Sitting of 28 October 1985

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL BILL
MERSEYSIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL
DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL

LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL
Lords amendments agreed to.
LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL

  BERKSHIRE BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Berkshire Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session.
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed).
  Ordered,
  That the Petition relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session.
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business.
  Ordered,
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted.
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and. when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time.
  Ordered.
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Secondary Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to seek their concurrence thereto.

  YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Yorkshire Water Authority Bill shall have leave to suspend Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further Proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill presented to this House in the present Session.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill, as amended, to the House, forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to be read the third time.
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of arty Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House— [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to seek their concurrence thereto.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (SUSPENSION)
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Message [23rd October] as relates to the Essex Bill [Lords], the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords], the Swansea City Council (Tawe Barrage) Bill [Lords] and the West Glamorgan Bill [Lords] be now considered.
  Resolved,
  That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution. — [he Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
  Ordered,
  That so much of the Lords Message [23rd October] as relates to the British Railways Bill and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Bill be now considered.
  Ordered,
  That the promoters of the British Railways Bill and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House.
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
  Ordered,
  That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read.
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (PORT OF AYR) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS]
  Church of Scotland Trust (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Productivity
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the relative changes in productivity in the energy industries since 1980.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Labour productivity generally in the public sector energy industries has improved since 1980. I hope this progress will continue.
    Mr. Favell: I am glad to hear that productivity has increased, but is my right hon. Friend happy that, in July this year, his Department could not say by how much productivity in the gas, coal and electricity industries had increased since the end of 1980, nor could it compare their productivity with the economy as a whole? Are not those figures vital to all British industry?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is important to ensure that any figures provided are meaningful. It is difficult to provide such figures for different industries with different capital intensities and different balances between output and labour and capital use. However, I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and would be happy to discuss the matter further with him.
    Dr. Godman: May I ask the Minister a question about the important offshore oil and gas industries? In recent times, what changes in productivity have there been in the offshore construction yards, and is it likely that those yards will receive contracts for offshore structures within the next eight to nine months?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not have the exact figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks, but I am delighted to say that our oil fabrication yards have had a good record in recent months and have won a major share of orders from oil industry in the face of fierce international competition. In that respect, their productivity is high.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend discussed North sea oil production with representatives of OPEC? Does he agree that, although there are obvious attractions in a falling oil price, excessive production at a time of falling prices worldwide could lead to a disorderly market?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Any large cut in production would cause a reduction in productivity. Our main concern, as I have said many times in the House, has always been to ensure stability in the oil market. In an area such as the North sea, where risks are great and capital investment is high, it is important to have as stable a market as possible so that such investment continues.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Gas Corporation makes no comparisons between the productivity of its men in small-scale distribution work and that of private contractors in reaching a decision to take work from the private sector and do it in-house? Does he agree that that is disgraceful?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Attention has been drawn to that matter from time to time. If there is any sign of

    649
    unfairness in that area, I hope that my hon. Friend will urge those who think that is the case to draw it to the attention of the Office of Fair Trading.

    Coal Supplies
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the level of coal supplies held at power stations.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): The latest published figures are for the end of July. They show stocks held at power stations in Great Britain at 18·6 million tonnes.
    Mr. Colvin: Although my right hon. Friend does not run our coal industry, will he follow the example set by his predecessor and encourage the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board to build up stocks of coal at both pitheads and power stations so that the resolve of people, particularly miners, who want to continue to work, if there is an industrial dispute, is not undermined by the threat of power shortages?
    Mr. Walker: Electricity boards recognise the importance of having good stocks at power stations. The figure is for the end of July, and as August, September and October are the months in which stocks build up fastest, I expect that the next published figure will show quite a big improvemet.
    Mr. Baldry: Is there anything about the level of coal stocks which shows the need for an increase in electricity prices beyond the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Walker: Not that I know of.

    National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd.
    Mr. Boyesasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd. in providing alternative jobs in mining areas affected by pit closures.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): My right hon. Friend announced at the end of July that the funds available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. the job creation subsidiary of the National Coal Board, had been doubled to £20 million. In its first year of operation the company has created more than 2,500 job opportunities throughout the coalfields. One hundred and eighty-six projects have been given direct financial assistance, and many more projects are being examined. The company is working closely with new and existing enterprise agencies.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware that at the Houghton careers office 328 people are registered unemployed, 210 youngsters are on short-term schemes, and there are two job vacancies, yet Eppleton pit is being merged with Murton mines, losing 700 jobs, Lampton coke works was informed at the weekend that it is to close, losing a further 226 jobs, and Ellington pit, according to the latest NCB report, is under a three-monthly review? Why is my area being sacrificed on the altar of monetarism? The £20 million is not enough for my constituency, never mind the rest of the coalfields.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should put the other side of the picture in the north-east. I have had the opportunity of going underground at the coalface in Ellington and Wearmouth during the last few weeks. The
    650
    spirit there is welcome, productivity records have been broken, and the coal industry in the north-east has terrific opportunities ahead. Both the chairman, Mr. Spanton, and the chief executive, Mr. Hewitt, of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. take a deep personal interest in the problems of mining communities in the north-east. Already 248 job opportunities have been created there.
    Mr. Portillo: Further to my hon. Friend's first answer, does he agree that more publicity needs to be given to those achievements to dispel the impression that nothing is being done for communities where pits are closing?
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me a further opportunity of stressing the achievements of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. to which the Government attach significant support. Jobs created through projects that are financially supported by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. have risen this month to a rate of 500 a month.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that since the strike ended the NCB has announced a further 3,000 job losses in Barnsley district because of further pit closures and mergers? Is he aware that that will increase unemployment in my district to 22 per cent.? What will NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. do to assist Barnsley and district in its plight? What additional assistance can his Department give to assist the Coal Field Communities' Campaign to help the distressed mining areas?
    Mr. Hunt: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured by the level of commitment that the Government are giving to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. and that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. is showing to communities, which, everyone accepts, are facing extremely serious problems.
    Mr. Batiste: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no refusal by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. of good and worthwhile projects which are put to it on the ground of limitation of funds, and that any good job creation scheme in an area of pit closures will be considered favourably?
    Mr. Hunt: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. If hon. Members on either side of the House have any projects in mind, they should discuss them urgently with NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister has assured the House repeatedly that there will be alternative jobs in other pits for men whose pits are closing. Does he agree that that is not strictly true? In effect, he is de-skilling certain jobs, which means that men are not being offered comparable jobs in the industry. There is a target of 350 jobs under the scheme for the whole of Wales, and in my constituency 28 per cent. of the male work force is unemployed. The position has been made worse by a recent pit closure. Will the Minister concede that the scheme is unrealistic?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady should recognise that the National Coal Board has, contrary to the expectations of many, been able to keep faith with its pledge of no compulsory redundancies. It is to be applauded for that. Like the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), the hon. Lady has failed to put the other side of the picture. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to go underground at Lady Windsor, Abercynon, which is in the hon. Lady's constituency. I found the spirit of the work force to be excellent. The men are reducing the cost of producing coal and they have a great future provided that coal can regain its place competitively in the market.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency was badly affected by numerous pit closures some years ago when there was no enterprise company and no thumping redundancy payments? We simply had to get on with it. As a result, our unemployment rate has consistently been half that of the national average. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best advertisement for any area is a skilled and willing population that wishes to work, not strike?
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those important points. Let us not forget that over 11 years previous Labour Government's closed 330 pits, with compulsory redundancy and no enterprise company.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister recognise that the £20 million which is available under the scheme only scratches the surface, especially in areas such as the one that I represent where 42 per cent. of all youths aged under 24 years are unemployed? Is the Minister aware that of the coal mines that are operating not one has on its books a boy under the age of 18? No boy has been signed on from school since 1983. There is no evidence in my area that the enterprise scheme is doing any good or attracting any companies into it.
    Mr. HuntThe hon. Gentleman must realise that NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. started with a capital of £5 million, which the Government doubled to £10 million and then doubled again to £20 million. More money will be made available as and when necessary. I urge Labour Members to contact NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. and to discuss with it vital projects in their areas.
    Mr. Rowlands: We are saying that the money is necessary now. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of 2,000 jobs having been created, but 2,000 jobs have been lost in the mining industry in the Welsh coalfield since March. The efforts that have been made do not compare with the demands and the needs of our community. Will the Minister tell us that he will accelerate his programme to match the acceleration in pit closures?
    Mr. Hunt: The Government have made it clear to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. that more money will be made available as and when necessary. I urge Labour Members to discuss with NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. the strategic problems in the areas that they represent instead of criticing it.
    Mr. Mason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce a new "Plan for Coal".
    Mr. Peter Walker: Discussions are taking place to agree the strategy for coal. We are endeavouring to agree a strategy that will provide coal at economic cost to the consumer and a good future for the industry.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the original 1974 "Plan for Coal" failed on several important counts—productivity, demand estimates and estimates of pit closures? Does not the National Coal Board's new
    652
    strategy represent a much more realistic set of targets based on achieving a profitable and expanding industry founded on competitively priced coal?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. I think that one of the great ptities of the original strategy was the total lack of performance in terms of productivity targets. I hope that productivity will improve substantially. Productivity improvements will give the best prospects for the coal industry.
    Mr. Ryman: What progress, if any, has been made in the negotiations between the right hon. Gentleman's Department, the NCB and the NUM about establishing a new, independent appeals procedure to hear appeals on colliery reviews concerning proposed pit closures? I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said to me on 19 June and 4 October that the bodies are nearing agreement. What is the present position?
    Mr. Walker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows from my discussions with him that I share his anxiety that a modified procedure should be established quickly. On the latest information available to me, I can see no reason why that modified procedure should not be agreed this week.
    Mr. Barron: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if his new strategy is based purely on the assumption of the markets likely to be gained, it will inevitably fail because the lead time between investing in the industry and getting coal out of the ground can be anywhere between five and 10 years? What we need is a strategy based not on so-called markets but on coal for the future. Energy policy can be based on that. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that we should be talking about tonnages in the year 2,000 and nothing else?
    Mr. Walker: In the last strategy we had 10 years of investment, but, alas, not 10 years of improving productivity.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Are not the key determinants in any future strategy, first, that there should be flexibility and, secondly that there should be nothing written in tablets of stone which would prevent the NCB from doing what is in the interests of that great industry?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Eadie: I have here a copy of the new coal strategy. It is a very poor description, and certainly not a policy. It is a strategy for contraction of the coal industry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if one examines the document further, one sees that the board doubts whether total coal production will be 90 million tonnes? Coal production could be below that level and, if it is, there will be more massive pit closures.
    Mr. Walker: No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that the only way for the coal industry to expand is to improve productivity. It would be nice to hear some original proposals from the NUM on how productivity can be increased.
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Energy what further information he has received from the National Coal Board regarding further pit closures.
    Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement in the reduction of manpower in the coal industry since the end of the miners' strike; and how many further redundancies are planned for the next 12 months.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Individual pit closures and the future manpower requirements of the industry are matters for the NCB. I understand that, since the end of the strike, 16 pits have closed. The net reduction in numbers of men on colliery books from 9 March to 28 September was some 17,100. The level of future redundancies will depend upon the board's operational requirements and the numbers of men volunteering to go on the terms available.
    Mr. Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that present and proposed pit closures are not in our long-term interests? Should not the Government's mandate to the NCB be to pay more attention to our long-term rather than short-term energy requirements and to stop pit closures in areas where there is workable coal?
    Mr. Walker: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the pit closures that have taken place are sensible. Our long-term requirement is energy at an economic cost for the benefit of our economy.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figures in the Scottish context? With respect to the answer to question No. 3, how many of those 2,500 jobs have been created in Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman should rest assured that for a long time a large number of Labour Members have regarded Mr. Scargill as the greatest disaster to befall the NUM since its inception.,
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I would have difficulty in disagreeing with the final part of his question. I do not have the breakdown of the Scottish figures, but I shall send them to him this evening. I recognise that there are some considerable problems for Scotland.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Successive Secretaries of State for Energy have closed pits, reduced manpower, and told us that productivity is being increased, so that in the end we would not have to put more thousands of millions of pounds into the coal mines. Could my right hon. Friend at least tell us when he thinks, as another Secretary of State, we should stop having to put thousands of millions of pounds down the coal mines and will get a real return for the taxpayer?
    Mr. Walker: Investment in new machinery in better pits has been on a considerable scale, but, alas, there has been a lack of improvement in productivity. The current productivity figures for this year have been substantial, and I can only hope that that trend will increase. However, I cannot say what industrial or other action might take place to disrupt that progress.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: As the Union of Democratic Mineworkers has clearly demonstrated that it is representative of a large group of people in the mining industry, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that, if he discusses the future of the coal industry with various bodies, he will include the UDM if it wishes?
    Mr. Walker: The coal board has recognised the UDM, so, in its discussions on matters such as the future of the coal strategy, presumably it will be included. I have always agreed to see the leaders of any trade union that is recognised.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is it not the case that many pits were overmanned in the first place and that the output now, after some miners have left voluntarily, is not affected too much? Is it not interesting to note that many
    654
    miners who have been prepared to take voluntary redundancy have been given a good deal by the National Coal Board, which should be supported?
    Mr. Walker: It is certainly true that the problem of closures of uneconomic pits is being treated in a more civilised and generous way than it was ever treated by any Labour Government in our history.
    Mr. Ray Powell: The Secretary of State has not got his figures correct for Wales, in regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said, when he referred to Scargill and his predictions. In fact, the numbers of redundancies were underestimated by him if one considers the way that they have escalated in Wales. Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite an Adjournment debate and a series of questions, St. John's colliery in my constituency is now due for closure—not under the new review procedure that was promised to me by right hon. Gentleman's side-kick on the Front Bench —and that 800 miners are to be made redundant in an area where male unemployment is now 24 per cent. and will escalate to 50 per cent.? What action will the right hon. Gentleman take to deal with the unemployment problems in my constituency?
    Mr. Walker: I can only suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, as many Opposition Members know, the coal hoard has made several offers under the modified procedure, which nobody could argue was other than in keeping with the proposals that have been made. If the unions disagree with the offer that is on the table, that will be extraordinary. I gather that if they agree, there is no reason why the closures, including that of St. John's, should not go ahead under that modified procedure.
    Mr. Dormand: The Secretary of State keeps referring to the modified review procedure. Is he aware that it is a year since the principles were agreed with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers? Is it not obvious that the NCB has been deliberately delaying its implementation so that it can get on with closing pits? If the new scheme is agreed next week—we hope it is—will there be a review of all the pits that have been or are proposed to be closed, such as Horden in my constituency and Bates in Northumberland? Will they be subject to the review after the scheme is implemented next week?
    Mr. Walker: With regard to the suggestions that have been made, some months ago there was agreement on the terms of reference on all the detail. The disagreement was on the composition. There was an offer of independent planning inspectors and independent lawyers, which was rejected, not by the coal board but by the other side. The agreement that is now available is an independent machinery, which is obvious to anybody. I hope that, not next week but this week, the unions will accept that offer. If they do, several closures that have been going through can be put through the modified procedures.
    Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has previously raised the question of the new modified colliery procedure and drawn it to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman uses the word "sacrosanct". Is he aware that a new situation has arisen? We find, without exception, that the National Union of Mineworkers, the British Association

    655
    of Colliery Management and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers take exception to the National Coal Board deciding unilaterally what kind of independent review proceedure there should be. Will the right hon. Gentleman intervene and tell the NCB that it is time it got back to the negotiating table and to the days when negotiations meant negotiations and not dictation?
    Mr. Walker: I totally disagree with that interpretation. There have been a number of occasions on which any fair and reasonable person would agree that a totally independent procedure was on offer. I do not believe that there has been any delay on the part of the NCB.

    Fluidised Bed Combustion
    .6. Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to promote the further development and use of fluidised bed combustion, in particular in regard to the development of combined heat and power systems.
    Mr. David Hunt: My Department, the CEGB and the NCB are jointly funding a design study of an advanced 600 MW power plant employing pressurised fluidised bed combustion. The concept of linking a fluidised bed boiler to CHP plant is also being demonstrated under my right hon. Friend's Energy Efficiency Office's energy efficiency demonstration scheme.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister make it clear that the Government agree that this sort of development would usefully and wisely demonstrate clean and efficient coal use, would provide very necessary industrial orders, and could, under the CHP system, provide considerable help to urban areas, which are currently in dire need? Even, if the NCB's present chairman is not enthusiastic about selling the coal that his industry produces, will the Minister accept that this venture could be extremely useful?
    Mr. Hunt: The technology for industrial boilers and furnaces is now fully commercial, with over 50 plants already built or on order. All variations of the technology, which the hon. Gentleman and I have seen, whether shallow, deep or circulating beds, are offered by British manufacturers with full commercial guarantees. It is very much the technology of the future.
    Mr. Speller: Will the Minister stress that, in addition to fluidised bed combustion, there are many other ways of making coal efficient, other than by straightforward burning? Will he include such methods as gasification, which have an equal potential for industrial orders and for the future prosperity of the coal industry?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend made his point very well in his excellent speech last Friday.
    Mr. Allen McKay: As the coal-fired power stations will be coming towards the end of their life in the next 80 years, is the Minister proposing to order new coal-fired power stations, using the fluidised bed system?
    Mr. Hunt: No. The ordering of the particular systems is a matter for the CEGB.
    Mr. Chapman: As the fluidised bed combustion system is one of the methods by which sulphur emissions from power stations can be reduced, will my hon. Friend welcome such a development within CEGB power stations? In the light of the recent Select Committee report
    656
    on acid rain, recommending that the United Kingdom should play its part in reducing trans-boundary pollution, will he set the CEGB targets for reducing sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions from its power stations as part of a concerted Government policy?
    Mr. Hunt: I have already said and made it clear that this is a matter for the CEGB. I confirm, as I said to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), that this is exciting new technology, and considerable advances are already being made in a very positive way.

    Energy Prices
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairmen of the gas and electricity industries regarding energy prices in the next 12 months.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have frequent meetings with the chairmen. Prices are a matter for the industries.
    Mr. Winnick: Are we going to find that the Secretary of State has yet again lost his battle with the Treasury over substantial fuel increases? Is he aware that increasing gas prices cause great hardship to many people, particularly those on low incomes who receive no assistance in paying their fuel bills? When will the Secretary of State recognise that these substantial increases are totally without justification?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should realise that electricity prices have risen by only 6 per cent. over the past three years, whereas under the Labour Government whom he supported they went up by 6 per cent. every four months. If he fights the next election on gas and electricity prices, for the second time he will be defeated by the electorate.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that efficiency improvements in the gas and electricity industries should be passed on to the customer and to industry to maintain competitiveness with cheap energy countries? Will he, therefore, impress on his Cabinet colleagues that if they wish to increase taxation it should be done openly and not by artificially increasing prices?
    Mr. Walker: That is why I am pleased that in real terms not only are gas prices at the same level as in 1970, but that in the last three years both gas and electricity prices have gone down in real terms. I rejoice in that fact.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that he and the Government have shown a bad example over the past few years to any potential private owners of British Gas as to how to exploit a monopoly? Will he acknowledge that with the privatisation of British Gas there is real tension, with the Government trying to maximise the price at the expense of consumer protection? Will he, as Secretary of State for Energy, assure the House that he is on the side of the consumer?
    Mr. Walker: Of course. The record of the past three years shows that consumers of gas and electricity have done better than at any time since the war.
    Mr. McQuarrie: While I accept what my right hon. Friend said about the right of industries to agree prices, does he agree that any increase projected by either the gas or the electricity industry as a direct result of the miners' strike would be totally unacceptable to consumers?
    Mr. Walker: There are many extra costs arising from the strike. The fact that certain price increases have not taken place during the period of that strike and since indicate that the Government share my hon. Friend's view.
    Mr. Rowlands: May I jog the Secretary of State's memory? His predecessor introduced a formula of 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation for three years on the run for gas prices, leading to over 100 per cent. increase I understand that Sir Denis Rooke has said that there will be no need for increases in gas prices above the rate of inflation. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the Government are not proposing, or assuming that there will be, any bigger increases than this in future?
    Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to ask, in the form of a written question, for publication of a list of price rises under a Labour Government as compared with this Government. The answer will show that their record vis à vis inflation or anything else is an appalling and disgusting one, of which the Labour party should be ashamed.

    Electricity Supply Industry (Restructuring)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to restructure the electricity supply industry and the area boards.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): There are no present plans to reform the structure of the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Skeet: I am very much obliged for that succinct answer. Will my hon. Friend consider over the long term, as the coal board supplies some 80 per cent. of its coal to the CEGB, the merger of these two industries under the electricity supply industry so that we can remove a certain number of anomalies? Will he also authorise, in the intermediate term, the CEGB to supply big projects with energy direct in order to reduce their costs?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters and raises some extremely interesting points, which I shall certainly consider.
    Mr. Pavitt: Although he is not completely restructuring the system, will the Minister look at the total dissatisfaction among hon. Members arising from complaints from their constituents about the way in which their bills are handled? Is he aware that the consultative committee has become a bit of a farce? If he cannot totally restructure, will he do something, especially for the elderly, about the way in which area boards handle complaints about bills?
    Mr. Goodlad: In my experience, the area boards and consultative committees handle complaints extremely effectively, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind I hope that he will draw them to my attention.

    Energy Act 1983
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the working of the Energy Act 1983.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is too early to evaluate the full effects of the Act, but it is encouraging that the number of private generators selling electricity to boards in Great Britain rose from 59 in 1983–84 to 70 in 1984–85.
    Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the fact that there is increasing evidence from private producers who claim that they are still not obtaining a fair price for their electricity and that the CEGB is not applying the spirit of section 19, which obliges the industry to adopt and support CHP and try to market its waste heat? Is he aware that the Sheffield consortium has been rejected by the CEGB even though the rate of return on its CHP scheme is in excess of the 5 per cent. discount rate required by nationalised industries and would be a higher rate of return than many other investments that the electricity industry is undertaking?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Act provides a proper framework for fair trading. The figures that I have just announced show that there is considerable interest in the matter and that there is a reverse of the progressive decline that there was in private generation until the passing of the Act.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Library (Usage)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Lord Privy Seal what has been the increase over the last 10 years in queries put by hon. Members to the Library.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Over the period 1975–84 the percentage increase in the number of Members' inquiries answered in writing by the research division and by the international affairs section of the House of Commons Library was 77 per cent.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that many Members of the House are grateful to the Library staff for the high quality of work and help that they give us, but that that is still no substitute for providing us with decent back-up? The two types of help are complementary. May I press the Leader of the House to think again about the need to provide each Member of the House who requires it with sufficient resources to employ one secretary and one research assistant?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman was shrewd to make the point about our gratitude to the Library staff, because that will unite the whole Chamber. I am not sure that the same is true of his second point. With the growth in the number of research assistants, one might have thought that there would be less demand upon the Library's research facilities, but in fact the reverse is true.
    Mr. Hayward: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), when my right lion. Friend the Leader of the House reviews the opportunity for Members to have at least one research assistant, will he also consider limiting the number of research assistants that Members should have?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises two separate issues The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) was hoping that the review of the secretarial research allowance would proceed on the basis that the sum should include an amount equivalent to the financing of one full-time research

    659
    assistant. The second point was made in the recent debate that we had on this matter. Whatever number of research assistants a Member might have, no more than two employees of a Member can have access to the House.
    Mr. Alton: Notwithstanding the excellent help that the Library gives Members, how long will it be before the Leader of the House reviews the number of research assistants that hon. Members can have? Will he give an undertaking that that matter will receive priority over and above investigations into Members' salaries for this financial year?
    Mr. Biffen: Members' salaries for this financial year operate under an automatic formula. The subject of hon. Members' research assistants and the degree of access that they have has been remitted to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), and he will be reporting to the House in due course.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest contacts that I have had with the Library have told me about the emergence of an interesting new species—the research assistant's secretary? Is he aware of the conundrum of big fleas, little fleas and lesser fleas? Does he not think that the amount of Ministers' and Library staff time taken up by these research assistants, their secretaries and their secretaries' research assistants, and the amount of paper used, and the photocopying, has got out of control?
    Mr. Biffen: I do not want to stray too far into that controversy, because the matter is now before the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford. It is undoubtedly true that the term research assistant is used fairly liberally in our discussions. Many of those people could in no sense undertake serious research.

    Proceedings (Sound Coverage)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Lord Seal if there are any plans to extend to Members' offices facilities for live sound coverage of the proceedings of the House.
    Mr. Biffen: I understand that the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting is undertaking a study of the feasibility and cost of such facilities with a view to making recommendations to the Services Committee in due course, but the introduction of any such scheme would, of course, require the authority of the House.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting has already conducted a survey and that only 398 Members favoured such live sound coverage? In the interests of keeping the House active, will my right hon. Friend disregard that survey in view of the temptation for hon. Members not to turn up in the Chamber at all if everything is broadcast to their offices? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chamber is empty enough already?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes the very fair point that in this, as in so many other matters, we must have regard to the impact on attendance in the Chamber. I must point out to him, however, that as the matter is now before the Services Committee it would be inappropriate for me to make any observations or draw any conclusions until I have had the benefit of the Services Committee report.
    Mr. Faulds: Such a suggestion, Sir, God forfend.
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the Services Committee will take note of that.
    Mr. Squire: I regret any disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), but is my right hon. Friend aware that, although some of our parliamentary colleagues may be less than irresistible in their contributions, many of us who spend a fair part of the day at our desks might appreciate the opportunity to tune in from time to time to see how the proceedings are going?
    Mr. Biffen: That is an interesting view of the nature of the parliamentary process, but I must put it firmly on record that whatever we do we must do our utmost to maintain the vitality of this Chamber as the very heart of Parliament.

    Opposition Parties (Funding)
    Mr. Beithasked the Lord Privy Seal when he plans to review the funds granted to Opposition parties in Parliament.
    Mr. Biffen: The amounts payable to Opposition parties under the Short money scheme have so far been revised on four occasions since the scheme's inception in 1975. The latest rise was effective from 1 January 1985. 45too Following this pattern, a further review would be likely to take place in 1987 or 1988.
    Mr. Beith: When the Leader of the House considers the matter again, will he bear in mind that the Short formula does not tell the whole story, because of the enormous range of exclusive fringe benefits granted to the Labour party as the official Opposition? Will he take into account the £80,000 in salaries for leaders of that party in both Houses, the £66,000 for civil servants seconded to them and the £30,000 for a car and chauffeur for the Leader of the official Opposition?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The Ministers of the Crown Act 1937, under which a salary was first paid to the Leader of the Opposition, also provided for a number of supporting expenses to come from the public purse. The hon. Gentleman is, therefore, quite right. The evolution of the Short money system since then has meant that two systems have been operating in parallel. I agree that it is perfectly valid to consider that at some future date.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the anomaly that whereas the Labour party apparently sees fit to accept public money to keep its democratic institutions working, a large proportion of the trade union movement apparently resists acceptance of such money to keep its democratic institutions working?
    Mr. Biffen: I would rather confine myself to what goes on in this Chamber. I believe that the provision in the 1937 Act allowing public funds to be made available to the Opposition party has proved itself. Perhaps in the fullness of time wiser counsels will also prevail in the trade union movement.
    Mr. Dormand: I hope that this will not be treated as a party matter— [Interruption.] It will not be too long before the Conservatives find themselves in opposition. We are talking about the workings of a healthy democracy. At present, the Short money is entirely inadequate for an

    661
    Opposition to function properly. I was most disturbed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the matter will not be reconsided until about 1987. Does he agree that it should be done much sooner?
    Mr. Biffen: There are some who would argue that it is not the absence of money which makes for an ineffective Opposition. We should beware of being too liberal in the application of so-called Short money. An agreement has been concluded and it would be appropriate for it to run to 1987 or 1988, as I have suggested. Of course, these are all matters that are considered from time to time, so the hon. Gentleman should not get too excited about it.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Civil Servants (Royal Commission)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will study the proposals made by Sir Douglas Wass for the establishment of a Royal Commission to look at questions of civil servants' loyalty, ministerial involvement in appointments and public accountability of Whitehall officials and for the establishment of an independent inspector general to whom civil servants can appeal if they consider that Ministers are attempting to mislead Parliament, a copy of which has been sent to him.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I understand that the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers was written as a contribution to public discussion. I shall be interested to see comments upon it, but the Government have no plans for establishing a Royal Commission on these matters.
    Mr. Dalyell: Did Ministers notice that, with the full argeement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), speaking on behalf of the national executive committee of the Labour party at the Bournemouth conference, committed the party to the propositions encapsulated in the question? How can anybody resist my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover when he is shoulder to shoulder with a former permanent secretary to the Treasury?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman will be astonished to discover that I find it quite easy to resist his proposal, and that of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Procedures for the Civil Service are perfectly straightforward and well provided for. If civil servants have complaints, or if matters of conscience arise, there is a system of appeal that goes straight up to their permanent secretary if they wish. Such matters can ultimately be referred to the head of the Civil Service. The existing procedures are perfectly adequate.
    Mr. Forman: As the Government have been commendably sefl-restrained in not establishing new Royal Commissions. and as it seems clear that, when he was in a senior position in the Civil Service, Sir Douglas Wass did not favour this proposal, will my hon. Friend follow his wise policy. study it, and reject it?
    Mr. Luce: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention of forming a Royal Commission on this subject.
    Mr. Skinner: What is wrong with civil servants having a chance to appeal? Is the Minister aware that, in the past few months, there have been at least two instances of top
    662
    civil servants taking non-executive directorships in private companies? They include civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry. If it is right for civil servants, through the Government, to take on jobs in the private sector while holding down a top job in the Civil Service, surely to God it must be right for one on the other side of the fence to have a chance to appeal when he is being hammered by people such as Sir Robert Armstrong.
    Mr. Luce: What is so extraordinary about all this is the assumption that there is no proper procedure for appeal if civil servants think that something has gone wrong. There is a perfectly legitimate procedure which was laid down clearly in a note by the head of the Home Civil Service, which he published at the end of February. It sets out quite plainly the procedure that any civil servant can follow if he has a problem that he wants to pursue.
    Mr. Dickens: Does not my hon. Friend think this question rather strange, coming from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who was the very hon. Member who used his voice for Clive Ponting? Was it not he who tabled questions planted by Clive Ponting and which were to be answered by Clive Ponting, who then denied that he was the author? Is it possible that the hon. Member for Linlithgow is a hypocrite, disloyal, or has taken leave of his senses? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the word hypocrite.
    Mr. Dickens indicated dissent.
    Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Member, who knows this perfectly well as he has been here long enough to know it, that that is not a parliamentary expression. I ask him please to withdraw that word.
    Mr. Dickens indicated dissent.
    Mr. Speaker: I give the hon. Member one more chance. I would be very reluctant to take the matter any further. He knows very well that that was not a parliamentary expression and I ask him now to withdraw it.
    Mr. Dickens: Out of respect to the Chair, I withdraw the remark.

    Dispersal Policy
    Mr. Dormanasked the Minister for the Civil Service what is his policy towards the further disperal of Civil Service posts to the regions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: There are at present no plans to extend the Government's dispersal programme beyond that announced on 26 July 1979.
    Mr. Dormand: The Government frequently shed crocodile tears about the high unemployment in the north. Why does the Minister not transfer some Civil Service posts to that region? Is the Minister aware that not a single Civil Service post has been transferred to the north since this Government came to power? As the decision is entirely that of the Government, would it not be a demonstration of concern for the north if they were to transfer some jobs there?
    Mr. Luce: I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong views about this and has put down repeated questions on

    663
    this important issue over the past few years. Our dispersal programme, which was announced in 1979, stands and has not yet been completed. The House will be aware that 4,500 civil servants have been dispersed since 1979 and another 1,400 have still to be dispersed. The northern region still has a higher proportion of civil servants than the national average.
    Mr. RobertAtkins: Is not of the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to extend some of the activities of his Department an example that we ought to follow?
    Mr. Luce:I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have considerable sympathy with what he said, because it comes within the existing policies of relocation of the Civil Service. Any Secretary of State considering the modernisation of his Department or offices can consider relocation in other areas. It is obviously up to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that the Government's decision when they came into office not to disperse the Property Services Agency to Middlesbrough was a devastating blow to Middlesbrough and to the whole of the Teesside area? In view of that devastating blow and the enormous vacant site in the centre of Middlesbrough which was cleared for that Government Department, and in view of the successful operation of defence establishments such as the Royal Navy spare parts depot in my own constituency at Eaglescliffe, will the Minister make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, so as to get any Departments being dispersed into areas like mine?
    Mr. Luce: I cannot contemplate a change in our dispersal policy. I remind the House that the previous question referred to the relocation policy which allows Departments, when they are modernising, to consider moving to other regions. That is an area that can be further explored.

    Recruitment
    Mr. Adleyasked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to encourage recruitment to the Civil Service.
    Mr. Luce: Extensive efforts are made by the Civil Service Commission and Departments to encourage recruitment, through visits and other means of publicising employment opportunities in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the occasional publicity given to certain civil servants could mask the fact that on the whole this House and successive Governments are extremely well served? In their dealings with the Civil Service, have not this Government achieved something that successive Governments have been exhorting industry to do, which is to replace quality with quantity—sorry, quantity with quality?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his correction. I must agree with him that over the past six years the Civil Service has been through some necessary and dramatic changes, including a reduction of 133,000 civil servants, and great improvements in efficiency. We can now say with considerable pride that we have a service that is streamlined, modern, efficient and professional.
    Dr. McDonald: Does the Minister agree that a satisfactory outcome to the long-term pay negotiations that have just commenced between the Government and the Civil Service unions would greatly aid proper recruitment to the Civil Service? Will he make a statement on behalf of the Government and agree that the Civil Service unions should have access to arbitration and to pay research data, and that, in those negotiations, special account should be taken of the problems of the low-paid within the Civil Service as a whole?
    Mr. Luce: I should stress that pay is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, facilities such as special allowances and special additions are available within the service to deal with recruitment and retention in areas where there are problems, such as shortages of specialist skills. On the broad question of longer-term pay, the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 October provide the prospect of a stable system of future pay negotiations which will be fair to employees, Government and taxpayers alike. Discussions are now proceeding on that matter.

Minister of State, Home Office
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald KaufmanOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Leader of the House indicated to you that before the House is prorogued on Wednesday a statement will be made on the allegation made in this House last Thursday by the hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) — the Minister of State, Home Office — that some hon. Members are abusing their right to make representations in cases? The hon. and learned Gentleman, referring to the system of making representations, went on to claim that "some hon. Members are abusing—I am not afraid to use that word — that system." — [Official Report, 24 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 420.]
The allegations involve grave issues that touch on the honour and integrity of hon. Members, and it is incumbent on the Minister either to substantiate his allegations or to resign his office. You, Mr. Speaker, are the guardian of the honour and integrity of the House of Commons, and I put it to you that the House should not be prorogued until the matter has been cleared up.
Ms. Clare ShortFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that last Thursday, in answer to a question from me, the Minister implied that some Opposition Members were abusing their right to make representations? I am certain that he had me in mind because we have corresponded on this matter. I utterly refute any such suggestion. The Minister does not like the legal advice that I give my constituents, but it is absolutely within the law.
I sincerely ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that time is made available for the hon. and learned Gentleman to be forced to name the people he has in mind, to give details of his allegations and to give us a chance to answer them.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose——
Mr. SpeakerIs it on the same point of order?
Mr. CorbynIt is similar, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that outside this House many people are extremely concerned about the Minister's statement? Indeed, many migrant families are frightened of the implications. This goes with the Minister's curious decision last May to impose visa restrictions on people from Sri Lanka. He now appears to be trying to restrict further the rights of hon. Members by referring to individual Members of Parliament. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), I am quite sure that I am one of the hon. Members that the hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind because of the nature of my constituency and the fear among many migrant families. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you ought to do your best to find a way in which this crucial matter can be debated before the House is prorogued on Wednesday.
Mr. Alfred DubsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us are being asked—I certainly am—whether we are the hon. Members about whom the Minister made that contemptuous reference. Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman comes before the House, we have no way of clearing our names. Many of us are, in good faith, giving advice to our constituents on the legal position, and if we are constrained from doing so because of what the Minister has said that puts us in a very
666
difficult position. We have the right to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there is an opportunity for us to clear our names.
Mr. Geoffrey DickensFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can be helpful by saying that the hon. Members concerned would clearly know who they were if they consulted their records. Many hon. Members are putting forward genuine visit applications to the Home Office and are saying, "I know this family", "It is a genuine visit", and so on. Why, then, are dozens of those families living at the same address?
Mr. Laurie PavittFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I add my voice in a personal plea? I am the hon. Member with possibly more cases of this sort than any other. In fact, it has become quite a joke with the Minister's office, and I have been asked, "Which one is it this time, Mr. Pavitt?" We are therefore placed in an extremely unfortunate position unless we are able to go to our constituents and meet our community relations councils with a very clear statement that it is not us to whom the Minister is referring.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. and learned Friend is to be asked to take the matter further, will he consider any cases which may have come to his attention of people who have approached one Member of Parliament and, when they have failed to get what they regarded as satisfaction, have subsequently gone to another Member of Parliament in whose constituency they are not involved so that they may get a more sympathetic and helpful hearing? Will he consider such cases before he comes to the House?
Mr. Andrew FauldsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I was the Member to whom the ill-judged observation was originally made—and since I do not want to be left out of the action—may I reiterate the demand that the Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and name names if he wishes to do so? Those of us with lots of immigration cases to handle —there are easier things to do—are entitled to defend our record in that we always work within the law.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House will understand that none of this is a matter for me. Every hon. Member and every Minister must take responsibility for his own statements, whether from the Back Benches or from the Front Benches.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington)I rise in the hope that what I say may be of assistance to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House.
Immediately before coming to the House, I wrote to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) a long letter setting out the various abuses which have been occurring—and I note that a number of hon. Members are vying for the honour of being involved. I want to make it plain that I would not be cataloguing the abuses if I were not able to name names. I am by no means sure how I should proceed if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to press me on names. We are talking about correspondence between my private office and hon. Members which the writers never intended should be published. I am happy to discuss the matter with the right

667
hon. Gentleman if he wishes to press further the request for names, but perhaps he and other hon. Members would like to read my summary of what has been occurring, and to consider how to proceed and whether it is necessary to raise the matter with you again.
Mr. KaufmanFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not a matter between the hon. and learned Gentleman and me; it is between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House of Commons. When the hon. and learned Gentleman made his allegations last Thursday, he spoke about "some hon. Members". It is unacceptable to me, and were it acceptable to me it would not be acceptable to the House, that the matter should be settled by some kind of private fix between the Minister and me. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made allegations to the House about unnamed Members of Parliament.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it will not do for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he is faced with certain procedural problems. More than 96 hours have gone by since he made his allegations. It was on Friday morning on the radio that he said that he was ready, if asked in the House of Commons, to name names. A motion went down to that effect in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition Members on Friday afternoon. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying that he has not had time to deal with the procedural matters, all I can say is that he is trying to bottle out in some other way.
Therefore, I make it clear—and we ask for your assistance on this matter, Mr. Speaker—that whatever letter the hon. and learned Gentleman sends to me will not satisfy the House of Commons as a whole. It is to the House of Commons that the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be made to answer between now and Prorogation.
Mr. WaddingtonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to take advice. I should be happy to take advice from you, Mr. Speaker. There is no mystery about this. Of course I would not have been able to make the allegations, and I would not have dreamt of making any allegations, had I not been in a position to identify particular cases of abuse. I repeat what I said before: I am happy to take advice from anyone on this, but we should all think about what is the right way to proceed in a matter like this.
Mr. Alan WilliamsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have taken advice before he made those allegations? Is it not the duty of everyone in the House, especially you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we preserve the reputation of the House?
Is it not a serious matter when a Minister of the Crown makes statements alleging abuse of power by hon. Members? Should not the Minister be answerable to the House if the hon. Members are actually giving advice within the law laid down by the Government and carrying out their function of giving the best advice that they possibly can to their constituents on the basis of the existing law?
Would not the honourable and correct course for the hon. and learned Gentleman be for him at least to make
668
a statement about what he thinks the offences and abuses are and to go further and name the hon. Members who he thinks are responsible and face questioning in the House?
Mr. FauldsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister clearly made the implication that some of us might be embarrassed by the publication of letters that we had never thought would be published. The Minister has my total permission to publish any letter that I have written to him on any immigration case.
Mr. Robert AtkinsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have an assurance from you that it is right and proper for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office to seek advice from hon. Members who have written letters in confidence to him about constituents before names are released? Surely my hon. and learned Friend is doing just that. I cannot see what the fuss is about.
Mr. Michael FootFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not evident that the matter cannot be properly dealt with on a point of order? It is impossible on points of order to continue to put questions to the Minister, and many hon. Members in different parts of the House have every right to put questions. Surely the right way for us to proceed is to follow the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The Minister responsible should come to the House; and, in the light of the way in which the Minister of State has dealt with the matter, I suggest that the only proper course is for the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the matter.
Mr. SpeakerThat is a typically wise suggestion. I think that we should leave the matter there.
Mr. Dennis SkinnerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SpeakerOrder. No; I am taking a different point of order.
Mr. Tam DalyellOn a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Against the background of circumstances of which you had knowledge this morning, may I put it to you that you may be at a disadvantage in not knowing that the last two RAF personnel defendants have been acquitted at the Old Bailey. Therefore, does it not behove either the Secretary of State for Defence or the Attorney-General to come to the House to explain the background of that £4·5 million, 119-day trial, which is a matter of considerable public concern?
Mr. SpeakerI was not aware of that information, but the Leader of the House is present and I am sure that he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. SkinnerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SpeakerI will take one more point of order, but I think that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has already made the wisest suggestion.
Mr. SkinnerYes, but this matter regarding hon. Members mentioning unnamed other hon. Members is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. I should like you to take into account what has happened in the past.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said outside the House several years ago that there were certain hon. Members for hire, he was taken before the Privileges Committee. That was a matter for you.

