 1876 Act, while the Act itself does not prohibit enduring pain, it has long been administered so as not to allow animals to suffer severe and enduring pain. Pain is generally accepted to be a matter of subjective judgment. It cannot be clearly defined. Indeed, the 1983 White Paper states very bluntly that there can be no definition of the term "pain".
While accepting that a definition of pain is not
1010
possible, I believe that there is a strong communication link from man to animal and vice versa. Those who have a genuine understanding of animals in their care very soon become aware of their suffering and pain. From my own experience with horses. I know that an animal shows pain in a number of ways, though it will bear unflinchingly a great amount of pain and distress. Like man, the facial expression of the horse indicates severe pain: a deepening of the groove above the mouth, often accompanied by rolling of the eyes and flaring of the nostrils, shows clearly when a horse is in pain. Internal pain is often indicated by pawing the ground and sweating and looking at the flanks. I have had experience of a trained horse suffering acute cerebral pain being disobedient without an apparent cause. Monkeys, with nearly human behaviour, suffer and very clearly show pain in the way that we do. As recently as January 1955, there were 394 such animals which died in an unventilated van at London airport on their way to New York. It is not difficult to imagine the suffering and pain that was involved on that occasion. At that time many more perished from disease and starvation in the holds of ships. Since then, with growing international concern and the threat of the spread of rabies, stricter controls have been introduced.
We have advanced a long way in our care and understanding of experimental animals. There are now many people and organisations working tirelessly for the welfare of animals generally and their work is very commendable.
It is also most encouraging to hear of Home Office grants to study the effects of social spatial density on the growth and well-being of rats. That is aimed at improving the caging of rodents. Those and other projects all go to show the Government's interest and concern in the welfare of captive animals. One hopes that in the future there will be regulations or advice on social densities and cage sizes for all animals which are caged as well as for those which are used for experiments.
Very much in the same vein, government and scientists working in close co-operation need to continue to seek ways to find alternatives to the use of animals in experiments when and wherever possible. Alternative methods are costly and very lengthy, starting with the theoretical development of the technique, followed by validation and testing, using the genuine product in the real situation. All culminate in the issue of the important safety certificate which ensures the safeguards of the future. Using the broadly accepted categories of alternatives, we should do all in our power to persuade and to encourage the use of alternative techniques which either replace or reduce animal experimentation very much in the hope that the number of animals may be reduced further in the future.
For education and training purposes, welcome safeguards are introduced in the present legislation whereby project licences will be issued only if it can be shown that no alternative exists, and even then not for primary or secondary education. So the day of the dissection of the pithed frog in biology classes to show the working of the heart is over. One hopes that greater use will be made of photographic and video

1011
techniques, as well as models. Problems undoubtedly remain in the development of operating skills, as it remains illegal to operate on animals for the development of those skills. However, those skills may be learnt by students assisting and working with a licence holder carrying on research.
I believe that the licence holders of today who are conducting experiments have a deep understanding of the animals involved, as well as a strong sense of responsibility to avoid pain and suffering. They have to work within the bounds of modern practices in order to be above criticism and to work with the inspectors who oversee the experiments. To my mind the key to the successful operation of the new legislation must be the role of the inspector both in the conduct of the licensing procedure and in the monitoring of experiments. On the shoulders of the inspector lies a heavy burden of responsibility. Inspectors in order to be fully effective also need a wide knowledge of the animals involved—their breeding and their social and welfare requirements—coupled with a thorough understanding and an acute awareness of the experiments to be conducted. Finally, there is a great need for trust and confidence between the inspector and the scientist, both working closely together.
The new legislation is a great safeguard to bringing about greater protection and improving the way that we in this country look after the animals that are needed for experiments. One hopes that with sensible dialogue and discussion improvements, including further safeguards, will be brought about in the future. As a caring country we have a great heritage to be proud of and to protect. Experiments are essential for the benefit of mankind, but we have a heavy responsibility to protect and to ensure the well-being of the animal population for the future.
5.44 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, most warmly on an interesting and extremely well expressed speech. I am certain that everyone in the House heard without difficulty every word that he said. I wish that that could be said of every noble Lord! The noble Viscount is a soldier of distinction. As a cavalry officer he spoke of horses and made the interesting point that animals show pain in quite different ways. I shall not go into it, but anyone with experience knows that. The point that he makes about horses is of great value for all to know. I hope that he will speak to us more often. The trouble that he has taken indicates that he wants to make his point very clear. I thank him warmly for what he said.
I must apologise to the House if I have to go before the end of the debate as I have an engagement that I cannot avoid. I should like first to congratulate the Minister on the clear manner in which he presented the Bill. It is not a simple Bill in its detail, but he made clear the major points that he was bringing out.
I have a particular memory, as about 30 years ago it fell to me to explain to the House what the Home Office responsibility was and what it was doing about vivisection. It was extremely embarrassing for me as
1012
the debate was raised by my former commander-in-chief, Lord Dowding, for whom I had the most profound admiration and with whom I worked during the war. Although it did not go very far, I told the Home Office that this was a matter that required thorough examination. I regret that that was not done at the time, but it was later, with the Littlewood Report, which revealed all sorts of astonishing things.
We have come quite a long way. Doctors want to gain knowledge, of course. The story goes that in Rome they possibly used slaves for vivisection. That may not be true. Bodies were certainly dug up for dissection. I quite understand that. Dissection is essential at the present time. The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, expressed the hope that there may be a time when such things are no longer necessary. I do not know. The noble Lord mentioned that Queen Victoria took a keen interest in the matter; Cardinal Newman, Ruskin and many others did, too.
I want to read from some questions and answers before a Royal Commission in, I think it was, 1875.I do not do this because it is unpleasant, but it reveals a point of view which I must say I understand. It is in the form of question and answer:
"Q. When you say that you use anaesthetic for convenience sake, do you mean that you have no regard for the suffering of animals?
A. No regard at all.
Q. You are prepared to establish that as a principle of which you approve.
A. I think with regard to an experimenter, a man who conducts a special research and performs an experiment has no time, so to speak, for thinking of what animals will suffer. His only purpose is to perform the experiment, to learn as much as possible and do it as quickly as possible.
Q. Then in your purpose you disregard entirely the question of the suffering of animals in performing painful experiments?
A. I do."
I tell that story because it is understandable that if a man is engaged wholeheartedly in the search for a purpose that he thinks wise, he discards other things. That is one of the problems that the Home Office will have to face in due course. To find an absolute solution will be of the utmost difficulty.
May I ask a question? These guidelines are for consideration. Will they come up for amendment, or in what way can we express our views? The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised the point. I should like to know whether we can discuss this in Committee, or in what other way views can be expressed.
I shall mention two points which are detailed Committee points but which are important, and I should like to make them now. In the training of people for this work two things among others are very important. First, there is the handling of animals. Some people have experience and know about this. Other people simply do not know how to handle them. They do not know how to approach a dog, let alone a horse. They think it bites at the front end and do not know that it kicks at the back end. It is important that they should receive training. The second thing is the training in dealing with anaesthetics. In medicine anaesthesia is practically a separate profession. You train men for that. Anaesthesia is not an easy thing to do properly and needs proper training. I only hope that it will be one of the elements for which training will be considered necessary.

1013
Perhaps I may mention one other matter, which the noble Lord mentioned. I refer to the attendance in large laboratories when they are not operating, particularly at the weekend when the laboratory may be technically shut from, say, Saturday to Monday. It is very important that someone sees to those animals which may still be undergoing some process. They may be required to be killed. They may be in great pain. To leave, as I believe is the case now, some of the laboratories completely devoid of anyone would be wrong. I mention this point now though it is really for Committee.
Most of us will hope, as the noble Lord has said, that one day we will not need to use animals. I recognise that the Home Office has taken on the right charge. It is a big charge, and they will not find it easy, but I warmly congratulate them on doing so.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to those of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on the maiden speech that we have just heard. We shall look forward to many more speeches from the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo. I know how delicate is the path of moderation in a maiden speech, having made one of my own on this very topic eight years ago. The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, seemed to me to have achieved that path with very great skill.
Like the noble Lords who have already spoken, I welcome the Bill and I am very glad that the Government have decided to grasp this nettle. It seems very sensible to replace the legislation of 1876, but with, to me, this important proviso. I quote from one of the recently published White Papers:
"New legislation must not make it more difficult to realise the Government's duty to safeguard the community from avoidable harm and to enable scientists to continue to make progress in saving life and alleviating suffering".
On the whole, I do not believe that the proposals in the Bill will make it more difficult, at least not much more difficult. I hope that the concern for the welfare of animals, in general already high, will be still further improved. I hope also that an apparent increase in paperwork will be contained by the good sense and good will of the inspectorate of the scientific community and of the welfare organisations. As in the past, these relationships will be crucial to the proper working of these proposals, and the skills of the inspectorate will be just as important in the new as under the old arrangements.
I welcome the way in which this legislation is drafted with, as far as possible, the principles in the Bill and the details in its codes of practice. The latter will be important, but for today I assume they are a separate issue. I believe that to a substantial extent the Bill before us codifies what might be called the best present practice as it has developed administratively under the 1876 Act. I believe I can say on behalf of many scientific colleagues, in universities, in the research councils and in industry, that in principle this Bill represents a very successful outcome to the consultation process which has led to its present form. We are indeed very grateful for the care with which this consultation has been carried out and the skill with which many conflicting points of view have been
1014
accommodated. There are perhaps some minor difficulties but these are probably more appropriate to the Committee stage.
There is, however, one major difference in principle between this Bill and the Act of 1876, and it has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I believe that a Second Reading debate is the proper place to air this, though I should say at once that it does not prevent me from supporting the Bill as a whole. In the words of your Lordships' Select Committee, which reported in 1980, the Act of 1876
"as interpreted imposes no duty on the Secretary of State to form a judgment on the scientific or medical value or the need of the experiments which licensees propose to do."
The Bill before us states in Clause 5(4) that,
"the Secretary of State shall weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefits likely to accrue as a result of the programme to be specified in the licence".
In the past 100 years, whatever may be felt about the precise nature of the 1876 Act, it has been the achievement of biomedical scientists in this country, working willingly within the framework of that Act, to keep this country in the forefront of medical and biological research—research at all levels from the most basic to the most applied. This has meant that the weighing of the adverse effects and the likely benefits has been made principally by scientists themselves. Some decisions would have been more cautious and some more dashing, but they were made by individuals
There are today very clear differences of opinion about the balance that has been achieved in the past between those adverse effects and the likely benefit. I do not think that the actual benefit is deniable, though some—and I do not agree with them—hold that the overall adverse effects have outweighed those benefits. Nevertheless, in the words of the second White Paper,
"it is our duty to the world as well as to our own people to keep our leading place in biomedical research".
If the Secretary of State can improve the welfare of animals and preserve that place we shall all be very pleased indeed.
But whatever the balance achieved in the past, it will now be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to make the judgments which were formerly made by individuals. He will be responsible across the whole field of biomedical science. It will be, as has been said, a very heavy responsibility. This was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of paying my own tribute to the noble Lord's work in helping to bring this legislation before the House tonight.
This is such an important change, a change from devolved responsibility to central responsibility, that I think it is worth following some of the implications. It will mean that the Secretary of State will now have to make judgments about leaps in the dark—about proposals which do not seem to have very likely benefit, whatever the intended benefit, but which turn out later on to have been centrally and innovatively important. This change implies also a degree of knowledge on the part of the Secretary of State or at least access to knowledge which probably no one person has attempted to achieve previously. It also, and perhaps more seriously, implies a loosening of that self-discipline which I believe has informed the greater part of decisions made by scientists in this country. I