669
When my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) was the hon. Member for Colne Valley in the 1960s and said that certain hon. Members were drunk, he had to go before the Privileges Committee, because he was not prepared to name specific hon. Members.
On this occasion, not a Back Bencher, but a Minister of the Crown has said, in the same sort of context, exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said about some other hon. Members and without naming them. Therefore, I suggest that that is a matter for the Privileges Committee.
In both previous cases, the hon. Members concerned had to go before the Privileges Committee and finally withdraw their allegations. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that, contrary to the advice that you have already been given, this is a matter for the Privileges Committee and the Minister should be sent before it to name the hon. Members or withdraw the allegations.
Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can know what advice I was given. If he is alleging a matter of privilege, he should write to me and put the case in the usual way. That is the rule, and he knows it.

Questions to Ministers
Mr. Peter ShoreOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order involves both the procedures of the House and the Minister of State, Home Office.
On Monday 21 October, I submitted nine separate questions about visitors from Bangladesh for written priority answer. I submitted those questions to the Home Secretary, but on Thursday 24 October I received a reply from the Minister of State to all nine questions, which stated simply, "I shall reply as soon as possible". I make no complaint about that, because it is a familiar reply to questions before the information is available to Ministers.
However, the very next morning, on Friday 25 October, it was reported to me — and I have subsequently checked the tape—that the same Minister of State, in the BBC radio programme "Today", volunteered the precise information that I had requested in one of the nine questions to which I still await replies.
This raises questions about the Minister's conduct and the rights of Members on which I seek your guidance. Mr. Speaker. First, is it not plain that the Minister misled the House in his written reply? He clearly had the information for which he was asked and he clearly did not reply as soon as possible, as he said he would. Indeed, he has not yet replied to the questions put down by me seven days ago. If the Minister had been a visitor from Bangladesh and had answered questions in such a way at Heathrow, he would have been put on the next plane home.
Secondly, if a Minister is asked a question in the House, is it not an abuse for that Minister deliberately to withhold the information that he possesses?
Finally, is it not a gross discourtesy for the Minister to release to the BBC, and through it to the press, the same information that he withheld from a Member of the House and is it not in direct conflict with the advice that you have consistently given to Ministers?
Mr. SpeakerWhat the right hon. Gentleman has said is not exactly a matter for me. It is a matter for the Government and for the Minister concerned, who is here.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I certainly meant no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. He will recall that he put down a large number of interlinked questions. I cannot remember whether it was tabled yesterday or whether it has been tabled now, but what was obviously required and what was considered to be most convenient to the right hon. Gentleman was to put down one answer to all those questions.
Mr. ShoreFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must make it perfectly plain that they were separate questions which deserve and should have separate replies. One of those replies was clearly available to the Minister of State when he refrained from giving it on Thursday afternoon.

QE2 (Renovation Contract)
3.48 pm
Dr. Norman A GodmanI 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 announcement reported on Friday of the Cundard shipping company to award a contract for the re-engining and renovation of the QE2 to the West German shipyard Lloyd-Werft."
In view of the imminent Prorogation of the House, time should be found to debate this specific and important matter before Wednesday. The matter is specific in that the order, worth £80 million, will do further injury to the United Kingdom shipbuilding and marine engineering industry. That industry has experienced remorseless decline, which is intensified by the decisions of British shipping companies and other domestic maritime agencies to place orders with foreign yards.
During the 20 years since the QE2 was launched on the Clyde, we have lost more than 80,000 jobs in our shipbuilding and engineering industries. If the decline continues, we shall lose the merchant shipbuilding sector of the industry and the last remnant of the marine engineering industry.
The matter is urgent because we need to examine closely the reasons for the reluctance, or failure, of companies such as Cunard to place orders with United Kingdom yards.
Finally, the nine new engines which the QE2 is to have could be constructed in United Kingdom marine engineering plants, in Belfast, my constituency or on the Tyne. Indeed, it is conceivable that the whole operation could have been carried out on the lower reaches of the Clyde. Cunard did not ask a single United Kingdom marine engine builder to bid for the manufacture of the nine engines. That part of the order is worth £60 million.
The issue causes deep anxiety to the shipbuilding industries of Belfast, the Tyne, the Mersey and the Clyde. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will give sympathetic consideration to my request.
Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, (Dr. Godman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement reported on Friday of the Cunard shipping company to award a contract for the re-engining and renovation of the QE2 to the West German shipyard Lloyd-Werft."
I fully understand the importance of the matter to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I listened carefully to what he said, but I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House

Immigration Control
3.52 pm
Mr. Max MaddenI 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, "immigration control."
Such a debate would allow the Government to give the House information on three important matters. First, it would enable the Government to confirm or deny reports that they are planning to introduce visa requirements for visitors coming to Britain from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. Yesterday The Sunday Times reported:
"The Home Office is considering imposing visa requirements on visitors entering Britain from some Asian and black Commonwealth countries. The move is being canvassed in Whitehall as a means of clearing the immigration bottleneck at London's Heathrow airport.
Bangladesh is the country causing immigration officers most concern at present. It is widely felt that if visas are introduced for Bangladeshi visitors other Commonwealth countries in the Indian sub-continent and north Africa will follow."
Secondly, such a debate would allow the Government to explain to the House their action to resolve the crisis within the immigration service that is primarily caused by staff shortages, which the Government refuse to remedy. The Sunday Times referred to the crisis at Heathrow as being a reason why the Government are considering the introduction of visa requirements for visitors to Britain. The Guardian today confirms that the introduction of visas for visitors from Commonwealth countries was suggested in reports at the weekend. Last night a spokesman for the Home Office said that the matter was under consideration, and that was confirmed later by another spokesman for the Home Office.
Thirdly, the debate would give the Minister of State, —who I am glad to see has returned to the Chamber and taken his place on the Treasury Front Bench—an opportunity to substantiate or withdraw the serious allegations that he made in the House on Thursday. The evident concern that they caused has been reflected by the numerous points of order that have been raised this afternoon.
You, Mr. Speaker, showed sympathy with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that the Home Secretary should make a statement. An emergency debate would provide an excellent opportunity for the Home Secretary to tell the House whether the Government are planning to introduce visas for visitors coming from Bangladesh and shortly from other New Commonwealth countries and Pakistan. Such a debate would also provide an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what action is being taken to deal with the administrative crisis within the immigration service.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that many hon. Members, including yourself, were deeply concerned when the Government chose over the Whitsun Bank Holiday to introduce visas for visitors seeking to come here from Sri Lanka. You will remember also that many hon. Members were concerned by the introduction of entry clearance fees for all people seeking visas to come to Britain for settlement. The fees were slipped through by the Government during the Christmas recess.
I suspect, other hon. Members suspect and many individuals and organisations outside the House who

673
represent the interests of ethnic minorities suspect that the Government are planning visas for Bangladesh visitors coming to Britain and that they will do so during the period which starts on Wednesday. when the House will not he sitting, and prior to the new Session.
To avoid any recriminations that will ensue if the Government act in that way, I suggest that the best course of action for the Government would be to reassure the House as to their intentions for the extension of visa requirements during a debate which obviously is for you to grant, Mr. Speaker. The Government would have an opportunity to provide a full explanation and to take up the serious allegations which were made by the Minister on Thursday. They would be able to tell us what action they are taking to deal with the immigration crisis at Heathrow and other ports of entry throughout the country.
Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) 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, "immigration control".
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter which he has raised meets all the criteria that are laid down in the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day

  Insolvency Bill
  Lords amendments to certain Commons amendments and Lords consequential amendments considered.

  The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons:

  After clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  Reference to Tribunal:

  —(1) A person on whom a notice is served under section [Notices] (2) above may within twenty-eight days after the date of service give written notice to the relevant authority requiring the case to be referred to the Tribunal referred to in subsection (6) below.

  (2) Where a requirement is made in accordance with subsection (1) above, then, unless the relevant authority within the period there mentioned—

  (a) decides to grant the application or, as the case may be, decides not to withdraw the authorisation; and

  (b) gives written notice of that fact to the person by whom the requirement was made,

  it shall refer the case to the Tribunal.

  (3) On a reference under this section the Tribunal shall—

  (a) investigate the case; and

  (b) make a report to the relevant authority stating what would in their opinion be the appropriate decision in the matter and the reasons for that opinion;

  and it shall be the duty of the relevant authority to decide the matter accordingly.

  (4) The Tribunal shall send a copy of the report to the applicant or, as the case may be, the holder of the authorisation; and the relevant authority shall serve him with a written notice of the decision made by it in accordance with the report.

  (5) The relevant authority may, if it thinks fit, publish the report of the Tribunal.

  (6) For the purposes of this section there shall be a tribunal—

  (a) which shall be known as the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal (in this Part referred to as "the Tribunal"); and

  (b) in relation to which the provisions of the Schedule 1 to this Act shall apply.'

  Lords amendment: No. 1, in line 2, leave out from beginning to "give" in line 4 and insert—
  ". —(1) Where a person is served with a notice under section (Notices) (2) above, he may—

  (a) at any time within twenty-eight days after the date of the service of the notice; or

  (b) at any time after the making by him of any representations in accordance with section (Right to make Representations) above, and before the end of the period of twenty-eight days after the date of the service on him of a notice by the relevant authority that the relevant authority does not propose to alter its decision in consequence of the representations,"

  3.57 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard)I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 and 74.
  Mr. HowardLords amendments Nos 1 to 5 inclusive give effect to an undertaking which was given to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) when the Bill was considered on Report. They provide that, where the relevant authority has given notice that it intends to refuse or revoke an authorisation to act as an insolvency practitioner and the person concerned within 14 days
  676
  makes written representations to the relevant authority as to why it should not, the time limits on the period in which that person may require the case to be referred to the insolvency practitioners tribunal shall not begin to run until he has been made aware that his written representations have been rejected.
  Lords amendment No. 74 ensures that members of the tribunal are subject to equivalent parliamentary disqualification in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain.
  Mr. Bryan GouldI welcome the Under-Secretary of State to the deliberations of this small and select group which has lived with the Bill for a long time. The group is becoming smaller and more select by the minute.
  The Under-Secretary of State arrives at a rather late stage. We have spent a great deal of time on this measure. It has been something of a marathon, and I think that we can offer the hon. and learned Gentleman nothing more than a gentle canter down the finishing straight. He arrives at a moment when he can perhaps make his own small contribution to what might well become an achievement to be recorded in the "Guinness Book of Records-. I believe that the number of amendments tabled to the Bill throughout its stages in both Houses is likely to exceed 1,200. The Under-Secretary of State will move even more

  677
  amendments today and thereby add his name to that record-breaking achievement. I am not sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish to be associated with that sort of achievement.
  Despite the scale of the deliberations and the amendments which have been tabled and passed, I believe that many hon. Members and people outside the House would regard the measure as still being seriously deficient. Although I would certainly claim that in many respects it is a better measure than when it first appeared, nevertheless I agree with those, such as the National Consumer Council, the CBI and the Institute of Directors, who have all characterised the Bill as a missed opportunity and one that on present form is unlikely to recur for perhaps another 100 years unless perhaps a Government of a different persuasion were to see the need to introduce further reforms.
  I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the way in which his officials have marshalled the material. It has been done in an extremely helpful and useful way, and I am sure that hon. Members would wish to express their appreciation to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his officials. We could well have wished that the matters that are being brought back to us from another place were of more substance and dealt with some of the remaining pressing concerns about the framework and shape of the Bill. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The matters with which we must deal this afternoon are essentially drafting and technical in almost every case, and so they will not detain us for long. I do not believe that this first group of amendments will detain us long either.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have met the undertaking that they gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). The Opposition are pleased with this group of amendments.
  Mr. HowardI thank the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for his welcome, which I very much appreciate, and for his kind remarks about the way in which departmental officials had marshalled the information. I am particularly pleased to see with us this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) who is entitled to the credit for this legislation and who undertook the considerable work of piloting the Bill through the House.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham referred to the number of amendments that have been tabled. I suggest that they show more than anything else the Government's readiness to listen to the suggestions on how it could be improved that have been made during the passage of the Bill. The Bill has been improved.
  Mr. GouldI entirely accept that the Government have listened to some effect. Many of us would make the point, however, that it is a pity that they did not listen a little earlier when they might well have published a draft Bill that could have avoided many of the difficulties that we subsequently encountered.
  Mr. HowardI am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like the door to shut on consultation at any stage. It is right, especially with a measure of this type, that consultation should be a continuing process. Of course it has not proved possible to satisfy everyone, but such a measure involves a delicate balance of interests and,
  678
  inevitably, some people will be disappointed at the outcome. I commend the amendments to the House as striking the right balance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons:
  After Clause 10 insert the following new clause:—
  Restriction on use of company names:
  '(1) This section applies to a person where a company ("the relevant company") has gone into insolvent liquidation and he was a director or shadow director of the company at any time in the period of twelve months ending with the day before it went into liquidation; and for the purposes of this section a name is a prohibited name in relation to such a person if—

  (a) it is a name by which the relevant company was known at any time in the said period; or

  (b) it is a name which is so similar to a name falling within paragraph (a) above as to suggest an association with the relevant company.

  (2) Except with the leave of the court a person to whom this section applies shall not at any time in the period of five years beginning with the day on which the relevant company went into liquidation—

  (a) be a director of any other company that is known by a prohibited name; or

  (b) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation or management of any such company; or

  (c) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the carrying on of a business carried on (otherwise than by a company) under a prohibited name.

  (3) If a person acts in contravention of this section he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

  (4) In subsection (2) above "the court" means any court having jurisdiction to wind up companies; and on an application for leave under that subsection, the Secretary of State or the official receiver may appear and call the attention of the court to any matters which seem to him to be relevant.
  (5) References in this section, in relation to any time, to a name by which a company is known are references to the name of the company at that time or to any name under which the company carries on business at that time.
  (6) For the purposes of this section a company goes into insolvent liquidation if it goes into liquidation at a time when its assets are insufficient for the payment of its debts and other liabilities and the expenses of the winding up.
  (7) In this section "company" includes a company which may be wound up under Part XXI of the 1985 Act.'
  Lords amendment:No. 6, line 13, after "court" insert
  "or in such circumstances as may be prescribed"
  Mr. HowardI beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The new clause was introduced into the Bill in this House but reservations were expressed by my hon. Friend. the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and by practitioners that the provisions could adversely affect the sale of businesses or parts of businesses as going concerns by administrative receivers, administrators and liquidators. The amendment meets that criticism by allowing exemption from the provisions in certain circumstances, which will be prescribed in the rules. Such circumstances will be formulated following discussions in due course with practitioners but will concern sales by administrative receivers, administrators and liquidators who will be under a duty to obtain certain undertakings from the purchasers which will ensure that those subsequently dealing with the new company are

  679
  adequately informed about the circumstances in which it is using the relevant name and are not misled. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. GouldI am content to accept the amendment. It goes some way towards meeting the proper concern expressed in Committee about the difficulties that the preexisting conditions might well have posed to administrators and others. I observe only that this is yet one further example of detailed provisions being siphoned off into the rules, which we have yet to see. I understand why that has been done on this occasion, but it has been a notable and perhaps unfortunate feature of the Bill that so much of what we need to know about the changes to be made to insolvency law has been left as a matter for regulation.
  Mr. Jeremy HanleyI very much agree with the latter comments of the hon. Member for Dagenham, (Mr. Gould). I also warmly welcome my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to the Front Bench; and I pay warm tribute to the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher). My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central had just as much trouble as we did in trying to absorb the 450 amendments tabled in Standing Committee and the 250 amendments tabled on Report and he deserves as much credit as anyone for the exhaustive way in which we have dealt with the Bill. There is no doubt that he will have a willing place in any firm of insolvency practitioners, because there are probably few people who know as much as he does about the subject, although he did not know much to start with.
  I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for what he has said about this amendment. Concern was expressed by practitioners that the requirement that court leave was to be obtained could inhibit sales of businesses by insolvency practitioners. After all, the name was often the only valuable asset which was left. Court leave would have not only inhibited the sale of the name but limited the money available for creditors.
  Practitoners welcome the amendment which provides that court leave will not be needed in circumstances to be prescribed. This at least opens the door and allows the name to be sold when it is considered safe. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that these circumstances would include sales by insolvency practitioners, provided certain undertakings were given by purchasers. The nature of these undertakings will require careful consideration. I hope that adequate time will be given for this and the very large number of other matters to be dealt with by the rules to be considered by practitioners. I beg my hon. and learned Friend to give practitioners sufficient time to consider these rules. Members of Parliament may be given two days' notice of many complicated amendments; practitioners need much more time. I suggest that there should be three or four months' discussion to ensure that the rules are workable when they eventually become law.
  Mr. HowardI confirm that it is our intention to consult practitioners before we finally draw up the rules I would not wish to be held to a time limit, but it is our
  680
  intention to give them every opportunity to comment and to consider the rules in their final form before they come into force.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Commons amendment: Insert new clause—Challenge of decisions
  '— (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an application to the court may be made by any of the persons specified in subsection (2) below, on one or both of the following grounds, namely—

  (a) that a composition or scheme approved at the meetings summoned under section (Summoning of meetings) above unfairly prejudices the interests of a creditor, member or contributory of the company;

  (b) that there has been some material irregularity at or in relation to either of the meetings.

  (2) The persons who shall be entitled to make an application under this section shall be—

  (a) a person entitled, in accordance with the rules, to vote at either of the meetings;

  (b) the nominee or any person who has replaced him under section (Report by nominee who is not liquidator or administrator) (3) or (Decisions of meetings) (2) above; and

  (c) if the company is being wound up or an administration order is in force in relation to the company, the liquidator or administrator of the company.

  (3) An application under this section shall not be made after the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the first day on which each of the reports required by section (Decisions of meetings) (6) above has been made to the court.
  (4) Where on an application under this section the court is satisfied as to either of the grounds mentioned in subsection (1) above, it may do one or both of the following, namely—

  (a) revoke or suspend the approvals given by the meetings or, in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) above, any approval given by the meeting in question;

  (b) give a direction to any person for the summoning of further meetings to consider any revised proposal the person who made the original proposal may make or, in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) above, a further company or, as the case may be, creditors' meeting to reconsider the original proposal.

  (5) Where at any time after giving a direction under subsection (4)(b) above for the summoning of meetings to consider a revised proposal the court is satisfied that the person who made the original proposal does not intend to submit a revised proposal, the court shall revoke the direction and revoke or suspend any approval given at the previous meetings.
  (6) In any case where the court, on an application made under this section with respect to any meeting, gives a direction under subsection (4)(b) above or revokes or suspends an approval under subsection (4)(a) or (5) above, the court may give such supplemental directions as it thinks fit and, in particular, directions with respect to things done since the meeting under any composition or scheme approved by the meetings.
  (7) Except in pursuance of the preceding provisions of this section, an approval given at a meeting summoned under section (Summoning of meetings) above shall not be invalidated by any irregularity at or in relation to the meeting.'
  Lords amendment: No. 7, in subsection (6), at end leave out "meetings" and insert "meeting".
  Mr. HowardI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 8 to 11.
  Mr. HowardThis group of amendments relates to the voluntary arrangement procedure for companies. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 will enable the court in appropriate cases at the time it makes a winding up order to appoint as liquidator of a company either the official receiver or a person who has previously been acting as the supervisor of a voluntary arrangement in relation to that company. Similar provisions were incorporated into the

  681
  Bill at an earlier stage where bankruptcy follows an individual voluntary arrangement and where a compulsory liquidation follows the appointment of an administrator.
  Amendments Nos. 9A and 10A ensure that persons bound by a voluntary arrangement are given prompt notice when the supervisor considers his task is complete and also that they shall receive a full report on the administration of the scheme of composition. Such persons may of course challenge the acts of a supervisor before the court.
  When framing the rules which will flow from the enabling provisions, it is our intention not only to provide that notice supported by relevant information is given within 28 days of a supervisor completing his work, but for a penalty to be imposed for non-compliance.
  Amendment No. 11 repeals section 601 of the Companies Act 1985. That section, which provided a means of effecting a binding arrangement with creditors within a voluntary winding up, has been little used and is made redundant by the new more flexible company voluntary arrangement procedure now contained in chapter 1A of part II of the Bill. Consequential thereon is amendment No. 10 which substitutes reference to a corporate voluntary arrangement for reference to a binding arrangement under section 601 in relation to provisions governing the giving of financial assistance under section 153(3) of the principal Act.
  Amendment No. 7 corrects a drafting error.
  I commend acceptance of the amendments to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Insolvency Bill
    Clause 15

      EFFECT OF APPLICATION
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in line 3, leave out from "or" to the end of line 5 and insert
      "continued and references to distress being levied shall be omitted."
      Mr. HowardI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 13 to 27.
      Mr. HowardAmendment No. 64 made by the House was intended to translate into Scottish legal terminology what is meant by the reference in clauses 15 and 16 to execution being "commenced or continued" and to "distress being levied". The translation, however, went further than intended and the proposed amendment to it, amendment No. 12, ensures that it has a similar effect in Scotland as in England and Wales.
      Amendments Nos. 13 to 17 are designed to meet concern on the part of insolvency practitioners that, after displacement by an administrator, receivers might still be held to be liable to pay preferential debts. Amendment No. 17 makes it clear that they are not liable once displaced, although they continue to be liable for their actions while in office.
      Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 both make further refinements to the Bill's provisions. The first of them enables the company or the directors, as well as a continuing administrator, a committee of creditors or creditors of the company, to apply to the court for an order to fill a vacancy in the office of administrator. The second,
      682
      amendment No. 19, which was made in response to comments by those who have been consulted, brings administration into line with the winding-up code and receiverships which provide statutory sanction for the giving of directions by the court to compulsory liquidators, receivers and debenture holders.
      Amendment No. 72 introduced a new clause that entitled the administrator to exercise his powers, including his power of disposal, in relation to property covered by a debenture conveying a floating charge capable of leading to the appointment of an administrative receiver, property covered by any fixed charges held by the debenture holder and book debts covered by a charge. The clause preserved the security over such property by providing that any existing security should "follow" the proceeds of property disposed of as if the security, whatever its original nature, were a crystallised or attached floating charge.
      However, we have received strong representations from financial institutions and practitioners and the Government are persuaded that it would be unjust for fixed charges held by a person who also has a floating charge and those over book debts to be dealt with differently from those held by other fixed chargeholders. Amendment No. 20 therefore removes from subsection (1) property subject to fixed charges held by a floating chargeholder and fixed charges over book debts. The administrator must therefore apply to the court for authorisation to dispose of property subject to such charges. He will remain entitled to dispose of assets subject to floating charges.
      To remedy a defect in subsection (4), amendment No. 21 transfers the security holder's priority to any property representing, directly or indirectly, the charged property disposed of. Thus, for example, if the administrator sells charged plant and machinery, the chargeholder's security would attach to the moneys obtained from the sale and then to any asset that those moneys might be converted into.
      4.15 pm
      I make no apology for emphasising that amendment No. 20 effects a substantial change in the manner in which an administrator will conduct the business of the company. We have accepted the strong representations of financial institutions and insolvency practitioners that, in its unamended state, the clause puts the interests of the secured financial creditors at very great risk by enabling the administrator to use their secured assets for trading funds. They saw themselves as being compelled in effect to make "forced loans" to someone over whom they had no control. In such circumstances, where possible, they would always appoint an administrative receiver to obtain control of the secured assets even though that might destroy the company's chances of rehabilitation.
      The widespread adoption of that attitude would make the administration procedure unworkable and we sought by the amendment to meet the fears expressed. We accept in practice that the administrator will, in most cases, need to obtain finance for trading from a company's bankers, but we anticipate that the institutions, having supported or consented to the appointment of the administrator, will play an important role in the achievement of the purposes of the administration and provide on sensible terms the finance required. We trust that the changes in the procedure will improve its acceptability to the present structure of financing business in this country and provide a useful additional means of rehabilitating enterprises that would otherwise be destroyed.

      683
      Finally, amendment No. 22 is a technical amendment which makes it clear that, in Scotland, where any hire purchase goods are disposed of by the administrator, the disposal has the effect of extinguishing any of the rights of the hire purchase owner in the goods. The hire purchase owner would, of course, still have rights to the net value of the goods by virtue of subsection (5) of the new clause inserted by amendment No. 72.
      Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 inclusive are all minor drafting and technical amendments.
      Mr. GouldI am happy to give a general welcome to this group of amendments.
      I wish to say only one small word of commendation in respect of amendment No. 20. In the light of the representations that the Minister has received, he was right to move swiftly to make sure that the administration procedure, which I regard as one of the most constructive new features of the Bill, was not jeopardised. Given the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation of the circumstances as they might have been affected by the Bill as drafted, when creditors with fixed charges might immediately have appointed an adminstrative receiver rather than allow an administration order to be made, the Minister's hon. Friends in another place were right to table the amendment and effect the change. It is important that the administration order procedure is given a fair wind.
      Mr. Hanley: I believe that it would be wise to pay tribute to the many bodies that consulted the Minister and that the Minister consulted over the past few months during the summer recess. I am sure that the House will bear with me if I mention the names of the eight associations because they are important particularly in the development of the amendments that we are now discussing. The Department consulted the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, the Association of Certified Accountants, the Insolvency Practitioners Association, the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland and the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers, the latter having the greatest effect on amendment No. 20, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).
      It is vital that consultation takes place on technical matters of this sort. I echo the view of the hon. Member for Dagenham that if only a draft Bill had been put forward, many of the 1,000 amendments, in a 200-clause Bill— it is only a 200-clause Bill—would have been avoided. I know that it takes time to formulate a draft Bill, but it requires the confidence of the Government in the House to deal non-politically with matters of technical content. Therefore, if a draft Bill had been devised for the matter, many of the embarrassments over the past months might have been avoided.
      However, the consultation, albeit late, has taken place. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for allowing changes before Lords amendments. The Lords have changed the Bill from what was very much a disappointing if not an impossible Bill to work into a Bill that has many good chances of surviving in future. It may survive with amendment in future, but we can give it a fair wind.
      684
      With regard to amendment No. 20, in commenting on the provisions concerning administrators as they left this House, many practitioners noted that any banks which held fixed and floating charge security were not likely to allow the appointment of an administrator. It was a great shame, because the administrator is one of the great hopes for saving many businesses. This was because of the effect that they would have had on their fixed charge security, and who could have blamed them?
      The amendments made in the other place have brought major changes to administration orders. The administrator is not the animal that he was when he left this House, and I am grateful. His dominion is now only over floating charged assets. That allays the fears of the financial institutions but it leaves considerable uncertainty as to where an administrator's cash flow is to come from. Where there is a fixed charge on his fixed assets, that is one thing, but where there is a fixed charge on book debts, which is increasingly the case, one wonders where the administrator's funds will come from. Therefore, the practitioners in insolvency can give the amendment only a qualified welcome. The pendulum has swung too often over the procedure for us to know whether it is resting in exactly the right place.
      Mr. HowardI thank the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for the welcome that they have given to the amendments. In particular, I associate myself and the Government with the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes to the various bodies which have participated in the extensive consultation that has taken place on the contents of the Bill in general and on these clauses in particular.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 27 agreed to.

    Clause 37

      VACATION OF OFFICE
      Lords amendment: No. 28, in line 16, after "company" insert "without reasonable excuse".
      Mr. HowardI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 33 and 76.
      Mr. HowardThe amendments fall into two categories, those which deal with administrative receiver and receiver provisions in England and Wales —amendments Nos. 28 and 76—and those which refine the provisions for receivers in Scotland— amendments Nos. 29 to 33.
      Dealing first with the amendments relating to England and Wales, amendment No. 28 ensures that an administrative receiver will not commit an offence under clause 37(5) if he has a reasonable excuse for not sending the notice of his vacation of office to the registrar of companies, and is in line with other provisions of the Bill. Amendment No. 76 is a drafting amendment.
      With regard to the five amendments to the Scottish provisions, amendments Nos. 29 and 33 are both minor drafting amendments. Amendment No. 30 removes a contradictory qualification on the Scottish receiver's personal liability by removing the reference to section 473(1) of the Companies Act 1985 in section 473(2) of that

      685
      Act. The consequential amendment No. 31 inserts the relevant words into the repeal schedule to the Bill. Amendment No. 32 makes a minor consequential amendment to section 477 of the Companies Act 1985 following the bringing of the receiver's powers to dispose of any interest in property subject to a security into line with those for England and Wales.
      Mr. HanleyThere is nothing with which I disagree in this group of amendments. However, in the other place there was concern that the Bill did not make clear the position of practitioners with regard to contracts of employment after the 14-day period of grace in respect of adoption by omission had elapsed. In fact, it was I who mentioned the matter to the then Minister, and I was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who very much regrets his absence today on parliamentary business.
      During the debate in the other place the Lord Advocate tried to put the minds of practitioners at rest by stating;
      "Where, for example, the contract is not discovered for a month after appointment, the court will not deem adoption to take place by that fact alone."
      With the greatest respect to the Lord Advocate, how can he say what the courts will or will not deem to be the case? It was my understanding—I may be wrong—that courts are not bound by the intention of Ministers in describing legislation. Therefore, if it is the intention that the legislation should not catch such circumstances, surely the amendment should have said so, and the Bill itself should he clearer, rather than hoping what judges might or might not take as being the proper interpretation of the clause.
      Mr. HowardMy hon. Friend is correct when he says that the courts are not bound by the intentions or, indeed, the observations of Ministers. Nevertheless, in assessing the likely effect and impact of legislation, Ministers are entitled to give the House guidance. The guidance given by the Lord Advocate was guidance given on the basis of my right hon. and learned Friend's experience and expertise in the branch of the law that is relevant to a consideration of the likely effect of the clause to which my hon. Friend has referred. He was not giving any guarantee as to the way in which the clause would be interpreted by the courts; he was giving another place the benefit of his experience and expertise. It was on that basis that another place was content with the clause as drafted, and it is on that basis that I commend it to my hon. Friend and to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 33 agreed to.

    Clause 68

      MEETING OF CREDITORS IN CREDITORS' VOLUNTARY WINDING-UP.
      Lords amendment: No. 34, in line 9, leave out "two business days stated in the notice and falling" and insert
      "the two business days falling next".
      Mr. HowardI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 48, 70 to 73, 75, and 77 to 79.
      Mr. HowardAmendment No. 34 is the first of a group of amendments consisting of drafting and technical amendments relating to winding-up, bankruptcy and miscellaneous matters. They either improve upon and give greater clarity to the Bill or merely involve the reenactment of current provisions in insolvency legislation.
      The amendments fall into four categories: provisions which deal with winding-up—amendments Nos. 34, 75 and 77; definitions—amendments Nos. 41, 43 and 44; bankruptcy—amendments Nos. 42, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 79; and miscellaneous clauses—amendments Nos. 71. 72, 73 and 78.
      Should the House so desire, I am in a position to expand on any individual amendment. Failing that, I do not intend to take up time in going into detail on those matters, and commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. HanleyWith regard. to amendment No. 77, the Commons amendment No. 458 introduced a new subsection (1A) to section 518 of the Companies Act 1985 by which a company is also deemed unable to pay its debts if the value of its assets is less than its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities. Practitioners have commented that the amendment introduced a balance sheet test to accompany the existing cash flow test, with which we all agree.
      In the debate in the other place the Minister stated that the Commons amendment does not change the law but only gives effect to the way in which the courts have interpreted section 518 of the Companies Act 1985. In support of that contention, the Minister quoted Mr. Justice Nourse in Re: Bond Jewellers, when he said:
      "what I am required to do is to take into account the contingent and prospective liabilities. That cannot mean that I must simply add them up and strike a balance against assets."
      It remains the fear of insolvency practitioners that that is precisely what the new subsection (1A) of section 518 will require the courts to do. It is alarming that such a fundamental matter should remain a matter of such uncertainty at this stage. May I invite my hon. and learned Friend to seek further counsel on this matter? It is fundamental to the definition of insolvency to know exactly what assets are meant to cover what liabilities
      Mr. HowardAs I understand it, the point made by my hon. Friend relates to an amendment that was considered in the other place but not to an amendment made by another place in relation to the business before the House this afternoon. It does not, therefore, arise for consideration this afternoon and, in any event, I would not wish to add anything to the words of the learned judge cited both in another place and by my hon. Friend.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 84

      TRANSACTIONS AT AN UNDERVALUE AND PREFERENCES (ENGLAND AND WALES)
      Lords amendment: No. 35, in line 5, leave out "in the ordinary course of and insert "for the purpose of carrying on''.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. HowardI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 36 and 57 to 59.
      Mr. HowardThese amendments modify the provisions of the Bill relating to preferences given to creditors and transactions carried out at an undervalue, both in winding up and in bankruptcy.
      Amendment No. 35 has been made as a result of representations received from the Law Society. The expression
      "in the ordinary course of '
      in relation to a company's business has been replaced by the expression
      "for the purpose of carrying on",
      so that it is clear that one-off transactions in genuine special circumstances—for example, rescue operations — are not automatically caught by the undervalue transaction provisions.
      Amendments Nos. 36 and 59, which have been made following representations from both the Law Society and the practitioners, ensure that employees of a bankrupt or insolvent company are not regarded as connected persons or associates for the purposes of preferences and undervalue transactions. Here we have in mind instances where persons are connected solely because of their employment. Those who are also directors or officers of a company will still be treated as connected persons.
      It was not intended that the normal receipt by employees of wages and related benefits should be subject to undue scrutiny. These amendments provide that, in relation to someone who is an employee only, transactions with him will be reviewable, as they are under the present law, for a six-month rather than a two-year period. There will be no presumption that a payment to such persons is a preference and, as regards transactions at an undervalue, they will not be required to demonstrate, in order to validate the transactions, that the company or individual was insolvent.
      Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 insert necessary drafting changes consequential upon Commons amendment No. 333.
      I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. GouldDespite my best efforts and arguments, the Government and the Minister resolutely refused to accept amendments that I tabled in Committee which would have given effect to and recognised the special interest that employees have in the continuing viability of a company, particularly under the administration order procedure. I am glad to see that in this tiny respect, in the ground covered by amendments Nos. 36 and 59, there is some recognition of the special position of employees. I welcome those amendments, but I would prefer to have seen some concession on the more substantial ground.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 36 agreed to.

    Clause 87

      AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN FLOATING CHARGES
      Lords amendment:No. 37, in page 70, line 2, after "charge" insert —
      "(aa) the value of so much of that consideration as consists of the discharge or reduction, at the same time as, or after, the creation of the charge, of any debt of the company;"
      Mr. HowardI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 40.
      Mr. HowardIt has been established in the 1965 cases of the Yeovil Glove Company Ltd. and Thomas Mortimer Ltd. that, where a company instructs a third party to make a payment to a creditor of the company, the payment is deemed to have been made to the company. The provisions of clause 87 in no way alter the existing legislation. Our initial view was that, in the light of the case law, there was no need to deal with the matter in the clause. However, we reconsidered the position and concluded that there was no overriding objection to specifying the position in the statute, as was desired by a noble Lord in another place and by certain of those with whom we consulted. These amendments achieve that purpose.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 48 agreed to.

    Clause 144

      POWERS OF COURT IN RESPECT OF DISCLAIMED PROPERTY
      Lords amendment: No. 49, in line 3, leave out
      "in occupation of or claiming a right"
      and insert
      "who at the time when the bankruptcy petition was presented was in occupation of or entitled"
      Mr. HowardI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)With this it will be conveniet to take Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 56.
      Mr. HowardAmendments Nos. 49 to 56 improve the clarity of the provisions which deal with the bankrupt's home. They are mainly drafting improvements, but they also provide that, in line with other provisions in insolvency law — for example, clause 113 — matters occurring after the presentation of a bankruptcy petition are not to count for the purpose of these provisions. Therefore, any person claiming a right to reside in the property, either for the purposes of the new clauses or in connection with the rights conferred on occupants under the disclaimer provisions, must have had a right of occupation at the date of the bankruptcy petition. This is to prevent the debtor, realising that his bankruptcy is likely, from trying to manoeuvre himself into an artificially advantageous position.
      I commend the amendments to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 59 agreed to.

    New Clause

      COOPERATION BETWEEN COURTS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO INSOLVENCY LAW
      Lords amendment: No. 60, in line 7, leave out from beginning to "shall" in line 8 and insert
      "; but, without prejudice to the following provisions of this section, nothing in this subsection".
      Mr. HowardI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 61 to 69 and 73A.
      Mr. HowardAmendments Nos. 60 to 63 and 63A enable provisions to be made in subordinate legislation to assist the working of the new inter-jurisdictional clause, introduced by Commons amendment No. 383, and to make it easier for courts to assist insolvency practitioners in their duties.
      Following consultation with the authorities of the three United Kingdom jurisdictions, it appears that provisions need to be made so that, where property exists in one jurisdiction but the insolvency procedures are in another, such property can be protected and claimed for the benefit of the insolvent estate's creditors but without automatic vesting provisions in relation to property in another jurisdiction, which can create serious anomalies—for example, in relation to innocent third parties who purchase land without notice of the bankruptcy of the vendor.
      Amendments Nos. 64 to 69 and 73A are consequential on the previous amendments. The whole group can be said to rationalise the provisions of the insolvency law in the three United Kingdom jurisdictions and the relationships between them.
      Mr. HanleyPractitioners broadly agree on and are very grateful for the alterations that have been made.
      On the commencement dates of the legislation as a whole, in another place the Minister observed that no decision had been taken on a target date for the various commencement orders. Can my hon. and learned Friend tell us at least when the date is likely to be—this year, next year or 1987? He noted that, although the greater part of the Bill is designed to be brought into effect at the same time, some of the provisions are free standing, such as those relating to the disqualification of directors, so desperately needed, which I believe now, following this Bill, might well work, and the attachment of personal liability for wrongful trading. It seems that those free standing provisions may be brought into effect at an earlier date. I believe that when they will be brought into effect should be known well in advance so that proper advice can be taken. Can my hon. and learned Friend give that assurance?
      Secondly, in another place the Minister stated that the Government had no intention of introducing amending insolvency legislation in the forthcoming Session. I beg my hon. and learned Friend not to have a closed mind. My hon. and learned Friend will know, as his predecessor learnt, that insolvency law is a highly specialised and extremely complex matter. Despite all the changes, there is no guarantee that every matter is now right. Some would guess to the contrary. The Government should monitor the effect of the legislation as soon as possible and, if required, amendment should be made without promises that no amending legislation will occur next Session.
      Lastly, on the rules, I regard the passing of the Bill without knowing the rules as not unlike being asked whether one is Jewish without knowing the contents of the 10 commandments. Consultation needs time. Practitioners are not full-time legislators.
      I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would wish to acknowledge the assistance of practitoners, so freely and generously given, and to obtain the full benefit of their assistance on the many vital aspects which may be dealt with by way of secondary legislation.
      Mr. Ian WrigglesworthI should like to add my support to some of the points made by the
      690
      hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box.
      From my observation, it was not only the Minister's predecessor who made a contribution to the proceedings on the Bill, but, if I may say in a non-partisan way. the hon. Members for Dagenham, for Richmond and Barnes and for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), and they should be commended.
      Many of us who pressed for the Bill thought that it would have a speedy and uncomplicated passage through the two Houses of Parliament. We now know how wrong that hope was. The Bill was introduced in another place on 10 December 1984. Since then, as the hon. Member for Dagenham said, there have been more than 1,200 amendments, which we understand is a parliamentary record. The Bill was brought from the other place on 16 April 1985 and had its Second Reading in this House on 30 April. It has spent almost 35 hours in Committee. Cork was established in January 1977, which is a considerable time ago. One would have hoped that there would have been sufficient time for Government Departments and others to have given it adequate consideration. It is most regrettable that the House was placed in the predicament of having to deal with so many amendments because of the way that the Government introduced the Bill.
      I hope that the Minister and his officials will respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes, because the Bill, without the rules, is only half a Bill. I hope that they will learn a lesson from recent months and consult widely and seek to reach as broad agreement as possible on the content of those rules. We all realise that there is a balance of arguments and interests to be reached, but I hope that the Government, in the coming weeks and months, will consult widely to ensure that the rules are as acceptable as possible to those who have daily to deal with the legislation.
      Most of us wanted to see the legislation on the statute book because we were aware that a great deal of damage was being done to a large section of industry due to the inadequacy of the law. Despite some of the deficiencies that undoubtedly still exist in the statute, it will overcome some of the problems that were faced by the profession and by those industries that went to the wall and were made bankrupt. If the new procedure had been in operation, they would not have done so.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. HowardI thank the hon. Member for Stockton. South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) for his kind welcome to me, and associate myself with the tribute that he paid to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).
      My hon. Friend mentioned a number of points, and I shall endeavour to respond to them. I cannot be precise about commencement dates at this stage. I do not imagine——
      Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The Minister need feel under no obligation to respond to matters that went beyond the terms of the amendment.
      Mr. HowardI am grateful to you for that reminder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am anxious to be as helpful as possible to my hon. Friend.

      691
      The most likely date for commencement is 1986. I can give an assurance that notice of the bringing into effect of any of the free standing provisions to which my hon. Friend referred will be given well in advance. Although I do not resile from what was said in another place—that it was not the Government's intention to introduce any amendment to this legislation—I hope that everything that I have said this afternoon makes it clear that these matters will not be approached with closed minds. Of course, the operation of the legislation will be monitored, and what my hon. Friend has said will be taken to heart.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Lords amendments in lieu of certain Commons amendments, Lords amendments to certain other Commons amendments, and Lords consequential amendments considered.
  Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    Clause 7

      MEANING OF APPARENT INSOLVENCY
      The Lords have disagreed to the amendments made by the Commons in page 8, line 14, leave out from 'debt' to 'has' in line 16 and insert
      'of (or debts the aggregate of which is) a relevant amount,'.
      and in
      page 8, line 23, at end insert—
      '(1A) In subsection (1)(d) above, "a relevant amount" means not less than—

      (a) £750; or

      (b) such sum as may be prescribed.'.

      and have made the following amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof:
      Amendment No. 1. in page 8, line 14, after second "a" insert "liquid".
      Amendment No. 2, in page 8, line 15, after "amounts" insert
      "(or liquid debts which in aggregate amount)".
      4.46 pm
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser)I beg to move, That this House doth not insist upon the amendments made by the Commons to page 8, line 14 and page 8 line 23 and that the House doth agree to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, made by the Lords in lieu of those amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 4.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have the effect of providing that a creditor will only be able to use the procedure under clause 7(1)(d) if the debts making up his £750 are liquid debts. The meaning of the term "liquid debt" is a matter for the common law. In essence it means a debt that is of a certain settled amount which is constituted in writing by decree or probative document or is admitted by the debtor. This will constitute a considerable safeguard for the debtor and was suggested by the Scottish Consumer Council.
      Amendment No. 4 restores the position to what it was previously. It makes it clear that the debtor need only deny that there is a debt or that the sum claimed by the creditor is immediately payable. That simplifies the position for the debtor.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: The Opposition are happy and content to accept the Government's position not just on this amendment but on all the amendments selected. I am sure that the Scottish Consumer Council would wish me to pass its thanks to the Solicitor-General for the considerate way in which he has studied their representations. That is true of representations made by various other organisations. When we discussed the Insolvency Bill I said to myself—I can put it on record now — that the miracle is that both the Bills have reached this happy state today, because both Bills were in Committee at the same time. One was subject to amendment as a result of what was happening to the other and at one stage no one would have believed that the

      693
      Government or anyone else—I do not say this critically —could have produced the sensible proposals that are contained in the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 3: The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons in
      page 8, line 16, after 'debtor', insert by recorded delivery,'.
      with the following amendment—
      Leave out "recorded delivery" and insert
      "personal service by an officer of court"
      The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) for his remarks on Lords amendment No. 1. What I have to say about this amendment will be in the same category. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there were a number of difficulties in Committee when we had two sets of important changes to this area of law proceedings in parallel. It is a matter of enormous relief, not only to myself but to the draftsmen of the Bill, that we should have reached this stage of the Bill today.
      This amendment alters the method by which a demand under clause 7(1)(d) will have to be served upon a debtor from one of service by recorded delivery to one of personal service by an officer of court. This is to ensure that a debtor is capable of being constituted apparently insolvent by this method only if he has personally received the statutory demand. In making this change, we have taken due account of the points raised on Report by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The requirement of personal service will help to alert the debtor to the seriousness of a demand under this provision. I hope that this change will allay many of the anxieties expressed by the Opposition.
      The procedure introduced under clause 7(1)(d) will nevertheless remain a technique that could be used successfully in bankruptcy law in Scotland and from time to time avoid unnecessary expense, allowing what remains of a debtor's estate to be readily distributed among the creditors.
      Mr. Ewing: I welcome the remarks of the Solicitor-General and proffer the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) who is absent on Council of Europe business but who particularly asked me to welcome this provision. Although it may seem a minor provision and may not be used very often, it is nevertheless very important in situations where the apparent insolvency of the debtor has to be established by a particular method.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Govan as well as the Institute of Chartered Accountants regarded it as important that the recipient should be conscious that he was receiving a notification that would establish his insolvency. The original proposal for notification by recorded delivery letter seemed to leave something to be desired. We are therefore grateful to the Government for going along the path suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and requiring that an officer should serve the notice. The recipient will thus be
      694
      fully conscious of the importance of the notification. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for agreeing to these proposals.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

    Clause 10

      CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS FOR SEQUESTRATION OR ANALOGOUS REMEDY
      Lords amendment No. 5: The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons in
      page 11, line 23, after '1914', insert 'or under the Insolvency Act 1985'.
      with the following amendment
      Leave out from "23" to the end and add
      "leave out `an administration order under section 48 of the County Courts Act 1959' and insert `under the Insolvency Act 1985 or an administration order under section 112 of the County Courts Act 1984'."
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Amendment No. 5 updates a reference to administration orders made under the County Courts Act 1959. Such orders are now made under the County Courts Act 1984.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 30

      VESTING OF ESTATE AT DATE OF SEQUESTRATION
      Lords amendment No. 6: The Lords have disagreed to the amendments made by the Commons in
      page 31, line 7, after 'bankruptcy', insert
      `or other similar orders in, or in connection with, bankruptcy proceedings'.
      and
      page 31, line 10, leave out 'to the same effect' and insert
      but any right or interest acquired for value before the registration or publication shall not be prejudiced by the effect of the act and warrant or by such registration or publication.'.
      and have made the following amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof:
      Page 31, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 7.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth not insist upon the amendments made by the Commons in page 31, line 7, and in page 31, line 10, but that the House doth agree to amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to the Bill made by the Lords in lieu of those amendments.
      The purpose of the amendments is to restrict to Scotland clauses 30 and 37, which provide for the vesting of the debtor's estate in, and the ingathering of the estate by, the permanent trustee. As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate discussed in some detail when introducing these amendments in another place, they have arisen because of apparent practical difficulty in applying the principle of universal vesting of a debtor's estate in the permanent trustee in other parts of the United Kingdom outwith Scotland. This practical difficulty has been resolved by means of new provisions in the Insolvency Bill which will allow for regulations to provide that the

      695
      permanent trustee will have the same rights in relation to property in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as he would if he had been appointed a trustee in bankrupty under the law of any of those countries.
      These new provisions will have the effect of putting a permanent trustee in a Scottish sequestration in a stronger position than if he had simply to rely on clause 30 extending to other parts of the United Kingdom outwith Scotland. It also ensures that due account is taken of the position under local law where the property is situated and that there is reciprocity between all parts of the United Kingdom.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

    Clause 68

      INTERPRETATION
      The Lords have agreed to the amendment made by the Commons in page 66, line 45, at end insert—
      '(4) Any reference in this Act to "the creditors" in the context of their giving consent or doing any other thing shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to the majority in value of such creditors as vote in that context at a meeting of creditors.
      (5) Any reference in this Act to an enactment relating to the limitation of actions shall not include any such enactment which implements or gives effect to any international agreement or obligation. '.
      with the following amendment—
      In line 7, leave out
      "an enactment relating to the limitation of actions shall not include any such"
      and insert
      "any of the following acts by a creditor barring the effect of any enactment or rule of law relating to the limitation of actions in any part of the United Kingdom, namely—

      (a) the presentation of a petition for sequestration;

  Schedule 7

    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND RE-ENACTMENTS
    The Lords have agreed to the amendment by the Commons in page 87, line 44, at end insert—

    The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 65)

    3A. In section 31(2) (disqualifications regarding members of local authority), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

    "(b) he is discharged under or by virtue of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985."

    The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (c. 60)

    3B. —(1) In section 58 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (under which Schedule 3 to that Act has effect for giving priority in bankruptcy etc. to certain debts) after the word "effect" there shall be inserted the words "for the purposes, in respect of the sequestration of estates in Scotland, of Schedule 3 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (preferred debts)"; and, for the purposes of the sequestration of a debtor's estate in Scotland, Schedule 3 to the said Act of 1975 shall have effect—

    (a) before the coming into force of paragraph 26 of Schedule 7 to the Insolvency Act 1985 as if—

    (i) in each of paragraphs 1, 2(1) and 3(1). for the words from the beginning to "included" there were substituted the words "This Schedule applies to";

    (ii) in the said paragraphs 1 and 2(1), for the words "date of the relevant event" there were substituted the words "relevant date" and, in the said paragraph 3(1), for the words "occurrence of the relevant event" there were substituted the words "sequestration of a debtors estate"; and

    (b) the concurrence in such a petition; and
    (c) the submission of a claim,
    shall be construed as a reference to that act having the same effect, for the purposes of any such enactment or rule of law, as an effective acknowledgement of the creditor's claim; and any reference in this Act to any such enactment shall not include a reference to an"
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 17, page 17, line 37, leave out
    ", or the barring of the effect of any enactment or rule of law relating to the limitation of actions in any part of the United Kingdom,"
    No. 10, in clause 72, page 69, line 2, leave out "17(5)"
    No. 11, page 69, line 3, leave out "and 52" and insert "52 and 68(5)"
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Amendment No. 8 clarifies those provisions in the Bill that bar the effect of any enactment or rule of law relating to the limitation of actions in any part of the United Kingdom. It provides that what is meant by the presentation of the petition for sequestration or the submission of a claim barring the effect of such enactments or rule of law is that they should have the same effect as an effective acknowledgment of the creditor's claim.
    Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are consequential and remove the provision in clause 17(5) which saves the effect of the interruption of the limitation period on the recall of the sequestration. This is because it is considered unnecessary to do so in English law. They also have the effect of extending the effect of clause 68(5) to other parts of the United Kingdom outwith Scotland.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11 agreed to.

    (iii) in pararaph 4, for the words from "event" to "that Act" there were substituted the words "date" has the same meaning as in Part I of Schedule 3 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985."; and

    (b) after the coming into force of the said paragraph 26 as if—

    (i) in paragraph 3(1), for the words "a person going into liquidation or being adjudged bankrupt" there were substituted the words "the sequestration of a debtor's estate";

    (ii) in paragraph 2(2) for the words "in a case where the relevant event took place on or after the day of Me passing of the Social Security Act 1985" there were substituted the words "in any other case"; and

    (iii) (iii) in paragraph 4, for the words "Schedule 3 to the Insolvency" there were substituted the words "Part I of Schedule 3 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland)".'

    Lords amendment: No. 12, in line 16, leave out from "effect" to "26" in line 32.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 13, in line 37, leave out sub-para (ii).
    No. 14. in line 41, leave out "Schedule 3" and insert "Schedule 4".
    The Solicitor-General for ScotlandAmendments Nos. 12 and 13 have the effect of deleting the amendments which it was proposed to make to the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 in the interim period between the commencement of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill and the Insolvency Bill. These amendments are no longer required because it is not now intended to make them until the equivalent provisions in the Insolvency Bill relating to Crown preferences commence.
    698
    The third change to this amendment is consequential upon the renumbering of the schedule to the Insolvency Bill relating to Crown preferences.
    Mr. Ewing: I thank the Solicitor-General for accepting these important amendments as it seemed unwise to proceed in the way in which the Government had intended to proceed. We are therefore grateful for the Government's change of mind.
    It may seem to be an early Christmas for the Solicitor-General, but I end as I began by saying that we now have a sensible and operable piece of legislation because the Solicitor-General and his ministerial colleagues very generously exchanged with us not only notes on clauses but notes on amendments, which we found most helpful. I place on record my thanks to the Solicitor-General for the way in which he conducted the Committee stage of the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Clause 8

    RECTIFICATION OF DEFECTIVELY EXPRESSED DOCUMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 38, at end insert
    "and contain a description of the land to which the application relates"
    5 pm
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 50, in page 44, line 25, at end insert—
    "Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 (c. 101)
    . In section 159 (litigiosity not to begin before date of registration in Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications of notice of summons) after the word "summons", where thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and contain a description of the lands to which the summons relates".
    . In Schedule RR (form of notice of summons) after the word "signeting]" there shall be inserted the words "The Summons relates to [insert description of lands]."."
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These amendments arise from some concern which was expressed by Opposition peers about the scope of notices of litigiosity under clause 8(8). While the Government were unable to accept the original point, we were persuaded that the present provisions on notices of litigiosity required improvement, and amendments 1 and 50 are designed to achieve this.
    At present, clause 8(8), which deals with notices of litigiosity in relation to actions of rectification, merely requires the notice to give the names and designations of the parties to the application and the date when authority for service or citation was granted. This follows the existing provisions in section 159 and schedule RR of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 for notices of litigiosity relating to actions for reduction and adjudications. However, lawyers carrying out a search in relation to a transaction involving someone of the same name a pursuer or defender in, for example, a reduction action already encounter difficulties in ascertaining whether the action affects their client's interest, especially where the name is a common one where only a business or agent's address is given. Even when the relevant party has correctly been identified, confusion may arise where he owns pieces of land other than the one affected by the action. While it will usually be possible for the seller of the land to prove the transaction in question is not struck at by the notice of litigiosity, this will involve more delay and expense. Previously these difficulties had been tolerable, but with the increase in number of entries in the register of inhibitions and adjudications, and the vastly increased volume of searches, the problem is becoming a severe one. Therefore, the amendments provide that notices of litigiosity, both under this Bill and the 1868 Act, shall also give a description of the land to which the summons or application mentioned in the notice relates.
    700
    It goes further than the point originally raised by the Opposition and I hope that they support the amendments. I am advised that the amendments enjoy the strong support of the Law Society for Scotland. What started as a minor point has now become a valuable improvement of Scottish law.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: I am happy to say that this amendment enjoys the support of the Opposition.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 13

    AMENDMENTS OF MATRIMONIAL HOMES (FAMILY ROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1981
    Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 12, line 39, leave out "(1)".
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will convenient to discuss the following amendments:
    No. 3, in page 12, line 40, after "couples)" insert "(a) in subsection (1)".
    No. 4, in page 12, line 40, at end insert—
    "; and

    (b) in subsection (6), in the definition of "occupancy rights"

    (i) in paragraph (a) for the words from "not" to the end there shall be substituted the words "to continue to occupy the house;" and

    (ii) at the end there shall be inserted the words—"

    and, without prejudice to the generality of these rights, includes the right to continue to occupy or, as the case may be, to enter and occupy the house together with any child residing with the cohabiting couple"."
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The definition of the occupancy rights of married couples in section 1 of the Amendments of Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 is amended by clause 13(2) and 13(3) of the Bill. This group of amendments provide that the definition of the occupancy rights of cohabiting couples provided in section 18(6) of the 1981 Act is correspondingly amended. The amendments will make clear that a non-entitled partner's occupancy right is a right to occupy, including all rights normally inherent in the right to occupy, and is not merely a right not to be excluded, and also that the non-entitled partner's right to occupy the house includes the right to have with her any child residing with the cohabiting couple.
    This point vexed the Committee, and concern was expressed by the Opposition and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). I hope that, without prejudice to the generality of the rights, the right to continue to occupy also allows for and includes the right to enter and occupy the house together with any child residing. I hope that this puts the point beyond doubt. Certainly it was not one of controversy for Members on either side of the Committee, but there was anxiety that we should make clear what rights were allowed for.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 18

    SMALL CLAIMS PROCEEDINGS
    Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 16, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 14, and insert—
    "18. —(1) For subsection (2) of section 35 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (summary causes) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

    "(2) There shall be a form of summary cause process, to be known as a "small claim", which shall be used for the purposes of such descriptions of summary cause proceedings as are prescribed by the Lord Advocate by order"."

    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
    No. 6, in page 16, line 20, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    No. 8, in page 16, line 23, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    No. 10, in page 16, line 30, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    No. 11, in page 16, line 34, leave out "claims proceedings" and insert "claim"
    No. 16, in page 17, line 10, leave out "claims proceedings" and insert "claim"
    No. 17, in page 17, line 16, leave out "proceedings" and insert "small claim"
    No. 18, in page 17, line 18, leave out "proceedings" and insert "small claim"
    No. 19, in page 17, line 19, leave out "proceedings" and insert "small claim"
    No. 20, in page 17, line 20, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    No. 21, in page 17, line 21, leave out "proceedings" and insert "small claim"
    No. 22, in page 17, line 23, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    No. 23, in page 17, line 25, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    No. 24, in page 17, line 27, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    No. 25, in page 17, line 30, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    No. 26, in page 17, line 32, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    No. 28, in page 17, line 44, leave out "small claims proceedings" and insert "a small claim"
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The purpose of the first and main amendment of this group is to make clear that there will be a new procedure, within the existing summary cause procedure, which will be known as a "small claim". This procedure will be mandatory for all those proceedings which qualify as a "small claim". These cases will be prescribed in an order which will set out those descriptions of summary causes which are to be treated as small claims and their financial limit. Under a later amendment this order will be subject to affirmative resolution. Cases which fall outside those descriptions and above that financial limit will be dealt with under the present summary cause procedure. This amendment also replaces the term "small claims proceedings" with the more succinct "small claim".
    The remaining amendments are consequential.
    702
    Although in the legislation the description of this new procedure was "small claims proceedings", even in Committee those who were involved, such as the Scottish Consumer Council and the Law Society, are already calling it "small claims" and for that reason it would seem sensible to agree to a change which follows a usage which has probably already become established.
    Mr. Ewing: It always amazes me that we spend an hour or two in Committee trying to find a new description or a new procedure. The term "procedure" is commonly understood and, lo and behold, for this Bill we have found the new terms simply by dropping the word procedure. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for accepting what was obvious to everyone else in Committee
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 6 made.
    Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 16, line 20, at end insert—
    "(4) An order under subsection (2) above shall be by statutory instrument but shall not be made unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
    No. 14 in page 17, line 3, leave out "made".
    No. 15, in page 17, line 4, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 6 and insert
    "but shall not be made unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The orders which the Lord Advocate will make under the new subsection (2) in section 35 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 and under subsection (4) of the new section 36B of the 1971 Act are at present subject to negative resolution procedure. These orders will set out the descriptions of summary cause proceedings to be dealt with as small claims, their financial limits, and the limits relating to awards of limited or no expenses. Lord Wilson of Langside, in Committee, proposed that instead affirmative resolution was appropriate for such orders. After consideration the Government agreed that affirmative resolution procedure of a draft of the proposed orders was more appropriate in view of the general importance and interest of the subject matter of these orders.
    Mr. Ewing: I left the burden of my remarks to this group of amendments because the definition and explanation of the limits that are to be embodied in the new small claims are important. In Committee and in the latter stages of the Bill's passage there has been substantial debate on the limits that are to be set. The small claims process can be introduced only when there are statutory instruments showing the limits that the Government intend to apply. When we questioned the Solicitor-General, he seemed hesitant about the timing of the introduction of the statutory instruments and the limits.
    The limits of the small claims and the question of no damages and no expense are crucial to the introduction of the system. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea how early in the new Session the statutory instruments will be introduced as they are crucial to the implementation of the system.

    703
    I received an invitation, as no doubt did the Minister, from the Scottish Consumer Council to celebrate the introduction of small claims. That is a bit premature because it cannot be introduced until we know the limits. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to say something about that.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am tempted to embark upon some consideration about what might be the appropriate financial limits or the limits to be fixed in relation to limited or no expenses. In view of what I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept as a worthwhile concession in the direction that such matters should be subject to affirmative resolution, a more appropriate moment or consideration of such issues is in the event of the established financial limits proving unsatisfactory to hon. Members. I hope that they will not be unsatisfactory and it is better to leave the matter until the time that they are introduced.
    I am not saying that there will be any marked delay in introducing them, but it would be daft to introduce a limit which eventually proved to be too low. I appreciate, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate appreciates, that there is a desire to see the limits fixed at a relatively high level. We have received a number of representations from some bodies which show that there could be problems if limits are fixed too high. It would be fair to say that there is concern that they should be fixed on the high side, but it would be wrong to tell the House that representations have gone all one way because that is not the case.
    It is churlish of the hon. Gentleman to say that the invitation extended to him and to me to celebrate the introduction of the small claim is in some way premature. The Scottish Consumer Council clearly does not think so, and, after he has enjoyed its hospitality on Friday, I hope that he too will not think so.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 16, line 25, at end insert "or".
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment makes clear that paragraphs (a) and (b) in the new section 36A describe three different types of pursuers, each of whom is ineligible for the services of the sheriff clerk in the service of the small claims summons, as they are not acting in an individual capacity. The three categories are, first, a partnership; second, a body corporate, such as a company; and, third, a pursuer acting in a representative capacity, such as that of a trustee. All this amendment does is make it clear they are not entitled to those services
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 16, leave out lines 38 to 43 and insert
    "to a party to a small claim—

    (a) who being a defender—

    (i) has not stated a defence; or

    (ii) having stated a defence, has not proceeded with a defence, has not acted in good faith as to its merits; or

    (b) on whose part there has been unreasonable conduct in relation to the proceedings or the claim".

    5.15 pm
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment seeks to make clear the circumstances in which a party to a small claims action, particularly a defender, will lose the benefit of the special provisions relating to expenses whereby no, or a limited amount of, expenses may be awarded against an unsuccessful party. Where the benefit is lost, the normal rules for award of expenses in summary causes would apply. The wording takes account of criticisms made of the original wording by Lord Morton of Shuna.
    Subsection (3) of new section 36B sets out the circumstances in which the normal rules for awarding expenses are to apply, first, in paragraph (a)(i) where the defender has offered no defence. This takes account of the fact that at present summary cause is used extensively for the routine collection of debts. It would be inequitable for the successful pursuer not to have expenses awarded to him in cases where there is no defence to a claim, since otherwise there would be a temptation for debtors not to pay their bills in the hope that the creditor would be discouraged from suing to recover the debt by the prospect of incurring expenses part or all of which could not be recovered.
    The second circumstance is in paragraph (a)(ii) which preserves the existing provision whereby a defender is not to benefit if he states a case but proceeds no further with it. This is intended to prevent a defender lodging a skeletal or spurious defence simply to take advantage of the special rules on expenses. The third circumstance is in paragraph (a)(iii) which covers the possibility of the defender stating a defence and proceeding. with it, but the defence itself is spurious and has clearly been presented in bad faith merely to take advantage of the special expenses provisions.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 17, line 1, leave out "(c)" and insert
    "; nor do they apply".
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Paragraph (5) of new section 36B(3) excludes from the special expenses provisions any party, either pursuer or defender, who acted unreasonably either during the proceedings or in relation to the claim itself. This would cover cases where it was clear that there was no proper claim to bring to court, or where a party had been acting in a dilatory manner or in bad faith.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26 agreed to.
    Lords amendment:No. 27, in page 17, line 34, leave out from "(3)" to "(2C)" in line 36 and insert
    "(a) after "(2A)" there shall be inserted the words "(2B) or"'
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This amendment in clause 18(3)(b) is to make clear that the decisions of the sheriff relating to remits made under section 37(3)(a) of the 1971 Act, which are not to be capable of review, are those under subsection (2A), (2B)

    705
    or (2C) of section 37(3) of the 1971 Act. The present drafting in the clause might imply that the decisions relating to remits may be made only where all three of these subsections are involved, which would not be the case.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 28 agreed to.

  Clause 25

    AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS ABOUT DETENTION OF CHILDREN
    Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 21, line 2, leave out from beginning to first "for" in line 4.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This amendment deletes the change to section 42(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 made by clause 25(1) (a). The effect of paragraph 25(a) is subsumed in paragraph 25(b), and paragraph 25(a) is therefore redundant.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 26

    AMENDMENT OF POWER TO DETAIN CHILDREN IN SECURE ACCOMMODATION
    Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 22, line 9, leave out "paragraph (b) above" and insert "this subsection"
    Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The words "paragraph (b) above" are wrong since they relate to a paragraph in the clause, whereas they are part of the text which is to be inserted into section 58E(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 32

    RULES AS TO VALUATION OF SHEEP STOCKS
    Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 24, line 10, leave out "valuation" and insert "variation".
    Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is a drafting amendment to correct an error in the wording. The corrected wording ensures that, once the formula for valuing sheep stock at the end of a tenancy has been updated, the updated formula can be used only in new leases. It does this by tying the date of the lease to the date of the variation of the formula rather than to the date of the valuation.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 39

    FINES IN RESPECT OF DRUG OFFENCES
    Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 32, line 24, after "made" insert "by the offender"
    Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
    No. 33, in page 32, line 25, leave out "the accused" and insert "he"
    No. 35, in page 33, line 10, leave out "accused" and insert "offender"
    Mr. MacKay: Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 meet a point raised by the noble and learned Lord Morton of Shuna in another place. They are intended to put it beyond doubt that in cases where an offender convicted of a drug trafficking crime is sentenced by virtue of clause 39 to a fine in addition to a term of imprisonment or detention. the court should bear in mind only the profits which the accused himself has made from the crime and not, for example, profits made by a co-accused.
    As for amendment No. 35, new subsection 193B(5) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 as inserted by clause 39 as presently drafted contains a reference to the "accused". As this subsection relates to a person who has already been convicted, this reference is not strictly accurate. The subsection should instead refer to an "offender".
    Mr. Donald DewarI do not intend to detain the House for long. I welcome the minor clarification as a result of the efforts of another place on what can be taken into account in deciding where a fine is appropriate under clause 39. The Minister will know from our debates in Committee that we have some doubts about the lack of definition. and that there was some confusion. It was one of those occasions on which we had a change of Minister halfway through our considerations of the Bill, and there was a distinct difference of opinion, or emphasis, between the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) as to exactly what criteria the courts should apply. No doubt the courts will make up their own minds, as they so often do, irrespective of what may be said by either of the two junior Ministers at the Scottish Office.
    We shall watch this matter with curiosity and interest. While we are all totally committed to the campaign to control drug trafficking, I am not as convinced as the Ministers seem to be that this legislation will make an important or particularly significant impact
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 33 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 32, line 28, leave out from "in" to "the" in line 30 and insert
    "paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4) or any offence mentioned in paragraphs (d) to (g) of that subsection where such latter offence involves a controlled drug as defined in section 2(1)(a) of".
    Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The purpose of this amendment is to extend the measures to be introduced by clause 39 to cover offences involving all categories of controlled drugs as defined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In doing so it meets and expands upon an amendment tabled at Lords Committee stage by the noble and learned Lord Morton of Shuna, which sought to extend the provisions to include class B drugs. However, the present amendment extends the clause still further to cover all controlled drugs.
    As it left this House, clause 39 provided that anyone convicted of a drug trafficking crime involving class A drugs was to be liable to be fined in addition to a custodial sentence unless it was considered inappropriate to do so.

    707
    It was originally decided that the new measures introduced by clause 39 should be restricted to class A drugs to be consistent with the measures in what is now the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act 1985, which increased the maximum penalty for drug trafficking offences involving class A drugs from 14 years to life imprisonment, and to reflect the especially pernicious nature of class A drugs.
    However, the Government recognise that large profits can also be derived from other controlled drugs in classes B and C. For example, one of the class B drugs is cannabis and large profits can be made from it. Following further consideration, it has been decided to extend the scope of the existing provisions to cover all categories of controlled drugs.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 35 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 33, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
    No. 45, in clause 59, in page 41, line 7, at end insert—
    "() Schedule (Transitional provisions) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making transitional provision."
    No. 57, after schedule 2, insert the following new schedule—

  SCHEDULE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

    Section 36
    1. Sections 141A, 141B, 346A and 346B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 do not apply in relation to a trial which has commenced before the coming into force of those sections; and, for the purpose of this paragraph, a trial shall be taken to commence—

    (a) in the case of summary proceedings, when the oath is administered to the jury;

    (b) in the case of summary proceedings, when the first witness is sworn.

    Section 38
    2. The amendment to section 120 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 effected by section 38 of this Act has no effect in relation to proceedings in which the complaint was served on the accused before the coming into force of section 38 of this Act.

    Section 39
    3. Section 193B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall not affect the punishment for an offence committed before the coming into force of section 39 of this Act.
    4. The amendments to section 407(1A) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 effected by section 40 of this Act have no effect in relation to fines imposed in respect of offences committed before the coming into force of section 40 of this Act."
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Clauses 36 and 38 change the rules on admissibility of evidence in court proceedings for sexual offences and vehicle licensing offences, while clauses 39 and 40 change the penalties which can be imposed for an offence in certain circumstances. Clearly it would be unacceptable for the rules of evidence to be changed during the course of a trial.
    Equally it would be unjust, and contrary to article 7 of the European Convention on Human rights, if the penalty for an offence could be retrospectively increased or an additional penalty imposed. The new schedule of transitional provisions therefore provides that clause 36
    708
    shall not apply to trials, and clause 38 shall not apply to proceedings, commenced before they come into force. Similarly, clauses 39 and 40 cannot change penalties for offences committed before they came into force. The new schedule is governed by clause 60, and as a consequential to the new schedule the existing transitional provision in clause 40(2) is deleted.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 44

    FUNCTIONS OF PAROLE BOARD FOR SCOTLAND AND LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEES IN RELATION TO CHILDREN DETAINED ON CONVICTION ON INDICTMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 35, line 12, leave out from "words" to the end of the line and insert
    ""section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 or section 206 or 206A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975""
    Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
    No. 38, in page 35, line 14, leave out from "(c)" to end of line 15 and insert
    "for the word "applies" there shall be substituted the words "or the said section 206 applies or the recall of persons to whom the said section 12 or the said section 206A applies.""
    No. 39, in page 35, line 23, leave out from "words" to end of line 24 and insert
    ", section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) act 1963 or section 206 or 206A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975""
    Mr. MacKay:Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 are consequential amendments to amendments Nos. 40 and 42 to clause 45 to which we shall come shortly.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 38 and 39 agreed to.