1015
do not believe that our habits of thought will die quickly, but if the decision is no longer to be ours—I quite accept that it is not to be ours—I am afraid that we shall not think so carefully about it as we have in the past.
I have already said that the Secretary, of State will need all the advice he can get. I know that he will call on the many learned societies that we have in this country and on their accumulated experience. It will need to be the best advice, but one wonders what the best advice will make of Clause 24, which creates a new criminal offence for the breaking of confidentiality. It is of course quite reasonable to expect confidentiality but anyone can think up circumstances where the sight of someone else's licence application could cause difficulty. I would point out that the habit of publication is very widespread and very much insisted upon in the scientific community, but when an assessor has already done but not yet published work closely related to the work proposed in a licence application it can at present cause difficulty. However, the threat of prosecutions and prison will, I believe, make such people think twice about being involved in the advisory process.
Clause 24 is designed quite legitimately to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical industry but I fear that its main effect will be to discourage people from assisting the Secretary of State. Clause 24 as it stands would make me consider very carefully whether I would accept an invitation to serve on the proposed Animal Procedures Committee or to act as an independent assessor under Section 9(2).
Before I close, I have at this stage to declare an interest. I am currently Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge where a considerable amount of licensed work is undertaken. Your Lordships will be familiar enough with the present financial difficulties of universities and therefore the question of charges for licences must affect us considerably. The second White Paper implies that some £1·3 million will be recovered in registration fees and in fees on procedures, and that these will be new charges. The paper also implies that reimbursement will be available to those Government departments which finance research. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the Department of Education and Science is one of those Ministries? If it is, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government that payments from the Home Office will be handed on to universities and to research councils?
Before I finish I should like to reiterate my welcome to this Bill. Its structure and intention seem to me admirable. The Bill deserves—and in the relatively short time that it has been available for study has already attracted—very considerable support. I very much hope that it will be successfully enacted in this Session. May I also thank the noble Lord the Minister for his kind understanding of the aspirations and responsibility of my scientific colleagues.
6.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those others on the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby. It is not so long ago that I made my maiden
1016
speech and I know the difficulties associated with it. I should like to thank the noble Viscount most warmly for the interesting and important matters that he raised and the way in which he raised them.
I should also like to echo the appreciation that others have expressed to the noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he has introduced this Bill. I am sure that I share with many others a feeling of gratitude that the Government have fulfilled their manifesto promise to bring in a long-awaited and much-needed Bill, as well as gratitude for its content.
I realise that the Bill is to be judged not on its own, but together with the Home Office guidelines for its implementation, and when taken together these give a framework—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur—which is flexible yet demanding.
There is rightly much public concern—though not always very informed concern—about the ways in which animals are treated, and the provisions of this Bill so far as scientific procedures are concerned should allay that concern. I am sure that there will be appreciation that the provisions of the Bill are not narrowly confined to animal experiments but apply more widely to any scientific procedure which may cause a protected animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. As the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, said, it is impossible to define pain. It is good to see that suffering and distress are included as well. It is just as welcome to find that the phrase "protected animal" includes vertebrate animals in their more developed forms during larval at embryonic stages.
I know that some Members of your Lordships' House prefer the old words of the Book of Common Prayer to the new services.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: I feel that I may perhaps gain the goodwill of some of your Lordships if I quote a word from its preface. It begins:
"It hath been the wisdom of the Church of England ever since the first compiling of her public liturgy, to keep the mean between two extremes".
I think that the wisdom behind this Bill falls into precisely that category. It will not please extremists on either side. The anti-vivisectionists will dislike it: and so also will those who think that we have a right to treat animals exactly as we wish. This Bill strikes a happy mean. The fact that animals may be used in scientific procedures for the benefit of mankind shows that we believe that human beings have more value than animals. But the fact that we have procedures to minimise the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that they may have to undergo shows that we regard animals as having some intrinsic value.
In the Home Office guidelines the degree of severity permitted has to be balanced by the potential benefit of the work. It will not be easy to give cash value to this principle. For example, is the cure of the common cold as important, say, as the cure of muscular dystrophy? But at least the principle shows that it is wrong to inflict pain or suffering on an animal unless there is good reason to do so. For the same reason a project should use the minimum number of animals according to the guidelines; and alternative procedures not involving animals should, if possible, be used.

1017
I do not think that it is very helpful to speak about animal rights. Animals cannot be said to have duties, so it is hard to give them rights. But animals have a moral worth and we have a moral duty to treat them with dignity and with respect, especially as they cannot give their consent to scientific procedures in the kind of way which we rightly require from human beings.
Your Lordships may not feel that it is necessary to give reasons for this stance. Your Lordships may feel that this is a glimpse of the obvious; but not everyone accepts this view. There are those who speak of it as speciesism, a bias or prejudice in favour of the human race, similar to what we call racism or sexism. Philosophers argue about. these matters, but most would agree that although we find in the higher animals many traces of what is fully developed in mankind, there is also a qualitative difference which sets humanity in a class apart. This derives from our capacity for self-awareness, our ability to accumulate experience by the written or spoken word, our faculty for thinking conceptually and for acting responsibly toward one another and towards animals. Within the Christian tradition the relationship between man and the animals is made clear in the story when Adam was given dominion over the whole animal kingdom, but because man is said to be made in the image of God he must exercise that God-given dominion in a responsible way. If I may say so, it seems to me that this Bill, together with the guidelines so far published, gives admirable expression to these two biblical principles.
Perhaps I may, however, express a few reservations about this admirable legislation. We do not have before us as yet the guidelines for the breeding and supply of laboratory animals. This is unfortunate because to that extent we cannot know about what is involved. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said that the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, in conjunction with the Royal Society, is now preparing these guidelines for submission to the Home Office. However, it might seem that without them we are in some sense being asked to sign a blank cheque. I hope that the noble Lord will give us some reassurance on this point.
I understand that these will be only guidelines. I wonder why the guidelines are not mentioned in the Bill? Must the guidelines be adhered to? I see that the Secretary of State may at any time revoke a certificate which designates a supply establishment. I presume that if the guidelines concerning the supply of animals are not adhered to, the certificate will be revoked. Again, perhaps we might be assured about that.
It raises a further point about the treatment of animals. As I have said, this Bill makes no reference to guidelines. However, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 refers to codes of management for animals reared for consumption. I do not see that there ought to be any difference in the conditions under which an animal, such as a rabbit, is supplied for scientific procedures, or reared for human consumption.
Do the guidelines carry less weight than the codes? I wonder why, so far as intensive farming is concerned, it is laid down in the 1968 Act that breach of the farming codes will tend to establish the guilt of the accused, whereas in the case of supplying animals for
1018
scientific procedures no such suggestion is made. Perhaps it is not necessary. Once again, I should be grateful for clarification and reassurance. An animal is an animal, whether supplied for scientific procedures or whether kept for consumption.
There are a few other points that I should like to mention. Some of us have asked for more inspectors. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill is welcome in that it promises that there will be a small increase in the number, but it is not clear whether the size of the inspectorate will be adequate to meet its additional tasks. Once again, I should be very grateful for some reassurance on that point.
I should like to raise a further point. I am glad to see—and I am sure that many others are delighted to see—the establishment of the Animal Procedures Committee. I notice that two-thirds of its members must have medical or veterinary qualifications, or experience or qualifications in a biological subject. I note, too, that at least one of them,
"shall be a barrister, solicitor or advocate".
I am not quite sure of the implication of the word "advocate" here. Incidentally, it is odd that there is no requirement that any scientist on the committee has to be known for his concern for animal welfare.
Some of us have asked that there should be a further category; that at least one should specifically represent the ethical viewpoint. I have noticed a reluctance to include this category in this kind of committee anywhere; and yet we are dealing with matters which would not be the subject of a Bill at all if it were not for the strongly felt conviction that animal experimentation and procedures ought to be governed by ethical considerations. In the light of that, it is somewhat disappointing to me that this essential component is not given any formal recognition in the composition of this most important committee. Of course I realise that most, if not all, members of the committee will be alive to ethical considerations; but that is not the same as one person who is appointed specifically with ethical practice in mind.
I make these points of reservation because it seems appropriate to express them now. However, I hope that your Lordships' House will not think that they obscure in any way the very warm welcome which I want to give both to the Bill and to the guidelines so far published.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I also welcome the Bill and I warmly congratulate the Government on introducing it. It has taken a great deal of courage and determination, not least by David Mellor. I think that all of us should be congratulating the Government—as indeed, all speakers have so far—and I add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, on his maiden speech.
My noble friend Lord Houghton spoke of a moral divide on this issue. I am afraid that I am going to have the cheek to divide on morality with the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken because I do believe that animals have rights. I do not agree with the right reverend Prelate's interpretation—I do not think that it is necessarily the only one—of the Christian tradition which suggests that man was given dominion