  Clause 45

    SUPERVISION OF CHILDREN RELEASED AFTER DETENTION
    Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 36, line 8, after "terms" insert
    "and either—

    (a) the Parole Board for Scotland so recommends; or

    (b) it appears to him to be in the public interest to do so before consultation with the Board is practicable,"

    Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments.
    No. 41, in page 36, line 11, at end insert—
    "() The Secretary of State shall inform a person recalled under subsection (5) above of the reasons for his recall, so that the person may make representations in writing with respect to his recall to the Parole Board for Scotland; and the Board may, on receipt of such representations, require the Secretary of State to release him forthwith."
    No. 42, in page 36, line 23, at end insert—
    "(2) In section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 (supervision of persons released from young offenders' institution)—
    (a) in subsection (7) after the word "above", where first occurring, there shall be inserted ("and either—
    (a) the Parole Board for Scotland so recommends; or

    709
    (b) it appears to him to be in the public interest to do so before consultation with the Board is practicable,");
    (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(7A) The Secretary of State shall inform a person recalled under subsection (7) above of the reasons for his recall, so that the person may make representations in writing with respect to his recall to the Parole Board for Scotland; and the Board may, on receipt of such representations, require the Secretary of State to release him forthwith."; and
    ((c) in subsection (9)—
    (i) for the words "that person" there shall be substituted the words "a person released under subsection (7A) above or this subsection"; and
    (ii) after the word "under", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "subsection (7A) above or"."
    Mr. MacKay:These amendments, which were prepared in response to points made in another place by Lord Morton of Shuna, seek to involve the Parole Board for Scotland in the recall procedure for children who have been released on supervision at the end of their sentence. The board is of course already involved, by virtue of section 206(5) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, in those cases where release occurs before the end of sentence. These amendments provide for the board similarly to be involved in the case of children released at the end of sentence. The Secretary of State will thus recall children who have broken their supervision conditions only on the board's recommendation, or where he believes the public interest requires recall before it is practicable to consult the board. He must give reasons for the recall and the person recalled can make representations to the board. The board will have power on receiving such representations to order the Secretary of State to release the child immediately.
    If we provide these safeguards for children released subject to supervision, it is only fair and consistent to provide similar safeguards for young offenders released under supervision under section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963. The amendments therefore provide for the board to be similarly involved in the procedure for the recall of these young offenders.
    I would add that the board has similar functions already, under section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, in relation to recall of prisoners or young offenders released on licence. These amendments are thus applying well-established machinery and ensuring consistency of procedure.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Ewing: The Minister is right in saying that the amendments apply consistency of procedure, but they also widen the scope of the work of the parole board. At the moment its work is limited to young offenders and adult prisoners released on licence and subject to recall if they breach the licence conditions. I want to put down a marker with the Minister, because there is growing concern, which I share, about the length of time the parole board is taking to consider cases for parole—the main burden of its work. Evidence is emerging that the period is getting even longer.
    I am strongly in favour of what the Minister has defined. If we put an additional burden on the parole board, we must will to it the means to carry out the duties imposed on it by the House. I hope that the Minister will
    710
    keep that firmly in mind. The Minister stressed the point about immediacy. There is little point in saying to a child or a young offender at the end of his sentence that he can appeal to the parole board if the power of the parole board to release him immediately is frustrated because of lack of facilities to consider cases urgently. We warmly welcome the amendments.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I, too, welcome the amendment. Given the structure and constitutional resources of the parole board, is the Minister in a position to predict how long it would take to assess representations and make an instruction to the Secretary of State?
    Mr. John MacKay: I could not give to the House the kind of answer requested by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I will watch the matter carefully. In practice, only a few cases will be under consideration in each year because most offenders are released before the end of their sentence. Therefore, if they have to come before the parole board, they are doing so already, so to speak. There are only a few cases which come into the category of supervision after the end of their sentence. Having said that, I can assure the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) that I will watch the matter carefully.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 41 and 42 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 43, after clause 54, insert the following new clause—
    "Power of Commissioner for Local Administration to investigate Scottish Special Housing Association and new town development corporations
    "(1) In section 23 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (authorities subject to investigation)—

    (a) in subsection (1) there shall be added at the end the words—

    "(g) the Scottish Special Housing Association;

    (h) subject to subsection (2A) below. any development corporation established under an order made, or having effect as if made under the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (in this section and section 24 of this Act referred to as a "new town development corporation");"; and

    (b) after subsection (2) there shall be added the following subsection—

    "(2A) The application of this Part of this Act to any new town development corporation by virtue of subsection (1)(h) above extends only to the Corporation's functions in relation to housing.".
    (2) In section 24 of that Act (matters subject to investigation)—
    (a) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3A) Subsections (2) and (3) above do not apply in relation to the Scottish Special Housing Association or a new town development corporation."; and
    (b) in subsection (4) after the word "concerned" there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of the Scottish Special Housing Association or a new town development corporation, to the commissioner"."
    Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendment No. 59, in the Title, in line 4, after "children" insert
    "the functions of the Commissioner for Local Administration;"
    Mr. MacKay: The purpose of the new clause is to extend the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Local Administration to the Scottish Special Housing

    711
    Association and to the housing functions of the new town development corporations. Both the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), whom I see stirring in his seat, and Lord Morton of Shuna put forward similar proposals in the respective Committee stages. Those of us who were members of the Committee can recall the interesting debate on the subject.
    My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I explained then that the Government were still considering various aspects of these innovations and undertook to bring forward, if at all possible, a new clause for inclusion at a later stage of the Bill's progress. This amendment fulfils that undertaking. Since this is a new subject, there is a consequential amendment to the Long Title of the Bill.
    Mr. Dewar: This is indeed a small but welcome sign of flexibility by the Government. When Lord Cameron of Lochbroom came into our midst, I did not think that I would see him as the wind of change in person— a radical reformer storming the ramparts on behalf of open government. I guess— I base this purely on objective memories of the speeches made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) in Committee—that the Lord Advocate has turned out to be a persuasive and formidable ally.
    There is a long history to the amendment. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) who, many months ago, first tried to persuade the Government of the value of the change. I remember an exchange during the passage of the New Towns Act 1980 in which he attempted to persuade the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment that an extension of the powers of the local government ombudsman would be welcome and sensible. Understandably, he was told by the English Minister that it should be brought up when an appropriate occasion arose. Of course, an appropriate occasion arose with the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
    I think that I am entitled to be vaguely curious as to why my amendment, which was straighforward, was formidably and persistently opposed by Ministers earlier. There was no suggestion that there was a minor drafting error that required a new version of the amendment; we were told that it was not on. When my noble Friend Lord Morton of Shuna introduced a similar amendment in another place, again it was opposed. Therefore, it came as something of a surprise to us when this popped up at a very late stage, the Report stage in another place, and has now found its way to us.
    However, it is not for me to be ungracious. [Interruption.] The Solicitor-General for Scotland had better wait. Anticipating the coming Session. I think that we may have another law reform Bill, so he had better not encourage me too much at this stage.
    This is a minor but useful change. There is no conceivable reason why the ombudsman's powers should not apply to housing complaints about the Scottish Special Housing Association and new town development corporations. That has been the view for a long time of myself and my colleagues. I know that it is also the view of the ombudsman, because he was courteous enough to explain that not just to Labour Members of Parliament but to the Members of Parliament from other parties. It is good
    712
    that the little anomaly has been overcome with the introduction of this logical extension to the ombudsman's powers.
    It leaves other ends which are perhaps more difficult of solution. The most outstanding, with which the Minister will be familiar, is the need, in the opinion of the ombudsman and of some other people, to consider problems of enforcement and the relationship between a local authority and the ombudsman in the implementation of his decision. In one or two worrying cases in recent years authorities have begged to differ from the ombudsman, and no action has followed a definitive ruling by that official. That is a much more prickly and sensitive area which will have to be considered soon.
    The simple amendment before us is a matter for comment because it has taken so long and because it pops up at this stage as a Government amendment, unexplained and unheralded at earlier stages, despite the best efforts of Opposition Members. However, sinners repent. That may be overstating it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute is spotless in—I was about to say his personal habits, but that might be misinterpreted. No doubt he is well intentioned in all things. I am glad that he has worked his way round to agreeing with me and my hon. Friends on this matter.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he was surprised that the amendment had come before the House, but the House is full of surprises, and the events of last week make me something of an authority on surprises.
    I welcome the Lords amendment which comes a long time after the press release in which the Scottish Office said that it would be presenting the amendment. I note the pleasure on the face of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who had a difficult time explaining to me why it was not appropriate to introduce such a provision into the New Towns Act 1980. However, we have finally got there, and I am glad that the Government accepted the advice of my noble Friend Lord Morton of Shuna.
    The amendment will be particularly welcome in new towns where the development corporations are the largest housing authorities, and it will be very welcome in my constituency. I do not expect there to be many complaints to the ombudsman, because the housing authorities in the new towns are generally well run, but some people fall out of the system and the amendment will give tenants a right to go to the ombudsman. It is proper that tenants' rights should be extended.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Clause 55

    AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO SOLICITORS
    Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 40, line 22, leave out clause 55 and insert the following new clause—
    Amendment of enactments relating to solicitors
    "55. The enactments specified in Schedule 1 to this Act (Part I of which Schedule contains amendments relating to the incorporation of solicitors' practices and Part II amendments relating to other matters relating to solicitors) shall have effect subject to the amendments to these enactments there set out.".
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following Lords amendments No. 48, in schedule 1, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

  PART I
    INCORPORATION OF SOLICITORS' PRACTICES

      Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 c. 46
      1. In section 16(1) (appeal to Court of Session against decisions of Council in relation to practising certificates)—

      (a) after the word "where" there shall be inserted "(a)"; and

      (b) after the word "applicant" there shall be inserted ";

      (b) the Council refuse to recognise a body corporate as being suitable in terms of section 34(1A)(b), the body corporate".

      2. In section 18 (suspension of practising certificates)—
      (a) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) If—

      (a) an administration or winding up order, or an appointment of a provisional liquidator, liquidator, receiver or judicial factor has been made in relation to the incorporated practice; or

      (b) a resolution has been passed for the voluntary winding up of an incorporated practice (other than a resolution passed solely for the purposes of reconstruction or amalgamation of the incorporated practice with another incorporated practice),

      the recognition under section 34(1A) of the incorporated practice shall be thereby revoked.";
      (b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(3A) On the occurrence of the circumstances mentioned in—

      (a) paragraph (a) of subsection (1A), the administrator, provisional liquidator, liquidator, receiver or, as the case may be, judicial factor appointed in relation to the incorporated practice;

      (b) paragraph (b) of subsection (1A), the incorporated practice

      shall immediately intimate that fact to the Council.".
      3. In section 21(3) (definition of "consultant" in relation to requirement upon consultants to hold practising certificates)—

      (a) after the word "who" there shall be inserted "(a)";

      (b) after the word "name", where thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted—

      "(b) not being a director of an incorporated practice, causes or permits his name to be associated with that incorporated practice,".

      4. In section 26 (offence for solicitors to act as agents for unqualified persons)—

      (a) in subsection (1)—

      (i) after the word "who" there shall be inserted the words "incorporated practice which";

      (ii) in each of paragraphs (b) and (d) after the word "his" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, its";

      (b) in subsection (3) there shall be inserted at the end the words "but "unqualified person" does not include an incorporated practice".

      5. In section 27 (offence for solicitors to share fees with unqualified person)—

      (a) in subsection (1)—

      (i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

      (ii) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

      (b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) after the "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

      (ii) in paragraph (a) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, to it, and after the word "business", where
      714
      secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or former director of the incorporated practice";

      (iii) in paragraph (b), after the word "business", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, a director or member of the incorporated practice" and after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

      (iv) in paragraph c) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

      6. In section 28 (disqualified solicitors not to seek employment without informing employer)—

      (a) after the word "practice" where thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or by an incorporated practice";

      (b) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

      7. In section 30 (liability for fees of another solicitor)—

      (a) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

      (b) after that word, where secondly and thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

      (c) after the word "he" in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

      (d) after the word "solicitor's" there shall he inserted the words "or incorporated practice's".

      8. Section 31 (offence for unqualified persons to pretend to be solicitors or notaries public) shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and—
      (a)in that subsection (as so renumbered) there shall be inserted at the end the following—
      "In this section, "unqualified person" does not include an incorporated practice";
      (b)after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(2) Any person (including a body corporate) who either by himself or together with others, wilfully and falsely—

      (a)pretends to be an incorporated practice;

      (b)takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is an incorporated practice,

      shall be guilty of an offence.
      (3) Where an offence under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, the director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished ccordingly."
      9. In section 32(2) (persons to whom offence of preparing certain documents does not apply) there shall be inserted at the end the following—"; or

      (e) an incorporated practice.".

      10. In section 33 (unqualified persons not entitled to fees etc.) there shall be inserted at the end—
      "This section does not apply to an incorporated practice.".
      11. After section 33 there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Privilege of incorporated practices from disclosure etc.
      33A.—(1) Any communication made to or by an incorporated practice in the course of its acting as such for a client shall in any legal proceedings be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if the body had at all material times been a solicitor acting for the client.
      (2) Any enactment or instrument making special provision in relation to a solicitor or other legal representative as to the disclosure of information, or as to the production, seizure or removal of documents, with respect to which a claim to professional privilege could be maintained. shall,

      715
      with any necessary modifications, have effect in relation to an incorporated practice as it has effect in relation to a solicitor.".
      12. In section 34 (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline)—
      (a)in subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices";
      (b)after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) Rules made under this section may—

      (a)provide as to the management and control by—

      (i)solicitors holding practising certificates or their executors;

      (ii)other incorporated practices
      of bodies corporate carrying on businesses consisting of the provision of professional services such as are provided by individuals and firms practising as solicitors being bodies the membership of which is restricted to such solicitors, executors and other incorporated practices;

      (b)prescribe the circumstances in which such bodies may be recognised by the Council as being suitable to undertake the provision of any such services;

      (c) prescribe the conditions which (subject to any exceptions provided by the rules) must at all times be satisfied by bodies corporate so recognised if they are to remain so recognised (which bodies, when and for so long as so recognised, are in this Act referred to as "incorporated practices");

      (d) regulate the conduct of the affairs of incorporated practices; and

      (e)provide—

      (i)for the manner and form in which applications for recognition under this section are to be made, and for the payment of fees in connection with such applications;

      (ii)for regulating the names that may be used by incorporated practices;

      (iii)as to the period for which any recognition granted under this section shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) remain in force;

      (iv)for the revocation of any such recognition on the grounds that it was granted as a result of any error or fraud;

      (v)for the keeping by the Society of a list containing the names and places of business of all incorporated practices and for the information contained in any such list to be available for inspection;

      (vi)for rules made under any provision of this Act to have effect in relation to incorporated practices with such additions, ommissions or other modifications as appear to the Council to be necessary or expedient;

      (vii)for empowering the Council to take such steps as they consider necessary or expedient to ascertain whether or not any rules applicable to incorporated practices by virtue of this section are being complied with.

      (c)after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
      "(4A) A certificate purporting to be signed by an officer of the Society and stating that any body corporate is or is not an incorporated practice shall, unless the contrary is proved, be sufficient evidence of that fact.
      (4B) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, provide for any enactment or
      716
      instrument passed or made before the commencement of section (1A) above and having effect in relation to solicitors to have effect in relation to incorporated practices with such additions, omissions, or other modifications as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.".
      13. In section 35(1) (accounts rules) after the word "solicitors", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices".
      14. In section 36 (interest on client's money)—

      (a)in subsection (1)—

      (i)after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

      (ii)after the word "his" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice in its";

      (iii)after the word "solicitor's" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice's";

      (b)in subsection (2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

      (c)in subsection (3)—

      (i)after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

      (ii)after the word "solicitor", where lastly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

      (iii)after the word "his" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

      (d)in subsection (4) after the word "client" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice and its client".

      15. In section 37 (accountant's certificates)—

      (a)in subsection (2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practice";

      (b)in subsection (3) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or of an incorporated practice";

      (c)in subsection (5)—

      (i)in paragraph (a)after the word "who" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice which", after the word "firm" there shall be substituted the words "or, as the case may be, of the incorporated practice" and after the word "them" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

      (ii)in paragraph (b), after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice" and after the word "practice" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it has not";

      (d)after subsection (6)—

      (i)in paragraph (a)(iii) after the word "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practices";

      (ii)after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, an incorporated practice which satisfies the Council that it";

      (e)in subsection (7)—

      (i)after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

      (ii)after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

      16. In section 38 (powers of Council where dishonesty alleged)—

      (a)in subsection (1)—

      (i)after the word "his", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice or any employee thereof';

      (ii)after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, such incorporated practice";

      (b)in subsection (2)—

      (i)in paragraph (a), there shall be inserted at the end the words "or, as the case may be, such incorporated practice";

      (ii)in paragraph (b), there shall be inserted at the end the words "or, as the case may be, of which the

      717
      incorporated practice or one of its employees is a sole trustee or it is a co-trustee only with one or more of its employees.".

      17. In section 39 (Council's powers where delay alleged)—

      (a)in subsection (1)—

      (i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

      (ii) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

      (iii) after the word "employees" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice or one of its employees was the sole trustee or it was a co-trustee only with one or more of its employees";

      (iv) after the word "solicitor" where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

      (b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) after the word "solicitor", where first and lastly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

      (ii) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

      (iii) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, to that incorporated practice.".

      18. In section 40 (Council's powers where failure to comply with accounts rules etc.)—

      (a) in subsection (1)—

      (i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

      (ii) after the word "solicitor", where secondly and thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

      (iii) after the word "his" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

      (iv) after the word "section", where lastly occurring, there shall be inserted "(a)";

      (v) for the words "and the certificate" there shall be substituted the following "; or, as the case may be—

      (b) withdraw the practising certificate or certificates of any or all of the solicitors who are directors of the incorporated practice,

      and a certificate so withdrawn";

      (b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice that it";

      (ii) after the word "solicitor" where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

      (iii) for the words from "and" onward there shall be substituted the words "or solicitors concerned and shall restore to him or them any practising certificate or certificates held by him or them for the practice year then current.".

      (c) in subsection (3) for the word "the", where secondly occurring, there shall be substituted the word "a".

      19. In section 41 (appointment of judicial factor)—

      (a) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

      (b) after the word "solicitor" where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

      (c) for the words "in connection with his practice as a solicitor" there shall be substituted the words ", in the case of a solicitor, in connection with his practice a ssuch";

      (d) after the word "arise" there shall be inserted the following "; or

      (c) that, in the case of an incorporated practice, either —

      (i) its liabilities exceed its assets, or

      718

      (ii) its books, accounts and other documents are in such a condition that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain definitely whether its liabilities exceed its assets, or

      (iii) there is reasonable ground for apprehending that a claim on the guarantee fund may arise";

      (e) after the word "solicitor", where fourthly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, of the incorporated practice";

      (f) after the word "solicitor", where fifthly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

      (g) for the words "the solicitor's" there shall be subsitiuted the word "such".

      20. In section 42 (distribution of sums in client bank account)—

      (a) in subsection (1)—

      (i) after the word "(2)" there shall be inserted the words "or (2A)";

      (ii) after the word "solicitor", where first occuring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

      (iii) after the word "him", where first and thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it";

      (iv) after the word "clients", where firstly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it on behalf of its clients";

      (v) after the word "solicitor", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

      (vi) after the word "behalf', where secondly occurrring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it on their behalf;

      (vii) after the word "him", where lastly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it";

      (b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) The events to which subsection (1) applies are in relation to any incorporated practice—

      (a) the making of an administration or winding up order or the appointment of a provisional liquidator, liquidator, receiver or judicial factor; or

      (b) the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding-up (other than one passed solely for the purposes of reconstruction or amalgamation with another incorporated practice)";

      (c) in subsection (3)—

      (i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or. an incorporated practice";

      (ii) after the word "his", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

      (iii) after the word "client", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice on that behalf';

      (b) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it";

      (v) after the word "name" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice in its own name".

      21. In section 43 (Guarantee Fund)—
      (a) in subsection (2) after the words "part of there shall be inserted "(a)" and at the end there shall be inserted "; or
      (b) any incorporated practice or any director, manager, secretary or other employee of an incorporated practice, nothwithstanding that subsequent to the commission of that act it may have ceased to be recognised under section 34(1A) or have been wound up";

      719
      (c)in subsection (3), after paragraph (c), there shall be added the following—
      "(cc) to an incorporated practice or any director or member thereof in respect of a loss suffered by it or him by reason of dishonesty on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other employee of the incorporated practice in connection with the practice";
      (d)in subsection (7)(c) there shall be inserted at the end the following "or in the employment of an incorporated practice".
      22. In section 44 (professional indemnity)—

      (a)in subsection(1) —

      (i) after the word "solicitors", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices";

      (ii) in pargraph (c) after the word "solicitors", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices or any specified class thereof';

      (b) in subsection (3)—

      (i) in each of paragraphs (b) and (c) after the word "solicitors", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices or any class of incorporated practices";

      (ii) in paragraph (f) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice" and after each of the words "he" and "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

      (iii) in paragraph (g) after the word "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices";

      (c) in subsection (5) there shall be inserted at the end the words "and, as respects incorporated practices, means any liability incurred by it which if it had been incurred by a solicitor would constitute such civil liability";

      23. In section 45 (safeguarding interests of clients of solicitors struck off or suspended)—

      (a) in subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and, in relation to any incorporated practice, the recognition under section 34(1A) of which is revoked";

      (b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "In the case of a solicitor,";

      (ii) after the words "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

      (c) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2A) In the case of an incorporated practice, it shall within 21 days of the material date satisfy the Council that it has made suitable arrangements for making available to its clients or to some other solicitor or solicitors or incorporated practice instructed by its clients or itself—

      (a) all deeds, wills, securities, papers, books of accounts, records, vouchers and other documents in its possession or control which are held on behalf of its clients or which relate to any trust of which it is sole trustee or co-trustee only with one or more of its employees; and

      (b)all sums of money due from it or held by it on behalf of its clients or subject to any trust as aforesaid.";

      (d) in subsection (3)—

      (i) after the word "solicitor" in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

      (ii) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, any director, manager, secretary or other employee of the incorporated practice";

      (e) in subsection (5), after the word "practice" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the recognition under section 34(1A) is revoked.".

      24. In section 47 (restriction on employing solicitor struck off or suspended)—

      (a) in subsection (1)—

      ((i)) after the word "solicitor", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and, unless it has such permission, an incorporated practice shall not";

      (ii) after the word "his", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the word "or, as the case may be, its";

      (b) in subsection (3) after the words "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

      (c)in subsection (4) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and if any incorporated practice so acts its recognition under section 34(1A) shall be revoked.".

      25. In section 49 (investigation by lay observer of Society's treatment of complaients), in subsection (1) after the word "solicitor", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or about an incorporated practice or an employee thereof'.
      26. In section 51(2) (complaints to Discipline Tribunal) after the words "client)" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice may have failed to comply with any provision of this Act or of rules made under this Act applicable to it".
      27. In section 52(1) (procedure and powers of Discipline Tribunal) there shall be inserted at the end the words "or an incorporated practice".
      28. In section 53 (powers of Discipline Tribunal)—
      (a) in subsection (1) there shall be inserted at the end—
      "; or

      (c) an incorporated practice has been convicted by any court of an offence, which conviction the Tribunal is satisfied renders it unsuitable to continue to be recognised under section 34(1A); or

      (d) after holding an inquiry into a complaint, the Tribunal is satisfied that an incorporated practice has failed to comply with any provision of this Act or of rules made under this Act applicable to it.".

      (b) in subsection (2) (powers of Discipline Tribunal)—

      (i) in paragraphs (c) and (d) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice".

      (ii) in paragraph (e) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

      (iii) after paragraph (e) there shall be added the following—"or

      (f) order that the recognition under section 34(1A) of the incorporated practice be revoked".

      (c) after subsection (6) (effective date of striking off or suspension of solicitor) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(6A) Where the Tribunal order that the recognition under section 34(1A) of an incorporated practice be revoked, the Tribunal shall direct that the order shall take effect on such date as the Tribunal specifies, being a date not earlier than 60 days after its order is intimated to the incorporated practice, and such an order shall take effect accordingly.".
      (d) in subsection (7) after the word "(6)" there shall be inserted the words "or (6A)" and for the words "that subsection" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (6) or, as the case may be, subsection (6A)".
      29. In section 54 (appeals by solicitors from decisions of the Discipline Tribunal)—

      (a) in subsection (1) for the word "him" there shall be substituted the words "that person";

      (b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) after the word "Where" there shall be inserted "(a)";

      (ii) after the word "effect", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted—

      721

      (b) the Tribunal has ordered the revocation of the recognition under section 34(A) of an incorporated practice, the incorporated practice may within 21 days of the date when the order is intimated to it apply to the court for an order varying (subject to the limit of 60 days referred to in subsection (6A) of section 53) the direction under that subsection;"

      30. In section 60 (offence for notaries public to act for unqualified persons) in subsection (2) there shall be inserted at the end the words "but "unqualified person" does not include an incorporated practice".
      31. In section 61 (protection of banks)—

      (a) in each of subsections (1) and (2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

      (b) in subsection (3) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice" and after that word, where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice".

      32. In section 64 (service of notices) there shall be inserted at the end the words "or, in the case of an incorporated practice, if it is left at, or delivered or sent by post to, its registered office".
      33. In section 65(1) (interpretation) after the definition of "functions" there shall be inserted the following—
      "incorporated practice" has the meaning given by section 34(1A)(c);"
      34. In Schedule 3 (The Scottish Solicitors' Guarantee Fund)—
      (a) in paragraph 1—
      (i) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs —
      "(2A) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to solicitors who are directors of incorporated practices.
      (2B) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be paid to the Society on behalf of the Guarantee Fund by every incorporated practice in respect of each year during which, or part of which, it is recognised under section 34(1 A) a contribution (hereafter referred to as an "annual corporate contribution") in accordance with the scale of such contributions referred to in subparagraph (3).

      (ii) in sub-paragraph (3) there shall be inserted at the end the words "and the scale of the annual corporate contributions to be so paid, which scale shall be fixed by reference to factors which shall include the number of solicitors who are directors or employees of each of the incorporated practices to which the scale relates.";

      (iii) in sub-paragraph (4) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "and no annual corporate contribution by an incorporated practice";

      (iv) in sub-paragraph (5) for the words "a special", where secondly occurring, there shall be substituted the words "upon every incorporated practice a contribution (hereafter referred to as a "special corporate contribution") in accordance with a scale of such contributions fixed by the Council as under sub-paragraph (3), and a special or special corporate";

      (v) in paragraph 1(8) after the word "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "or of an incorporated practice";

      (b) in paragraph 3(2) after the word "solicitors", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices" and after that word, where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice or practices";

      (c) in paragraph 4(2) after the word "employee" there shall be inserted the words "or the incorporated practice in question or its employee";

      (d) in paragraph 5(2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice".

      35. In Schedule 4 (constitution, procedure and powers of Tribunal)—

      (a)in paragraph 9—

      722

      (i) after the word "solicitor", where first and secondly occurring, there shall be inserted respectively the words "or an incorporated practice" and "or the incorporated practice"; and

      (ii) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

      (iii) after the word "solicitor" where thirdly and lastly occurring there shall be inserted, in each case, the words, "or, of failure on the part of the incorporated practice to comply with arty provision of this Act or of rules made under this Act";

      (b) in paragraph 10 (duty of Discipline Tribunal) to give respondent solicitor notice of complaint)

      (i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

      (ii) after the words "him" and "his" there shall be inserted respectively the words "or, as the case may be, it" and "or, as the case may be, its".

      (c) In paragraph 16 —

      (i) in each of paragraphs (c) and (d) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

      (ii) after paragraph (d) there shall be added—"or

      (e) order that the recognition under section 34(1A) of an incorporated practice be revoked";

      (iii) for "(d)" where secondly occurring, there shall be substituted "(e)";

      (iv) after the word "court", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or under section 53(6A) which has not been varied by the court";

      (v) after the word "roll", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or as to revoking the recognition under section 34(1A) of an incorporated practice".

      Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 c. 46
        Building Societies Act 1962 (c. 37)
        36. In section 34(4) (restriction on commissions for introduction of business) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "(including that of an incorporated practice within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980)".

        Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 43)
        37. In section 6(3)(a) (exclusion of certain solicitors from giving legal aid) the word "or" immediately preceding subparagraph (iii) shall be omitted and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following—
        "or
        (iv) in the case of a director of an incorporated practice, such conduct on the part of any person who is for the time being a director of the incorporated practice. ".

        Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (c. 10)
        38. In sections 481(3) and 490(3) (savings for solicitors in relation to certain requirements to furnish information to Inland Revenue) any reference to a solicitor shall include a reference to an incorporated practice within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 and any reference to a solicitor's client shall, in relation to a solicitor who is a director, manager, secretary or employee of such a practice, be construed as a reference to a client of that practice.
        Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972 (c. 50)
        39.In section 5(2) (definition of "the solicitor" for purposes of rules relating to payment of certain charges or fees), after the word "solicitors", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or by an incorporated practice (within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980") and after that word, where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words", incorporated practice".
        Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38)
        40. In section 1(2)(a) (disapplication of Act to practising solicitors and their employees) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or by an incorporated practice (within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980) or a person employed by it".

        Finance Act 1980 (c. 48)
        41. In section 30(5) (saving for solicitors in relation to requirement to furnish certain information to Inland Revenue) any reference to a solicitor shall include a reference to an

        723
        incorporated practice and any reference to a solicitor's client shall, in relation to a solicitor who is a director, manager, secretary or employee of an incorporated practice within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, be construed as a reference to a client of that practice.

        PART II"
        No. 49, in page 42, line 41, after "solicitor" insert "or incorporated practice".
        No. 60, in the Title, line 4, after "children;" insert "solicitors;".
        I have to inform the House that amendment No. 48 involves privilege.
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendments are simple in essence and introduce a matter of some novelty in Scotland. They allow Scottish solicitors to incorporate themselves into companies under the Companies Acts, instead of being able to practise only as individuals or in partnership. Similar provision has already been made for English solicitors in the Administration of Justice Bill, and these amendments have the support of the Law Society of Scotland.
        Hon. Members may wonder why such a simple change requires such lengthy amendments. It is because it seemed sensible to go through each provision of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 making clear to what extent it is to apply to the new incorporated practices, and hon. Members will have noted that most of the amendments are variations on the theme after "solicitor", insert "or incorporated practice". We have also decided to proceed by amending the 1980 Act rather than producing separate, free standing provisions, so that almost all provisions on Scottish solicitors will be found in a single Act. The 1980 Act will, of course, be reprinted with the amendments in "Statutes in Force" and will also be easily available in its revised form to Scottish practitioners in the "Parliament House Book". Because of the length of the provisions, an amendment has been tabled to include a reference to solicitors in the Long Title.
        The amendments provide that the incorporated practices, although not themselves solicitors, will in general be able to do the things which a solicitor can—other, of course, than such things as appearing in court which, by their nature, require an individual. The shareholders and directors of the incorporated practices will generally have to be practising solicitors and will, therefore, be persons who are subject to professional discipline as individuals. It will be an offence to pretend to be an incorporated practice as it is at present to pretend to be a qualified solicitor.
        Incorporated practices will be subject to the same disciplinary procedures and rules, with some modification, on such matters as accounts, as are individual solicitors. They will also have to contribute to the Scottish solicitors guarantee fund and to be covered by idemnity insurance. There will therefore be no diminution in the protection afforded to solicitors' clients whose interests the Government and the Law Society agree must remain paramount.
        The matter was not debated in detail in this House, either in Committee or on Report, but in view of the provisions that have already been made for England and Wales and of the considerable consideration that has already been given to the issue by the Law Society of Scotland, I hope that the amendments commend
        724
        themselves to the House. It may seem odd to bring in such lengthy amendments at this stage, but this is a worthwhile opportunity to seize, and I know that it is much appreciated by the Law Society of Scotland.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 45 agreed to.

      Clause 59

        CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
        Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 41, line 9, after "54" insert
        "(Amendments of certain controls in relation to the provision of pharmaceutical services)"
        5.45 pm
        Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following Lords amendments: No. 61, in the Title, line 5, leave out "and".
        No. 62, in the Title, line 5, after "stocks" insert
        "and the control of pharmaceutical services".
        Mr. MacKay:The amendments were consequential to a new clause on pharmaceutical services which was inserted in another place and subsequently deleted. The amendments therefore no longer serve any purpose and should also be deleted.
        Mr. Ewing: I expected a much better and more extensive explanation from the Minister. Perhaps he had to drop his children off at school today and did not have time to get properly briefed on the background to this matter.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) thanked the Minister for something that had been inserted on Report in another place, and I am grateful to the other place for deleting on Report something that was inserted during the Committee stage there. This is a much more important matter than the Minister conveyed with his few brief and curt remarks. The background must be explained for the benefit of the House and, particularly, the public.
        The Government have been negotiating a new contract with the pharmaceutical societies in England and Wales and in Scotland. As part of that, a deal has been struck that pharmacies that dispense fewer than 1,300 prescriptions a month will be subject to a buy-out arrangement which is to be jointly financed by the pharmaceutical societies and the Government. Such an arrangement would have had far-reaching effects in many parts of Scotland and may yet have such effects if the Government introduce primary legislation to implement a contract whose terms we have not yet seen in writing. There are 290 pharmacies in Scotland that dispense fewer than 1,300 prescriptions a month, and most of them are in rural areas.
        The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is not present. I do not make a point of that, but it was interesting to note that the day after the Government suffered the defeat that led to the House being recommended to reject these amendments, the hon. Member tabled an early-day motion — which still stands on the Order Paper, supported by a fair number of Tory Members — congratulating the other place on the defeat that it had inflicted on the Govenment and the removal from the Bill of the provisions to which the Ministry briefly referred.

        725
        I must make it clear to the Minister that what happened in this case is not acceptable. The Department of Health and Social Security in England and Wales backed away from this proposal, on legal advice. The DHSS had intended to pursue the proposal, but it took legal advice and announced that it would deal with the matter through primary legislation. I took that to mean legislation in the next Session, though that was not stated specifically. The Scottish Office knows full well that the Department of Health and Social Security in England and Wales has been given legal advice against going ahead with it at this stage, and that the matter should be dealt with in primary legislation. Once again, the Scottish Office is prepared to subject the people of Scotland to something from which the Government have backed away in England and Wales. In passing, may I say that this seems to be revaluation all over again.
        I have made inquiries and tried to obtain a copy of the negotiated contract, but I understand that it is not yet in written form. I am trying to be as gentle as I can with the Minister. But it is important that, as soon as the contract is in written form, copies are placed in the Library so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can see in detail what the contract means for pharmacists in their constituencies. The loss of 290 pharmacies in Scotland is not acceptable.
        I am not saying that if and when the legislation is introduced Opposition Members will oppose it root and branch. Although I cannot speak for Conservative Members, I suspect that sonic will share our view that the legislation will be judged not with regard to the interests of the pharmacists, and even less the interests of the Government's spending programmes, but on its benefit or damage to patients or consumers.
        For the past three years Scottish Members—this does not apply to English Members— have been receiving letters from constituents about proposals to close the school of pharmacy at Heriott Watt university. We have sent those letters to Ministers and received the standard reply—that it is part of the Government's attempt to cut public expenditure. I accept that answer, but what makes me so angry is the attempt to bring the measure in through the back door. There is a conspiracy between the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the Government to limit the number of students entering pharmacy school. That conspiracy has led to proposals for the closure of the school of pharmacy at Heriott Watt university. The contract extends throughout the United Kingdom.
        There is a provision to set up pharmacy committees for each area health board in Scotland and for the equivalent in England and Wales. The pharmacy committees are to have extensive powers. The committee will consist of three local pharmacists, three members of the area health board and an independent chairman. How independent is independent? It is difficult to understand who could be an independent chairman in those circumstances. The committees will he all-powerful. The pharmacy committee will decide whether an application to receive a National Health Service contract is granted. The committee will also have the right to lay down conditions and standards that the pharmacist and, I suspect, his premises must meet before the contract is granted. There would be no appeal against the decision of the pharmacy committee.
        I appreciate that you have been very tolerant with me. Mr. Deputy Speaker. This issue is far too important to be
        726
        allowed merely to slip past tonight without any comment on the background to the reasons why the Government have urged the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.
        I am grateful for the opportunity to alert hon. Members on both sides of the House to what is going on. The legislation will not only affect Labour constituencies. I do not wish to be political about this, which will surprise the Minister, but the strong balance of probability is that it will have a greater and more devastating effect in Conservative constituencies—although it will affect my constituency. I wish to give a warning and fire a shot across the bows of the Minister and his colleagues. By the time this legislation is introduced, the Government will have been forgiven for dragging it in through the back door. It will be judged not on the back-door methods, but en the advantages or disadvantages to the patients who have their prescriptions dispensed at pharmacies.
        Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) is right about the amendments having greater significance than might appear at first, but he is wrong in many other respects.
        The amendments have a profound effect on the pharmaceutical business in the whole of the United Kingdom, not only in Scotland. The defeat last week in the other place is a defeat not for the Government but. sadly, for the community and the rural pharmacies. For the past two years the national pharmaceutical negotiating committee in England and Wales and its Scottish equivalent have been negotiating jointly with the Department of Health and Social Security, the Minister for Health and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
        I am sure you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the small hours of a winter morning, I raised the future of the community and rural pharmacists on an Adjournment debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East was not present to hear it. At that time, there was grave concern, as there still is, for the future of the community and rural pharmacists. Pharmacists felt that the negotiations for their future contract were unduly prolonged, that no end was in sight, and that as a result many association members were likely to suffer severe financial hardship and, in some cases, bankruptcy. The negotiations continue. Before the summer recess an agreement was reached between the two negotiating committees in Scotland and in ngland and Wales with the respective Ministers. A new contract was drawn up that was endorsed overwhelmingly by pharmacists. The contract covered not only remuneration but the service that pharmacists wish to provide to the community. It is absolutely correct to say that the provisions of the new contract would have had an effect on some pharmacists who issued fewer than 16,000 scrips a year. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, East rightly said, 300 pharmacists would undoubtedly have suffered severely financially. As I understand it, there was no suggestion of an enforced buy-out——.
        Mr. Ewing rose——.
        Mr. Gale: I shall give way in a moment. However, provision was made for compensation for those who wished to leave the business. We know that some small pharmacists actively wished to take that opportunity.
        6 pm
        Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman covered the point that I wanted to raise in an intervention. It relates to a difference of opinion between us. He speaks of "compensation" while I speak of a "buy-out". The documents from the Scottish Office and other sources make it clear that the buy-out was to be financed jointly by the Government and the Pharmaceutical Society. The Pharmaceutical Society would not have made the contribution expected of it unless its remaining members would receive substantial improvements in their remuneration and income.
        Mr. Gale: Like the hon. Gentleman, I, too, must confess that I have not seen the contracts and, therefore, we are both working a little in the dark. However, the representatives of the negotiating committee have assured me that its members were satisfied with the options offered, and that there was to be no compulsion of any kind, but an offer of compensation for those who wished to take it. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
        In addition to that arrangement, provision was made to deal with a problem which was and still is escalating—the leapfrogging of pharmacists closer to doctors' surgeries. That mitigates heavily against rural pharmacists —exactly those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. When a pharmacist opens a shop he takes business from another pharmacist half a mile from the surgery, who in turn has a choice either to move closer to the surgery or to go to the wall. The poor rural pharmacist and genuine community pharmacist who provide extremely valuable service—as I serve a partly rural constituency I am well aware of this—are in dire trouble. They came to me mid-winter last year seeking assistance because their foreseeable future, if not destroyed, had been severely threatened by the failure to pass the legislation.
        In addition to the agreements, the Department and the Scottish Office decided to introduce through the family practitioner committee and the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee in Scotland regulations to allow those respective committees to license, not existing, but new pharmacies, to put an end to leapfrogging and to prevent the further extension of what is rapidly becoming nonsense for the Health Service and those who seek to practise. This clause would have dealt with that.
        A relevant side issue is that the result of the negotiations would have meant a £4 million a year saving for the Health Service. That sum was to be ploughed back into exactly the kind of further benefits which pharmacists wished, and still wish, to provide —counselling services, assistant pharmacists, and other benefits for the entire community, rural and otherwise. That agreement was reached for Scotland, England and Wales prior to the summer recess, and pharmacists confidently expected that those regulations would be in force by now.
        My hon. Friend the Minister for Health took further legal advice and decided that he did not have the power to introduce the regulations. My hon. Friend the Scottish Minister with responsibility for health took advantage of the legislation before the House to have introduced in the other place a clause which would at least have given the Scottish Office the power to allow Scottish pharmacists to take the lead, as Scotland so often does. In that way the new contract would at least have been introduced in Scotland. However, because of the machinations of Lord Ross and others the baby has been thrown out with the bath
        728
        water, and Scottish pharmacists will not only not get their new contract, which has been under negotiation for two years, as has the English and Welsh one, but will not even be brought into line with United Kingdom legislation. As I said, that is a defeat not for the Government, but for pharmacists and, therefore, the communities that they serve.
        If my hon. Friend the Minister bumps into the Secretary of State for Social Services, will he mention that hon. Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies are worried at the outcome of the matter, and wait with bated breath to know what new moves will be taken to resolve the negotiating difficulties that pharmacists face? Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to tell the House tonight how he and his Department propose to resolve the problem for the Scottish pharmacists who have been badly let down in another place?.
        Mr. James Wallace: In the narrow issue before the House I agree with the Minister that we should disagree with the Lords amendment. This is merely a tidying up matter, consequential on the main vote of the other place last week. I am informed that, apart from the Lord Advocate, no one was prepared to speak in favour of the clause.
        The hon. Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) told the House why the step taken in the other place was correct. It appears that the Department decided that the matter could not be dealt with during the present Session, and probably required primary legislation, and that Scotland would be bounced into accepting the measure through a late amendment tabled in the other place. Although the matter is being debated this evening, it is not subject to the scrutiny that would have occurred if it had been part of the original Bill. It would have been extensively debated on Second Reading, in Committee—members of the Committee will agree that on the whole our debates were constructive—and on Report before reaching the other place.
        The hon. Member for Thanet, North made it clear that the measures were important and wide-ranging. He accepted the principal criticism of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that the proposals would hit hard pharmacists in sparsely populated rural areas such as the one I represent. In Orkney and Shetland, where there are no pharmacists for many miles, doctors must already dispense prescriptions. I continue to receive letters from those doctors. The limited list has put them in an invidious position, and they find that they must prescribe privately for patients when the drug that a patient requires is not on the list. Many doctors find that wholly unacceptable, and it goes against the grain. That serves to illustrate the important consequences which would have followed had the amendment not been defeated in another place. I believe that it is incumbent on the Minister to tell us what the Government's intentions are and not to leave us with his brief but correct opening remarks.
        Mr. John Hannam: I shall be brief in speaking in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). The decision that was taken in another place will have far-reaching implications. I shall not deal with Scottish matters because I know that the problems are different there.
        If the contract applied to the issuing of new NHS pharmacy contracts, the many small pharmacists who it is