1019
over animals. I have come to that view, but I do not intend to enter into a lengthy philosophical debate about it in this Second Reading debate or, indeed, in any other debate in your Lordships' House.
I have come to that view for two reasons. The first reason is that, as again my noble friend Lord Houghton mentioned, over recent years in particular our understanding of the behaviour of animals—especially some species—has grown considerably. We now know much more about the social relationships which animals form; the fact that many species mate for life; the fact that animals can die of grief. We now know many things which we did not know and did not understand a few years ago. That has led at the very least many people to have a greater respect for the lives and wellbeing of animals.
The other matter which has led me to the belief that animals have rights, which we, as human beings, should recognise, is as a result of the difficulty which I find—and, indeed, which some philosophers have found—in drawing a distinction between the capabilities, the capacities, the prospects for life, the ability to form social relationships and many other matters between some human beings (admittedly small minorities) and other animals. The human beings I am talking about are newly-born infants or, indeed, the human foetus; people who are terminally ill and human beings who are very severely mentally ill.
The right reverend Prelate said that animals do not have rights because they do not have duties. However, I am not aware of very many duties which human society places on the human foetus, but we still regard the human foetus as having rights after a certain stage of development, and we are right to do so. We believe that the terminally ill and the severely mentally ill have rights, but I do not think that very many of us expect them to carry out many duties. Therefore, I believe that animals have rights and it is from that perspective that I approach the Bill and the procedures which it aims to control.
As I have said that I support the view that animals have rights, no doubt I should, just for the sake of the record at least—although I hope it is not necessary—say that that does not mean that I support some of the things which have been done in the name of animal rights. I have no hesitation in condemning the use of violence against people or against animals. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise—and this is a reason why it is important for the law to be changed—that some of the non-violent but nevertheless criminal activities which have taken place against institutions where animal experiments take place (and this may be more the case in the United States than in this country) have brought to light through the finding of documents, video films and so on, gross abuses against animals.
In a recent case, for example, in the United States, a video was discovered which showed abuses against animals which I know that nobody in this House would condone for a moment, but it also brought to light links between researchers in this country and the institution in the United States where these abuses were taking place. If we want—as I am sure we all do—the criminal activity associated with the animal
1020
rights movement to come to an end, there must be not only a considerable tightening of the law but also a lifting of some of the secrecy, upon which some noble Lords have touched, surrounding this area.
We need to recognise that there are real differences of opinion about how justified human beings are in inflicting suffering and death on animals in the course of experiments, whether in the course of product testing and safety, or scientific research. There is a balance which will have to be struck under this legislation as it has been in the past, both by individuals and by governments, between the freedom of scientists to carry out scientific investigation and our concern for the animals that will be adversely affected.
The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, touched upon this point and drew our attention to Clause 5(4). He expressed some concern that, for the first time, the state would be entering into a realm which had previously been left to private decision. I have no such concern. I certainly would have concern if Clause 5(4) were to lead the Home Secretary of the day to try and make up his or her mind about the scientific validity of one particular project application. However, it seems to me far more likely—and, indeed, certainly more desirable—that Clause 5(4) should allow the Home Secretary, advised, I hope, by the Animal Procedures Committee, to look at the general field of particular tests and experiments where animals are used and to put the Home Secretary in the position of saying that such tests and experiments are no longer justified and should not continue.
I have in mind, to give some specific examples, the LD50 test; a test which I believe is now widely condemned by scientists as being of little scientific validity. I accept that it is still needed under legislation, and I regret that; and I hope that we can move rapidly to a point where it is not. Nevertheless, if there is a procedure where scientists agree that there is little scientific validity to it the Bill should provide—and it does in Clause 5(4)—a mechanism for the Home Secretary to say that it should be ended, or at least that we should take steps to end it.
I would have some other examples in my own mind. Behavioural or psychological experimentation using animals is a dubious field. It is dubious because it seems to rest on two propositions, both doubtful in themselves and self-contradictory. The propositions are that it is all right to do these tests on animals rather than human beings because animals are different from human beings, and the other proposition is that the psychological and behavioural experiments done on animals are of scientific validity because they teach us something about human behaviour. Both those propositions are dubious in themselves, and in any event seem to be mutually exclusive.
Some of the most horrific animal experiments which have been done and which have been attracted, quite rightly, a great deal of adverse publicity have been in this field: maternal deprivation tests, and so on; tests where scientists seem to have gone out of their way to think of sophisticated means of torturing animals in order to see how they react. I doubt that there is any scientific justification for that sort of experimentation. There are other fields where I know that animals are being used less and less already, for the testing of products like cosmetics and household

1021
products, and so on. Finally in this category I would include the use of animals to test weapons of war; weapons designed to kill and injure other human beings.
If I have a worry about the debate which has surrounded the two White Papers that the Government have issued about this Bill, and about the Bill itself, it is that some of the examples where animals are used in experiments, I think with no justification, are characterised by those who support the use of animals in experiments as being of no significance because so few animals are involved.
Of course, that is not true of the LD50 test but it is true that relatively small numbers of animals are used, for example, in testing cosmetics, testing weapons, or in the behavioural or psychological field. But because a small number of animals (or, for that matter, people) suffer in a particular way does not make it any less important that we should do something about it.
Far fewer people die in aeroplane or train crashes than on the roads, but we still do all we can to minimise the possibility of death in trains or aeroplanes, and quite rightly so. The fact that a small number suffer does not mean that it is any less important or that we should not do something about it. I hope that this Bill, and the framework it provides, will allow us to do this.
May I turn briefly to the detail of the Bill? Like the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I believe it can be improved, and I hope that we shall be able to debate some of these points in Committee. I agree with other noble Lords' remarks about the Home Office inspectorate. In particular, as I understand it, under Clause 9 it is likely that the independent assessor who will be consulted by the Home Secretary will be a Home Office inspector. That is a reasonable proposition, but it should be the same Home Office inspector who will be responsible for inspecting the premises concerned. We need rather more inspectors than the Government currently envisage, and I hope that that is something we can press on the Government at Committee stage.
I also have my worries (as did the right reverend Prelate, and I agree with him on this) about the membership of the Animal Procedures Committee, and perhaps rather more fundamentally about the remit given to the Animal Procedures Committee in Clause 20. It seems to me that the committee are being asked to balance the legitimate needs of science—and I accept that that should be on one side of the balance; science and industry—with, on the other hand, the prevention of avoidable suffering. I should like to see the balance being between the legitimate needs of science and industry, on the one hand, and the importance of reducing suffering, and reducing the number of animals used in experimentation, on the other. That would seem to me to be a more equitable balance, and I am not sure that it is right at the moment. With the right reverend Prelate I think the membership of the Animals Procedure Committee could be considered at Committee stage.
A final worry, and one that has not been expressed so far, is that I am concerned at the moment about the standards applied to the care of animals which are going to be used in experimentation. Our
1022
understanding of the needs of animals in captivity has changed radically in recent years. Parliament has seen fit to introduce legislation which governs the conditions under which animals may be kept in zoos. The standards of care applied to animals kept in laboratories for experimentation would be in breach of the law were they to apply to animals kept in a zoo. The standards are now much higher for zoo animals, and I am not sure that there is any justification for keeping animals which are going to be experimented on in less satisfactory conditions than animals on public display just because they happen to be locked away in a laboratory. I hope that at Committee stage we can look at the need to improve the conditions of animals kept in laboratories, many of whom will be there for a long period and most of whom will be there for the whole of their life.
Having made those points I should like to reiterate my welcome to the Bill and add my congratulations to all the others expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and to those who have worked with him from animal welfare organisations in getting the debate to the point where it was possible to introduce legislation. I look forward to the more detailed discussion that we are going to have at Committee stage.
6.26 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, I welcome any measures which propose to update and improve existing legislation, and this Bill does that. But I am not happy with this Bill in that some of the tests and experiments that have been carried out will be allowed to continue. There is a widespread feeling that experimentation on animals should cease. I, for one, do not like the idea of animals being experimented on and suffering pain and hardship, but I recognise that this practice will continue for the wellbeing of mankind.
However, there are some areas where I can see no reason at all for tests. A classic example is in connection with the tobacco and alcohol industries. We all know the dangers of smoking and the damage it causes, yet animals are consistently being subjected to continuous suffering which I feel is totally unnecessary. Surely the tobacco companies throughout (he years have gathered enough data to know how to produce safer tobacco. Smoking is not going to improve anyone's health or ever benefit mankind. It is doing the opposite. We have a free choice whether we want to damage our bodies, and Parliament has taken steps to advise the public of the dangers of smoking. I enjoy my pipe, my Lords, but I do not wish to enjoy damaging my health at the expense of animal suffering. I also enjoy a drink now and then and I know the effects it can have on me. I believe that the same arguments which apply to the tobacco industry apply here.
I am in a slight dilemma regarding the cosmetics industry. One has to define cosmetics and its purposes. People who have been badly scarred or injured, or born with severe handicaps, deserve to be treated and given the chance to face life with some satisfaction. But in the area of beauty cosmetics I see no need to use animals in this field. I have been informed that only 0.05 per cent. of animal testing is carried out in this area, but if one is using percentages one must first ask