        729
        thought might lose their pharmacies would be reduced considerably. I know that in England and Wales the numbers are low—they amount to 30 or 40—but the figures that have been quoted for Scotland are extremely high. I accept that there may be special considerations when dealing with Scotland.
        It would seem that the problem is acute. The negotiations that have taken place to try to secure agreement on the contracts were approved unanimously by the general council of the Pharmaceutical Society, which included Scottish interests. It is important that we achieve some resolution of what will be an ongoing problem throughout Scotland, England and Wales.
        I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give us some inkling of the Government's intentions. The objectives are to secure a better use of NHS resources and a properly controlled network of pharmacies throughout the country, and to overcome the difficulties which have developed over the years, especially with rural pharmacies. I hope that my hon. Friend will give a fuller explanation of the Government's legislative plans.
        Mr. John MacKay: As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, I did not say too much in my remarks when asking the House to disagree with the Lords in the amendment. The amendments that we are discussing are extremely small or limited and arise because I am not asking the House to agree with the amendments which were made in another place. Their Lordships chose not to accept the Government's invitation to amend these provisions in a certain way when the Bill was before them.
        As there has been a discussion this evening, I shall say a few words about the amendments. My hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) have a greater grasp of the issue than the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has decided to keep his options open by telling the House that he was not exactly asking the Opposition to vote against any legislation that will be forthcoming.
        The principle of the clause, which was defeated in another place, was to provide the Secretary of State for Scotland with the power to make regulations modifying the health boards' obligation to admit to their pharmaceutical lists every qualified person who asks for admission. That was what the clause provided. If that clause had been passed in another place, any regulations made under it would have been subject to the negative resolution procedure and thus the House would have been able to debate the regulations. I do not think that we were rushing through Parliament a proposal that would have prevented the regulations from being discussed. The regulations were the all-important factor.
        6.15 pm
        I think that all Scottish Members received a letter from the Pharmaceutical General Council of Scotland dated 18 October. Colin Virden, the secretary, wrote
        "the proposals in the Minister's new contract package have the unanimous support of the Pharmaceutical General Council, which represents retail pharmacists throughout Scotland".
        Equally, the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, Scottish Department, has confirmed support for the proposed legislation, which it considers would be greatly to the benefit of both the public and the profession in Scotland.
        730
        The new contract provides for compensation to small pharmacies which are uneconomical from the point of view of the contractor and from that of the Health Service which are run by pharmacists who wish to terminate their NHS contracts. There would have been provision for compensation. That could have been done, but in the absence of the clause that we invited those in another place to insert there was a danger that someone could have taken compensation and then applied for automatic readmission to the lists. I do not think that hon. Members, especially those on the Opposition Benches, who are for ever telling us how important the Health Service is, would want to see NHS resources used in that wasteful manner.
        The Government and the profession have a shared commitment to providing an NHS pharmaceutical service where it best meets the needs of the patients. We believe that the proposed new contract arrangements would have done that. We contend that they would have ensured a network of pharmacies where necessary and in a way that would be desirable for patient care without extravagant use of NHS resources.
        The greatest misconception was voiced by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who said that all rural pharmacies would suffer. That is not so. There would be safeguards covering the financing of essential small pharmacies, which are mainly but not exclusively in rural areas, by means of special funding arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North said, the idea of making admission to the lists non-automatic was to prevent leapfrogging, which can affect adversely the small pharmacies about which many hon. Members are worried.
        Mr. Ewing: I am sure that the Minister would not want to mislead the House. However, he is giving the impression that the arrangements for essential pharmacies. are contained in the new contract without explaining that for a considerable time there have been arrangements to finance essential pharmacies through the essential pharmacy allowance. Those arrangements are to continue and they are not part of the new contract. No one should be under any misapprehension about that.
        Mr. MacKay: I am not denying that. I did not imply that those arrangements did not exist. However, the accusation has been made that if the new contract came into being the protection of and help for small rural pharmacies would no longer exist. I am saying that that is not true. The financing of essential rural services would be continued by means of special funding arrangements.
        My hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North and for Exeter want to know what the Government intend to do in the situation in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I find ourselves. We remain fully committed to the recent agreements on a new NHS contract for community pharmacists. We intend to introduce at the earliest possible opportunity the legislation that is necessary to control entry to the pharmaceutical list. Any new legislation will cover the agreements reached in England and Wales and those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I cannot predict when it will be possible to introduce such legislation.
        Question put and disagreed to.
        Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 41, line 9, after "28" insert "and 28B".
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will. be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 56, in page 48, line 32, at end insert—

        The Representation of the People Act 1985 (c. 50)
        28B. In Schedule 4, in paragraph 61(b) (amendments of the Representation of the People Act 1983 relating to time limit for prosecutions) after the word "without" there shall be inserted the word "undue"."
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Amendment No. 56 corrects a mistake in paragraph 61(b) of schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 1985. Amendment No. 47 is consequential to that.
        Section 61(b) substitutes a new subsection (2) in section 176 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. New section 176(2) refers, in its application to Scotland, to the execution of a warrant "without delay" instead of "without undue delay", which is the wording used in section 331 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 from which the new section is derived. The amendment converts the reference to "without undue delay" to be consistent with the wording in the 1975 Act.
        Paragraph 61(b) of schedule 4 to the 1985 Act, as enacted, came into operation on 1 October 1985. The amendment to clause 59 of the Bill provides for this amendment to come into operation as soon as practicable after 1 October.
        Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 1
      AMENDMENTS OF LEGAL AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1949 AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980
      Lords amendment agreed to: No. 48, in page 42, line 2, at end insert—
      AMENDMENTS OF LEGAL AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1949 AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980
        PART I

          Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 c. 46
          1. In section 16(1) (appeal to Court of Session against decisions of Council in relation to practising certificates)—

          (a) after the word "where" there shall be inserted "(a)"; and

          (b) after the word "applicant" there shall be inserted ";

          (b) the Council refuse to recognise a body corporate as being suitable in terms of section 34(1A)(b), the body corporate".

          2. In section 18 (suspension of practising certificates)—
          (a) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
          "(1A) If—

          (a) an administration or winding up order, or an appointment of a provisional liquidator, liquidator, receiver or judicial factor has been made in relation to the incorporated practice; or

          (b) a resolution has been passed for the voluntary winding up of an incorporated practice (other than a resolution passed solely for the purposes of reconstruction or amalgamation of the incorporated practice with another incorporated practice),

          the recognition under section 34(1A) of the incorporated practice shall be thereby revoked.";
          (b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection'—
          "(3A) On the occurrence of the circumstances mentioned in—
          732

          (a) paragraph (a) of subsection (1A), the administrator, provisional liquidator, liquidator, receiver or, as the case may be, judicial factor appointed in relation to the incorporated practice;

          (b) paragraph (b) of subsection (1A), the incorporated practice

          shall immediately intimate that fact to the Council.".
          3. In section 21(3) (definition of "consultant" in relation to requirement upon consultants to hold practising certificates).—
          (a) after the word "who" there shall be inserted "(a)";
          (b) after the word "name", where thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted—
          "(b) not being a director of an incorporated practice, causes or permits his name to be associated with that incorporated practice,".
          4. In section 26 (offence for solicitors to act as agents for unqualified persons)—

          (a) in subsection (1)—

          (i) after the word "who" there shall be inserted the words "incorporated practice which";

          (ii) in each of paragraphs (b) and (d) after the word "his" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, its";

          (b) in subsection (3) there shall be inserted at the end the words "but "unqualified person" does not include an incorporated practice".

          5. In section 27 (offence for solicitors to share fees with unqualified person)—

          (a) in subsection (1)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

          (ii) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be. it";

          (b) in subsection (2)—

          (i) after the "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

          (ii) in paragraph (a) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, to it, and after the word "business", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or former director of the incorporated practice":

          (iii) in paragraph (b), after the word "business", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, a director or member of the incorporated practice" and after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

          (iv) in paragraph c) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it"

          6. In section 28 (disqualified solicitors not to seek employment without informing employer)—

          (a) after the word "practice" where thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or by an incorporated practice";

          (b) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

          7. In section 30 (liability for fees of another solicitor)—

          (a) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

          (b) after that word, where secondly and thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

          (c) after the word "he" in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

          (d) after the word "solicitor's" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice's".

          8. Section 31 (offence for unqualified persons to pretend to be solicitors or notaries public) shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and—
          (a) in that subsection (as so renumbered) there shall be inserted at the end the following—
          "In this section, "unqualified person" does not include an incorporated practice";

          733
          (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections
          "(2) Any person (including a body corporate) who either by himself or together with others, wilfully and falsely—

          (a) pretends to be an incorporated practice;

          (b) takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is an incorporated practice,

          shall be guilty of an offence.
          (3) Where an offence under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, the director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.".
          9. In section 32(2) (persons to whom offence of preparing certain documents does not apply) there shall be inserted at the end the following—"; or

          (e) an incorporated practice.".

          10. In section 33 (unqualified persons not entitled to fees etc.) there shall be inserted at the end—
          "This section does not apply to an incorporated practice.".
          11. After section 33 there shall be inserted the following section—

          Privilege of incorporated practices from disclosure etc.
          33A.—(1) Any communication made to or by an incorporated practice in the course of its acting as such for a client shall in any legal proceedings be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if the body had at all material times been a solicitor acting for the client.
          (2) Any enactment or instrument making special provision in relation to a solicitor or other legal representative as to the disclosure of information, or as to the production, seizure or removal of documents, with respect to which a claim to professional privilege could be maintained shall, with any necessary modifications, have effect in relation to an incorporated practice as it has effect in relation to a solicitor.".
          12. In section 34 (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline)—
          (a) in subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices";
          (b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
          "(1A) Rules made under this section may—

          (a) provide as to the management and control by—

          (i) solicitors holding practising certificates or their executors;

          (ii) other incorporated practices of bodies corporate carrying on businesses consisting of the provision of professional services such as are provided by individuals and firms practising as solicitors being bodies the membership of which is restricted to such solicitors, executors and other incorporated practices;

          (b) prescribe the circumstances in which such bodies may be recognised by the Council as being suitable to undertake the provision of any such services;

          (c) prescribe the conditions which (subject to any exceptions provided by the rules) must at all times be satisfied by bodies corporate so recognised if they are to remain so recognised (which bodies, when and for so long as so recognised, are in this Act referred to as "incorporated practices");

          (d) regulate the conduct of the affairs of incorporated practices; and

          (e) provide—

          (i) for the manner and form in which applications for recognition under this
          734
          section are to be made, and for the payment of fees in connection with such applications;

          (ii) for regulating the names that may be used by incorporated practices;

          (iii) as to the period for which any recognition granted under this section shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) remain in force;

          (iv) for the revocation of any such recognition on the grounds that it was granted as a result of any error or fraud;

          (v) for the keeping by the Society of a list containing the names and places of business of all incorporated practices and for the information contained in any such list to be available for inspection;

          (vi) for rules made under any provision of this Act to have effect in relation to incorporated practices with such additions, ommissions or other modifications as appear to the Council to be necessary or expedient;

          (vii) for empowering the Council to take such steps as they consider necessary or expedient to ascertain whether or not any rules applicable to incorporated practices by virtue of this section are being complied with.

          (c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
          "(4A) A certificate purporting to be signed by an officer of the Society and stating that any body corporate is or is not an incorporated practice shall, unless the contrary is proved, be sufficient evidence of that fact.
          (4B) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, provide for any enactment or instrument passed or made before the commencement of section (1A) above and having effect in relation to solicitors to have effect in relation to incorporated practices with such additions, omissions, or other modifications as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.".
          13. In section 35(1) (accounts rules) after the word "solicitors", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices".
          14. In section 36 (interest on client's money)—

          (a) in subsection (1)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

          (ii) after the word "his" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice in its";

          (iii) after the word "solicitor's" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice's";

          (b) in subsection (2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

          (c) in subsection (3)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice'';

          (ii) after the word "solicitor", where lastly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

          (iii) after the word "his" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

          (d) in subsection (4) after the word "client" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice and its client".

          15. In section 37 (accountant's certificates)—

          (a) in subsection (2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practice";

          (b) in subsection (3) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or of an incorporated practice";

          735

          (c) in subsection (5)—

          (i) in paragraph (a) after the word "who" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice which", after the word "firm" there shall be substituted the words "or, as the case may be, of the incorporated practice" and after the word "them" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

          (ii) in paragraph (b), after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice" and after the word "practice" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it has not";

          (d) after subsection (6)—

          (i) in paragraph (a)(iii) after the word "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practices";

          (ii) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, an incorporated practice which satisfies the Council that it";

          (e) in subsection (7)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

          (ii) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

          16. In section 38 (powers of Council where dishonesty alleged)—

          (a) in subsection (1)—

          (i) after the word "his", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice or any employee thereof';

          (ii) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, such incorporated practice";

          (b) in subsection (2)—

          (i) in paragraph (a), there shall be inserted at the end the words "or, as the case may be, such incorporated practice";

          (ii) in paragraph (b), there shall be inserted at the end the words "or, as the case may be, of which the incorporated practice or one of its employees is a sole trustee or it is a co-trustee only with one or more of its employees.".

          17. In section 39 (Council's powers where delay alleged)—

          (a) in subsection (1)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

          (ii) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

          (iii) after the word "employees" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice or one of its employees was the sole trustee or it was a co-trustee only with one or more of its employees";

          (iv) after the word "solicitor" where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

          (b) in subsection (2)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor", where first and lastly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

          (ii) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

          (iii) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, to that incorporated practice.".

          18. In section 40 (Council's powers where failure to comply with accounts rules etc.)—

          (a) in subsection (1)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

          (ii) after the word "solicitor", where secondly and thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

          (iii) after the word "his" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

          736

          (iv) after the word "section", where lastly occurring, there shall be inserted "(a)";

          (v) for the words "and the certificate" there shall be substituted the following "; or, as the case may be—

          (b) withdraw the practising certificate or certificates of any or all of the solicitors who are directors of the incorporated practice,

          and a certificate so withdrawn";

          (b) in subsection (2)—

          (i) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice that it";

          (ii) after the word "solicitor" where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

          (iii) for the words from "and" onward there shall be substituted the words "or solicitors concerned and shall restore to him or them any practising certificate or certificates held by him or them for the practice year then current.".

          (c) in subsection (3) for the word "the", where secondly
          occurring, there shall be substituted the word "a".

          19. In section 41 (appointment of judicial factor)—

          (a) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

          (b) after the word "solicitor" where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

          (c) for the words "in connection with his practice as a solicitor" there shall be substituted the words ", in the case of a solicitor, in connection with his practice a ssuch";

          (d) after the word "arise" there shall be inserted the following "; or

          (c) that, in the case of an incorporated practice, either—

          (i) its liabilities exceed its assets, or

          (ii) its books, accounts and other documents are in such a condition that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain definitely whether its liabilities exceed its assets, or

          (iii) there is reasonable ground for apprehending that a claim on the guarantee fund may arise";

          (e) after the word "solicitor", where fourthly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, of the incorporated practice";

          (f) after the word "solicitor", where fifthly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

          (g) for the words "the solicitor's" there shall be subsitiuted the word "such".

          20. In section 42 (distribution of sums in client bank account)—

          (a) in subsection (1)—

          (i) after the word "(2)" there shall be inserted the words "or (2A)";

          (ii) after the word "solicitor", where first occuring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

          (iii) after the word "him", where first and thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it";

          (iv) after the word "clients", where firstly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it on behalf of its clients";

          (v) after the word "solicitor", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

          (vi) after the word "behalf', where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it on their behalf';

          (vii) after the word "him", where lastly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it";

          (b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

          737
          "(2A) The events to which subsection (1) applies are in relation to any incorporated practice—

          (a) the making of an administration or winding up order or the appointment of a provisional liquidator, liquidator, receiver or judicial factor; or

          (b) the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding-up (other than one passed solely for the purposes of reconstruction or amalgamation with another incorporated practice)";

          (c) in subsection (3)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "on an incorporated practice";

          (ii) after the word "his", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

          (iii) after the word "client", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice on that behalf':

          (b) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it";

          (v) after the word "name" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice in its own name".

          21. In section 43 (Guarantee Fund)—
          (a) in subsection (2) after the words "part of there shall be inserted "(a)" and at the end there shall be inserted "; or
          (b) any incorporated practice or any director, manager, secretary or other employee of an incorporated practice, nothwithstanding that subsequent to the commission of that act it may have ceased to be recognised under section 34(1A) or have been wound up";
          (c) in subsection (3), after paragraph (c), there shall be added the following—
          "(cc) to an incorporated practice or any director or member thereof in respect of a loss suffered by it or him by reason of dishonesty on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other employee of the incorporated practice in connection with the practice";
          (d) in subsection (7)(c) there shall be inserted at the end the following "or in the employment of an incorporated practice".
          22. In section 44 (professional indemnity)—

          (a) in subsection (1)—

          (i) after the word "solicitors", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices";

          (ii) in pargraph (c) after the word "solicitors", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices or any specified class thereof';

          (b) in subsection (3)—

          (i) in each of paragraphs (b) and (c) after the word "solicitors", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices or any class of incorporated practices";

          (ii) in paragraph (f) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice" and after each of the words "he" and "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

          (iii) in paragraph (g) after the word "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices";

          (c) in subsection (5) there shall be inserted at the end the words "and, as respects incorporated practices, means any liability incurred by it which if it had been incurred by a solicitor would constitute such civil liability";

          23. In section 45 (safeguarding interests of clients of solicitors struck off or suspended)—
          738
          (a) in subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and, in relation to any incorporated practice, the recognition under section 34(1A) of which is revoked";
          (b) in subsection (2)—

          (i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "In the case of a solicitor,";

          (ii) after the words "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

          (c) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
          "(2A) In the case of an incorporated practice, it shall within 21 days of the material date satisfy the Council that it has made suitable arrangements for making available to its clients or to some other solicitor or solicitors or incorporated practice instructed by its clients or itself—

          (a) all deeds, wills, securities, papers, books of accounts, records, vouchers and other documents in its possession or control which are held on behalf of its clients or which relate to any trust of which it is sole trustee or co-trustee only with one or more of its employees; and

          (b) all sums of money due from it or held by it on behalf of its clients or subject to any trust as aforesaid.";

          (d) in subsection (3)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor" in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the worth "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

          (ii) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, any director, manager, secretary or other employee of the incorporated practice";

          (e) in subsection (5), after the word "practice" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be. the recognition under section 34(1A) is revoked.".
          24. In section 47 (restriction on employing solicitor struck off or suspended)—

          (a) in subsection (1)—

          ((i)) after the word "solicitor", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and, unless it has such permission, an incorporated practice shall not";

          (ii) after the word "his", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the word "or, as the case may be, its";

          (b) in subsection (3) after the words "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

          (c) in subsection (4) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and if any incorporated practice so acts its recognition under section 34(1A) shall be revoked.".

          25. In section 49 (investigation by lay observer of Society's treatment of complaients), in subsection (1) after the word "solicitor", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or about an incorporated practice or an employee thereof'.
          26. In section 51(2) (complaints to Discipline Tribunal) after the words "client)" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice may have failed to comply with any provision of this Act or of rules made under this Act applicable to it".
          27. In section 52(1) (procedure and powers of Discipline Tribunal) there shall be inserted at the end the words "or an incorporated practice".
          28. In section 53 (powers of Discipline Tribunal)—
          (a) in subsection (1) there shall be inserted at the end;—
          "or

          (c) an incorporated practice has been convicted by any court of an offence, which conviction the Tribunal is satisfied renders it unsuitable to continue to be recognised under section 34(1A); or

          (d) after holding an inquiry into a complaint, the Tribunal is satisfied that an incorporated practice has failed to comply with any provision of this Act or of rules made under this Act applicable to it.".

          739
          (b) in subsection (2) (powers of Discipline Tribunal)—

          (i) in paragraphs (c) and (d) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice".

          (ii) in paragraph (e) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

          (iii) after paragraph (e) there shall be added the following—"or

          (f) order that the recognition under section 34(1A) of the incorporated practice be revoked".

          (c) after subsection (6) (effective date of striking off or suspension of solicitor) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
          "(6A) Where the Tribunal order that the recognition under section 34(1A) of an incorporated practice be revoked, the Tribunal shall direct that the order shall take effect on such date as the Tribunal specifies, being a date not earlier than 60 days after its order is intimated to the incorporated practice, and such an order shall take effect accordingly.".
          (d) in subsection (7) after the word "(6)" there shall be inserted the words "or (6A)" and for the words "that subsection" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (6) or, as the case may be, subsection (6A)".
          29. In section 54 (appeals by solicitors from decisions of the Discipline Tribunal)—

          (a) in subsection (1) for the word "him" there shall be substituted the words "that person";

          (b) in subsection (2)—

          (i) after the word "Where" there shall be inserted "(a)";

          (ii) after the word "effect", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted—

          ";

          (b) the Tribunal has ordered the revocation of the recognition under section 34(A) of an incorporated practice, the incorporated practice may within 21 days of the date when the order is intimated to it apply to the court for an order varying (subject to the limit of 60 days referred to in subsection (6A) of section 53) the direction under that subsection,"

          30. In section 60 (offence for notaries public to act for unqualified persons) in subsection (2) there shall be inserted at the end the words "but "unqualified person" does not include an incorporated practice".
          31. In section 61 (protection of banks)—

          (a) in each of subsections (1) and (2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

          (b) in subsection (3) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice" and after that word, where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice".

          32. In section 64 (service of notices) there shall be inserted at the end the words "or, in the case of an incorporated practice, if it is left at, or delivered or sent by post to, its registered office".
          33. In section 65(1) (interpretation) after the definition of "functions" there shall be inserted the following—

          "incorporated practice" has the meaning given by section 34(1A)(c);"

          34. In Schedule 3 (The Scottish Solicitors' Guarantee Fund)—
          (a) in paragraph 1—

          (i) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—

          "(2A) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to
          solicitors who are directors of incorporated practices.
          (2B) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be paid to the Society on behalf of the Guarantee Fund by every incorporated practice in respect of each year during which, or part of which, it is recognised
          740
          under section 34(1A) a contribution (hereafter referred to as an "annual corporate contribution") in accordance with the scale of such contributions referred to in subparagraph (3).

          (ii) in sub-paragraph (3) there shall be inserted at the end the words "and the scale of the annual corporate contributions to be so paid, which scale shall be fixed by reference to factors which shall include the number of solicitors who are directors or employees of each of the incorporated practices to which the scale relates.";

          (iii) in sub-paragraph (4) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "and no annual corporate contribution by an incorporated practice";

          (iv) in sub-paragraph (5) for the words "a special", where secondly occurring, there shall be substituted the words "upon every incorporated practice a contribution (hereafter referred to as a "special corporate contribution") in accordance with a scale of such contributions fixed by the Council as under sub-paragraph (3), and a special or special corporate";

          (v) in paragraph 1(8) after the word "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "or of an incorporated practice";

          (b) in paragraph 3(2) after the word "solicitors", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices" and after that word, where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice or practices";
          (c) in paragraph 4(2) after the word "employee" there shall be inserted the words "or the incorporated practice in question or its employee";
          (d) in paragraph 5(2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice".
          35. In Schedule 4 (constitution, procedure and powers of Tribunal)—

          (a) in paragraph 9—

          (i) after the word "solicitor", where first and secondly occurring, there shall be inserted respectively the words "or an incorporated practice" and "or the incorporated practice"; and

          (ii) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

          (iii) after the word "solicitor" where thirdly and lastly occurring there shall be inserted, in each case, the words, "or, of failure on the part of the incorporated practice to comply with any provision of this Act or of rules made under this Act";

          (b) in paragraph 10 (duty of Discipline Tribunal) to give respondent solicitor notice of complaint)—

          (i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

          (ii) after the words "him" and "his" there shall be inserted respectively the words "or, as the case may be, it" and "or, as the case may be, its".

          (c) In paragraph 16—

          (i) in each of paragraphs (c) and (d) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

          (ii) after paragraph (d) there shall be added—"or

          (e) order that the recognition under section 34(1A) of an incorporated practice be revoked";

          (iii) for "(d)" where secondly occurring, there shall be substituted "(e)";

          (iv) after the word "court", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or under section 53(6A) which has not been varied by the court";

          (v) after the word "roll", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or as to revoking the recognition under section 34(IA) of an incorporated practice".

          Building Societies Act 1962 (c. 37)
          36. In section 34(4) (restriction on commissions for

          741
          introduction of business) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "(including that of an incorporated practice within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980)".

          Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 43)
          37. In section 6(3)(a) (exclusion of certain solicitors from giving legal aid) the word "or" immediately preceding subparagraph (iii) shall be omitted and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following—
          "or

          (iv) in the case of a director of an incorporated practice, such conduct on the part of any person who is for the time being a director of the incorporated practice.".

          Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (c. 10)
          38. In sections 481(3) and 490(3) (savings for solicitors in relation to certain requirements to furnish information to Inland Revenue) any reference to a solicitor shall include a reference to an incorporated practice within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 and any reference to a solicitor's client shall, in relation to a solicitor who is a director, manager, secretary or employee of such a practice, be construed as a reference to a client of that practice.
          Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972 (c. 50)
          39. In section 5(2) (definition of "the solicitor" for purposes of rules relating to payment of certain charges or fees), after the word "solicitors", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or by an incorporated practice (within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980") and after that word, where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words", incorporated practice".
          Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38)
          40. In section 1(2)(a) (disapplication of Act to practising solicitors and their employees) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or by an incorporated practice (within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980) or a person employed by it".

          Finance Act 1980 (c. 48)
          41. In section 30(5) (saving for solicitors in relation to requirement to furnish certain information to Inland Revenue) any reference to a solicitor shall include a reference to an incorporated practice and any reference to a solicitor's client shall, in relation to a solicitor who is a director, manager, secretary or employee of an incorporated practice within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, be construed as a reference to a client of that practice. — [The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
          Mr. Speaker: Privilege is involved in this amendment. I shall ensure that an entry is made in the Journal.
          Lords amendment No. 49 agreed to.

      Schedule 2

        AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS
        Lords amendment No. 50 agreed to.
        Lords amendment: No. 51, in page 45, line 37, after "court)" insert "(a)".
        The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments:
        No. 52, in page 45, line 40, at end insert
        "; and

        (b) in paragraph (i) of the proviso after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "(as amended by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland Act 1985"."

        No. 54, in page 47, line 12, leave out "section 19 of"
        No. 55, in page 48, line 32, at end insert—

        AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS

          The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985(c. 37)
          28A. In section 27(1) (interpretation) in the definition of "matrimonial home" there shall be added at the end of the words "as amended by section 13(10) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985"."
          The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These are purely drafting amendments.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Lords amendment No. 52 agreed to.
          Lords amendment No. 53, in page 46, line 4, after "cause" insert "proceedings".
          The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          This is a drafting amendment.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 57 agreed to.

        Schedule 3

          REPEALS
          Lords amendment: No. 58, in page 49, line 24, after "words" insert "convicted".
          The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          This is a drafting amendment to correct an omission in the wording of an appeal.
          Mr. Ewing: It is significant that the last amendment with which we shall deal contains the word "convicted'. I think that this is appropriate in relation to the Government.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 59 and 60 agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 61 and 62 disagreed to.
          Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Dewar, Mr. Ewing, Mr. John MacKay, the Solicitor-General for Scotland and Mr. Allan Stewart; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John MacKay.]
          To withdraw immediately.

        European Communities
        6.25 pm
        The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
        That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.
        It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider also the following motion:
        That the draft European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.
        Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.
        Mr. Rifkind: The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—known as NASCO—was established by the convention for the conservation of salmon in the north Atlantic ocean. This convention was opened for signature at Reykjavik on 2 March 1982. NASCO's principal objective is to contribute to the conservation, restoration and rational management of salmon stocks in the north Atlantic, with the aid of the best available scientific information.
        The establishment of the organisation was welcomed by the Government as a significant development in the management of salmon stocks in the high seas, thus having a beneficial effect on salmon stocks in our rivers. We have a strong interest in restricting as far as possible catches of salmon originating from our rivers, but caught in the waters of the Faroe islands and Greenland where they feed —the intercepting fisheries. We hope, therefore, that the convention, through NASCO, will enable these fisheries to be carefully managed and preserved.
        The location of the headquarters in Edinburgh has also been welcomed by the Government—not only for the benefit to the local economy from holding meetings there, but as a recognition of the importance to the United Kingdom as a whole of salmon fishing as a commercial and recreational resource, particularly in remote areas like the Scottish Highlands where it is so important to the tourist industry. We believe, therefore, that it is highly appropriate that the headquarters is located in Scotland. It is, in fact, the first recognised international organisation to be based in Scotland.
        The convention entered into force on 1 October 1983. The European Economic Community is a party to the convention and a member of the organisation, together with Canada, Denmark— in respect of Greenland and the Faroe Islands—Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the United States. The headquarters agreement with the organisation, which implements article 3 of the convention, was signed on 26 April at its new offices in Rutland square, Edinburgh. It will enter into force when the necessary legislation is in place— in other words, once the two draft orders now under consideration have been made.
        As the EC is a party to the convention, it is a Community treaty for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972. It is proposed that the first draft order before the House— that relating to definition of treaties—should be made under section 1(3) of the 1972 Act specifying the headquarters agreement as a Community treaty. This order provides the basis for the second order — that relating to the immunities and
        744
        privileges of NASCO provided by the headquarters agreement, which will be made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. The headquarters agreement implements article 3 of the convention by specifying the privileges and immunities that NASCO is to enjoy in the United Kingdom. This agreement is similar to other headquarters agreements entered into by the United Kingdom with international organisations having their headquarters here—for example, the International Tin Council, the International Lead and Zinc Study Group and the Commonwealth Foundation.
        Certain principal privileges and immunities will be conferred. NASCO will be provided with legal capacity, inviolability of archives, exemptions from taxes on income and capital gains, the same rating relief as is accorded to a diplomatic mission, relief from car tax and VAT and exemption from import duties.
        The representatives of parties will be provided with immunity from suit and legal process in respect of their official acts and inviolability for official papers and documents.
        Staff members of NASCO will be provided with immunity from suit and legal process in respect of their official acts, exemption from income tax, "first arrival" customs privileges and exemption from social security legislation.
        Those privileges and immunities are conferred on a strict basis of functional necessity. The House will note that nobody is given the full immunity from jurisdiction of a diplomatic agent.
        The House will wish to know that NASCO currently employs only two staff members and both are permanently resident in the United Kingdom.
        I believe that NASCO will help protect a valuable and vulnerable resource. Even those among us who are not given to the solitary joys of river fishing will recognise that the disappearance of the salmon from our rivers would represent an irreparable loss; not only in terms of wildlife conservation, important though that is, but for the incalculable effect it would have on commercial salmon fisheries and on tourism in the remotest parts of the land where the local people rely even more heavily on incomes earned during the tourist season. If one takes away the fish, one takes away the fishermen and the incomes they generate.
        I hope therefore that Members on both sides of the House will want to signal their welcome of NASCO to its Edinburgh home by supporting the draft orders before the House, and will join us in making a positive contribution to the preservation of a vulnerable resource.
        6.30 pm
        Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister of State for explaining the orders. Some of the comments that he made are right. The salmon species in Scotland is in almost as grave a situation as the Conservative party in Scotland. It is right that we should be doing something about endangered fish, but I am not so certain about the Conservative party.
        The Minister said that there are only two members of staff working for NASCO, so that will not impose any particular burdens or difficulties on Edinburgh. Like the Minister of State, I represent a constituency in Lothian region and I welcome the fact that this interesting and useful international organisation has located its headquarters in Edinburgh. However, I suspect that the Minister of

        745
        State will agree with me when I say that it is already difficult to find a parking place in Edinburgh without having to compete with people from Canada, Finland or the Faroes who might be able to claim immunity from parking regulations. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
        I hope that we will be permitted to speak about the background to the work of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. There is no doubt that stocks of migratory salmon in British rivers are critically low and declining at an alarming rate. Indeed, it is a pity that we are not talking about immunity for the salmon rather than immunity for the bureaucrats. It is worth while to encourage scientific study and international co-operation in order to protect that and other species, and that is NASCO's function. There is a risk of too much talk and too little action.
        I live near the river Tweed and, although I have never attempted to catch a salmon, I am well placed to witness some of the action that takes place on the river, in the estuary and offshore. Perfectly legitimate net fisheries and sporting anglers are losing out year after year to large-scale illegal fishing. That is compounded on the river Tweed, if I might say so in the presence of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), by the extraordinary phenomenon of legal drift net fishery for salmon off Northumberland.
        Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman declare any interest he might have in that area?.
        Mr. Home Robertson: I have never caught a fish in my life and I do not particularly want to.
        Article 8 of the convention says that one of the functions of the North-East Atlantic Commission with regard to its area shall be
        "to propose regulatory measures for fishing in the area of fisheries jurisdiction of a member of salmon originating in the rivers of other Parties".
        Salmon that originate in Scotland are being intercepted by what are at present legal fisheries off the north-east coast of England. That is causing problens, and I expect some hon. Members may wish to say something about it.
        The Government are constantly saying that they will do something about those problems. A scheme was mooted some years ago for tagging salmon to ensure that only legitimately caught fish could be marketed in this country. We also have the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, but while the Government fiddle, salmon stocks are being exterminated. I believe that the fundamental problem is that the current freshwater fisheries legislation is transparently unfair. It is designed to protect the vested interests of riparian owners and to exclude virtually everyone else. I recognise that it is not appropriate in the debate to raise the need for a complete overhaul of freshwater fisheries legislation, but that is what we ought to be doing sooner or later, preferably sooner.
        We need a framework of freshwater and coastal fisheries management that will command respect from all concerned. It is absurd that so many rivers and estuaries are still under the authority of bodies that are effectively controlled by landowners.
        The river that I know the best is the river Tweed and on the council of the commission that controls the fisheries on that river are two dukes, two earls, one viscount, one marquis, one baronet and four retired officers. It is a bit
        746
        much to expect the ordinary punters of that neighbourhood to have a lot of time for an organisation that is composed of such members.
        Mr. Cranley Onslow: Since the hon. Gentleman claims to speak for the ordinary punter of the Tweed area, would it be fair to tell the House whether he has ever been a Tweed commissioner or whether he owns any land in the area?.
        Mr. Home Robertson: I own land in that area. On one occasion I was a representative commissioner for Berwickshire district council. I was elected to that post, so there is a distinction.
        We wish the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation well. We warn the Government that they must heed the growing scientific evidence about the depletion of salmon stocks. We do not need much in the way of bureaucratic immunity, but we need genuine effective action to protect the salmon species.
        6.37 pm
        Sir Hector Monro: I welcome the orders and the fact that NASCO is to be resident in Edinburgh. Like the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I hope that we shall see action. The action will have to come from a combination of that organisation and the Government. It is depressing that we have made no more progress to assist the survival of the wild salmon over recent years. The words "wild salmon" have crept into our vocabulary since the introduction of farmed salmon. which have been a spectacular success, particularly on the west coast of Scotland.
        Tonight we are interested in conservation, the survival at sea of the migratory salmon and its survival in United Kingdom rivers. If Britain does not set an example, we cannot expect others to take the vital steps that are required internationally. The economy of Scotland and of the areas of England and Wales that have salmon rivers is most concerned about the progress made by that organisation. The rural economy surrounding those rivers is affected, whether it is a question of hotels, shops, travel and tourism or the local authority rates, because the valuation in salmon fishing areas is extremely high, particularly in Scotland. Therefore, the success of salmon fishing is of crucial importance. Employment, the ghillies, other aspects of river management, the construction of boats, angling equipment and clothes are all most important.
        The consumption of salmon is being maintained only because of the great success of farmed fish. I believe that we can now compete with Norway and other parts of the world. If we did not have farmed salmon, salmon from the wild would be extremely scarce because of the overkill of our resources, not by rod but certainly by net. Like the hon. Member for East Lothian, I would not claim to be an active fisherman, but we must look seriously in the world of conservation at drift nets and other methods of fishing in the sea, bearing in mind the migratory nature of the life of a salmon.
        Drift nets, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned, are banned in Scotland, but not in England and Wales. There is exceptional confusion in the Solway area, close to the national boundary between England and Scotland. The area of navigable water is relatively small and there are continual arguments as to the side of the border on which the boats are operating.