1023
how many is 0.05 per cent. I believe that this represents, for the year 1983, over 180,000 animals. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm this.
Finally, one hears through the media disturbing accounts of the way animals are used in the testing of weapons, whether chemical, biological, ballistic or other types. We do not support these acts and want to see an immediate end to the use of animals having to suffer in this way. I am sure that the Minister will outline various proposals on policy relating to this. I hope that he does.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, it is quite an achievement in these days of political strife, that we have a Bill which has, broadly speaking, united just about all political parties, at least in your Lordships' House. I join unreservedly in the welcome to this Bill. As with all legislation, there must be some reservations and I am sure that we shall have a useful Committee stage where we can vent these views.
I have for some years been a member of the all-party parliamentary chemical industries group, and under the aegis of that group I have visited, with colleagues from both Houses of Parliament, a number of pharmaceutical companies, including those involved in animal experiments. I have seen some of the experiments carried out. I have seen the conditions under which the animals are kept. In fact only last week with two honourable friends from the other place I visited the experimental laboratories of a large pharmaceutical company in the Home Counties. It is often said that when Members of Parliament visit institutions (rather like in the armed forces when the brigadier comes round on his annual inspection) everything is just so, whereas on the following day or on the previous day things are not just so. But one is intelligent enough to tell when this is the case. At this establishment all those who were involved in taking us round the various experiments, after we had asked some very searching questions, gave us very frank answers.
I have also had experience over some years of serving on hospital committees, notably those concerned with mental health. Of course in mental illness, as in any other illness, pharmaceutical products are needed and rigorous testing of these products is necessary. Over the years the numbers of animals used in experiments have decreased substantially. I do not know whether the Minister can give us any figures, for example, of the numbers of dogs now used or the numbers of monkeys compared with 10 years ago. I think there are many misunderstandings here. Those who support the animal rights groups are often under the impression that hundreds of thousands of animals are used and that these animals are gathered up from all walks of life, from all establishments are not merely bred for the purpose of experiments.
My noble friend the Earl of Selkirk mentioned a very vital point with regard to weekends when animals are kept in cages awaiting experiments. He asked how rigorously these inspections take place. At the establishment I visited last week we were taken round
1024
the areas where these animals are kept. This was precisely the question we put blatantly to those in charge of our tour. There were detailed lists of temperature, humidity, and so on, of the buildings where these animals were kept. We also saw marmosets, some of whom were in smaller cages and some in larger cages where, if they are being used for experiments over a period of time, they are put so that they can have more freedom of movement. It is absolutely essential that where we have animals for experiments, whether they be monkeys, guinea-pigs or dogs, they should all have adequate accommodation and room in which to move.
As a nation we are hypocritical about animals. We give children animals as Christmas presents. A few days later they are surplus to requirements, and we read about cases where they have been thrown out of a car on to a motorway. Quite rightly, we value our animals if there is any chance of them being ill-treated, particularly as animals cannot answer back. But those who have seen or suffered from malignant cancers or who have had relatives or friends and have seen them in hospital and elsewhere always pray for their recovery. It is almost ingenuous to say that unless testing is carried out we cannot have the products to enable recovery. I recall in 1941 having a mastoid before the days of Sir Alexander Fleming and his great drug, penicillin. Since then a mastoid is a relatively minor complaint compared with 40 or 45 years ago.
On the subject of cosmetics, I believe this is an important part of the Bill. We must distinguish between the shampoos and the products for scabies, impetigo and psoriasis as against lipsticks and other forms of make-up. Again, those who have seen friends suffering from skin complaints know how very distressing these are. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to have these products properly tested.
I have briefly, two reservations about the Bill, Clause 4 stipulates the age limit of those who can be involved in these experiments. I venture to wonder whether 18 is not rather young: 21 or 25 would seem to be a more realistic age. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can comment on what kind of work 18 year-olds can carry out. Can they give an injection to an animal, or are they merely to carry out the less skilled labour? I realise that some of these youngsters may have several scientific A-levels, but they bear a large responsibility and it is possible that when the Bill goes into Committee then Clause 4 may have to be considered again.
My second point, even allowing for the guidelines, is how some of the companies outside the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries and other registered companies will be caught under the Bill if they behave unethically? I understand that a number of companies who make chemicals and pharmaceutical products are unregistered. I wonder whether under the terms of the Bill there are sufficient teeth to catch these companies if they transgress the law.
At last we have a realistic Bill dealing with experiments on animals. I believe that the guidelines in general are humane and sensible. It has taken a long time since 1876 to get a realistic Bill. I believe that with just a few reservations, we have it and the sooner it is on the statute book the better.
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before coming to the subject of the Bill, I should like, with the leave of the House, to redeem a pledge I made to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, a year ago in the course of a debate on the Motion about animal experimentation moved by my noble friend Lord Somers. He made the same point as he made tonight about random experimentation in the hope of some spin-off. In referring to it, I used a phrase which had started as a joke by our legal adviser in the Select Committee and had gained currency. I said I was speaking with regard to his point about the terrible scientist drunk in charge of a mouse and doing horrible things. I must explain that those were not the noble Lord's words, they were mine, but if you read the passage in Hansard you may think that the noble Lord himself used that expression. Not to make mountains out of molehills, I promised that I should put the record straight next time we met across the Floor of the House in the context of animal experimentation. I hope that I have now made an amende honorable on this issue.
I welcome the Bill. Some eight years ago, in the middle of a sleepless night, I tried to find something useful to do. I got up and started drafting a modern Bill and I wrote at the top of it "The Laboratory Animals Protection Bill". I think that was a good title and a better one than this Bill has. I sent it off to some friends at the Research Defence Society, of which I was president. I found that they agreed with me that some of our attitudes towards the 1876 Act were becoming a little dated and that we really ought to take the lead in trying to do something. Thus we set up a little study group and from that original draft of mine grew the first version of the Laboratory Animals Protection Bill.
At an early stage, I took what turned out to be a very important decision. I took the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, into my confidence, told him what I was doing and showed him the drafts of the Bill. The idea of submitting it to a Select Committee of this House was his idea. Though the noble Lord and I very often do not agree, we have always trusted one another, and that is what made it possible for us to work together. I am only too glad to feel that he has carried the standard on after I dropped it.
The attitude of the Government now is very different from what it was in 1979 at the Second Reading of my Bill. They were not prepared to give it any support in the other place because they wanted to wait on the publication and signing of the European Convention in this field. Six years have passed and the Convention is still not signed but I believe that the Government have changed their mind and now come up with the Bill. I should be most interested to know what has led them to this change of heart. Could it be that the fact that animal vandalism is becoming worse and worse is a motive in getting the record on the statute book to the liking of animal lovers so that there is no excuse for the courts not to apply exemplary punishment to those who vandalise laboratories? This point has been very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and others and I shall not elaborate on it.
1026
The good features of the Bill very much follow the good features, as I saw them, of my original draft and of the Bill as it came out of the Select Committee. There is a double element of sponsorship, the sponsorship of competence by somebody who actually knows the man, and the sponsorship of the importance of the project by somebody who understands how it fits in, together with provision for delegating routine procedures to properly trained subordinates operating under supervision.
There is the extension from experiments to procedures, which was a feature of my original design and the setting up of a statutory body as opposed to the present advisory body, which is merely a creature of the Secretary of State but one whose advice he is not required to take and whose findings are not necessarily reported. I wanted to see a statutory advisory body, and that is what we shall now have. The pain conditions are where they ought to be: in the licence, not written into the Bill. It is 109 years since the 1876 Act. Remembering that this is not a popular subject in Westminster, 50 militant anti-vivisectionists in a marginal constituency can change history at a general election. It is not a popular subject and we may have to wait another 109 years before we have the successor to this Act. In that case, we must build elasticity into it. Therefore, certain matters should be under the control of the Secretary of State, including, of course, the conditions in the licence.
Very difficult judgments have to come in here. In the Bill, there is a spectrum of undefined words the meanings of which we should find it very difficult to agree on in all contexts: "pain"; "suffering"; "distress"; "lasting harm", and then I believe some alternatives appear in the draft guidelines: "death"; "disease"; "any physiological stress"; "any psychological stress"; "discomfort"; "disturbance of normal health" and so on. What is "severe"? Someone has to balance, in terms of an undefined word, "severe", the incidence of all these words.
How does one do this? It is not at all clear. How does one do it, prognostic-wise? Hindsight is a precise science, and its postdictions can always be verified; but when it comes to predicting how much an animal will suffer or how much we will suffer in a particular experiment, that is not so easy, is it? I am very glad that there is a working party of the Association of Veterinary Teachers and Research Workers which is taking this whole subject under study.
We must learn not to be defeatists because we repeat the dictum that pain is subjective. Pain is subjective. However, once I have had more than one pain, I can make an objective decision that the one was more painful than the other because they lie within my own field of subjective experience. I have been stung by an ant, a stinging nettle, a cleg, a wasp and a bee. I can arrange the severity of the ordeal in that order without any doubt in my own mind. I have not been stung by a hornet but people who have tell me that it is very much more painful than a wasp or a bee. I have an uncle who was stung by a scorpion and he said that it was the most painful thing that had ever happened to him in his life.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I do apologise but may I ask the noble Earl this? Surely, it depends where you are stung?
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, oh, yes, indeed it depends where you are stung but I am assuming that one is going to be stung in the same place each time. As an apiarist, I can tell you that it is always my hands. The same applies to taking wasps' nests and when I am stung by nettles it is also always on my hands. I can think of worse things. I have had a tooth out without anaesthetic and I have had a thumb nail off without anaesthetic. I have no hesitation in saying that the thumb nail was much worse than the tooth.
There are two very severe pains, which are classified as among the worst that man can know: severe angina pectoris on the one hand, and, on the other hand, passing a kidney stone. However it is not impossible, researching through clinical departments, to find samples of people who have had both and they can tell you which, in their opinion, is the worst. Of course there may be dispersion in all these matters. However, I believe that we could do much more about, first of all, drawing up scales of pain in this way, like the Beaufort scale for wind. The Beaufort scale does not measure wind velocity; what it says is that the first measure of wind above absolute calm is that leaves stir. The next thing is that branches wave. The next is that twigs break off; and then branches break off, and then whole trees are uprooted. The actual phenomena are made the basis of the scale. If one is at sea, one has no trees to observe but at one level the waves have white tops to them; at another level Brixham trawlers furl their topsails, and so on.
I believe that the attitude expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, was most enlightened in the sense that he was studying the behaviour of horses. We do exactly the same with the behaviour of children. How do we know if a child is hurt?—because it is crying. That is a form of behaviour. If we draw up scales of our own behaviour and associate them with scales of pain, we can begin to learn something about doing the same kind of thing with animals and quantifying what we do.
There are one or two points about the Bill which I think I shall take in Committee. I think the re-use of animals as it stands in the Bill at the moment, is too drastic an embargo. There is no reason why an animal should not be used a second time in a terminal experiment where it will be killed under the anaesthetic. I believe that the idea of releasing animals for pets is very difficult. Nobody is going to keep animals indefinitely if they are not going to serve a useful purpose. At the Institute of Cancer Research, when I was chairman of the management committee there, we used 100,000 mice a year. Finding homes for 100,000 mice, many of whom have only been used to carry a tumour for a little while, is not going to be an easy job. They will in fact be killed, I am sure.
Clause 2(4), the conditions for decerebration, are not, I believe, entirely satisfactory in their present form. I might perhaps like to communicate with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and give him my reasons for that belief. I shall not go into them here. Then, in Schedule 1,1 have not succeeded in all cases in penetrating the thought of whoever drafted the
1028
connection between bodyweight, on the one hand, and method of terminating life, on the other. I have discussed this with scientific friends and they are not too clear exactly how these equations have been drawn up. I have only to say in conclusion that I am very glad that at this late hour this Bill has come before your Lordships' House and I hope that we shall give it every facility for a happy passage through our Chamber.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has been characteristically modest about the enormous part that he has played in persuading the Government to have the political courage to bring forward this Bill. There is no doubt—and I was a Member of the other place—that the success he had in getting his two Bills through all their stages in this House has influenced the Government enormously in this way. May I add to what has already been said my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, on his maiden speech? The only thing that I am somewhat sad about is that by some quirk of the school system—and we both had the same tutors—we were deprived of his lucid argument and clear diction for the whole time that he ws a member of Mr. Jaques' debating society at school. But we certainly enjoyed it today. It is with some pleasure that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, after many years of disagreeing with him on certain other subjects in another place. It was a great pleasure to realise what a major contribution he has made to this Bill and to the atmosphere in this Chamber today.
I wish briefly to put the view of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Their view is simply that this is a useful advance in the further protection of animals. They welcome in particular the greater involvement of the veterinary profession, which is a fine veterinary profession, which is envisaged under Claus'e 7 of the Bill. The appointment of a veterinary surgeon as part of the management team of a breeding and supply centre is a very good step forward.
It seems an odd thing to do but I think that, for once, one really should congratulate those people who are always kicked about in either House of Parliament, the parliamentary draftsmen, on drafting a really excellent Bill, a Bill in which (I hope for very sound political reasons) during the Committee stage in either House we will find it necessary to make only the minimum of refining amendments. It is, after all, the product, as has already been said, of seven years' very hard work in the working party of the Council of Europe. The convention is going to be signed this May and, for once, it is rather a unique experience to find—for when you have a piece of European legislation which affects all the countries of Europe, most national interests start to whittle away that legislation to do a little bit less than the regulations and the suggestions demand—that in this case Her Majesty's Government are going further than the regulations demand and are giving even greater protection than is really necessary.
It has already been mentioned how the number of experiments on animals is being reduced. The 3·5 million in 1984 is a great deal. But that in itself is a reduction of some 4 per cent. I should like to welcome the provision that is being made by the Government of some additional £150,000 for the replacement of

1029
animals in medical experiments. I think that this is an important step forward. It proves how determined the Government are to meet some of the objectives which have been voiced in this field. No Member of either House of Parliament can doubt the very strong feelings which there are on this particular subject, feelings which are sincerely and genuinely held on each side of the argument. I am influenced in my support for this measure by the strong support which has been expressed by the veterinary profession who, after all, are those people who are the closest to the health and welfare of the animals in this kingdom. I hope that we shall shortly see this Bill, without further political controversy, safely on the statute book.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in welcoming the Bill which I think draws the strings of control about as tightly as they can practically be drawn. Nobody with any sensitivity can look at animal experiments without dislike, but on the other hand, many of those who are most vociferous over it forget that human suffering is also a very horrible thing. Many human beings have had their lives wrecked by one disease or another so that they have been unable to live what might have been very useful lives. Surely, the sacrifice of a few animals in order to save that is not really unforgivable!
A great many people talk about abolishing the use of live animals and the use of alternatives. They do not stop to think that the alternatives, as they are at present, are of very limited use indeed, You have the tissue culture, for instance, Well, that is very good for those things which affect the tissue; but they do not cover the whole ground by a great deal. There is then organ culture by which organs can be separated from the body and kept working in their normal conditions for some little time. I am not, of course, speaking of organs such as I am used to, but of other kinds, of more hardworking kinds, shall we say. But, of course, there again they do not cover the entire ground. So I am afraid that for the time being we have got to put up with the fact that animal experiments are necessary.
My noble friend Lord Adrian expressed a doubt as to whether the fact that the Home Secretary made the decision, and that those involved were released from having to make the decision themselves was going to make things too easy for them. I do not think one need worry about that. If you are about to make an experiment, you first of all think whether it is likely to be accepted. I should have thought that the decision there is just as hard to make as whether you are going to do it yourself.
One point that worries me slightly about this Bill is the question of the repeal of the old 1876 Act. That Act, I know, was very imperfect and it has a lot of loopholes. But it is not confined merely to animal experiments. It deals with maltreatment of animals in all walks of life; for instance, the beating about of animals at a cattle market, or something like that. This present Bill will not cover that. I wonder whether there is any hope that we might later possibly have a Bill that will cover the general aspect of cruelty to animals.
Another thing that has worried me is the fact that there is no mention in the Bill of the numbers of animals that may be used in any one experiment. I
1030
believe that may be in the guidelines, and I hope that is so. Although I am not speaking with any authority, I think that there has been a certain amount of abuse in the use of, say, 100 animals where 20 would do perfectly satisfactorily. However, we shall see whether that is provided for in the guidelines.
One final point: I should like to agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, about the question of the age limit. As one who has spent a good deal of his life teaching the young, I think that 18 is much too young. I should have liked to see the age put at about 25. I am afraid that is too much to hope for, but could we make it 21 at least, because you need not only technical ability, but a sense of responsibility if you are going to deal with matters such as this? I think that 18 is too young. Apart from those two small quibbles, my Lords, which can easily be put right at Committee stage, I welcome this Bill very much.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, of course I am one who would urge the House to give this Bill a Second Reading and a great welcome. I have been concerned with animals all my life and, in a curious way, with research into animals. I will not weary the House with that; but there is one particular matter that has come to my mind which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention. My noble friend the Minister mentioned it in his speech: that is, the activities of the "anti" bodies. Is it possible that this Bill might be a vehicle whereby a clause could be introduced to prevent the vicious and often violent methods of the various "anti" bodies who, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, knows only too well, try to interfere with legitimate research in every possible way?
The bodies have considerable financial resources and well-paid staffs whose tasks may well be to interfere with much that the Government are trying to promote by the means of this Bill. That is a very serious and costly matter. Apart from the dissemination of anti-research propaganda, of which we have all been recipients, there have been (and may well be more) physical raids on establishments equipped to provide the necessary animal resources. I am thinking of the occasion the other day when an establishment was raided and a number of basset hounds—was it?—were released all over the country. Poor things! They had been bred in a kennel and had lived in a kennel all their lives, and they were just set free and spread about the country. That was cruelty beyond belief, carried out by what I call an "anti" body.
We are all dedicated to reducing the number of animals which are used and are necessary for this work. I think, as an ex-pharmaceutical manufacturer, one must realise that it is not a cheap thing to have thoroughly fit animals maintained in conditions which are acceptable to them. One's experimentation is no good if one's subjects are not fit, and I think it should be borne in mind, especially by the "anti" bodies, that we are not all inimical to animals: we love them. When one tries to calculate the actual cost to research, to the State or to the pharmaceutical industry of the loss of a series of animals who may have been taking part in an expensive experiment over a period of years, it is a very vile crime to break it up in a sentimental way. The

1031
cost in buildings and staff is an important factor. It is very considerable, and we have to maintain that. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who inquired what happens to animals when they are locked away at weekends and there is nobody to look after them. But of course that does not happen: that is not the case. If you are carrying out experiments with animals you make sure that they are kept watched for 24 hours a day.
Would the Minister consider looking into this question regarding Clause 22, as to whether this Bill might not be made a vehicle for looking again at certain things? The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, talked, I think, about tightening up the law. Of course the law is there—the common law—in the case of a raid on premises. But this is a very important, expensive and vital business which is being interfered with by these raids. I shall read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, with interest. What I am talking about is this: can we not use this Bill, perhaps by an extension of Clause 22, to strengthen the hands of the law because at the moment there is only the common law to be administered?
I would urge only that when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill, which I believe is going to be on the 18th, the powers-that-be will ensure that we do not have a rush over it, and that there is ample opportunity for all the contributions that can be made before this Bill is licked into shape and sent to the other place. I urge that we give the Bill a Second Reading.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I declare an interest, as I have done before, in that I am an adviser to a pharmaceutical company. But I hope that my record in putting through your Lordships' House, not once but several times, legislation to protect deer from cruelty shows that I am not exactly indifferent—indeed, quite the contrary—in matters of animal welfare.
I do not think that we have paid sufficient tribute tonight to David Mellor, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office. He has done so much in wide consultation, with a devotion and patience that deserves very wide appreciation. He has suffered, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, knows, together with his family, from the animal activists and has paid a penalty for this devotion to the balanced approach. I am very sure that we ought to send a message of warm congratulations to him personally for this Bill. Also, I would join with that the name of my noble friend Lord Houghton, whose persistence and dedication to animal welfare we all admire so very much. What a wonderful record he has in this field and how impossible, as one noble Lord has said, it would have been to have this Bill without his help. I hope they will both be rather pleased that the indications from Brussels are that this Bill will form the basic approach in a new draft directive that the EC Commission is working upon and hopes to bring forward on this issue. Britain in fact is leading the way with this Bill in Europe.
1032
I cannot speak on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, but I know it welcomes the Bill and will make it work. It is perhaps worth making just a few points about the industry's record in this sphere. Some 10 per cent. of the international pharmaceutical industry's entire worldwide outlay on research and development—worth about £500 million in 1984—is based in British laboratories. So we have a very good record in this area. Some of this research is very risky financially. A viable therapy involves—and I see the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington,nodding—sometimes no less than 10 or 12 years as a development period. A major innovation can cost between £50 million and £100 million in research outlay, and of course it has to achieve very substantial export earnings in order to support R & D on this scale. And indeed it does. With exports at £1¼ billion, it is the third largest manufacturing contributor to the balance of trade. So we have a good record as an industry.
The industry supports the Council of Europe Convention for Protection of Animals in Experimental Procedures and I look back with affection on my own time in Strasbourg working on that convention. The industry is steadily reducing the use of aminals. It would like to do away with the sort of tests that are under criticism today. Its scientists are responsible people who use high standards in assessing degrees of pain. But it still stands by the view, as I think every noble Lord has stood by the view, that in order, for example, to be sure about the effectiveness of treatments on the whole body, about the side effects and about the very difficult and slim borderline between effective and sometimes dangerous doses, there is as yet no substitute for testing involving animals. There are many killer diseases yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, that have to be conquered. He mentioned one virus disease, and such diseases in particular need study in animals.
My main purpose in rising is to say a few words about three or four main criticisms of the Bill that we can expect from the activists. But before doing so, I want to make a particular point. Many noble Lords have talked about the double-headed licensing system which is the key to the Bill. I go a good deal further than that. I think the significance of the Bill is the impressive chain—and almost unprecedented chain—of checks, controls and accountability that form the safeguards in the Bill as a whole.
If you look at them it is a long chain. There are the complex rules that will govern personal licences and applications to be signed by someone of undoubted repute. The new and most important project licensing system will have such wide effects, as the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, pointed out. The Secretary of State must evaluate projects before licensing them; he must be satisfied about the medical or veterinary purpose; he must weigh the benefit expected against the possible adverse effects on animals and he must be sure that there are not adequate substitutes, if cats, dogs or primates are proposed for use in the project. That is already a long chain of protection.
But then the research establishment must be licensed and checked upon. It must have a designated person in charge of animal welfare and a vet—able to call in an inspector if need be—checking and advising

1033
on animal health and welfare. There is the control over the supply of animals. There are the conditions and guidelines that will go in all the certificates and licences. There will be the possibility of independent assessors or the new Animal Procedures Committee.
There will also be the new inspectors. I hope that they will be expanded from the 15 that they are today. One hears that there are to be only 18, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that that is hardly sufficient for all the work that will be arising on this Bill. We note that they will again have an overriding power to order the destruction of an animal in distress.
Then, last of all, we have the Animal Procedures Committee—a new invention which will not be a tool of the Secretary of State. It must balance protection against suffering against legitimate requirements of science and industry. But, most significant, it can also initiate advice and command research work "relevant to its functions"—a happily broad remit that should give it enormous influence as the years develop.
May I therefore now look at some of the criticisms that we may expect from the animal lobby, or at least those who take an extreme position in these matters? First, they will say that animals are not needed at all or are needed in only a small fraction of projects; that alternatives are available and that notorious tests, like the LD50 test, should be banned in the Bill. I am not going to start a scientific argument that is beyond me. I am, however, satisfied that at the very least they exaggerate their case about the effectiveness of testing outside the body. But, more important, they should realise the immense advance that the Bill offers to their point of view.
First, the Secretary of State in that crucial subsection (4) of Clause 5 must weigh the likely adverse effects on the animal against the benefit to science or medicine of the proposed project. He is pitched right into a clear evaluation of the work proposed, and in my view he will be pitched right into making a decision as to whether the use of an animal is at all justified in a particular project. Have the animal activists realised what an immense advance this is? Independent assessors can be called upon and the Animal Procedures Committee can be asked for advice before a licence is given—and, as I said, the committee itself can itself offer advice.
I wonder whether the animal lobby realises the new era that the Secretary of State's powers and the new committee represent. The committee will be a proper outlet for their pressure as a lobby, if they will use constructively the machinery of evidence and proposals to the Minister and to the committee in a constructive dialogue. How much better it will be if they will act in this way, instead of their disruptive activity. I gather that there are now 200 or 300 cases about the country awaiting prosecution for their activity. I think the community will hardly tolerate much more, if they continue in this way and do not use the machinery that is now open to them to put legitimate pressure and ask for open dialogue about the sort of decisions that the Secretary of State will have to make.
As for the LD50 test, the industry is already using it less and less and would like to be rid of it if toxicity testing can be accepted in other forms. It is regarded as
1034
artificially accurate in its results and, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said in a debate here a year ago. it is being replaced by limit tests and other means of testing toxicity.
The second criticism we must expect is that "too many drugs are being developed"—"me-too drugs" as they are often called—when we already have sufficient of them. This is a doubtful assertion anyway, and at today's costs of so many millions of pounds over so many years, as I have said, companies are not going to do much R & D that is repetitive. Drugs need to be refined to cover individual reactions to them, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines is for ever asking for more safety and fewer side effects; even, for example, whether somebody can do something about the effects of aspirin on our insides.
In any case, I come back once again to the revolution that the provisions of the Bill provide. It will be the duty of the Secretary of State, before granting a project licence, to be sure that the work is not just repetitive, to be sure that it is justified and that the effect on the animals is more than counterbalanced by the medical benefit that can be expected. And. once again, this is just the sort of issue that the Animal Procedures Committee can watch and research upon and then issue guidance about. I hope that the Animal Liberation Front will see the opportunity for constructive dialogue that the Bill is offering.
Finally, there will be the criticism that the Bill does not provide for lay ethics committees to oversee procedures. A year ago when we debated this matter, the Home Office Minister read out part of an address by Sir Andrew Huxley, President of the Royal Society, on this point. He was clear that such committees have been tried elsewhere in other countries, mainly as an alternative to our own long tradition of Government inspectors whose advice is generally acceptable and effective. If we add all the other checks that I have been talking about—the responsibility of the Minister to evaluate designated establishments, two staff concerned with animal welfare in each establishment, inspectors giving overriding instructions, conditions in licences about pain, guidelines and the role of the committee—then I am sure, as Sir Andrew Huxley said, that it will be superfluous to add to that ethics committees. The balance is about right in the Bill and the lay views will have adequate expression and influence if they use the procedures that the Bill allows them to have. In so many ways this is a remarkable Bill and one which has such wide agreement. I hope that we will hurry it quickly onto the statute book.
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, on his maiden speech. I knew his father very well. We used to play polo together. I also know that the noble Viscount's grandfather was a Field Marshal. My father was on his staff in the Middle East for some time.
I give a welcome to this Bill, but there are one or two minor points which will have to be examined in Committee, although I will not necessarily waste the time of the House describing them now.