        747
        A crucial decision must be made with regard to the Northumberland coast. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will probably speak about that later. I know that it is an old, traditional fishery. Everything would be fine if the people in the area were using the old, traditional methods of catching, with relatively few boats and old-style nets. However, today there is a modern fleet. I was told in July, in answer to a parliamentary question, that there were 121 licences issued by the Northumberland water authority. In the 1950s the average catch was a little over 2,000 fish a year. Last year, 77,200 fish were caught. Therefore, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of salmon caught off the Northumberland coast. It is having a dramatic impact on the number of salmon returning to the Scottish rivers. If they do not return, eventually we shall have no stock.
        I am a member of the Nature Conservancy Council. If the council had responsibility for salmon, I am sure that we would be considering it as an endangered species. We consider the life cycle of birds and other mammals and we know how serious the position will be if we do not conserve what we have.
        I am glad that the new organisation has been set up in Edinburgh, but most of us are aware that all true wildlife lives a precarious existence. There are limits to what we can take from the wild unless sufficient steps are taken to ensure conservation.
        It is obvious that drift netting is the main danger. We have to deal with the problem in relation also to the Greenland fisheries and particularly the Faroes. In addition, we must have consultation with our friends in Ireland about their activities off the Donegal coast.
        As I said earlier, we must put our own house in order. We have to look closely at stake netting and also at the fixed engines. They are important and operate legitimately around our coast but we must, as conservationists, ensure that there is no overkill.
        Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the question of conserving a precarious species, is it not the fact that the danger presented by the English drift net fishermen pales into insignificance when compared with the activities of the Faroese and the Greenland fishermen?.
        Sir Hector Monro: I know that the hon. Gentleman has great expertise in fishing and I will accept that what he says as true, particularly with regard to developments in the Faroes in the past 10 years. It has been very significant and it must be looked at in international negotiation.
        I welcome the inshore fishing regulations that were introduced by the Government in the summer. While not affecting salmon, they prevent mobile gear from sweeping into the bays and estuaries of Scotland and damaging our salmon fishing.
        I am glad that the Government have looked seriously at the problems of salmon poaching, salmon sales and tagging. We must try to resolve those problems as soon as possible. Fishery protection has been stepped up by the introduction of fishery protection vessels, and by the purchase of an aircraft in the past year. It has been very
        748
        effective in dealing with salmon fishing. I pay tribute to our district boards for their part in salmon conservation and for the employment they provide for the water bailiffs.
        I reiterate that, if we are to take salmon conservation seriously, we must look at the problem of drift netting and be prepared to take action. We must also be prepared to negotiate with the Faroese and the Greenland Government about their activities in the Atlantic. I hope that the Minister will comment on that matter in his reply.
        6.45 pm
        Mr. Roy Mason: Although I welcome the establishment on the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation in Edinburgh, I hope that the Government will see fit, after it has been established, to take some positive steps, as a matter of urgency, to reverse the decline in our salmon stocks.
        The two orders before the House are particularly concerned with salmon conservation. Although a number of countries that fish for salmon on the high seas have agreed to quotas, and in some instances have agreed reductions, so far the United Kingdom has not responded in any positive way and is still allowing indiscriminate, wholesale netting, legally and illegally, of the shoals of salmon returning to the United Kingdom rivers.
        There is no doubt that if the United Kingdom does not act soon, our NASCO partners will call for action, or else there may be retaliation by the salmon quota countries, which could abolish their quotas, slaughter stocks and ignore conservation, as a retaliation to our unseemly and selfish attitude to salmon conservation.
        As a result, the Atlantic salmon will go unprotected, its life span as a species will be seriously jeopardised, and Scotland, as well as to a lesser extent England and Wales, will suffer a disastrous decline in salmon searching for their spawning rivers. The economic and financial consequences of such action to sea fishermen in Scotland, to rod anglers and to tourism will be very serious. It could be long-lasting, and perhaps the salmon industry and the related industries would never recover.
        On salmon conservation, at least three major steps should be taken. Drift netting off the north-east coast should cease. Nylon monofilament gill nets should be banned and a more serious attitude adopted by the Government, fishery boards, water authorities, magistrates and courts to the salmon poachers.
        All the major organisations, the Atlantic Salmon Trust, trout and salmon and other conservation associations, have called unanimously for the end of drift netting. It was accomplished along the Scottish coast many years ago, but there is no such restriction along the Yorkshire and Northumberland coastline. It would mean restricting and possibly ending the licensing of fishing vessels using the drift netting technique, and thereby allowing the returning salmon to find their own spawning grounds.
        According to the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the catches declared by the Northumbria and Yorkshire authorities are in the region of 60,000 salmon annually. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimated that 95 per cent. of them are intercepted in their passage to the estuaries of eastern Scotland.
        Mr. Beith: Did not the same Ministry report that the effect that that fishing is supposed to have on the Scottish rivers is not more than 7·5 per cent.? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is talking about the

        749
        livelihood of a great many fishermen and their families, whose fathers and grandfathers before them were also fishermen?.
        Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman has his point of view, and those Conservative Members in the north-east who want to register that point of view today are obviously entitled to do so. but if we are to take salmon conservation seriously, the problem of drift netting has to be tackled.
        In The Times not long ago the chairman of the River Tweed Commissioners said:
        "It is quite scandalous that the Government continues to turn a blind eye to this slaughter of returning Scottish salmon at a time when there is mounting concern over diminishing stocks."
        The chairman went on to say:
        "It is galling that English nets can intercept salmon only a few miles from our rivermouth, using these deadly drift netting techniques which were outlawed in Scotland years ago, and still contribute absolutely nothing to the management costs of the parent river".
        According to statistics prepared by the British Field Sports Society, the north-east drift net fishery has considerably increased its catches in recent years.Between 1950 and 1959 about 2,000 fish were taken per year. Between 1970 and 1979 nearly 5,000 fish were caught per year. But in 1984 alone 7,700 fish were taken. Yet in Scotland the annual sea catch returns show that between 1970 and 1979 about 400,000 fish were taken, while in 1984 this had dropped to 280,000. So there is no doubt that this interceptory drift netting is having a calamitous effect on salmon stocks, on conservation and on legal salmon fishing off Scotland.
        America and Canada have already placed restrictions on their catches. Greenland's salmon quota has been further reduced. Unless they see, as a result of NASCO being formed. the United Kingdom being subjected to a more common objective by the salmon states to conserve, they may have to apply pressure on the United Kingdom to take salmon conservation more seriously.
        The Government must take steps to ban the use of this cruel and deadly nylon monofilament gill net. When I questioned the Minister of Agriculture in December 1983 about a ban, he stated that our fishery scientists were conducting research into the effects of using monofilament nets. I do not know with w hat results, but it has not led to a ban.
        Some research has been done elsewhere. In British Columbia a report on a test which resulted in these nets being banned said:
        "It has been established that mono-filament nets will, under certain conditions, out-fish all other regular gill nets to a degree where serious management of resources would follow … widespread adoption of the gear".
        Some idea of the deadly efficiency of these nets was shown in an experiment in the river inlet fishery. In one week, when the average catch of all ordinary gill net boats was 410, two fishermen using complete monofilament nets took 1,100 and 1,546 fish respectively. Hence the imposition of the ban. Not only is it a deadly piece of equipment, it is cruel too, causing considerable damage to escaping fish which drown as a result of gill injuries, or become diseased and then pollute the rivers. Broken nylon monofilament gill nets become ghost nets hanging in the seas and river estuaries, killing fish slowly as they hang from their gills. Because these nets do not rot like hemp ones, they go on killing and injuring fish, seals and sea birds. Gannets and sea-diving birds have no chance of seeing them because of their invisibility under water.
        750
        The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wildlife Organisation are adamant, as are the Salmon and Trout Association and the Atlantic Salmon Trust, that these nets should be banned. Their use is a form of cruel mass slaughter at sea of one of our finest fish species, the survival of which is undoubtedly being threatened.
        What are the Government doing to curb the mass growth of salmon poaching to help conserve the salmon? It is now no longer the odd man in the village taking one to sell for a couple of pints; it is highly organised, with gangs poaching on a large scale, intimidating bailiffs, wrecking their boats, and having a range of outlets for their ill-gotten gains. Using gas, cyanide and nets, they are emptying our estuaries and rivers of countless salmon.
        Every salmon river in the United Kingdom reports an increase in the discovery of broken illegal nets year after year. This includes the Scottish coastline too. A special article in The Scotsman said:
        "It is no big secret that motor boats from Peterhead and Fraserburgh are to be seen returning at night with their lights off and weighed down with dead salmon, destined to end up remarkably quickly on slabs at Billingsgate. They too, use monofilament gill nets but, unlike England, there is no right here to drift net for salmon off the coast. Peterhead Police say, 'It seems to be increasing and it seems to be a situation which is getting out of hand.'"
        Questioning Lord Belstead in another place in July-1983, Lord Chelwood said:
        "Is my noble friend further aware that, as proof of how serious the decline in Atlantic salmon seems to be, figures seem to show that licensed netsmen in Scotland in the last decade have seen the tonnage caught decline by nearly 50 per cent.? Is this not a really serious matter? … Are we not prepared to face up to it?
        Lord Belstead replied:
        "My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Chelwood that there is undoubtedly evidence of illegal catching of salmon and that it is on a substantial scale. I can assure my noble friend that the Government are well aware of the need for prompt action."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 1983; Vol. 443, c. 1368.]
        Prompt action? What action? The Government started a consultative review, a review of fisheries in England and Wales, in July 1981. Thereafter, a salmon sales group was established and that reported in July 1983. Its report was entitled, "Salmon Conservation—A New Approach." It recommended a salmon-tagging scheme to curb poaching. The report stated:
        "Illegal fishing for salmon and trout has reached epidemic proportions in England and Wales. Impossible to quantify as to extent or effect, reliable, experienced opinion nevertheless holds that in some areas illegal catches regularly exceed the legal and threaten to destroy the resource."
        Over four years ago, the review began. Over two years ago a salmon-tagging scheme was recommended by a team of specialists. As yet we have made no progress. Rod and line anglers and fly fishers are incensed. Tourist returns on fishing in Scotland are on the decline. Fly fishers, of course, have long distances to travel and expensive journeys, and it is still costly on most rivers, but there are fewer and fewer catches and so fewer return to Scotland to catch a salmon with rod and line.
        All who are interested in salmon conservation should ponder what is being lost because there is a case to be made for the promotion of rod fishing at the expense of restricting netting, but especially for recognising that the legal sea netters are not getting the returns that they would like and the illegal ones are not spreading their returns in Scotland or creating much allied industry with their

        751
        operations. Rod fishermen are also incensed that netsmen contribute so little to conservation and restocking when they take so large a portion of the catch.
        A recent survey put the value of the salmon catch on Scottish rivers at £2·6 million a year. Then there are the wages of bailiffs and ghillies, the employment generated in legal netting, in hotels, tackle manufacturers and shops, boat building and hirers, smoking businesses, food processing and fishing holiday sales—all worth scores of millions of pounds to Scotland. That is money often going into otherwise impoverished rural communities in the form of jobs. All is at risk unless something is done to cut back this alarming growth of salmon poaching. Those in Scotland who oppose the salmon-tagging scheme are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
        Another factor that may well bedevil the sea salmon netters is the growth of salmon fish farming. As these fish farms increase in numbers and inland farmed salmon multiply with increased annual production, prices for salmon will tumble. Sea netting may not be worth while. The salmon will then get back up the river and the rod and line angler will benefit. So will all those multifarious activities connected with rod and line salmon fishing. Scotland's tourist industry could benefit enormously and the fly fisher will come back into his own.
        I end as I began. When we are fully participating in the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation we shall have to say clearly to all its members that we take salmon conservation seriously and that we shall at least curtail the use of the drift net, abolish the use of the nylon monofilament net and introduce measures to curb the activities of those criminals who are poaching the seas and rivers of salmon.
        6.59 pm
        Mr. Cranley Onslow: I do not wish to keep the House long because the admirable speech of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) has covered much of the ground that I should have covered. He mentioned one point on which I must correct him. He is being exceptionally optimistic if he supposes that the spread of fish farming and the increase in the numbers of farmed salmon will have the effect that he imagines. There is no evidence to suggest that there is the connection that he sought to draw. Many of us hoped that there might be. but I am afraid that experience has shown that it is an illusion. There will still be the poacher looking for stolen fish, however many farmed fish may reach the market. The House can unfortunately draw no comfort from the point put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
        I should declare an interest. I am chairman of the British Field Sports Society's fishery committee, and a colleague of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on the Salmon and Trout Association Council, and I am involved with the Anglers' Co-operative Association, as is more than one Opposition Member. I am a salmon fisherman. I own a small stretch of river in Wales. During the past five years I have caught the grand total of two fish in it, but not for want of trying. I have also been lucky enough to catch a few fish on other stretches of water.
        I am especially glad to see not just my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but sitting beside him my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll
        752
        and Bute (Mr. MacKay) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been known to hold a rod in his hand from time to time. It is also especially gratifying for the House to have the company, albeit practically silent, of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has a great deal to do with this issue. His predecessor, who has now gone to a harder job, was closely involved with some of the discussions about salmon conservation which have been taking place over the past couple of years.
        If the gentlemen from the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation come to Edinburgh and if the other members of that organisation are to visit Edinburgh, apart from the pleasures of so doing, they may well ask themselves what type of salmon conservation policy their host country has. It may not be easy for them to find the answer if we rely on what we have now, because there is no doubt that the salmon that breed in British waters face the most appalling array of threats to their survival, not all of which have been listed in the debate. We have heard some mention, not unnaturally, of the north-east drift net fishery. The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central quoted some figures, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
        It is significant that the average declared catch from the north-east drift net fishery — anyone who knows anything about that fishery knows there is also a great deal of undeclared catch—between 1970 and 1979 equalled one ninth of the total catch in all Scottish waters, whereas in 1984 the overall declared catch was one quarter of the total catch in all Scottish waters, including all rivers and estuaries.
        Complacent as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) may be about those figures, and anxious though he may be to defend his constituency interest, he cannot brush aside, in the way he sought, the inexorable trend that they show towards the extinction of salmon in some east coast Scottish rivers.
        Mr. Beith: Why does the hon. Gentleman assume that there is a substantial undeclared catch from the sea fishery but no undeclared catch from the river fishery?.
        Mr. Onslow: Because it is much easier for someone fishing the north-east drift net fishery to transfer his catch at night to a Dutch or German trawler to be taken to the continent and sold there. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware that that type of thing happens, he should perhaps make some further inquiries in his area. It is much harder to quantify the poached catch from Scottish rivers, but all the evidence shows that there is much less fish there to start with. The hon. Gentleman could usefully do a little more research on that matter.
        The threat to the salmon is not confined to Scottish east coast rivers. There is a similar threat on the north-west coast of Scotland. I have a letter written by someone from Sutherland referring to the illegal inshore and offshore netting that goes on there. He says:
        "We believe this to be particularly bad on the North West coast. Once the legal nets come off, then practically every crofter or small boat owner is out somewhere with a nylon net."
        If we go round the coast, we come to the estuaries of the rivers Dee and Clwyd. There is an interesting report, dating from 1982, which describes how the poachers work the Dee estuary. It describes how the

        753
        "so-called sea fishermen do catch and take considerable numbers of salmon during the course of a season in addition to their normal catches of sea fish. They simply adjust their activities to the fish that are most abundant at the time and this includes salmon and just by watching the successes or otherwise of the legitimate salmon trammel netsmen can quickly assess the run of fish taking place. They can, if they wish, move into the productive zone of the low water channel pushing out the licensed men and then block the channel completely. There is no fear of retaliation from the licensed salmon netsmen as they are considerably outnumbered and the bailiffs can do little as the practice is perfectly lawful until attempts are made to bring any catch ashore."
        I have a letter dated August 1985 from a Dee water bailiff in which he talks about illegal fishing. He says:
        "this is the real problem, which has escalated dramatically over the five years to such an extent now that I am physically and mentally exhausted. I don't know which way to turn and am seriously thinking of quitting after fourteen years service, because I cannot take any more aggravation, abuse and seeing fish killed and not have any authority to do anything about it. There must be a change in byelaws, and it must come soon. This river to me is dying. This is the worst I have seen on it for migratory fish, and it's been sliding for the last three years. This is the problem … and it is causing a breakdown of morals and laws within the river system, that if some form of check is not brought in then it will be out of hand, because its just like having a supermarket and leaving all the doors open."
        If we go further round the coast, we reach the Torridge, which is a river in Devon that I have fished for over 20 years. I have a report from one of the local angling organisations, which states:
        "In 1982 1,000 Salmon and 3,000 Sea Trout were taken illegally in the estuary of the Taw and Torridge. There was a declared catch of 22 netsmen of 1,394 Salmon and 3,576 Sea Trout. 1982 Rod catch of the Torridge was 46 Salmon, and 460 Sea Trout."
        On that estuary, unless there is enough rain to bring the river down in flood and so make it possible for the fish to run, they wash up beyond Bideford and down again. The netsmen who are working the banks of the Torridge simply scoop up the fish without any restraint or control. It is hardly surprising that most people who know anything about that river regarded it at the beginning of this year as having virtually ceased to be a salmon river.
        We could go on round the coast, but perhaps I can rest with the threats that the salmon face in the estuary. The threat does not come just from the poachers. The Torridge estuary has a bad record of pollution caused by inadequate sewage works. There are other estuaries with similar problems where a great slug of poisoned water washes up and down with the tide and makes it impossible for the salmon to get through to the rivers and live.
        But when salmon get through to the rivers, what do they find? They find the poachers there as well. We have heard tonight of the threat on the river Wye. There has been something like open warfare on the lower Wye where wires have been stretched across the river to catch the bailiffs' boats. Stones have been dropped from bridges. Bailiffs are rightly afraid to go around singly, unless they have a large dog. The Bridport gang, the Monmouth boys and all the other gangs of poachers mentioned by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central know that part of the river well. They know where the fish are and will steal them given half the chance. The task of the water bailiffs on the Wye can be very daunting.
        On the river Esk in Yorkshire, which is nearer to the right hon. Gentleman's part of the country, the poachers have won the battle. They will stone a legitimate angler to get him off the water so that they can poach.
        754
        The situation is not quite the same on the river Dovey in Wales, but poachers have come from Birmingham and Manchester, poisoned the river and scooped up all the fish. Fortunately, in one case they were caught and received severe sentences. We must not ignore that aspect of the fight.
        Pollution is an important factor. It would be a mistake to ignore the fact that water extraction—pumping water out of the river for irrigation, as farmers increasingly do these days — works against the chances of salmon survival because it lowers river levels to a point where they cannot survive.
        Water quality is also affected by run-off from the spreading of fertilisers on riverside fields. That also makes it impossible for salmon parr, salmon smolts and mature salmon to survive in the river.
        Land drainage, which is still heavily subsidised, has the effect of turning rivers into drains and lowering their levels through the years of drought such as we experienced last year and the year before.
        Forestry is another source of drainage. It is a great promoter of acidification because of its effects on run-off. Indeed, it is probably a more serious contributor to acidification of our rivers than the so-called acid rain.
        Finally, there are the pests — the mink, the goosanders and the seals. Seals arouse conflicting emotions in people who do not have the interests of salmon at heart. The Government seem at present to be relying on a document produced by the sea mammals research unit. That paper is based largely on research undertaken, curiously enough, at the kind of place where one would not have found many salmon for the seals to feed on at that time of the year. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has taken a close interest in the problem, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to say and do something about it on another occasion.
        Against that background, it may be thought odd that I should also cavil at the absence of a quota on our own catches of salmon. Certainly it is not worthy that there is no quota imposed by our Government on the United Kingdom salmon catch. We are the largest producer of salmon in the European Community. The Greenlanders and the Faroese wonder why they should suffer under salmon quotas when we, as the largest producer country, cannot get round to imposing a quota on our own catch. The pressure for the acceptance of a quota will mount, and so it should, but the species must first survive for a quota to become a really effective defence.
        I agree that we must have action by the Government, but I disagree with the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central that it is reasonable to suppose that a salmon-tagging scheme would prove as effective a defence here as it may have proved in Canada. In fact, I believe that the Canadians are having second thoughts about it. The French, however, are considering the possibility of introducing such a scheme, and it certainly has theoretical attractions. The difficulty is how to implement it in practice without creating a back door to the black market, which is the very thing that we are trying to prevent. How would the tags be controlled? How can poachers be prevented from obtaining tags? How will imports be controlled? How will fish from fish farms be dealt with? It would be very difficult for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to propose legislation to implement such measures in so convincing a way that the House would pass it without challenge. I am sorry to have to say

        755
        that, because I know that for the past two years the Department has honestly and genuinely been trying to see whether it could make a salmon-tagging scheme look convincing, and I and others have done all that we can to help.
        There is, however, an alternative which I believe would have an equally good effect but be much less cumbersome to administer. It is to reverse the onus of proof and to provide that anyone having a salmon in his possession must show legal title to it—a licence or permit to catch salmon, or a receipt to prove his title, whether the salmon be in a hotel deep freeze or in a council house freezer. Anyone who can show legal possession will have no cause to fear. Only people who cannot establish that legal entitlement will face further inquiries and possible prosecution.
        It has been a cherished principle of our law that the onus of proof should not be reversed without good cause, but in recent years there have been two examples of such a reversal. The first is in the Deer Acts. Secondly, under the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act anyone sending dogs underground is required to show that he is not digging for badgers. Personally, I do not take exception to that. I believe that the onus of proof could be transferred in the same way in this case. I hope that such provision will be foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech so that the poacher can be cut off from the market for stolen fish. I believe that that should be a priority.
        Something must also be done about the north-east drift net fishery—a problem which is confined to part of the United Kingdom salmon conservation issue. I do not agree that it should be stamped out entirely and at once, as some hon. Members wish, but I believe that it is reasonable to provide that the number of endorsees should be severely restricted and that the right to operate a net should apply only when the licensee is in the boat operating the net. That would have a powerful effect. I should also like use of the monofilament net in daylight to be completely outlawed. That, too, would have a powerful and interesting self-policing effect on the use of a device which it may prove harder to stamp out in English than in Scottish waters.
        Sir Michael Shaw: Insistence that the owner of the licence should be in the boat with the drift net might put a considerable number of people out of work if the owner were temporarily unable to go out with the boat due to illness or some other cause. That problem would have to be faced.
        Mr. Onslow: I accept that it could put a number of people out of that line of employment. Whether it would put them out of work altogether is another matter. If that type of fishery is restricted, it is inevitable that some people will be denied that occupation. In that context, my hon. Friend might reflect on the number of ghillies and others on Scottish rivers who are currently being put out of work by the north-east drift net fishery.
        Mr. Bill Walker: A number of ghillies in my constituency have been given notice this year that their jobs are to disappear.
        Mr. Onslow: If the income of an estate is diminished because it can no longer attract fishermen from England,
        756
        Scotland, Wales, France, or wherever, to pay the traditional fishing rent because there are no fish to be caught, the ghillies' jobs will inevitably be at risk. No one is more aware of that than the unfortunate ghillies. I believe the river Tay never ran down to summer level at all this year, although that was purely due to the weather. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) should bear in mind that his drift net fishermen can fish the sea throughout their limited season, but that the possibility of catching fish in rivers depends on the rivers being in order. I believe most salmon anglers in this country are quite prepared to face the consequence of a shift in employment from south of the border to the north. It is not difficult to imagine that for every job that might be lost because the licensee had to be on a boat which would be drift-netting off Northumberland, four or five jobs would be created in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and elsewhere in Scotland.
        Mr. Charles Morrison: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must bear in mind the importance of the employment of extra ghillies and the consequent opportunities for the whole of the Scottish industry?.
        Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is well placed, as he represents an area where all this happens. It is no good promoting Scottish rivers for salmon fishing if the salmon have already been swept up in the North sea's drift net fisheries. This is an important subject because of the employment opportunities that the salmon fishing industry can provide in areas where they are sorely needed, and for the conservation and protection of a scarce species from which many of us have drawn great pleasure, and which many of us enjoy watching as well as fishing for. Not every salmon angler wants to kill every fish he sees or catches — he wants to see fish; he wants to know they are there. What he does when he catches them is up to him. A chance must he a fine thing, and we badly need a chance for the salmon to survive.
        7.22 pm
        Mr. James Wallace: I also welcome the agreement and creation of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. As a Scot, I welcome the fact that its headquarters will be in Edinburgh. Several hon. Members have emphasised the importance of conservation measures, especially with a view to getting more fish going up our rivers. Several hon. Members, in particular the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), have mentioned the importance of salmon fishing to the local economies of many parts of Scotland, its importance to the tourist industry and the jobs that might be created directly and indirectly. The North sea drift net fishermen seem to be the Aunt Sally of the evening, and, as this debate can run for another four hours and eight minutes, if my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have something to say on this important matter.
        We are all sensitive about jobs in our own communities, but I hope that none of us is so bold or brash as to say, "Jobs in my community at the expense of jobs in someone else's community".

        757
        We are talking about fishing which has gone on since time immemorial. There was a vast increase in drift net salmon fishing in the 1960s and a form of licensing was introduced. It may be that further conservation measures will be needed, and licensing is often a means of reconciling conflicting interests. However, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) last week in a Standing Committee lectured me on inshore Scottish fishing and the need for scientific evidence before conservation measures are taken. The Government will not proceed with such measures unless they have scientific evidence.
        Perhaps the Minister will state what scientific evidence the Government have on this matter, or whether they are commissioning any such evidence. One cannot help but see the obvious connection between drift netting in the north-east of England and its immediate impact on the river Tweed. However, there is surely not enough evidence to justify the statement that the loss of one job drift netting off the north-east coast of England could create four jobs for ghillies, jobs on the river Tay. I suspect that the impact declines the further north one goes.
        Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the evidence that shows that 90 per cent. of the fish caught off the north-east coast of England were destined for Scottish waters, including the Tay.
        Mr. Wallace: I accept that 90 per cent. were destined for Scottish waters — most for the Tweed. The report also states that, if one takes account of non-catch fishing mortality, the total effect of English fishing in Scotland would be 7·5 per cent. This underlines the point that there is a need for sound evidence to avoid such generalised statements. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned the Solway firth. It is very difficult to see how it is affected by something on a completely different coast. More is involved than one drift net fishery and several of the other factors, such as poaching, have been mentioned.
        I am impressed with the organisation's first report. It intends to establish a scientific data base so that conservation measures might be more effective. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about the Government's funding of it.
        During the recess, I had an opportunity to visit a research laboratory in the constituency of the Minister, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. We discussed a whole host of problems, although admittedly not the salmon fishery, and it was clear that, like many other research laboratories which are funded substantially publicly, it is having to consider carefully what projects it can undertake because of funding costs. It is important to know what support the Government are giving this organisation.
        A ban on monofilament gill nets has been asked for. The Minister might confirm that the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1985 outlawed such fishing in Scotland. We had debates similar to this on the Report stage of that Bill. How many prosecutions have there been since that Bill was enacted?
        Salmon tagging has been considered at length in the Department. If it is proposed to take tagging a step further, I hope that the administrative and bureaucratic problems that it could pose for those involved in fish farming will be considered. A considerable volume of fish now go through fish farms in the north of Scotland and in my
        758
        constituency. People involved are worried about those potential burdens, which could add significantly to their costs.
        We should consider other means of tackling poaching. I take what the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said about the balance of proof, but I wonder what measures might be involved. There would be howls of protest if it were suggested that the police should be empowered to search domestic deep freezes. All manner of safeguards would have to be considered.
        Mr. Onslow: It would not be necessary for the police to make searches. Members of the public health department might come across salmon in a hotel's deep freeze and reasonably ask where they came from. If any type of enforcement is to be effective, it must be seen through to its logical conclusion.
        Mr. Wallace: I am not certain whether that is possible. I cannot imagine public health authorities having similar access to the council house deep freeze which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned. It is important that we tackle poaching, but we must be careful about civil liberties implications before changing the burden of proof.
        I welcome the orders.
        7.30 pm
        Sir Michael Shaw: This is a serious debate, and the more one hears the views of hon. Members the more one realises that perhaps we should have had a whole day's debate on this subject a long time ago. Perhaps we shall have.
        I was particularly interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). I did not agree with all he said, but he put his finger on the chief problem—illegal fishing, wherever it may be found. His idea of possibly moving towards a quota system may be something for future consideration, but there is no point in having a quota system unless one solves the problem of illegal fishing. The result would be simply to drive everyone into illegal fishing, and that would make the matter worse rather than better.
        We all welcome the setting up in Scotland of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. As every speaker in this debate has said, it raises the whole question of salmon conservation. I am speaking on this subject because of the deep anxiety of many of my constituents. The river Esk is the only salmon river in Yorkshire and in recent years it has become almost denuded of salmon, particularly in its upper reaches. That has had serious consequences not only for those licensed fishermen who have paid their dues and expect proper sport, but also for the future of salmon stocks and the future management of the river.
        The activities of poachers have become so widespread that serious damage and inconvenience are being caused in the harbour and to the boats of the fishing fleet itself. In one instance the lifeboat was fouled by poaching equipment left lying in the water, an incident which in other circumstances could have been extremely serious for those for whom the lifeboat might have been launched. Much blame is being put upon my drift net fishermen. It is claimed that the chief cause of the decline in the number of salmon is the result, mainly, of excessive drift netting off the coast of north-east England. Let me examine this case first.

        759
        It is claimed that there is no control over drift net fishing. Licensed drift netters are, in fact, closely regulated. My drift netters will shortly have to pay £425 for a licence, a vast increase over the cost a few years ago. Nets are restricted in length. In the case of Yorkshire it is 400 yd. The number of drift net licences issued by the Yorkshire water authority is limited to 29. The regulations are there all right, but the trouble is that fishermen are taking up drift netting without a licence.
        Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the length of the nets—I think he said 400 yd. What is the depth of an average net?.
        Sir Michael Shaw: I think it is 15 ft, but I am not absolutely certain. As I say, there are regulations, but fishermen are taking up drift netting without a licence. My licensed drift netters complain to me that little or nothing is done about it, not even, it is said, when offenders are pointed out to the bailiffs. One does not want to be hard on bailiffs because theirs is a difficult job. particularly with the law as it stands, but, when fishing of that sort goes on so obviously and nothing is done about it, it is tremendously discouraging, indeed almost inciting, to licensed drift netters. The complaint cannot be of a lack of regulation, but it must be said that there are grounds for serious complaint about lack of enforcement.
        My drift netters are represented on the river Esk management committee and contribute one penny in the pound of gross earnings from salmon fishing towards an Esk stocking fund. The drift netters and those seeking to manage the Esk are working as one because they do not believe their interests are inimical. It is claimed that my Yorkshire drift net fishermen catch the salmon on their way north. That is true, but the corollary is that the salmon running into the Esk are not caught by local drift netters —they tend not to run at the same time. Why, then, is there such a dangerous drop in the number of salmon in the Esk? It is because poaching has developed into big business, because it has become known that efforts to prevent it are ineffective, and because wholesale poaching, particularly in the lower reaches of the river, is highly profitable.
        All those connected with the river Esk—the riparian owners, the Esk management committee, the harbour committee and the fishermen—are united in believing that the cause is virtually uncontrolled poaching. The salmon get into the mouth of the river, but then they disappear. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking is right when he says that at night people dare not go anywhere near parts of the river. Some people who inadvertently go there and see what is going on pretend they have not seen anything and go away as fast as they can. It would be dangerous for them to do otherwise.
        The law and the regulations are in existence and the duties laid upon the water authorities by the 1975 Act are quite clear. However, in the case of my constituents those duties are not being carried out effectively, and the longer poaching is left to go unchecked the harder it will be to control. The water authorities will have to do their best to take effective action, or perhaps things have become so impossible that the law itself will have to be changed. I do not know which it should be, but something will have to be done about it now.
        760
        It will take manpower, determination and money. There is not a water authority in existence which does not regret being responsible for looking after salmon waters. I have arranged a meeting later this month of interested parties with the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority to discuss action on the problem and we shall try to have some decisive action taken. The problem becomes more difficult year by year, and the longer such action is deferred the more difficult the problem will become to solve. Here we have a specific case in which the salmon have almost disappeared from a river which we know does not suffer from drift netting. Why should Scottish rivers be any different?
        I am convinced that the cause of the problem in Scotland is poaching, and, of course, the fish caught are not counted. As with the Esk, there will be many houses near the rivers of Scotland with deep freezers, far more deep freezers than any single household could want, and they will contain 13,14 or more salmon, caught we know not how but we can well guess. This is a serious problem and it has to be tackled. Poaching is the cause, poaching not only in the river but at sea as well. I say in all sincerity and without trying to be extreme that the licensed drift netters are not the culprits in this great problem.
        7.40 pm
        Mr. John Golding: I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). It was an excellent summary of the case for conservation. My right hon. Friend is a conservationist. I know that because I go fishing with him. He goes out of his way to make sure that he does not catch any fish—and that is only trout! His rule for salmon is that after he has caught 20, he goes home. I shall adopt no such rule.
        Although I am on the council of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, my aim is not to speak for conservation. That is not where my interest lies, and I would be hypocritical if I said that. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that we liked to look at salmon. That frustrates me. I like to catch them. I want salmon in our rivers so that we can catch them. It is cant to talk merely in terms of conservation. We want salmon in abundance so that we have a better chance of catching them w hen we go fishing, and that is my starting point.
        There was some embarrassment on the Opposition Benches at the beginning of the debate because my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is a landowner and one of the gentry. I go from bad to worse by saying that he is a farmer and prosperous, but that should not mislead the House. One of the problems of arguing the case for salmon fishing is that it is associated only with the aristocracy and the gentry. That may be true of some rivers in Scotland, but it is not true of many places elsewhere.
        When I attend a branch meeting of the Union of Communication Workers, two or three members out of the 30 or 40 present are often more interested in talking to me about salmon fishing than about the business of the evening. Salmon fishing is now attracting large numbers of working people.
        I have the honour to be vice-president of the Potteries Angling Society whose latest acquisition is salmon water on the Severn. The society is proud of that. The hon. Member for Woking mentioned the Dovey. Welsh water is not aristocrat or gentry water; in general, it is owned and

        761
        controlled by clubs whose members are predominantly working people. Therefore, we are not talking about an aristocratic sport.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central said that the aristocracy has the best waters, the easiest to fish and in which to catch salmon. But, as president of the Lords and Commons Fly Fishermen's Club, my right hon. Friend knows that the aristocracy needs easier waters in which to fish. It has been our experience that Conservative Members need easier waters in which to fish. We must therefore accept that working people shall fish in harder water, but that is a handicap that society places upon us.
        Fishing is for all, and salmon fishing ought to be for all. That is what I am concerned about. In fact, there has been an expansion in the number of salmon fishermen. I want to see more salmon in our rivers, because there are now more fishermen to catch them. I want to make it possible for people from all walks of life to go salmon fishing and to have the chance of catching salmon.
        Several well canvassed hardships have been referred to in the debate, but before looking at some of the well rehearsed arguments about poaching and drift netting we ought to ask whether we are now fishing at the right time. If one looks at the statistics, it is clear that spring fishing —a euphemism for fishing in bitter, cold weather—has declined and that, sadly for those of us who work in the autumn, catches in the autumn appear to have remained at the same level. Someone must explain that phenomenon. If spring fishing has been badly hit and autumn fishing remains good, how can one blame the Faroes, Greenland or the drift fisheries? it may be that fishermen are now fishing at the wrong time and that the close season ought to be changed. Perhaps we should fish later in the year to accommodate the change in the run of the salmon. We must certainly look at that point and consider it, because perhaps we are partly to blame for fishing at the wrong time.
        Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a limit to how far one can extend the season? After all, many fish in the autumn will shortly spawn and are totally unsuitable for fishing.
        Mr. Golding: I do not know how far that is true. They are, of course, nearer to spawning than in the spring, but I should like to know how near to spawning they are in the autumn. If, as some have suggested, the fish are running later and spawning later, fishing could take place for an additional few weeks.
        However, people prefer to fish at the traditional time. They will fish in the spring when there are no salmon in the rivers and will come away with bitterness in their hearts, but, when the salmon have arrived, they will have put their rods to rest. I accept that there is a limit to how far the season could be extended, but perhaps something could be done.
        I strongly disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and with most other salmon fishermen in their treatment of drift netting in the northeast. We simply cannot tell a group of men, "We will ban the way in which you earn your living.".
        Mr. Mason: We did it in Scotland 23 years ago.
        Mr. Golding: Emotionally I am on the side of the netsmen. When I was a kid, I went to school with the sons of salmon fishermen. They had a rough time. Most of them
        762
        suffered from malnutrition because the fishing was hard. Those youngsters suffered from TB, malnutrition, and so on. I saw the hardships of the net fisherman's life. We cannot, therefore, tell these people, "We are going to ban drift netting."
        The argument, as I understand it, is that drift netting is a traditional method of fishing which, until the advent of monofilament nets, caught a moderate number of fish each year. That is the argument advanced by the Atlantic Salmon Trust. The logic of it is not to ban drift netting, but to ban the monofilament nets. Those who advocate the banning of monofilament nets do not advocate banning the use of boron or of nylon rods. They do not advocate the banning of new scientific fishing lines. We take advantage of all technological progress that makes it easier to catch salmon.
        Dr. Godman: Most people who know about the range of fishing methods agree that drift net fishing is the least damaging to stock. If there was a spectrum of fishing gears, drift nets would be at one end and purse seine nets at the other. Does my hon. Friend agree?.
        Mr. Golding: I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about other methods of fishing.
        Many things affect the numbers of salmon in the rivers. Each has to be dealt with separately. We cannot pick on one and say, "That is the solution." The logical thing is to control stocks. It is not the drift netting or the monofilament that is terrible. The problem is the rapid increase in the number of salmon taken out by the netsrnen —77,000 now compared with 2,162 between 1950 and 1959. I do not want to go back to the 1950s because the north-eastern fishermen had as poor a living as the fishermen on the river Dee at Chester when I was a kid. I do not want to go back to the days of tiny catches. We want men working hard earning reasonable pay.
        There are two answers. The first is control. If it is said that control is not enough, the answer must be to buy the fishermen out. I cannot understand why the Conservatives, who adopt such a cavalier attitude to property rights, do not agree. The fishermen have property rights to exploit the sea. Conservative Members say that we should ban them or confiscate their boats. but that is unacceptable. If the drift netters have to go, the only solution is to purchase their rights and give them compensation. Let the salmon fishermen get together and buy out those rights. I could justify and defend that. We cannot say to a group of working men, "So that we may enjoy our sport, you will lose your livelihood." That is not on. We must compensate for loss of property. I should have thought that when I mentioned the word "property", Conservative Members would immediately have been with me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central has no property and would not respond to the argument in the same way as Conservative Members who have property and who should defend property rights.
        Pollution must also be controlled. If one visits the Dovey, for example, one hears from the people who run the Dovey association that the biggest polluters are the farmers. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian is listening. He is a farmer and riparian owner on the Tweed. Opinion on the river bank on pollution is that the biggest culprits are farmers. Those who cause pollution are as important as poachers in the destruction of salmon