1035
It is an extraordinary thing that diseases in animals today are far more numerous that they ever used to be. The reason is that we try to increase per cent. lambing and to fatten bullocks and poultry by injecting them with hormones, and so on. I believe that is one of the reasons why there have to be so many experiments on live animals. Wild animals are subject to hardly any diseases.
Perhaps it is outside the ambit of this Bill—in fact, I know it is—but I cannot resist asking my noble friend the Minister to comment on one aspect of cruelty which I suppose is the responsiblity of the Ministry of Defence. I am told that pigs are shot at with various weapons, not in order to kill them but to wound them so that the way in which a bullet affects the body of a live pig can be established. I understand that the pig is quite like us, although not mentally—though perhaps some more than others.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount kindly speak for himself?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord is quite right.
I object to what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham when he commented that animals have no rights. I remind the right reverend Prelate that man is the only species that destroys its own kind. There may be sexual fights between two stags or other animals in the mating season, but they are seldom fatal. However, I agree with the right reverend Prelate when he says that there will be no one on the Animal Procedures Committee established by Clause 19 who can speak up for animals. There will be solicitors and barristers, but no one to speak for animals. That situation ought to be rectified. Some laymen have a lot of practical experience and could be very useful.
It is also very important that one should have the right people to judge the extent of pain and when an animal ought to be destroyed. It is also important to have the right people to be able to tell when a person is efficient enough to experiment on live animals. Those are the two most important points in this Bill.
I am also not very happy about a provision in Clauses 3 and 4. What I do not understand is that whereas it is stated in one place that a licence cannot be issued to a person under the age of 18, which I believe is quite correct, in another part of the Bill it is stated that the Secretary of State can do so. That does not seem very sensible. The Animal Procedures Committee should be asked to examine this matter. I should also like to know (although I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to tell me now) what are the department's views. This aspect is a little vague, and I should welcome some clarification.
When it comes to the question of termination—when an animal has suffered so much pain that the time comes for it to be killed—my understanding is that the licence holder is not allowed to order that killing but has to wait for the owner of the project licence to do so. The owner of the project licence might be playing golf—
A noble Lord: Or polo, my Lords?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: In any event, my Lords, he might not be there even though he is sponsoring the programme. That point is one that needs looking into because if an animal is suffering pain the sooner it is killed the better, bureaucracy should not be allowed to hold up that process. The ideal solution would be to have an anaesthetist or at any rate a veterinary surgeon available for the whole 24 hours, but that may be impossible to arrange in small establishments.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hate to interrupt my noble friend but I give my reassurance that there is no question of an animal suffering in any sense having to await the bureaucratic process before it can be painlessly destroyed. The individual holding the personal licence and doing the work will be able to perform that task.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that from my noble friend.
The other question I wish to raise concerns Clause 17 and the matter of muscle relaxants. Surely an anaesthetist ought to be present in that instance, too, or a veterinary surgeon. However, I understand that that will not be so. I may be wrong. I do not want to ask my noble friend many more questions. He can always write to me, and many of these points will no doubt be dealt with in Committee.
I must, however, mention the parmaceutical industry, which is a vast and powerful one. Presumably pharmaceutical companies are always vying with each other to produce the best product. I understand that according to the proposed law, if one is a licensee and is under the impression that a scientist is doing something extremely cruel in order to produce a new product to serve industry, then if one reports that one can be prosecuted and severely fined for giving away a trade secret. I sincerely hope that there is some way round that because we are talking about animal welfare, which should come first, before giving away the secret of a new product. I should like to make that point.
I have spoken for long enough. I welcome the Bill, which is a great improvement on the existing legislation. It is bound to be after 109 years, and when one considers the vast advance in technology even in the last few years. Therefore, I hope it has a safe passage through this House and through another place and that it will soon be law.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has said many interesting things, some of which I agree with and others I do not. However, I must say I was surprised at his final remark. From what I know of the noble Viscount I should have thought, on the whole, that he would consider that something which was 109 years old was better than something modern. I was surprised when he voiced that accolade for modernity.
This has been for me a most heartening debate. It has been good to listen to so many people, starting off

1037
with such different points of view, all with great knowledge and experience of their own and yet finding such a very large measure of constructive agreement among them. A large part of that, of course, is due to the admirable presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who could not have presented the Bill, good as it is, in a better way. At the same time I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, for his very delightful, knowledgeable and wise speech. I will not say that it was refreshing to hear from him because that would sound as if I needed refreshment after listening to the speeches of those noble Lords who preceded him, and that is not so. It was a very happy speech indeed.
I am glad to be speaking towards the end of this debate because the subject is one which has been very close to my heart for, I think I can say, almost as long as I can remember. I give three reasons for that. The first, of course, is that I am, in company with almost all your Lordships, an animal lover. As a countryman with a farm I have been brought up with animals and lived with animals for the better part of my life. Although they are from time to time absolutely infuriating—as, indeed, are human beings—one cannot help being, in general terms, a lover of animals.
My second interest stems from the fact that, about 50 years ago in the days when I was a research scientist, I was the holder of a very modest form of licence from the Home Office to conduct animal experiments. My third reason is that some 25 years ago I sat on a Home Office committee looking into these matters and trying to see how the ancient Act could be improved. It is, therefore, a particular pleasure to see what has been achieved now.
It goes without saying that I am very far from being an anti-vivisectionist. I realise, as do all your Lordships, that enormous advances have been made over the years and decades—one could almost say over the centuries—in the treatment and cure of human diseases, and indeed of animal diseases. Those advances could not have been made without inflicting some degree of suffering or pain—call it what you will—on animals. But better that than that human beings and, as I say, animals should have gone on suffering and dying from the diseases which afflicted us 100 years ago, 50 years ago and still afflict us, and which will not be cured unless we are able to allow our scientists to make use of animals in their search for cures for disease.
Clearly, control is needed. We are all agreed on that. The control must be directed towards minimising the suffering of animals. This Bill sets out to do that and, in my view, it succeeds to a very large degree. In certain respects it could perhaps go further and in due course possibly it will. I have a few points to make some of which have already been made, notably by the right reverend Prelate, with whose speech I found myself in complete agreement. Whether they are practical at the present time and whether they should be incorporated in the Bill or in the guidelines are matters which we can discuss later.
I share the view which has been expressed about the testing of cosmetics. The word "cosmetics", as has been pointed out, is an all-embracing word. We normally think of cosmetics as being the sort of
1038
ointments and decorations that ladies put on their faces. But there are also the preparations that gentlemen sometimes put on their faces, that we put on our teeth when we scrub them, and that plastic surgeons put on those who have been damaged in motor accidents, by fire, and so on. But I cannot help feeling, for all that, that there could be a degree of restriction on the use of animals for the testing of new cosmetic preparations, particularly those which come under the normally accepted definition of cosmetics.
Then there is the issue of alternative methods, also mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. I know the guidelines mention this, but I cannot help wondering if it would not be better to incorporate something in the Bill itself. It is now very many years since I first worked with tissue culture at Cambridge, which I like to think was the home of that technique. Enormous advances have been made since then. Undoubtedly there are already many techniques which can be, and usually are, used in place of animals—techniques which involve no animals as such but use tissue culture instead. In the years ahead there will undoubtedly be more examples of that and eventually we may arrive at the time when only a minority of experiments need to be done on whole animals. If the emphasis could be made rather more positive than is achieved by simply mentioning the matter in the guidelines, I believe it would be a very great advance; especially given the fact that, whether it will take over 100 years before a new Bill is presented to your Lordships or a rather shorter time than that, we cannot expect to have Bills of this kind coming forward every five or 10 years as science advances.
Above all, the success of this Bill depends primarily upon the inspectorate and upon the Animal Procedures Committee. Those are the two bodies that will make the Bill a success or a failure. I have complete confidence in the inspectorate. I believe that in the past it has done a good job and I am certain that in the future it will continue to do a good job.
Again, like the right reverend Prelate, I cannot help wondering whether 15 inspectors is an adequate number to do this job properly. There are an enormous number of experiments—over three million—carried out every year, though admittedly many of them are very minor. Perhaps I should have informed myself, but I do not know how many centres there are where such experiments are performed.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I can give him the figure. There are about 600 centres, which would make a relatively light workload for an inspector per year.
Lord Walston: I thank the noble Earl, my Lords. In other words, there are about 40 centres for every inspector, which means—given the fact that the inspector sometimes takes a holiday—one week for each centre if he is to visit them once a year. It is a pretty heavy workload when you consider the amount of work that an inspector has to do in order to do his job properly—as he does.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make a point about this matter as well. One centre may contain a large number of

1039
laboratories and very many scientists doing very many different experiments.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, which emphasises the point that the inspectors have a very heavy workload. We must remember that they do not spend the whole of their time going round from one centre to another and from one laboratory to another. They make reports, attend committee meetings, and must keep themselves up to date. I shall not elaborate on this point.
I feel that many people, including myself, would have far more confidence in the effective working of this Bill if the total number of inspectors were increased. If it were increased to only 20 or 25, it would not be an enormous burden on the Exchequer. It would enable people to feel that the inspections were being properly carried out and I think it would meet with approval from the inspectorate itself.
As regards the Animal Procedures Committee, again I find myself in agreement with the right reverend Prelate. It is correct that the members, the statutory members as it were, should be there. Basically the committee must be composed of people who understand experiments, have been involved in them themselves, have contact with science and the way in which it is moving, and who are respected people in their field; but some of the members should be lay people. I believe that at least one, and preferably two of them, in some way should be representative of those who are not concerned with research and experimentation, who are not scientists, but who are concerned directly with animal welfare. I do not know whether it would be possible for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to have the right to submit a list with a certain number of names to the Secretary of State from which he could choose one or two to serve on this committee. This point needs discussion and we may broach it at a later stage. I believe the effect of this Bill would be greatly enhanced if the Animal Procedures Committee could be strengthened in this way.
I do not think I need repeat at any length what I said at the beginning of my speech. I think this is a good Bill. It is a very great advance and does great credit to all those who have been concerned in its preparation, not least, if I may so call him, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I am sure the Bill will leave your Lordships' House in an even better state than it has entered it.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend—if I may call him such—Lord Walston, when he says what a pleasant debate this has been. It has been pleasant for a number of reasons. First, because there has been unanimity throughout your Lordships' House in regard to the courage with which this Bill has been brought forward, and agreement with its main principles. It has been pleasant, too, because we have been congratulating each other. Rightly was the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, paid the compliment of having introduced this Bill with great clarity and of being the first Minister for over 100 years to bring in the Bill for this measure by addressing your
1040
Lordships' House, which, quite rightly one would have thought, is the House to which this Bill should have been first committed.
I expected to get great pleasure, as I did, from all the compliments paid to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby and it would possibly only lessen the compliments if I tried to add my own, in view of the fact that he said that he was so much safer sitting where he was with me sitting where I was, as proximity might have engendered some disagreement.
Compliments were also deservedly paid to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who in the course of a most informed speech tried to compare the painfulness of stings from wasps, bees and hornets. Such is the regard in which the noble Earl is held in this House that I want him to know that possibly the most painful sting of all is when we come to disagree with him in debate and find that he is an antagonist and not an ally. One could see some of the anti-sting lotion applied with a great deal of charm to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, at the beginning of the speech.
Organisations have been thanked also. I should rather like to add to the list—in doing so I hope I do not omit any others—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That society has a proud history and it has added to it by a very moderate approach to this Bill with many constructive suggestions made to me and other of your Lordships from which I think we have benefited. There is no doubt that this Bill, which has as its main object, principle and advantage, the idea of translating what was a general, vague sort of control into a very particular, detailed control by the granting of licences and various other procedures, is a satisfaction to those of us who are so proud of our tradition of caring for animals, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, at the beginning of his speech. If I may say so, it is also a tribute to another characteristic that we as a nation possess, which is that of making sensible compromises.
I could not quite see the sense of compromise on the theological discussion which took place between the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Melchett. For various reasons I possibly ought not to enter a debate on that theological matter. One thing I noticed—and possibly it reflects the sense of the whole of the debate which has taken place tonight—was that the first sentence of the explanatory memorandum reads:
"The Bill repeals the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 and provides for a new system of control of scientific procedures carried out for approved purposes on living vertebrate animals other than man".
In that sentence I thought we were quite rightly put into the same family of living vertebrate animals, but that under this Bill the sole exception was man. If we are to look after the members of our own family who do not enjoy our privileges of speech and communication and who rely upon our so-called wisdom—if I remember correctly, in spite of a biblical doubt as to whether we were in fact superior to animals, for all is vanity—then this is a duty which I hope we are fulfilling under this Bill.
It is a good Bill. Some of us feel that amendments should be made in Committee, and we shall enjoy the later stages. I wonder whether in the few moments at

1041
my disposal I may mention some of the points which occur to me and which have been mentioned in the debate. I said that in the Bill everything depends on proper administration, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, stressed that too. Other noble Lords said that we should not allow the Bill, with its good principles and planning, to fail because we have not provided at Home Office level for the due administration of its provisions because we do not have enough inspectors or they are not of sufficient calibre. We must see that there are sufficient inspectors and that they are of sufficient calibre.
Let me come to some of the clauses. I said that Clause 5(4) was important new ground, as have others. It is always a privilege to listen to the expert voice of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, in your Lordships' House. He drew attention to the provision whereby the Home Secretary is required to,
"weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue".
That is a terribly important principle which has been underlined in the debate. But ought not the Home Secretary to be required also to look at how justifiable it is to use animals at all—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, hinted at that—and to see whether there are alternative procedures? Should not that be written into the Bill, as against being put in any code that there might be?
Many noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Melchett, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, the noble Earl, Lord Grey and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, were among them—brought into the issue decorative cosmetics, household products and tobacco and alcohol. I hope that the discretion exercised after advice by the Home Secretary will see that few, if any, licences are granted under that category.
I think that it was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who said that it was necessary to see that there was adequate training of licensees. There is no provision in the Bill for that, and much suffering is caused by a lack of training. I hope that this will be one of the matters that will be considered—and I know that the RSPCA is hoping so too—by what is called so far in the Bill (and I am using my words carefully) the Animal Procedures Committee. I pause there. I do not know at what time in the morning it was that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that he was considering drafting a Bill which he named the Laboratory Animals Protection Bill. It is extraordinary, because in the morning, but not at an early hour, I looked at this Bill and thought what a miserable name it was for this committee—the Animal Procedures Committee.
First of all, I do not suppose that animals will necessarily like all this being called procedures, but apart from that I do not think that humans ought to like it, either. Can we not show the purpose of the setting up of the committee and the philosophy of the Bill by calling the committee—and this is what I wrote down—the Laboratory Animals Protection Committee? That is what it is supposed to do; and let the whole nation know that the committee has been set up to protect animals properly, weighing the proper balance. Let that be the name.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, the Bill says, "Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, that makes it even worse from my point of view and makes the name that I tried to put before your Lordships even more favourable, if I may say so.
One welcomes all the provisions in the Bill which deal with the prevention of pain, and they are set out in Clause 6(5). I shall not make a long address to your Lordships, because I suppose that it is a Committee point, but it helps the Minister, I know, to be told in advance of some of the points that may come up and I think that it helps your Lordships, too, provided one does not make long speeches. There is a pretty long procedure—and this has been pointed out by some organisations—where a veterinary surgeon or other suitably qualified person must be specified to be available to give advice on animal health and welfare, and if they are concerned, both have a duty to take action. If action has to be taken under the Bill, the day-to-day person has to inform the veterinary surgeon or the suitably qualified person, and the latter informs the licence holder and possibly an inspector. As has been put to me, it is a pretty long chain of communication. One would hope that obviously and sensibly both categories—the veterinary surgeon and the day-to-day person—should be authorised to dispense pain relief without having to consult the licensee or the inspector.
I think that it was the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, again, and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who mentioned the question of 24-hour surveillance, it is not so much in all cases that there has to be 24-hour surveillance as that, where there is a risk of suffering during the night or at weekends as a result of an experiment and it is known that that is so, without doubt there should be provision that there is surveilance overnight and at weekends.
People have talked about the composition of the committee, whatever we may call it. As the Bill stands, there is no doubt that the balance does not seem to be quite right. Scientists who are undoubtedly eminent in their field but who are known to have animal welfare very much at heart should find their way on to the committee.
I could mention various other matters which indeed I find in my notes, but in a winding-up speech it does no good merely to repeat in rather worse language points that have been made by others in much better language. I can sum up the debate by saying that happily there is unanimity among your Lordships in whatever place you may be sitting that this is a worthwhile Bill which may have to have amendments. Its purpose is worth while; the thinking, the coalition and the co-operation that took place before the Bill came before your Lordships have been worth while, and the Government properly deserve congratulation on putting the Bill before Parliament. We ought to support it all that we can.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have had an interesting and lively debate. It has attracted expert scientists, on the one hand, and expert campaigners on behalf of animals, on the other. Throughout the debate much varied experience and wisdom has come from so many of your Lordships.

1043
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred to the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I remember it very well, How could I possibly forget it? The noble Lord played a major part in it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I well remember the dire warnings that he gave me then about the rough time that lay ahead of me. There were then the anecdotes of my noble friend Lord Massereene. It is really rather like old times. That Bill had about 160 or 180 amendments before it finally reached the statute book, but I detect from what has been said today that this Bill has rather less to come. I must confess that I have found all that has been said most encouraging.
The debate has also provided us with an opportunity to listen to the very perceptive maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby. His contribution, I felt, went right to the heart of the matter. The noble Viscount rightly pointed out that people with experience of animals can recognise pain and suffering in animals. We have no doubt that experienced scientists and animal technicians can understand the behaviour of their animals. The quality of our animal technicians in this country is extremely high. Indeed, I referred to them earlier. They do a great deal to keep scientists on the right track, and they are a very great help to the Home Office inspectors, too. The Government welcome the work being done by the Association of Veterinary Teachers and Research Workers in preparing guidelines on the recognition of pain in laboratory animals.
Perhaps I can give the noble Viscount one other piece of reassurance. He hoped that there would be advice on social densities and cage sizes for all animals kept for experiments. This is a central strand in the recommendations being prepared by the Royal Society in collaboration with the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. It will be a great help to all the people in scientific establishments and to the Home Office inspectors. Having served with the noble Viscount in the same regiment, I know personally of his interest in animals, especially horses. So it is a particular pleasure to me to be able to congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech, extremely well delivered, and to say how much we all look forward to his further interventions in the future.
I said earlier that this Bill was the first government legislation—indeed, it was referred to, too, by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—for more than a century on a subject which requires the most difficult and morally challenging balance to be struck: a balance between society's welfare and the deliberate infliction of suffering upon animals. The proposals in the Bill represent the culmination of a long period of detailed consultation and will, if enacted, result in a much improved system of assessment and control of animal experiments. I am encouraged by those who have said that they believe the framework which we have proposed should be flexible enough to enable us to adapt to the challenges and changes which undoubtedly lie ahead in the field of biomedical and biological research.
There are, of course, a number of points in the Bill and matters not touched upon directly by the Bill which give rise to concern, or which merely require
1044
elaboration. We shall of course give all those points our very careful consideration. But perhaps I can try now to answer some of the points which have been raised this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was rightly concerned about pure research for no fixed purpose. He referred to paragraph 50 of the guidance notes. The noble Lord raises a valuable point about the drafting of this paragraph. As I said in my opening remarks, the guidance notes are only in draft and we hope to have comments on them to enable us to put things right where they are- not quite right yet. The noble Lord is right in saying that researchers must have a clear and well-defined purpose. Random research will not be permitted. We shall carefully consider also the other points that he made about guidelines; and the noble Lord referred particularly to paragraph 64. On one thing I can assure him. We shall make quite certain that pet animals cannot be improperly diverted to experiments.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk raised a number of points. Although he is not here at the moment and gave me notice that he would have to leave early, I think some of the points, particularly to do with the training of those who hold licences, are of such importance that I should go through them. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to them as well. On the question of the draft guidance itself, it is not part of the Bill but I am quite sure that it will be possible to discuss it. I cannot see how we can go through the Committee stage without bringing in aspects of the guidance as we proceed. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I will consider carefully, as I have indicated, any suggestions which come forward for changing the guidelines.
As to the handling of animals, the application of anaesthetics and the need for attendants or staff to be at establishments during closed periods, at weekends and so on, perhaps I may say to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that, yes, licensees are trained in handling. They are trained by the most experienced animal technicians and others who are experienced licensees. Training courses are available, and most of the handling is carried out by trained animal technicians. Licensees or putative licensees are trained to carry out anaesthetic techniques. They are trained in this, again, by experienced senior licensees. We shall ensure—indeed, we shall require—that the seven-day cover for all registered places where experiments are performed is strictly adhered to.
I welcome the eminent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. The noble Lord has of course been a great help to successive Home Secretaries in his capacity as a member of the advisory committee. On the question of the balance between severity and merit, it is a very difficult area, as the noble Lord will appreciate. The Home Secretary cannot expect to be certain of the outcome of experiments. Research is uncertain: otherwise, it would not be undertaken. The status and qualifications of applicants is a major factor. All this, as the noble Lord knows, is gone into in more detail in paragraphs 49 to 61 of the draft guidance. We are confident that the new controls will not unreasonably inhibit science but will benefit the welfare of animals.