        763
        stocks. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that to heart and, when he goes home to his estate at the weekend, will check that he is not adding to pollution.
        The Government must also investigate how salmon stocks are affected by acid rain.
        In the south-west, pollution and poaching are connected. With the imposition of new controls on pollution, I am told that the south-west water authority is taking people away from their normal fishery control duties and putting them on pollution control. The National and Local Government Officers Association tells me that the authority is reducing the number of people who are patrolling the river banks. That will lead to more poaching.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central rightly attacks me for being weak-willed. I have listened to the difficulties that Government spokesmen have presented on tagging. My right hon. Friend has been bitter because I have approached the question with an open mind. He regards an open mind on it as totally reprehensible. Given all the custom and practice, it will be difficult to make a salmon tagging scheme work in Scotland. If it is difficult in Scotland, it will be difficult in the Lake District and in the north-east of England.
        Mr. Mason: The Scots are holding us up.
        Mr. Golding: My right hon. Friend says that the Scots are holding us up. The Scots have supported the Labour party throughout our history; certainly they have held us up.
        We should not spend years arguing about the pros and cons of the salmon tagging scheme. If it is determined by the Government in good faith that the scheme will not work, we should turn our minds to how to stop poaching.
        Mr. John Maxton: Bring back capital punishment.
        Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend is going slightly too far. The poaching that takes place now is gangsterism. It is not the romantic poaching by the poor, starving family who nip out at midnight to pinch one of the laird's salmon. The police must be told that theft from a river is equivalent to theft from a building and that they must treat it as theft. The police must take strong action against that theft, and there must be no question of waters being additionally rated to provide money for the police, as has been suggested in Wales.
        If we do not have salmon tagging, we must have adequate policing and adequate penalties must be enforced against those who steal salmon. If the tagging scheme fails because anglers, especially in Scotland, do not support it, we shall have to look at alternative methods of stopping poachers.
        I want to see an increase in the number of salmon in our rivers. I welcome the creation of the new organisation which came into being partly from an initiative of the Atlantic Salmon Trust. We in Britain must do very much more to ensure that salmon get into and out of our rivers. I do not believe that the simple solutions that have been suggested will work. We must think hard about the solutions that the fishermen are presenting to the Government.
        8.1 pm
        Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Not for the first time, I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) who spoke eloquently and entertained the House with his witticisms and the truth of his observations.
        Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a staunch supporter of conservation; like him, my objective is to catch fish, but, like the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), I lack some of the skills that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme possesses in abundance.
        Mr. Mason: Poacher Golding!.
        Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not believe the hon. Gentleman poaches. I am sure that he fishes according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules, though I doubt whether he would like his name to be associated with that of an aristocrat.
        One of the fundamental points that has run through the debate is that there is no single cause for the decline in the number of salmon in the rivers of this country, Europe, Canada and the United States. There are many reasons, but I have to make some comments about drift netting, not because I want to make life hard for the folks who fish off the coast of Yorkshire and Northumberland, but because we must start somewhere.
        The Hunter report is over 20 years old and many of us have read it and sat in on numerous meetings with representatives of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and stalwarts from the Salmon and Trout Association. I pay tribute to both organisations.
        The two groups try to be united, but there is some disagreement and I believe that the Salmon and Trout Association is right to underline the need for estuarial control as well as control over drift net fishing. It is ludicrous that we have much poor control. Only one river board in Scotland gives us up-to-date and reasonably accurate statistics about how much is caught by rod and by net in its area. Reliable information is provided about salmon fishing in the Wye in Wales, but the paucity of information about what is caught by rod and net must be remedied. I hope that when the Government introduce legislation they will grasp that nettle. There has been a hesitant approach to reform because some say that there is not enough information. Another reason why action has been slow is that there are grounds for believing that the scientific evidence is inconclusive.
        Ministers have told us that the biological functions are not properly understood, that we do not know enough about the genetic causes and that the information on oceanography is not as good as it might be. I make one simple point in reply to those Ministers. Unless we take some fairly obvious steps, we should not assume that there will not be a continuous decline, leading to the disappearance of salmon from our rivers.
        It is interesting that the Canadians have decided that tagging is one way of dealing with their problem. They have also shortened the netting season and introduced dealer licensing.
        The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has yet to speak, but it seems to me that we must be pragmatic and recognise that drift netters must have some effect on the number of fish that come into our rivers. Before ignoring the effect of the huge increase in the number of fish caught by drift netters, we should

        765
        consider what the Norwegians have done. They carried out a careful analysis and noted that in 1960 some fishermen started drift netting for salmon, mainly because white fish catches were declining. When the monofilament net was introduced in the early 1970s, salmon catches increased dramatically. In 1976, drift nets caught about 35 per cent. of catches in Norway, but that figure has now doubled.
        Norwegian biologists have pointed out that drift nets catch mixed stocks of salmon, which results in a lack of control for each river stock. Salmon caught by drift nets are damaged fish and, therefore, not of first quality. As a result, they cannot be exported. Drift netting injures salmon and it has been estimated that in salt water of 20 per cent. salinity, 60 per cent. of heavily marked salmon die before spawning. A number of us have caught salmon by the rod and noted how some have been badly affected by the nets.
        I do not suggest that we should necessarily ban drift netting off the coast of Northumberland and Yorkshire—though if we are not to do that, we need to hear a better case from those who support that fishing. If we do not ban drift netting, we should certainly ban the monofilament net. Otherwise, we shall be ignoring the evidence before our eyes and I do not see that we shall be able to make progress with the member nations of NASCO whom we criticise for having too large a quota.
        I accept that the commercial exploitation and overfishing of the high seas has a serious effect. Some would argue that we need more evidence before we take action, but I do not believe that we can afford that luxury. The Greenlanders have already reduced the number of tonnes that they take and have agreed to reductions in the Faroes, but they made it clear this summer that they will not take further action until we put our house in order.
        If we do not agree to the banning of drift netting, we should make a start by banning monofilament nets. I also have no doubt that we cannot allow the existing lack of enforcement to be perpetuated. It is wrong that so many people can make a business out of poaching.There is insufficient flexibility regarding estuary netting. River boards are not allowed to alter the length of their season without the authority of the Secretary of State. The Salmon and Trout Association went to much trouble and expense to oppose those with estuarial netting rights on the river Deveron. They argued that as they were not catching so many fish in the spring because of the shortage of spring fish the netting season should start later and be prolonged into the autumn. That policy is shortsighted and will not preserve salmon. The only way to test the matter was through a lengthy and costly inquiry. The Government must intervene or we shall return to the long rigmarole which costs money, wastes time and has not resulted in the protection of salmon.
        The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central suggested that farm salmon might ease the problem. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that that would not be the case. There was such an example when the price of salmon dropped considerably because farm salmon was brought over from Ireland. That only encouraged more people to fish with nets to make up for the loss of income. For that reason alone, the benefits of farm salmon are dubious.
        My next point is not a frivolous one. Most of the top-class restaurants that pay the premium price put wild salmon on the menu, not farm salmon. People pay for it because they believe that there is a difference. I do not
        766
        believe that there is a noticeable difference. Any difference is more attributable to how the salmon is cooked. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) looks sceptical. He is entitled to his opinion and I suspect that more people hold his view than hold mine.
        The matter becomes complex when the problems of water abstraction and pollution are added. That is why successive Governments have not taken action. Representatives of the Scottish Office are here, as is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture—the Minister is away at the moment—so I hope that this message will get through and that there will be an undertaking in the Queen's Speech to introduce legislation to help achieve our objectives.
        8.13 pm
        Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I promise to be brief. I wish to correct the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who said that I had great expertise in the fishing industry. That is not true. I am an observer rather than an expert on fisheries.
        The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) said that the single reason—I almost said the sole reason—for the diminution of salmon caught in Scottish rivers was poaching. There are several reasons for the decline in the salmon catch in Scottish rivers. A mixture of natural and human factors must be considered. We must examine the problems generated by the drift net fishing activities of the Yorkshire and Northumberland fishermen. I have met some of these laddies and I have much sympathy with them because of the attacks made upon them in the House and elsewhere. I said in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that drift net fishing using the traditional gear is the least damaging of commercial fishing activities. Drift net fishing in the herring fishery is not damaging to stocks—certainly nowhere near as damaging as purse seine fishing. However, the nylon monofilament net is a danger. It is a savagely sophisticated piece of technology, and is perhaps too advanced to harvest stocks that are in a fragile state.
        Advances in fishing gear technology sometimes outstrip the resources that it harvests. We have seen that purse seine gear can be highly damaging to young fish and can almost wipe out fisheries, and we are witnessing similar developments with the nylon monofilament nets.
        In his fine speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) also outlined the dangers presented by discarded and lost remnants of nets to fish, sea birds and animals. The technology of the gear used must enhance the fair and efficient management of stocks. That is essential.
        Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge and experience, accept that the technology must take some account of the safety of fishermen, and that the ability to work by day has considerable advantages?.
        Dr. Godman: I readily accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have argued several times in the House that when debating commercial fisheries we must always take into account the safety of fishermen and their vessels.

        767
        It may be necessary to restrict the activities of the English drift net fishermen, but I would not wish to deprive those men of their livelihoods.
        I welcome what my hom. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said about a buy-out. About six or eight months ago, I said in the House that if we restrict the activities of those fishermen we must talk about compensation. They must not be forced out of the fishery without some compensation or the offer of alternative livelihoods in the fishing industry. They do not all own or crew huge £1 million vessels. Some of the vessels are small cobles sailing out of Whitby and other small ports in England. We are talking about restrictions, but we should be talking about quotas, and we must debate compensation.
        Much more must be done to reduce the activities of fishermen in the north Atlantic, despite the concessions made by the Greenland authorities. We must also examine carefully the arguments of those who oppose tagging. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) rightly said, this would present formidable problems to the salmon fish farmers in his constituency and in other areas of Scotland. He talked about their being fledgling industrial outfits. Some of them are only one-man operations, and it would be an onerous resposiblilty on them to tag fish. Have not some countries adopted a licensing scheme for those who deal in salmon? We must do something about the serious social evil of poaching. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was right in saying that it is a form of gangsterism, and that it must be tackled comprehensively.
        Salmon is part of our national heritage, and it is essential that it remains so.
        8.20 pm
        Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glagow (Dr. Godman), like many hon. Members who have spoken, speaks with great authority. I am pleased that the debate has had the attention of several Secretaries of State, including my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Transport, and for the Environment. The latter, who listened to part of the debate, seemed to be wearing his fishing suit, which shows his anxiety about the salmon fishing industry.
        To take part in the debate at this stage is like talking to a great squire of the north, possibly the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), renting some fishing from him, paying a large sum for the privilege, sitting by the river bank, and seeing salmon appear, only to have the salmon taken by others who are illegally fishing, because many of the points have been made. My hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) outlined all the points that should be made.
        I join with those who welcome the orders. NASCO's object is to contribute through consultation and cooperation to the conservation and rational management of salmon stocks. Our salmon stocks are an important national asset, and some coherent action between EC states is necessary to ensure that it is preserved. Whether the viability of the asset is at risk is in doubt. I take the strongest view that it is seriously at risk. The viability of our salmon fishing should be of proper concern to NASCO
        768
        when it sets up in Edinburgh. It is sufficiently serious that fish stocks are in danger, yet it is not appreciated that Scottish salmon fisheries are also threatened.
        Reference has been made to the figures for the past five years, which I extracted in a series of questions to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who takes a great interest in the matter. They show a substantial decline in the number of salmon caught by rod and line in Scottish rivers from the figures 20 years ago, and all my evidence shows that the trend is continuing. During the past 18 months I have expressed anxiety to my hon. Friend in questions and correspondence, not because I have a great interest in the matter, but because many individual fishermen, who are customers, have brought the decline of salmon stocks to my notice. Some of them, like the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), are nature's aristocrats, others are less nobly born, but all of them care about fishing.
        If a customer does not think it worthwhile coming to fish, the industry is threatened. Such is the decline in the number of fish in Scottish rivers that the industry, which may bring in £100 million or more to the Scottish economy——
        Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: More.
        Mr. Baker: —is in serious danger.
        I have been struck by the extraordinary complacency with which some people in Scotland regard the matter. The owners of fishing rights continue to let their beats. No doubt the fine reputation of Scottish rivers is their best selling point, but the customers are now changing. Longterm fishermen are less and less likely to return to beats where they must seek their consolation in the tales of yesteryear's catches. Overseas customers will certainly replace them for a while, but only a while. The further a customer must travel to fish, the more he expects to take fish wherever the river is, and the quicker he will decide not to return, if the promise of salmon is not borne out.
        The complacency is baffling and untypical. Those who adopt that attitude may think that the decline can be reversed in some easy or miraculous way. Perhaps they do not talk about it because they fear that they may accelerate the conclusion that we all fear. However, the longer decisive action is delayed, the longer any reversal of that decline will be postponed.
        So far, many steps have been mentioned. I was extremely interested in the comments of Opposition Members about poaching because the poaching that takes place in rivers is similar to that which occurs in the countryside generally — not the charming old-world poaching to relieve the meagre diet of a family in need, but that of organised, armed and motorised gangs.
        I wish to stress two points. The first relates to drift netting along the Northumbrian coast. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme says that we should buy out those involved. Although that is a perfectly sensible approach, we should first deal with illegal fishing. All hon. Members have produced figures and, indeed, I have many. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) will know as much about this as anyone, but I see no distinction in the figures between legal and illegal fishing. The Northumbrian argument that drift netting is traditional is only partly true. Until 20 years ago old-fashioned cord nets were used. They were cumbersome,

        769
        heavy and hard to work. Now monofilament nylon nets are used, which are light, cover miles of sea, are wasteful, damage fish and, in many cases, kill them.
        I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking that fishing in daylight by those means should be banned. It is said that the jobs of 500 men could be at risk, but my information is that many of those jobs are part-time. Serious consideration should be given to the redeployment and conservation work that will be required of those who are engaged full time in legal fishing in that part of the world.
        Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that part-time fishermen are disqualified from holding a licence under the Northumbrian water authority.
        Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is also well informed, and he will have a chance to develop his point later.
        The risk to those jobs must be compared with the much greater risk to jobs in Scotland, which are in peril. The figures show how the catch has increased, and demand that action is taken to deal with that aspect of the matter.
        The second nettle which has to be grasped—it is one which has only just been clutched—is the rise of the greatest predator of fishing stocks, the seal. It is reckoned that in 1920 there were about 10,000 seals around the British coast. It is probable that there are now 80,000, most of which live off the Scottish coast. If a seal eats about 10 lb of fish in a day—it will not all be salmon but let us say that 1 per cent. of it is and that the average weight of a salmon is about 8 lb — about 365.000 salmon a year are taken by seals. That is greater than the total number of salmon that are taken by all means in a year in Scotland. If seals are allowed free breeding grounds and to increase in the way that they are doing, their numbers are likely to double to about 160,000 over 10 years. The effect of such a seal population upon salmon stocks would be devastating.
        I do not want to see the extermination of seals, but, for the sake of fish, salmon stocks and jobs, I believe that conservation of the species has gone too far and some degree of control is essential. I recommend that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should consider the measures that have been taken in Canada to exercise control over the seal population. He should examine carefully the dramatic increase in the salmon population which resulted from the exercise of that control. If the prospect of such control seems alarming. it must be remembered that, if nothing is done, the prospect will be worse for fish stocks as well as for the natural environment. The process of explanation for the public has to begin shortly, and that must be done on a European basis. I believe that NASCO should be capable of starting this work. Scottish salmon fishing is an important national asset for jobs, and the environment and the economy of the rural highlands depend upon it. It is in decline, and the decline could easily become permanent. Let us not be found wanting in its defence.
        8.32 pm
        Mr. A. J. Beith: It is apparent from what has been said already that my constituency and its people have some interest in this matter. They have scarcely been omitted from any of the speeches that have been made from both sides of the Chamber.
        My constituency contains the Tweed, which is one of the world's great salmon rivers. The lower reaches of the
        770
        Tweed are wholly within my constituency and, therefore, within England. For much of its length the river provides the boundary between England and Scotland. The constituency contains other salmon rivers, including the Coquet, which is a carefully regulated river: there is a systematic method of counting every salmon that passes up the Coquet. If Conservative Members would like more information on the procedures involved and the data that are available, they should look to the Northumbria water authority, which provides a massive amount of detailed information on the fish counting that takes place along the rivers for which it is responsible. Those rivers include the Coquet but not the Tweed.
        In my constituency there are three groups engaged in salmon fishing. There are those who fish by rod and line, those who fish by river net cast into the Tweed, and those who use drift nets at sea. All these fisheries are long established over many centuries. Every one of them has a claim to involvement in the process by which man catches salmon and by which he seeks to catch a proportion without destroying the fishery for the future. Every one of these groups has an interest in ensuring that there is a sensible conservation policy. In my view, none of them is entitled to say to any of the other groups, "My group will catch the salmon and you have no right to do so." Any sensible conservation policy must be a balance between the various interests.
        As I have said, there is the rod-and-line fishery, and we have good salmon beats on the Tweed and its tributary, the Till. There is great pride in the quality of the fish that is taken. There is a long history of the development of a well organised fishery and, of course, jobs are involved. I am fully aware of the employment dimension, which is important to many parts of Scotland as well as the area which I represent.
        There is a long established system of catching salmon by means of a river net. The net is taken out into the river and there is a rowing boat at the other end. In any argument about which sort of fishery is legitimate, it is not possible to say that it is right to catch salmon with a rod, right to catch it by means of a net in the river and wrong to catch it in the sea, or vice versa. It can be claimed that the chances of the salmon reaching the spawning ground are more greatly imperilled by the blockage of the river by nets than by of length of net out in the sea. That sort of argument, however, is fruitless and it is my contention that all three means of catching salmon have been engaged in for generations and that they have legitimate and similar claims as long as we can catch salmon at all and ensure the salmon stock. If that can be assured, no one group should be excluded.
        Drift net fishing at sea has been referred to especially during the debate. It provides a livelihood for many in fishing ports along the coasts such as Holy Island, Seahouses, Boulmer, Beadnell and Amble, or it means that they can have an all-round fishing livelihood. Salmon fishing can be supplemented in the winter by other fishing activities such as lobster and crab fishing, but anyone who is demonstrated to be other than a full-time bona fide fisherman — I underline a point that I made in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) — is disqualified from holding a licence or being an endorsee of a licence that is issued by the Northumbrian water authority. Vigorous steps are taken to enforce that regulation. There are so many people who would like a salmon licence that anyone who breaks

        771
        a condition of the licence will be in peril of being reported immediately. It is a feature of the licensing system that any infringement is open to ready reporting by others who would like to be licence holders or endorsees.
        There are many coastal villages and fishing ports along my constituency and, further south, along that of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who spoke eloquently earlier in the debate, where drift net fishing for salmon provides an important part of the livelihood of fishermen.
        There are enforcement problems in all of the three sectors of salmon fishing which I have described. Unfortunately, poaching takes place in every sector. It takes place in the river spawning grounds and is present in and around the rod-and-line fishing community. It takes place in the river, where net fishing takes place. There is a considerable amount of illegal drift net fishing at sea, notably on the Scottish side of the border where there is no legal fishery and no licensed fishermen who have a strong incentive to point out that infringements or illegal activities are taking place. There is thought to be a large illegal take of the catch on the Scottish side of the border.
        Conservation must involve a balance between the groups that I have mentioned. It is a complicated problem that involves many factors, many of which have been mentioned during the debate but not all. Some scientists contend that the salmon goes through a cyclical pattern, which is now changing. It seems that a shift in the seasonal salmon cycle may be taking place. A "World About Us" programme on BBC television in May cast doubt on many of the contentions that have been advanced by those on both sides of the argument. It laid particular stress on the probability that the salmon cycle is shifting so that the main salmon runs are now taking place outside the traditional salmon seasons. That must be tested along with all the other scientific contentions, but it is an illustration of the complexity of the scientific argument and the amount of discussion that is taking place.
        A decline in the salmon rivers on the west of Scotland and the west of England cannot be attributed to licensed drift net fishing that is taking place on the east coast of England. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke earlier about problems arising in the Solway. Those problems cannot be attributed to drift net fishing off the east coast of England. The decline of the salmon seems so widespread around our shores that there must be explanations for it other than drift net fishing. That does not absolve us from examining whether there is too much drift net fishing and whether it should be restricted, but it certainly removes the argument that drift net fishing is the principal explanation for what is happening to the salmon cycle.
        I mentioned the possibility of the salmon cycle being changed, but a number of other factors are relevant. The hon. Member for Dorset, North mentioned seals, which are a problem about which fishermen are especially aware. The same television programme which I just prayed in aid for arguing that the salmon cycle is the most important factor argued against the fishermen's view on seals. However, simple observation suggests that the capacity of seals to eat fish, their large numbers and the ingenuity with which they make their way to salmon nets are all evidence of their ability to reduce the salmon stock. It is common for fishermen to see a seal taking the fish out of their nets.
        772
        It is obvious that the seal is a common cause of visible damage to salmon. Quickness to attribute damage to monofilament nets underestimates the extent to which salmon are damaged by seals.
        In my area on the Farne islands there are large numbers of seals that are culled periodically by the National Trust. The National Trust assumes that the constantly increasing colony numbers threaten the other aspects of its conservation policy — the birds for which it is responsible. Seals destroy the birds' habitat. The culling is carried out not for the benefit of fishermen but to maintain the natural habitat of the various species on the islands. If it did not occur, the problem would be even worse.
        Much has been said about the additional problems that the monofilament net may create. Some aspects have been forgotten. Some hon. Members pointed out that the use of the monofilament net led to an increase both in catch and in the activity of drift net fishing and that it was part of the process by which the licensing system was introduced. There is a reason for that. It was difficult to operate the hemp net, which was unsuitable for day-time operation. This meant that the fishing had to be done at night, which posed considerable dangers for fishermen and was hazardous to shipping. It is difficult to accommodate that form of fishing alongside other maritime activity. That is one reason why the massive drift net fishery off the Tyne during the 19th century declined. Later, the Tyne lost its position as a major salmon river. We hope that it will recover that position one day, but it was not the net fishermen who caused the decline of the Tyne as a salmon river. The ability to work a net primarily by day is a considerable advantage in a dangerous occupation. Hon. Members should not make light of the safety of fishermen.
        Hon. Members should not be surprised that fishermen, like any other group, including anglers, modernise and look for new and efficient operating methods. The angler has changed his technology dramatically over the years. One presumes that he has done so with the objective of catching not fewer fish but more fish. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was honest enough to admit that. At times I formed the impression from some speeches that anglers were intent upon catching as few fish as possible and that only those who went to sea with drift nets had any other objective.
        The former Minister of State — the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)—recently said:
        "Our scientists have looked at this question and it is very clear that there is no evidence of monofilament nets causing any more damage to fish than other types of netting."
        He continued:
        "I am not in favour of banning these nets. If the scientists' reports do show that there is overfishing, then we must tackle this in other ways."
        That is what the hon. Gentleman said after he had had a chance to look at the position.
        That leads me to what might be done to ensure that there is a conservation policy. I reiterate my assumption that any conservation policy must bear upon all those who have a legitimate involvement in catching salmon. I can hardly include under that criterion a policy that simply involves buying out the north-east drift net fisherman. It is at least a preferable option, so far as he is concerned, to banning his activity. That the activity could be banned without giving any consideration to the livelihood of those involved is a grotesque proposition.

        773
        Buying out, however, presents many problems. It is not morally justified as an alternative to regulating the activities of the fisherman. If we embarked upon this approach, we would immediately come across a difficulty. The assumption of the regulatory system is that the descendants of the fisherman can continue in that fishery. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme described it as being even more amenable to Conservative Members—it is not only property rights; it is inheritable property rights. The assumption is that the fishing community will continue to live by the father passing the licence on to the son. We are talking about buying out not one generation but a right of succession. If we attempted to buy out the fishermen, this would be greatly at the expense of fishing communities. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked his colleagues to compare that industry with others where there has been a decline. There is no reason why there should be a total cessation of the fishery. The salmon industry is not faced with quite the same difficulties as coal or steel. We should not talk about having to buy out whole communities from an activity in which they have been engaged for generations.
        We should be considering other positive measures more carefully. I have some sympathy with the idea of tagging. When I was in Canada a year ago I had the opportunity to look at the procedures used there. Tagging poses problems, including those associated with fish farming. With a salmon tagging system it will be much easier and probably cheaper to buy salmon steak and very difficult to buy a whole fish, because that will have a tag. I remember when salmon was much cheaper. On a special occasion, we used to buy a whole salmon or salmon trout. It is now far too expensive for any normal family to contemplate that.
        We must look at effort limitation—of national quotas and at the effort used by an individual fisherman whether in the sea or the river. We should consider the amount of effort a fisherman is entitled to put in and the quantity of fish that he is allowed to take. If too many fish are caught, the total number must be regulated. We should consider the measures used for regulation. We must ask the Government to lay before the House as dispassionately as is possible in this highly emotive subject the best scientific evidence available on all the propositions and counter propositions. We ask Ministers in the Scottish Department of Agriculture and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to put their heads together to produce evidence that both sides of the argument can see as being the best distillation of scientific opinion so that we all have a better basis for judgment. No valuable purpose is served by wild allegations, by talking about banning the livelihoods of substantial groups of people or threatening the livelihood of other groups unless evidence is placed before us which we can agree has a sound basis. The Government have a responsibility to do that, just as they have a responsibility to look to the livelihoods of all those who gain their living from the salmon in its progress through our sea and rivers.
        8.48 pm
        Mr. Charles Morrison: I agree with the closing comments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that it would be enormously helpful if the House had before it the best and most recent scientific evidence available on all aspects of salmon. The hon. Gentleman said that no one had the right to say, "We shall catch salmon but you have no right to do so." He should
        774
        be reminded that that was said—perhaps unluckily for those concerned, albeit luckily for all others who have an interest in salmon — to the Scottish salmon drift netsmen. I would not suggest that it should be repeated to north-east coast fishermen. If there is to be any banning or reduction of salmon netting on the north-east coast, there must be compensation.
        I want to ram home and repeat some of the points that have been made during the debate, but I hope that after the debate the Government will do something rather than weep crocodile tears and do nothing, as has been the case with successive Governments for far too long.
        Man is a hunter, man is commercial, and man likes to eat salmon.
        Mr. Maxton: And women.
        Mr. Morrison: Mankind, I mean.
        As a result, there are fewer salmon in our rivers. One only has to ask any ghillie, individual or river owner who has long experience of any particular river to gain confirmation of that fact. I accept that the detailed blame for that situation is manifold. The detection of salmon in the north Atlantic, and therefore the harvesting of salmon, was unknown in earlier times. Monofilament nets are undoubtedly efficient, but they are excessive in what they harvest, apart from the fact that they damage many fish. Anybody who fishes regularly on a salmon river knows that very well.
        Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), I believe that in many areas there are excessive and increasing numbers of seals. There is the increase in poaching, the north-east coast drift netting, the stake nets and the drag nets. Against all that armoury, it is a miracle that any salmon escape at all to swim up the rivers to breed and, before they can do that, to run the gauntlet of rod fishermen and perhaps a few otters.
        I do not accept that the serious salmon situation can be solved by special pleading on behalf of one interest or ascribing blame totally to any or all interests as long as they are not one's own. I am convinced that all interests will have to make concessions. The high seas fishermen will have to be limited in the amount of their catch. Monofilament nets should be outlawed. The number of seals will have to be reduced, certainly in some areas. Much greater efforts must be made to control poaching at sea, and that probably means greater assistance for the fisheries squadron of the Royal Navy, which does such excellent work. On land it is clear that the police must be given greater assistance in their efforts to control poaching.
        Reference has been made to salmon tagging, and that could be a help, but I am not yet convinced that the introduction of a salmon tagging scheme is a practical possibility. The administration available for it in Scotland hardly exists, and the cost would be high. I have seen one recent estimate that it would cost £2·6 million to introduce such a scheme. While I am in favour of salmon tagging in principle, I believe that it needs a good deal more thought before it becomes a practical possibility.
        North-east coast drift netting will have to be limited. That may mean compensation. Stake and drag netting may have to accept longer close seasons or close weekends, or, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, some of those netsmen may have to be bought out, if they are prepared to be bought out. Even rod

        775
        fishermen, including the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) and I, may have to accept limits on what we catch. That would not be very difficult, because in my case the catch happens to be pretty low anyway.
        Unusually, I may be preaching that there should be equality of misery, but if all interests are unprepared to accept that they have a responsibility, the situation will continue to worsen. Then, not only will rod fishermen lose their sport, that part of the Scottish tourist industry dependent upon the salmon die, ghillies, hoteliers and others benefiting from that tourism lose their jobs and some Scottish estates go bankrupt, but netsmen will lose their livelihood. If those disasters are not to occur, I am convinced that the Government must give a stronger lead, legislate if and where necessary, and accept the need for compensation. Until that happens, the husbanding of the salmon as an important resource will continue to be inadequate.
        8.56 pm
        Mr. Home Robertson rose——.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
        Hon. Members: Yes.
        Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful.
        This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. One of the wide-ranging issues that has been covered is innuendo about my alleged interest in fisheries on the Tweed. I should like to clarify the matter. I am not interested in fishing, if I may dare say that in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). It is true that my farm borders on the banks of the river Tweed, but in that spot it is tidal, which means that it is affected by different legislation. As far as I know, it is of little interest to anglers. I do not want to derive any benefit from that water. I hope that that clarifies the issue.
        All the conflicting interests that have been expressed by hon. Members from various parts of the country demonstrate the need for a review of freshwater fisheries legislation. Far too many people hold the present legislation in contempt. They feel that it is simply protecting privileges. That certainly contributes to the level of illegal fishing with monofilament nets. That chaos is contributing towards the threat to salmon stocks, about which so much concern has been expressed during the debate.
        I return to order for one sentence. I repeat that we for our part wish the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation well.
        8.57 pm
        Mr. Rifkind rose——.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?.
        Hon. Members: Yes.
        Mr. Rifkind: As a simple Foreign Office Minister whose responsibility in the debate is simply to recommend an order that confers immunities and privileges on the two members of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, who I think live in Edinburgh, but neither
        776
        of whom is my constituent as far as I am aware, I have been literally out of my depth in this wide-ranging and valuable debate. I commend hon. Members on both sides of the House for the unprecedented expertise, passion and conviction that they have devoted to the subject. This has been a worthwhile opportunity to give vent to the many issues of serious concern.
        I should respond to the specific questions that were put to me about the order. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked a crucial question about whether the two employees of NASCO would be immune from parking fines as a result of the immunities and privileges provided under the order. Although I suppose that the two gentlemen in question will be less happy to hear it, I am happy to assure him that they will not be so immune. As I said in my opening remarks, they are receiving not the privileges available to diplomatic agents but simply those which are essential to the carrying out of their proper responsibilities.
        The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked about research by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation and the funding implications of that. NASCO does not have to fund research. It enjoys the benefits of the extensive international research programmes co-ordinated by the international commission for the exploration of the sea, to which the United Kingdom is a contributing partner.
        The hon. Gentleman also asked about the funding for NASCO and whether there would be a British contribution to the organisation. The United Kingdom participates in NASCO, not in its own right but as a member of the European Community. Therefore, the funding of NASCO is by the signatories, of which the European Community is the single largest contributor with a contribution of £40,590. Clearly, the United Kingdom pays its normal share of Community expenditure in that respect.
        As I have said, much of the debate covered more wide-ranging issues which do not immediately arise out of the order. Therefore, I hope that the House will forgive me if my comments are very brief.
        There was considerable discussion of the problems of illegal fishing and salmon poaching. I am well aware of the seriousness with which the matter is regarded in many quarters. Indeed, I recall that it is said of a former Scottish sheriff that, in sentencing a person convicted of poaching, he remarked that the defendant had been convicted of a most serious crime, and went on to say that he might almost describe it as a crime against humanity. Nevertheless, the Government recognise the seriousness of the problem and are making a thorough examination of it, with particular reference to the proposals for a tagging scheme. The Government are also considering other ways of tackling the problem of illegal salmon fishing.
        Final decisions have not yet been taken. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in his reply to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 21 October, the Government hope to make an announcement on the issue in the near future.
        I understand that among the difficulties that a workable salmon tagging scheme would have to overcome would be how to deal effectively with imports, and with our own farm salmon production, without disrupting normal trade. It would also, of course, be necessary to provide secure control of the many tags that would be required each year.

        777
        My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on the matter in the future, and I hope that the House will feel able to wait for that.
        Mr. Mason: In spite of the difficulties that the Minister has mentioned, may I take it from what he has said, and his knowledge of what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has in mind, that the Ministry has not closed its mind to the introduction of a salmon tagging scheme?.
        Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any details as to what is likely to be in the announcement. All I can say is that the examination that has been taking place includes a possible tagging scheme as well as other proposals for dealing with the problem of illegal salmon fishing. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the announcement which I understand will be made in the near future.
        With regard to the equally complicated and serious matter of drift netting, clearly there is a difference of view between hon. Members on the desirability of extending the present ban in Scotland to drift netting in England. Drift netting off the coast of England is not an intercepting fishery in terms of the NASCO convention. The convention deals with fishing beyond the 12-mile limit. Therefore, this matter is not relevant to the convention that the House is considering this evening.
        However, the Government accept the need for careful constraint on net fishing for salmon. Although this fishery is already strictly regulated by the Northumbrian and Yorkshire water authorities, the Government have been reviewing the arrangements to see whether they should be further tightened. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland hope to make an announcement on this matter.
        The House will have seen that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who is the Minister responsible for these matters in the Scottish Office, was able to attend a large part of this debate. I know that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will wish to study very carefully the many important contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House during this relatively brief but very important debate. It is on that basis that I commend the orders to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.
        Resolved,
        That the draft European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Mr. Rifkind]

        Transport Bill [Money] (No. 2)
        Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State—

        (a) in respect of remuneration and allowances paid to deputy traffic commissioners;

        (b) resulting from the establishment of a Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.—[Mr. Ridley]

        9.6 pm
        Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is quite wrong that we should seek to pass this money resolution without making comment on it. This is typical of the way that the entire buses Bill has been handled since it was first brought before the House. What is happening at the moment is that we are rewriting this major piece of legislation as we go along. There have been not hundreds of amendments but possibly as many as 2,000, most of them coming from the Government, during the passage of the Bill, and it is extraordinary that tonight we are being asked to add, in a money resolution, two basic changes. While minor in themselves, these changes demonstrate very well some of the problems that have arisen during the passage of the Bill.
        For example, the motion states:
        "That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment … in respect of remuneration and allowances paid to deputy traffic commissioners".
        This arises from the fact that Government's initial intention was that the general public should have very little access to the traffic commissioners. It was only an extremely serious amendment in Committee that changed this particular Bill. Then in another place the legislation was changed, but not, frankly, improved. We shall probably see during the discussion tomorrow a very clear indication that the Government's attitude towards the general public is that, if there is something wrong with transport, the police and the local authorities should have the right to make representations but the traffic commissioners should not.
        We have suddenly had this added rush to put money into the Bill because the Minister has decided that there is going to be such general chaos, so many people rushing to the assessors or the traffic commissioners, that there will be considerable expenditure on fees for those ladies and gentlemen. While I welcome this rather tardy recognition of the fact that there will be a great deal of chaos following the passage of the Bill, it seems to me extraordinary that at the last minute there should be a demonstration, yet again, of the cavalier attitude that Ministers have taken throughout the passage of the legislation.
        Turning to the second part of this money resolution, the authorisation of payment relates to the establishment of a disabled persons transport advisory committee. This is a very important matter which concerned us very much throughout the passage of the Bill. We wanted to make clear to the Government that at present many local authorities provide a very high standard of transport for the disabled. It is important that that be retained, taken in conjunction with the abolition of the metropolitan counties, but there is clear evidence that no such thing will happen.