1045
On confidentiality, I respect the noble Lord's views and concern but we do not believe that this clause will lead to the prosecution of inadvertent or trivial disclosure. There is the further protection that prosecutions require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have to be fair to licensees and applicants and protect their confidences. The noble Lord asked a specific question about funding for the DES. It is certainly the Government's intention that the Department of Education and Science will be refunded its fees in the first year and that the universities and research councils will get their grants adjusted accordingly. I hope that for him that is good news.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, raised the question of severity of pain and asked why it does not feature in the Bill. The noble Earl went a long way to explain this to the right reverend Prelate. They also raised the question of the definition or grade of pain. This is a very important feature of the Bill. It is a real difficulty in the consultations that have taken place up till now, and I shall expand on them a little. The detailed operation of the controls on severity, including severity banding, is I suggest too complex (the noble Earl said the same), subjective and varied to deal with comprehensively or meaningfully in the Bill itself. These are not suitable matters to try to define in detail in an Act of Parliament. We can control them far more effectively through individual licence conditions; but the principles on which the controls will operate are set out in detail in paragraphs 49 to 64 of the draft guidance notes. The standard conditions by which the controls on severity will operate are to be found in Annexes C and D to that document.
Neither the Bill nor the guidelines attempt to define pain, but grading pain is a different matter. That is precisely what the noble Earl so vividly did himself. We feel that it is possible to distinguish broad degrees of pain and distress and to assess other effects that a procedure may have on an animal. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene that we need suitable people at every stage to judge this sort of thing. This is something which inspectors and licence holders will very clearly bear in mind.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the Royal Society and Universities Federation for Animal Welfare guidelines. I hope that he will be reassured when I tell him that they will be ready next year. They are expressly referred to in the Bill in Clause 21. If the right reverend Prelate looks at the Bill, he will see that. They will be the main criteria on which the Home Secretary will rest in considering whether to authorise establishments and in monitoring their performance.
Both the right reverend Prelate, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, were concerned about the need for the ethical viewpoint to be brought forward. I hope that he will accept from me that members of the new committee will be concerned with ethics. But what the right reverend Prelate says about this is of course of great interest. I can say that Canon Gordon Dunstan has been a very valuable member of the advisory committee in recent years.
The question of the effectiveness of the inspectorate is also of great importance. We are conscious of the additional burden which the new, more extensive,
1046
controls will place on the inspectorate. We are currently assessing the likely workload and I can assure your Lordships—and this will be of particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who raised the point—that we intend to maintain the strength of the inspectorate at a level which will enable it to operate as effectively as at present. I cannot put an exact figure on this yet but I do not think that when the final figure is arrived at the noble Lord will be much disappointed.
The noble Earl, Lord Grey, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the question of alcohol experiments, and experiments on tobacco. One does not need to have an involvement with the medical profession to know something of the tragically high cost of alcohol abuse. Those who say that alcohol's effects are a self-induced ill, and because of this do not justify associated animal experiments, I think rather gloss over the many aspects of human behaviour. These arguments do not help to counteract the toll of suffering involved. We have to be rather more broadminded about this. The hazards of alcohol are not fully understood and the physical and psychological basis of alcohol and alcohol dependence and abuse is not clear, either. Of course, there are many victims of alcohol abuse who cannot be said to have brought it upon themselves—such as the unborn child of a mother who drinks heavily, and the hapless victim of a drunken driver. It is a matter of concern, but I fear that those considerations must weigh i n our minds as well.
The same applies very largely to smoking. However, in 1975 the advisory committee examined the question of experiments involving tobacco following the controversy surrounding the so-called "smoking beagles" which we will all remember. Its recommendations, which were accepted by the government of the day, led to the restrictions on the use of cats and dogs in that kind of experiment but the committee did not recommend an outright ban on those kinds of experiments. The advisory committee has now been asked to review the current position on tobacco research and my right honourable friend will await their report with interest.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Grey, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, raised the question of animals and wounding experiments. Can I assure both noble Lords that we shall not allow the use of animals to test the efficacy of weapons of war. Successive governments have in any case taken the view that this is really quite unnecessary. The point of concern is one of treating wounds; and the study of wounding is undertaken to increase knowledge of the effects of wounds. If the noble Lord thinks of the experience of the Falklands, for example, he will realise that that study can contribute to the improvement of treatment. Of course in this sort of very regrettable necessity of operation all animals are deeply anaesthetised; and no animals, as I have said, are used in work just to test the effects of weapons.
So far as concerns tests on cosmetics, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said it all in a way. We unfortunately need to do a number of these tests because so many of the things are used in everyday life. What is encouraging—and this will help the noble Earl, Lord Grey—is that the number of cosmetic tests was not as high as he suggested. I think that he gave a

1047
figure of 180,000. In 1983 it was only 18,000; and it had fallen again in 1984 to 17,500.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes on, will he deal with domestic cosmetics? That was what those of us who raised the subject were talking about.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I will expand on it because cosmetics in this context mean much more than just the kind of products which are customarily thought of, such as lipsticks. We are talking of items like soaps, shampoos, and even toothpastes. These are by far the majority of the items covered by this term. The substances are used by millions of people every day. There is a clear duty to ensure that substances are safe for the user and safe for the people who spend their working lives producing them, as my noble friend Lord Auckland has said. We have to ensure that there is scope for the development of beneficial new products, such as new toothpastes, etc., which contribute so much to the reduction of dental decay.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I was told—with what truth I do not know—that the percentage of experiments that are carried out for cosmetic productions is only about 1 per cent.
Lord Glenarthur: It is in fact less than that, my Lords. It is only a half of 1 per cent. of the total number of animal experiments.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for giving notice of this point. He raised a question on Clause 4(4) about the age of those who would have a personal licence—the age of 18. I meant to say my noble friend Lord Auckland; I apologise. The minimum age is 18, as he so rightly says. It is also the minimum age under the existing legislation. There are arrangements for licensees to be supervised where appropriate. I referred, indeed, to the question of the application of anaesthetics when I answered the point raised by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. But I think that the important point is that personal licences will be granted only where we are satisfied of the training, education and general suitability of the applicant. It is a question of ability and not just age.
The noble Lord also raised the question of unregistered companies. I can assure him that under this Bill, or indeed under the existing legislation, the licensing of the experimental work which requires this licensing will take no account of the status of the organisations involved. In other words, everybody falls within its ambit.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the fact that the 1876 Act deals only with experimental animals. The general law on cruelty to animals—which we have no intention of repealing—is the Proection of Animals Act 1911. The guidance note (of which he will have a copy) refers to the number of animals. If he looks at paragraph 58(c) on page 21 I think he will find the answers he seeks. The Home Secretary will of course take account of the numbers involved.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier understandably and very rightly is concerned about violent anti-
1048
vivisectionists. I referred to them earlier. I think the criminal law is fully adequate. It was enacted by Parliament in the Criminal Damage Act 1971.I think that the problem is for the police to catch the perpetrators—and recently they have been succeeding very well. The subject, of course, is rather wide of the Bill, but I can assure my noble friend that every step that can be taken to stamp out this nuisance will in fact be taken. It is a matter that is taken very seriously indeed. I think that that to some extent covers a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.
One other distressing area which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, was the LD50 tests. I can simply add to what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said by saying that the trend away from formal LD50 tests is encouraging. We cannot simply prohibit it while it remains essential for some purposes—for example, the testing of some powerful anti-cancer drugs where the difference between the therapeutic dose and the fatal dose (the lethal dose) is very small indeed. However, we shall do all we can to encourage international regulatory bodies to continue their re-examination of the need for these tests and to ensure, through a system of project licensing, that alternative methods of toxicity testing are used whenever possible.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not want to prolong what the noble Lord has to say, but I was recently told by a reputable pharmaceutical company that the LD50 test was not used by pharmaceutical companies at all any more. Therefore, I was surprised to hear the noble Lord give the example of anti-cancer drugs as an area where it was needed.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I visited a company the other day. I can only say, from my experience, that that company told me that the LD50 test hardly needed to be used at all. There are areas—such as the one which I have described—where it is apparently necessary, but the trend is very, very much away from it. I was greatly encouraged to hear that. Indeed, I heard it from two establishments which I have visited over the last few weeks.
My noble friend Lord Kimball expressed a welcome for the Bill and particularly a welcome on behalf of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The noble Lord endorsed the important point that vets would become part of the management team. I am grateful for the noble Lord's words and I am sure that the parliamentary draftsman will also be grateful for his kind words of encouragement about the drafting of the Bill. The parliamentary draftsman does not always receive praise, so that is something from which I am sure he will take considerable gratification, even though the Bill may be changed mildly in due course.
I should like to stress to my noble friend Lord Massereene, who raised the question of curare or nerve blocking agents, that Clause 17 of the Bill refers particularly to this matter. There is no question of unrestricted use of neuromuscular blocking agents as an anaesthetic. Clause 17 contains the express prohibition of their use as a substitute for anaesthetics in this way.

1049
On the question of alternatives raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I point out that, yes, we attach great importance to that matter. It appears in the guidance in paragraph 58(b)) on page 21, and we are sure that the guidance is the best place for this matter. However, the point which the noble Lord raises is a very important one indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised a number of points, two of which I particularly noted. The noble Lord referred to Clause 5(4) of the Bill. Of course that is very much the heart of the Bill. The noble Lord asked whether or not the justifiability of experiments ought to be written into the Bill itself. Again, we come up very much against the.difficult area which was touched upon so graphically by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I think it is a matter which we might be able to take further in Committee, when I shall be able to explain the situation at greater length. The noble Lord also suggested a new name for the Animal Procedures Committee. I note with great interest the suggestion which he put forward and so I am sure will all those who have an interest in the Bill.
In conclusion, the second White Paper noted that one test of a civilised society is its treatment of
1050
animals. Our debate this evening has highlighted both the truth of that statement and the extent to which the ideal of a civilised and compassionate approach to all forms of life is represented in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out that I am the first Minister for over 100 years to have the good fortune to promote a Government Bill on this subject. It is indeed a privilege for me to have that responsibility, although I agree with the noble Lord and with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that it is to my honourable friend in another place that the real credit for drawing all the strands together really goes.
The Bill before us is designed to build upon a century or more of experience in balancing the needs of human society and those of animals. I believe that this is a worthwhile aim, and that the Bill offers an appropriate and sensible means of achieving it. T his debate has given it a good start.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.

  SCOTTISH LICENSING HOURS: SURVEY REPORT
  SCOTTISH LICENSING HOURS: SURVEY REPORT
  JOB START SCHEME
  JOB START SCHEME
  US BASES IN UK: CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT
  US BASES IN UK: CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT
  US BASES IN UK: COST TO BRITAIN
  US BASES IN UK: COST TO BRITAIN
  STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE AND ABM TREATY
  STRATEGIC DEFENCE INITIATIVE AND ABM TREATY
  US BASES IN UK: CONTROL ON AIRCRAFT USE
  US BASES IN UK: CONTROL ON AIRCRAFT USE
  EWES: EC RULINGS
  EWES: EC RULINGS