        779
        We are now told by the Government, almost at the last minute, that we should have moneys for the establishment of a disabled persons transport advisory committee. It is therefore useful to look at the wording of the clause to find out exactly what the Bill is going to do. It becomes painfully obvious that the committee may consider any matter which is referred to it by the Secretary of State. It will also have the inestimable advantage of making a report to the Secretary of State, who will actually lay a copy of it before Parliament. The committee will have no power to insist that those who benefit at present from provision for the disabled will receive the same standard of care in the future. It is plain from the weak and waffling language of the clause that the advisory committee, as it is set up, will have matters referred to it by the Secretary of State and will have the great honour of being able to consider them, but it will be unable to come up with any real plan that would change the attitude of those transport authorities that will have to provide the services.
        There is clearly a difference in the way that the Conservative party regards the capital and the rest of the country. Throughout the Bill's passage, we discussed the fact that London is to be excluded, and we asked why, if the buses Bill is such a great innovation and will do such a fantastically good job, the capital is being deprived of that high quality service. We are told that the Secretary of State intends that it shall apply to the capital before long.
        When we consider this part of the money resolution, we find that the division between town and country is even stronger than we suspected. London has been given an extra £5 million to deal with the problems of the disabled, after the GLC has been abolished, because London's voters have a clear view of the excellence of the service. Those of us who have seen it working know that it is an accurate view. The work done by the GLC in providing transport for the disabled of London has set a high standard that could be copied to considerable advantage elsewhere in the country. In effect, we shall have a two-tier attitude—the GLC receives £5 million while the rest of the country receives nothing. On that basis, I am afraid that we can only assume that, as with so much of the Bill, the Secretary of State has not worked out the effect that that will have on the transport industry as a whole and on the lives of ordinary people, or the way that it will operate.
        Tomorrow we shall be considering the final stage of a massive piece of legislation which will completely alter the bus industry. Yet here we are — not just at the eleventh hour, but at the eleventh hour and——.
        Mr. George Foulkes: Fifty-nine minutes.
        Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend says 59 minutes, but I prefer to say 55 minutes—making massive changes which will suddently, we are told, provide money for two basic parts of the legislation.
        Had the Bill been properly prepared, none of that general atmosphere of incompetence would have originated. Had the Transport Bill become the Transport Act 1986, there would have been time for consultation with the relevant authorities and with the various groups, such as the disabled and those who provide specialised transport. There would have been at least time for the parliamentary draftsmen to produce a piece of legislation that did not need to be written once, or twice, but all the
        780
        time in both places, because the House of Lords must have dealt with even more amendments than we did in the House of Commons.
        This change was requested not once, but several times. and was discussed ad infinitum in Committee. It was finally brought forward on Report in another place. If that is not a classic demonstration of at best incompetence and at worst a totally unprepared, ill thought out and very damaging piece of legislation, I should like to know what is.
        The Secretary of State for Transport has pushed the Bill through although it is badly drafted. Half the people who have been consulted are totally opposed to it. The reaction of the Conservative party in country areas shows that those who know about the needs of rural areas and of transport are absolutely opposed to this legislation. Yet, even now, the House is being asked to make various changes.
        If the Secretary of State for Transport would like to do us all a great favour, even at this late stage, he should not be making tiny changes here and there which he thinks ought to have been made before, but which somehow or other he could not bring himself to accept; he should not be redrafting right up to the moment when the legislation leaves the other place; he should be saying "At long last I am demonstrating a side of my nature which no one suspected. I am an infinitely reasonable, tolerant and intelligent man, so I have decided that the best possible thing to do with the Transport Bill is to throw it into the wastepaper basket.".
        9.17 pm
        Mr. Don Dixon: I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but I was concerned when she said that the Minister was treating the GLC and therefore London differently from the rest of the country because the Minister may find the income available for the disabled persons transport advisory committee within the GLC to carry out any amendments that it wants but not make that money available for the rest of the country.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich will remember that a difference was revealed between the pensioners in London and those in the rest of the country in the debate that we had on concessionary bus passes. There was also a difference of opinion among the Tory Back Benchers on our Committee considering the Transport Bill and the Tory Back Benchers on the Committee of the London Regional Transport Bill. The Tory Back Benchers on the London Regional Transport Bill had backbone whereas the Tory Back Benchers on our Bill had no backbone at all and did not have the guts to support our amendment, which would have written into the Transport Bill the same amendment that was written into the London Regional Transport Bill and thus have guaranteed pensioners concessionary passes. I am rather surprised therefore of the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich as the fact that there is no money available for areas outside London although money is available for London is consistent with the Secretary of State's track record.
        I do not oppose this money resolution because it will provide remuneration for people on the disabled persons transport advisory committee. Funds will also be made available for the deputy traffic commissioners. The Bill will give the Secretary of State power to appoint members to the committee and to grant remuneration. Not only will

        781
        the Secretary of State be able to appoint his hacks but he will be able to decide how much his hacks get. Every time we have discussed London transport, the Secretary of State has talked about Ken Livingstone providing jobs for the boys. Under this Bill the Secretary of State will appoint a number of deputy commissioners or whatever their designation may be and after he has appointed them he will decide how much to pay them.
        With this little measure the Secretary of State has done what he was determined from the outset to do. He said that he would rewrite the Bill and he has done just that, but he has not changed the plot. The result will be chaos in the transport industry. Even on Third Reading in the House of Lords, there were 70 amendments. An ill-conceived Bill has been rushed through by a Secretary of State with very little idea how transport should be run. The result will be chaos and those who suffer most will be people in the rural areas and in metropolitan districts such as Tyne and Wear, where one of the best transport systems in the country will be in jeopardy. Therefore, although we shall not oppose this little money resolution today, we shall certainly make our voices heard in relation to the Bill itself tomorrow.
        9.20 pm
        Mr. Kenneth Hind: Those of us who took part in the Committee stage of the Transport Bill and who are said to have no spine are especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for introducing the amendments in the money resolution. It comes very badly from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to say that the Bill is ill-conceived, as we remember sitting for hours on end listening to opening speeches from the Opposition on clause 1 which amounted to general statements about transport in this country. Those speeches took up almost 100 hours of the Committee's time, with the result that the Bill was guillotined. The hon. Lady cannot complain that the Bill was ill-conceived and that there was no consultation when the Opposition set out from the beginning to prevent any sensible discussion on it.
        Provision for the disabled is a prominent feature of the money resolution. I and my colleagues in the Committee —two or three of them are present today—welcome the provisions for the disabled persons transport advisory committee. Conservative Members made it clear to the Secretary of State that special provision ought to be made for the disabled and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took our advice and undertook to amend the Bill. He has fulfilled that undertaking and carried it through to the House of Lords. Whatever the Opposition may say, that stance on the part of the Secretary of State resulted from the initiative taken by Conservative Members of the Committee. So much for the criticism that we had no spine and no guts. It is because we stood up and said what we thought that all transport authorities and bus operators will be bound to provide concessionary fare schemes, especially for the disabled. The fact that it will be for authorities to opt out rather than in is of great importance in terms of the money available as a result of this measure.
        The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to transport problems in rural areas. As a result of the Bill, villages such as the one in which I live in my constituency which have only two buses a week will be able to have a much more flexible transport system to take people into the local market town to do their shopping and other business. Contrary to Opposition scaremongering, the taxi
        782
        provisions and the extension of licensing provisions to allow minibuses and other rural transport to flourish will be welcomed by people in the rural areas when they appreciate what the long-term effects of the Bill will be.
        Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend was speaking of his experience in the rural areas of Lancashire. I can confirm from my experiences in Warwickshire that there are enterprises preparing to offer new public transport services in rural areas which previously had highly unsatisfactory services. I anticipate that we shall see the fruits of this legislation quickly, and that they will parallel the excellent consequences of the deregulation of the sale of spectacles. Such deregulation has resulted in enterprises offering a new, improved range of services. Evidence suggests that exactly the same will happen with regard to transport.
        Mr. Hind: It has been suggested that this money resolution is a patching-up operation, due to the lack of consultation. The representations of some Labour-controlled local authorities with transport responsibilities were notable for their absence. The Lancashire county council, if I may use a cricketing expression, took their bats home and refused to have anything to do with the Committee.
        Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?.
        Mr. Hind: No.
        Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?.
        Mr. Hind: It was notable that, when I was called upon in Committee to make what I thought were sensible speeches on behalf of those I represent in Lancashire, I had to rely upon transport planners from authorities other than those of Lancashire because they refused to take part in the debate.
        Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
        Mr. Hind: No.
        It must be borne in mind that the lack of consultation has been used as an excuse by many Labour-controlled authorities to stall and do nothing on this Bill. If the result is chaos, the public can ask those authorities why that is so. The answer is that, right the way through, they have refused to do anything.
        Mr. Rogers: Perhaps I may correct the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Hind: I do not need to be corrected.
        Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member may be on his feet at one time. If the hon. Member is patient he may be called.
        Mr. Hind: I do not wish to appear uncharitable, Mr. Speaker. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Rogers: I thank the hon. Gentleman and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for subtly making the hon. Gentleman give way. The hon. Gentleman said that there was no pressure from the Lancashire area in connection with this Bill. Does he not remember that one of the leaders of the opposition to this Bill was my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) who, very forcibly on occasions, Dut forward the views of the Lancashire county council and the

        783
        local authorities in that area? I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman that he was not present on one occasion to support his own amendment.
        Mr. Hind: I accept that the amendment was eventually withdrawn. However, the Front Bench spokesman to whom the hon. Gentleman refers represents Wigan and the views of Greater Manchester, not Lancashire.
        In terms of advice, support and pressure, Lancashire county was deliberately absent and chose to take no part in the proceedings. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about Greater Manchester but my statement on Lancashire is true and I will not resile from it.
        Mr. Speaker: If I may say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I do not get hon. Members to give way. It is up to them.
        Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker: Is it genuine?
        Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes. It seems that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is misrepresenting a Lancashire Member who sat on the Committee for many hours and gave clear voice to all of the views of Lancashire people which, frankly, cannot be said of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West.
        Mr. Speaker: I was not on the Committee, so I do not know that.
        Mr. Hind: The hon. Lady deliberately misconstrues what I said. I said that the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council deliberately chose to take no part.
        Mrs. Dunwoody: That is not true.
        Mr. Hind: That council might have written to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), but it chose not to write to Conservative Members on the Committee who represent the Lancashire community. My constituency is called Lancashire, West— it could not be more clear which part of the county I represent.
        Mr. Rogers: The Irish sea. That is west Lancashire.
        Mr. Hind: Opposition Members may complain, but if the Bill is a mess, as the hon. Lady has said, it will be as a result of the failure of Labour-controlled local authorities to work for its implementation.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Labour Members have said that the Bill was ill thought out. I have had conversations with several Members of another place who were amazed at the number of amendments that they were expected to vote through almost on the nod after the Bill had received such an exhaustive Committee stage here. Although I accept that the Government might feel that some clauses were not reached because of controversy on earlier clauses, it is nevertheless clear that many amendments were introduced late.
        No Opposition Member would vote against the proposed rather niggardly provision, but it appears from what I have read this week that the Government might have been better advised to have written in some underwriting of a pension provision for members of the National Bus Company who are understandably worried about their pensions after privatisation. Employees of the
        784
        Scottish Bus Group are not going on strike in support of colleagues in England and Wales because the Scottish Bus Group is not to be privatised. Employees there feel that their pensions are better safeguarded. I hope that they are right.
        The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) complained of discrimination as between London and the rest of the country, but there is a further discrimination—of which we do not complain as yet—between England and Wales and Scotland. Presumably because of pressure from the Scottish Office, the Scottish Bus Group is to be retained as a public corporation, and that will give continuity for pension rights. That merely illustrates the illogicality of the Government's thinking in introducing the Bill.
        There has been pressure from employers, unions and everyone else associated with the Bill for a properly underwritten guarantee of pension rights. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State has failed to write such provision into the money resolution. He is launching a bout of chaos on the country. There will be uncertainty for employees and an unpredictable service for bus users, all on the back of limited and somewhat contradictory experiments.
        The Secretary of State has a nerve to return to the House so late and claim that the Bill was well prepared—it clearly was not—and that the resolution is anything like a definitive response to the criticisms of the gaps in the Bill and its financial provisions made here, in Committee, and in another place. So far, the Government have not responded to the protests. The workers look forward only to uncertainty and passengers can look forward only to worrying whether rather than when a bus will come along.
        9.34 pm
        Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhonnda): I have been prodded into speaking by what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said, especially as he extolled the Bill's virtues. Anybody who sat through the Committee stage will realise that this Bill has been cobbled together. The Secretary of State and his junior Minister, who took us through most of the time as the Secretary of State was absent, did not know what it was all about and on most occasions they had to rely quite heavily on civil servants to explain to them the meaning of some clauses.
        One of the aspects of legislation which I should have thought any Government drafting legislation would consider was whether they could judge the effect their legislation would have in six months or a year. I challenge the Secretary of State to tell the House now or tomorrow what the state of transport will be in six months or a year. It was quite obvious in Committee that they were not able to forecast the state of transport. It is the lack of scientific analysis and logical progression in putting forward this Bill that disturbs me.
        I do not know why the hon. Member for Lancashire, West is so happy. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), the junior Minister who took the Bill through Committee, was not happy and his arguments were not based on a proper analysis of the problem. The Government set up trial areas and made some money available for certain experiments to be carried out, and yet we had the ridiculous situation of the Minister of State, Department of Transport saying to the Committee, "Oh, yes, we are basing our views on

        785
        experiments that were carried out in Hereford and I have first hand experience of those. I went there myself and asked people".
        Mr. Speaker: May I direct the hon. Member's attention to the money resolution? He is going a little wide of that.
        Mr. Rogers: I am not going particularly wide, Mr. Speaker, because I am saying that the Government are now asking for money, but during the preparatory stages of this Bill they did not ask for money to carry out properly funded experiments on the future of British transport. We ended up with the ridiculous situation of the Minister of State perambulating around Hereford chatting up people to find out what they thought of the experiments. Anyone who reads the reports of the proceedings in Committee will see the ill-founded bases of the Bill. The money that is being put forward to cover some of the difficulties that the Bill will bring about in our transport system will not be sufficient to cover the lack of awareness and lack of preparedness of the Government in reorganising the transport system.
        9.37 pm
        The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was not quite sure of her attitude to the money resolution and the amendments that relate to it, which will be taken tomorrow. At one moment she described them as massive changes and a little later she said they were tiny changes. She will have to make up her mind before tomorrow whether she regards the amendments as massive changes or tiny changes. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady made a mountain out of a molehill, because the two measures concerned with the money resolution are minor and I will reply to the debate on the two limited points within the resolution.
        Ever mindful of the admonition which you, Mr. Speaker, gave to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I should not like to stray into the tempting country which the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) strayed into when he talked about dial-a-ride and concessionary fares and the Tyne and Wear metro, or into the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who talked about pensions and wondered whether the Scottish Bus Group should be denationalised. Those are matters which can quite properly be raised tomorrow. I will confine myself to the limited resolution before the House.
        The first point concerns deputy traffic commissioners. Instead of having three traffic commissioners as has been the case for route service licensing, we are now to have one traffic commissioner. The practice with heavy goods vehicles has been to have one deputy traffic commissioner
        786
        who will stand in for the commissioner if he is sick or on holiday or if the pressure of work is too great. Throughout the Bill's proceedings, the same practice was suggested for the traffic commissioners in the context of buses. The deputy chairmen are not employed on full-time salaried posts but are paid fees for the cases they take.
        I freely admit that there was a drafting mistake, in that the Bill and the original money resolution allowed for salaries to be paid to the traffic commissioner and those he employs, but they did not permit fees to be claimed by the deputy traffic commissioners. This was an oversight, and had the Standing Committee been doing its job properly instead of wasting 44 hours on clause 1 it might have picked up the odd point such as that. However, if that was the worst mistake we made, that is not too bad.
        The disabled persons transport advisory committee was established in response to our debates on the interests of the disabled. Lady Lane-Fox moved an amendment in another place to make the existing non-statutory committee a statutory one. That non-statutory committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, advised her and me on all matters associated with transport for the disabled. The amendment was welcomed in another place, and, from what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has said, it seems that this House will welcome the change.
        The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich complained that the disabled persons transport advisory committee would have no powers to insist on this, that or the other being done, but the purpose of advisory committees is to give advice, not to have powers to insist on things being done. This committee has existed for a long time and has met with considerable success in improving public transport for the disabled.
        This change, which is generally welcome both in this House and in another place, requires that the statutory committee should be rewarded only by means of expenses, but there is no power in the Bill to pay the expenses of the members of that committee. That power is not in the Bill because the committee was not statutory when the legislation was first published and went through Committee. If hon. Members wish to have a change of this sort made, they must accept the fact that an extra money resolution is needed.
        Those are the two small points dealt with in this money resolution, which I commend to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State—

        (a) in respect of remuneration and allowances paid ro deputy traffic commissioners;

        (d) (b) resulting from the establishment of a Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

        Farming (Northern Ireland)
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
        9.43 pm
        Mr. James Nicholson: I welcome this opportunity to bring before the House the serious plight that has faced Northern Ireland agriculture during the summer as a result of adverse weather conditions. This summer has certainly been the worst in living memory. Indeed, many of the most elderly among the farming community cannot remember a worse situation facing the farmers in that part of the United Kingdom.
        From June to mid-October there has been no dry spell, not even for two consecutive days throughout that time. A major cause of the problem lies in the fact that there was continuous rain day and night which, on occasions, culminated in flooding in various parts of the Province. Coupled with that, the temperature of the soil and of the air was about 2 deg. C lower than might have been expected in the summer. The continuous bad conditions caused all aspects of agriculture to suffer.
        I want to outline, but not exaggerate, some of the difficulties. The prolonged periods of wet weather have wreaked havoc on the cereal and potato crops. Cereal farmers responded to the calls of Ministers who came to grain trade dinners and told them that, because of the cuts in dairy quotas, they should increase grain production. Although in Europe as a whole grain was in surplus, Northern Ireland was a deficit area. Northern Ireland is a net importer of grain. Farmers were encouraged to expand cereal production, and as a consequence many of them face ruin. Grain producers are professionals in their own right and they know how to grow cereals. They are important and must be kept in business if cereal production in Northern Ireland is to have any future.
        Most of the winter wheat has been lost, as is acknowledged even by the figures of the Department of Agriculture. The winter barley has also suffered seriously. There were extra spraying costs and high drying costs. After difficult harvesting conditions, there is a poor yield. Spring barley has finally been salvaged, but again, with high drying costs and low yields, with only a limited amount of straw saved. The result is poor profits for those who depend on grain growing for their livelihood. Harvesting was most difficult, protracted and expensive.
        Successive Secretaries of State and Ministers of Agriculture have encouraged the growth of alternative crops. Farmers were told not to put all their eggs in one basket. They were encouraged to produce oil seed rape—disaster. They were told to grow peas—disaster. Flax production this year has been a disaster. There is a catalogue of crop failures. So much for alternative crops in Northern Ireland.
        In fairness, potato growers struggled valiantly against great odds to try to harvest their crops. Ground conditions were atrocious. Some potatoes lay under 12 to 18 inches of water for a long time. Eventually some farmers got the potatoes home. But what did they find? The potatoes looked good when they were brought from the field, but within three weeks they began to rot in their boxes. Part of the problem was caused by the weather. Blight was
        788
        rampant. Even continuous spraying had no effect. In some cases, before the farmers were out of the fields, the rain had started and the day's work was washed into the ground.
        A problem that I found out about only a short time ago —water slade—occurs when potatoes consume so much water that they cannot absorb any more and cannot stand against germs. When potatoes are brought to the farm, they are so weakened that germs attack them and soon the potatoes are a rotting mess.
        I recently visited Rathfriland in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) where I met a farmer who had been working all year to produce 250 tonnes of potatoes. They were the sole source of his livelihood. He stood on top of those potatoes and sank into them. They were a rotting mess.
        Everyone has great sympathy for the farmers, but sympathy is not enough. The farmers in South Down said that £2·5 million or £3 million was available under a stockfeed scheme, and they asked why the money could not be given to those who had ended up putting their potatoes on dumps or in bogs. They got no return for the capital invested and the work put into producing those potatoes over a whole year.
        We face a difficult and serious problem. I do not denigrate officials in the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland who have given farmers advice, but that advice has not helped. One farmer spent £30,000 on new boxes and a forklift truck to handle them. His potatoes rotted. Another farmer bought drying equipment and did everything right—even the departmental officials agreed that he did everything right—but his potatoes rotted as well.
        We are speaking of farmers' livelihoods, and we must have every sympathy for them. I ask Ministers to help men who have lost their whole production of the past year.
        My constituency is known as the orchard of Ireland, but the apple producers have had difficult times because of the weather. Apple scab has been a difficult problem for the apple growers. Even though they used extra spraying, they faced similar problems to those experienced by the potato growers. Before the farmers got through the orchard gate, the day's work was lost. Up to 40 per cent. of the apple crop is virtually unmarketable this year. This is a high-cost industry, and the growers face grave difficulties.
        One would not expect mushrooms to have been affected by the weather, but mushroom growers require straw, the raw material for mushroom production. Growers in my constituency employ 1,000 people—the industry is an important source of employment in my constituency. Like the apple producers, they have a large marketing organisation. I implore Ministers to ensure that both those sectors receive help. Jobs are at stake and markets that have been fought for and won over many years may be lost. Consideration should be given to bringing in straw for the mushroom growers from outside Northern Ireland and the Republic.
        The majority of farmers in Northern Ireland are dependent on the grass-based sector for their living. There has been much discussion about dairy farmers recently, but in a different vein. Today the problem is not quotas, but insufficient fodder to carry the dairy cows through the winter. Many dairy farmers in Northern Ireland have had their cows inside since the middle of August. As much silage has alredy been consumed as would normally have

        789
        been consumed by mid or late January. I understand that by mid-February or March they will be unable to feed the animals with the silage that they have managed to salvage.
        During the past two weeks better weather in Northern Ireland, has partly helped to relieve the problem. Farmers have not sat on their thumbs waiting for help. They have done their best in those two weeks to try to salvage what little they can. However, that is not enough. There is an estimated shortfall in forage of up to 40 per cent. That problem must be dealt with in the coming months.
        Beef producers have also had a serious time during the past four or five months. The grass did not have the feeding value required to help cattle to thrive, and the prices offered by the plants were much lower than last year. It was very much a buyer's market. One would have thought that the period of intervention would have eased the problem. When farmers tried to sell their cattle during the short period of intervention they rang up the local plants but were told that nothing was required. They did not require anything because more than 50 per cent. of the plants in Ireland are owned by factories originating in the Republic of Ireland. They brought thousands of cattle over the border and killed them in the plants in Northern Ireland.
        If intervention is to work and provide support for the farmer, the farmer must be seen to be receiving that support. An intervention period must ensure a domiciliary period for cattle coming from the Republic of Ireland. Cattle should be kept on grass in Northern Ireland for a month, six weeks or even two months before they can be slaughtered. The Government should address themselves to the problem, because during that period farmers did not receive the benefit of intervention. The benefit went to the plant and the buyers who went to the Republic of Ireland, bought the cattle, and brought them north. They, not the farmers received the profit. At least 50 per cent. of the plants did not indulge in that practice, and I congratulate them on sticking by the people who supported them through thick and thin over the years. Those plants stuck with the farmers who had referred cattle to them in the past. However, the other plants should be condemned for bringing cattle from the Republic of Ireland. No doubt it was more profitable for them.
        According to Department of Agriculture figures, in the less-favoured areas only 20 per cent. of the hay was saved, whereas in lowland areas 30 per cent. was saved——.
        It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
        Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Neubert.]
        Mr. Nicholson: I assume that there is no argument with those figures, which show how serious the fodder problem is.
        Mr. James Molyneaux: I do not doubt the accuracy of the figures quoted by my hon. Friend. However, even in the south of County Antrim, which is reckoned to be good agricultural land, many farms have no hay at all. Not even one bale has been saved.
        Mr. Nicholson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. What he says is correct. In the county of Fermanagh, which has a higher rainfall than any other part of the United Kingdom, the farmers are used to such
        790
        conditions and can say, "We have faced this before." However, this time the problem has spread throughout Northern Ireland. No area has been left untouched by it.
        Many small farmers, especially in hill areas, depend completely on hay as fodder for their animals during the winter. They are in an impossible position. Many of them have no hay, and find it too expensive to purchase hay or silage. The most serious problems will arise during January, February and March next year, when no fodder will exist. Indeed, much of the silage and hay that has been saved is of such poor quality that farmers will need to augment its protein value with grain.
        I have always been a keen supporter of intervention grain being brought to Northern Ireland, and I welcome the announcement to bring it there now. However, intervention grain will not solve the problem. I am worried about how that grain will he distributed, and I wish to be assured that it will reach those in the greatest need. I am worried that, at the end of the day, all that we shall have achieved will be to give the merchants a rich harvest at the expense of those who need grain. I want assurances that the grain will not go into silos in Belfast and never be seen again. I want assurance that the grain will be given to small hill farmers and to farmers most in need.
        I am glad to see the new Secretary of State on the Front Bench tonight. He has shown great interest in the matter since it first came to his attention. When we visited the former Secretary of State, he told us that he would have discussions with the millers about producng a low-cost ration to be sold to farmers, but to date we have heard nothing of that. Are those negotiations continuing, or have the millers refused to co-operate?
        I have spent much time talking about the difficulties of farmers, However, because Northern Ireland depends so much on agriculture, its problems affect many others. It affects the ancillary industries. For example, creamery workers are being let off work, and in other sectors of agriculture people are losing their jobs. When farmers do not have that little extra to spend, local shops suffer. Lime distributors, who last year told me that they could not manufacture and distribute lime fast enough, have not sold a ton this year, and they have no work.
        The Government's initial response to the problem was extremely slow and left much to be desired. They may have hoped that the position would improve and that the problem would disappear. At the end of June many farmers told me that July would be better, and then that August and September would be better, and perhaps Ministers and officials thought the same. But the problem has not disappeared. It will not be good enough for them to say today that they will not know how bad the position is until the end of 1985. Farmers require today an early sign of what the Government propose to do to relieve the present crisis.
        At present little winter grain has been planted. The Government should seriously consider an acreage payment: to cereal and potato producers to get them back in business because many of them cannot afford to replant next year. That way those people can continue to produce and to do what they do best. There should be additional payments of the hill land compensatory amounts for the current year. Early payments of suckler cow and ewe premiums should be made, and a suspension of the six months' retention rule for suckler cow payments should be invoked. That way the Minister will at least put money into the hands of those

        791
        who require it most — those who must buy the dear fodder and dear meal. There will be no cheap grain or meal.
        There is a serious shortage of hay in Northern Ireland. The Government should consider making a transport subsidy to bring hay by sea to Northern Ireland to help us over the present problem. Small dairy farmers who need to buy fodder also require extra aid. Hon. Members must remember that 20 per cent. of dairy farmers depend on hay, and that not all have switched to silage. The co-responsibility levy should be abolished. That would assist all dairy farmers and would not cost the Government any extra money because the legislation has outlived its useful purpose. The Government should announce immediately the extension of the former agricultural and horticultural grants scheme to enable work to be finished because farmers have been unable even to reach their land to carry out work. As many pastures have been seriously damaged and need to be renewed, a new and higher grant rate should be introduced for a short time to ensure that the pasture is renewed and extra reseeding carried out.
        I know that the Government are monitoring the position effectively, and I wish them well. I hope that they will make early recommendations on those proposals.
        I suggest that a subsidised intervention is required for the apple growers in my constituency for the pulping of apples. The pulped apples should be made available to livestock farmers at an attractive price.
        I have suggested some ways in which the Government could assist hard-pressed farmers. I have thrown out ideas merely as suggestions and I appreciate that other approaches could be adopted. However, I feel that some of my suggestions are worthy of urgent and immediate action.
        Farmers cannot look forward to the future with any confidence, especially this coming winter. The time for talking has passed and it is now time for positive action. The Government have dragged their feet long enough. Farmers are proud and hard-working people. They do not want handouts, the dole or supplementary benefit. They want to work for a proper return on their input. I implore the Government to give them the encouragement that they require if they are to continue in business.
        10.11 pm
        Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is an occasion resonant with historical echoes when hon. Members from Northern Ireland come to tell the Government and the House about the potatoes that have rotted in the clamps. Now in 1985, unlike 1845, we have no difficulties in persuading Ministers of reality and the seriousness of what we are telling them. It is not usual for Adjournment debates to be attended by the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman's presence will be marked and appreciated as a sign of his personal interest in the circumstances that have been described so vividly by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson).
        I shall take only a short time to underline one item in the long a la carte menu which my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh displayed and from which Ministers will have to select a policy that is consistent with
        792
        their other obligations and with more general considerations, but whereby they may be seen to be. in the words of my hon. Friend, bringing help now to where it is needed most.
        My hon. Friend referred to intervention grain. Despite what has happened in Northern Ireland and some other places, opinion seems to be agreed that the coming year will be an even more bumper year for intervention. Hitherto, the economics of utilising storage in Northern Ireland for intervention grain have not been regarded by the Department of Agriculture as favourable. Even in the coming year there may be a balance which tips slightly on the calculations against utilisation of storage in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the utilisation of Northern Ireland storage could be at least one method whereby assistance could be given within the framework of existing arrangements to those farmers in Northern Ireland who are most in need of it. We shall be faced with massive intervention in the coming months. Let us use what is an evil offspin of the common agricultural policy in a manner that is helpful to one part of the United Kingdom.
        10.14 pm
        Sir Hector Monro: I join the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) and the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in their plea for assistance for agriculture in Northern Ireland. I add my plea for Scotland. Every inch of rain that fell in Northern Ireland fell with added ferocity in Scotland. If the atrocious conditions needed any elaboration, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) would give it. July, August and September were the worse months for agriculture generally that anyone in the north can remember. This has resulted in shorter supplies of hay which is of poor quality and a poor harvest of grain which is of low quality and quantity. The same goes for all other classifications of fodder.
        There is sometimes no fodder in the less-favoured hill areas. That is why it is important that we should know as soon as possible the form of Government assistance that will be made available. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said that assistance will be forthcoming, but the sooner we know what it is the better. It may come through the hill livestock compensatory amounts, the suckler cow grant system and the ewe premium. I appreciate that that does not help the dairy farmer who is in dire straits, with poor quality silage in small quantities. We may have to consider a form of headage payment for dairy cattle and an extension of the co-responsibility levy.
        Every section has been hard hit, including horticulture. The only crop that seems to have done well is turnips. We must not underestimate the damage that has been done to grassland and undersown crops. The difficulty of operating combine harvesters and balers in the soft ground have serious long-term implications. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that the conditions are as serious as hon. Members have said. I know that he has seen for himself what happened in Northern Ireland. These conditions have been duplicated in Scotland and northern England. I hope that my hon. Friend has some good news. The sooner we can plan ahead for the difficult winter, the better.
        10.17 pm
        The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office(Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) has put on record the serious consequences for farming in Northern Ireland of the terrible weather during the summer months. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) referred to Scotland. I have been in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and can bear out what was said by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). Fields of hay were not gathered in. I have seen farms on my way to Newcastle and there is no doubt that this year there has been widespread destruction of the hay crop. Other areas in Northern Ireland have been similarly hard hit.
        Farming in Northern Ireland is difficult enough in normal circumstances with high rainfall and a short growing season, but the continuous and exceptionally wet, dull and unsettled weather this year has hit farming extremely hard. The longer-term implications have not yet been fully evaluated, but the repercussions for many sectors of production will be serious throughout the coming winter and into 1986. I have no magic formula to solve this problem. During the past few months the weather has improved. As the old song says, spring is a little late this year. Summer this year came a little late so it has not been warm enough to dry out the ground.
        I shall add to the facts given by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and put the situation into clear perspective by telling the House that the summer of 1985 in Northern Ireland was the wettest for 25 years and in some areas of the Province the wettest for a century. There was measurable rain practically every day from mid-June to late September. I was in the area at that time and I know that it was perhaps the wettest 40 days for a long time. Rain fell almost every day. Rainfall during July was 27 per cent. to 70 per cent. above average, during August 63 per cent. to 169 per cent. above average, and during September 21 per cent. to 117 per cent. above average. During three separate periods in September, rainfall figures were so high that we would normally expect them to occur only once in 600 years. Speaking almost in competition, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said that the rain fell harder in Scotland. It certainly fell harder than some of us saw in Northern Ireland. There were numerous violent thunderstorms, with substantial flooding in many areas, and no sustained dry spells.
        In August I went to a farm not far from Belfast where one had to be wearing gumboots before walking on what was normally a hayfield. The strongest wind and the warmest climate were the only things that could have dried out the field before the autumn cold set in. Sunshine was around 25 per cent. below average for most of the summer and average temperatures were one degree below normal in July and September and two degrees below normal in August. I recognise that the extreme bad weather also happened in Scotland, as we have heard tonight. Bad weather also occurred in parts of Wales and northern England, in my own area of the Pennines. Rainfall in central and west Scotland was generally two to two and a half times the normal. Sunshine was 25 per cent. less than average over most of Scotland and temperatures were generally below average. Northern England and the Pennines suffered similar weather to that experienced in
        794
        Scotland—twice the usual amount of rain, 25 per cent. less than average sunshine and temperatures around one to two degrees lower than average.
        It has to be borne in mind that there is one particular issue that we would be remiss to forget in respect of Northern Ireland. Agriculture represents a much more significant part of the economy in Northern Ireland than for the United Kingdom as a whole, so the impact of the adverse weather and the relative scale of losses and disadvantage are bound to be greater than elsewhere. The extreme livestock orientation of farming in Northern Ireland also leaves the industry more vulnerable to abnormal weather or other major influences on production.
        As was said by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, the hardest hit sector is undoubtedly cattle production because of the losses of hay and silage, particularly on the small farms in the less-favoured areas which account for most of the cattle produced in Northern Ireland. The Department of Agriculture estimates that fodder production will be some 700,000 tonnes of hay equivalent below requirement, which in a normal year is 0·5 million tonnes of hay plus 5·8 million tonnes of silage. To compensate for that would require an extra 300 to 400,000 tonnes of compound feed. In that connection, I commend the initiative taken by the industry whereby the Ulster Farmers Union and certain agricultural co-operatives are trying to arrange a consignment of hay from Canada.
        With regard to arable crops, the bulk of the winter wheat and a considerable proportion of winter barley, peas and flax have been lost. It was a great tragedy about flax. One thousand acres were put down to flax this year and 500 acres were put down the previous year. The whole question is linked to the revival of the linen industry in Northern Ireland. There is a shortage of flax in the world, and one cannot have a linen industry without the raw material. In Europe there is talk of butter mountains and meat mountains. We did not have a flax mountain in Northern Ireland because we had the worst possible weather at that time.
        The moisture content of all grain is high. Northern Ireland depends very much on imported cereals and some farmers have been attempting to expand arable cropping to diversify out of milk because of milk quota problems, so that this year's weather has been an unfortunate setback, following the two good cereal harvests in 1983 and 1984 There are reduced yields and higher rates of disease in potato production and much of that has rotted underground or rotted when collected.
        Harvesting is well under way at present, although 10 per cent. of the crop may not be worth lifting. It is expected that the inelastic demand for potatoes will mean that reduced supplies of ware potatoes are likely to be compensated by higher prices later in the year. The impact of disease losses during storage cannot yet be assessed. There may be losses in certain varieties of early seed potatoes. That again is unfortunate because Northern Ireland has a valuable export trade in seed potatoes and prices are determined by world markets rather than the quantity of local supply. The cutback will not be compensated by higher prices for what has been harvested.
        The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also referred to the small apple crop, which is probably unsaleable in many places. There is also a shortage of the straw that is required for mushrooms.

        795
        We cannot say exactly what the position is, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is with us this evening, and my noble Friend in the other place, who takes responsibility for agriculture, share the concern about the enormous difficulties affecting farmers. Along with other Agriculture Ministers, they will be taking measures to alleviate the losses and disadvantages. The Government cannot, of course, be expected to compensate farmers for what must be recognised as the ups and downs of farming and the fact that every year the size of the crop is different. Problems are normally created by the weather from year to year. However, we recognise that the scale of the problems that have hit Northern Ireland this year is such that it threatens the fabric of this most important and essential industry. The matter is being considered. Everything that has been said in the debate will be checked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend.
        Last week there was a debate on the matter in the Northern Ireland Assembly, in which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh spoke. He spoke for 27 minutes tonight and 17 minutes last week. I listed 11 matters that we shall have to examine. The hon. Gentleman expanded on eight tonight.
        The position of growers who have suffered heavy crop losses is being considered. Quantitative assessment of abnormal losses by individuals is particularly difficult. Normal market forces should in some sectors compensate for shortages in supply. Certain sectors benefited from exceptionally good harvests in 1983 and 1984. Much work must be done to justify the use of public funds to compensate fairly farmers who have been careful in what they have built up over the years compared to others who have not preserved crops as they were asked to by the Department some years ago.
        The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh referred to intervention grain. A transfer to Northern Ireland of 40,000 tonnes of wheat from intervention stores for use as animal feed is proposed. The grain is being made available at 25 per cent. discount and will be transported to Northern
        796
        Ireland at EC expense. The EC will insist that that grain goes to the people who require it. I am not putting one part of the community against the other. The hon. Gentleman referred to millers in his speech last week. Our Department in Northern Ireland will insist that the grain goes to the people who need it. The EC will also make sure that that happens. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about that.
        The hon. Gentleman also mentioned fat cattle coming from the Irish Republic. He said that 50 per cent. of meat plants in the north are Republican-owned. I appreciate the points that he makes, which farmers in his area must have raised with him. However, the EC regulations make it clear that there must be a free trade in live animals and beef. Market forces thus apply, sometimes to the advantage, sometimes to the disadvantage, of Northern Ireland. Imports of fat cattle from the Republic during the first nine months of this year were 71,000 compared with 58,500 during the same period in 1984. Therefore, the increase is by no means excessive.
        My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have listened carefully to what has been said about Northern Ireland, as well as about Scotland. A careful debate took place in the Assembly, which was followed by Ministers with responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland and the rest of us who take an intense interest in agriculture. I reassure the hon. Member for Newry and Annagh, the right hon. Member for South Down and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that there will be full recognition of all that has been said. In the Department we shall consider the matter to see what can be done, knowing that these are exceptional circumstances and that, whatever happens, we must maintain the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland.
        Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
        Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Private Prosecutions
  Private Prosecutions
  Duty Solicitor Scheme
  Duty Solicitor Scheme
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Crown Prosecution Service
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers' Dispute
  Teachers' Dispute
  Academic Staffs
  Academic Staffs
  Students (Statistics)
  Students (Statistics)
  Teaching Staff
  Teaching Staff
  Lecturers (Pay)
  Lecturers (Pay)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  School Admissions
  School Admissions
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  Schools (Hygiene)
  Schools (Hygiene)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  REPLAN Scheme
  REPLAN Scheme
  Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  Liverpool Polytechnic
  Liverpool Polytechnic
  School Places
  School Places
  Funding (Liverpool)
  Funding (Liverpool)
  Higher Education (Green Paper)
  Higher Education (Green Paper)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Computers in Schools
  Computers in Schools
  Intermediate Assisted Area Grants
  Intermediate Assisted Area Grants
  Pirate Radio
  Pirate Radio
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Industries
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Industries
  Greater London Enterprise Board
  Greater London Enterprise Board
  Iran (Car Kits)
  Iran (Car Kits)
  Anti-piracy
  Anti-piracy
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
PRIME MINISTER
  Geological Surveying
  Geological Surveying
  Pharmaceutical Patents
  Pharmaceutical Patents
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
WALES
  Local Government Act 1966
  Local Government Act 1966
  Parrot Corporation
  Parrot Corporation
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Secretarial and Research Allowances
  Secretarial and Research Allowances
  Research Assistants
  Research Assistants
  Early-day Motions
  Early-day Motions
  Positive Vetting
  Positive Vetting
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Sub-Saharan Africa
THE ARTS
  Publishers (Aid)
  Publishers (Aid)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
CIVIL SERVICE
  Complaints Procedures
  Complaints Procedures
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Investment Policy
  Investment Policy
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Contraception
  Contraception
  Security Forces (Co-operation)
  Security Forces (Co-operation)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  University Funding
  University Funding
  Agricultural Research
  Agricultural Research
  Severe Weather Aid
  Severe Weather Aid
  Top Management Information Systems
  Top Management Information Systems
ENERGY
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
  "New Community Energy Objectives"
  "New Community Energy Objectives"
  British Gas Corporation
  British Gas Corporation
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Energy Conservation Year
  Energy Conservation Year
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd.
  National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd.
  Anti-Nuclear Campaign
  Anti-Nuclear Campaign
  Heating Systems
  Heating Systems
  Offshore Oil and Gas Construction Industry
  Offshore Oil and Gas Construction Industry
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Gas and Electricity (Standing Charges)
  Gas and Electricity (Standing Charges)
  NCB Works, Tredomen
  NCB Works, Tredomen
  Polkemmet Colliery
  Polkemmet Colliery
TRANSPORT
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Freight Charges
  Freight Charges
  Road Planning
  Road Planning
  Local Authority Associations (Consultations)
  Local Authority Associations (Consultations)
  Roads
  Roads
  Road Humps
  Road Humps
  M40
  M40
  A303 Roadworks
  A303 Roadworks
  Transport Staff (Assaults)
  Transport Staff (Assaults)
  M6 (Congestion)
  M6 (Congestion)
  Road Accidents (Fire Hazards)
  Road Accidents (Fire Hazards)
  Veterinary Services
  Veterinary Services
  Domestic Air Routes (Competition)
  Domestic Air Routes (Competition)
  Drivers' Hours
  Drivers' Hours
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Air Lanka
  Air Lanka
  Platinum (Price)
  Platinum (Price)
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Channel Link
  Channel Link
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
EMPLOYMENT
  Unmarried Mothers
  Unmarried Mothers
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Jobclubs
  Jobclubs
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  EC (Harmonisation Measures)
  EC (Harmonisation Measures)
  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People
  Labour Force Survey
  Labour Force Survey
  Students
  Students
  Work Test Procedure
  Work Test Procedure
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Unemployment Register
  Unemployment Register
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Employment Transfer Scheme
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Government Act 1966
  Local Government Act 1966
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Pregnant Females (Youth Custody)
  Pregnant Females (Youth Custody)
  Mothers (Youth Custody)
  Mothers (Youth Custody)
  Women Prisoners
  Women Prisoners
  Births in Custody
  Births in Custody
  Women in Custody
  Women in Custody
  Mother and Baby Units
  Mother and Baby Units
  Local Authority Associations (Consultations)
  Local Authority Associations (Consultations)
  Racial Violence (Prosecutions)
  Racial Violence (Prosecutions)
  Police Stations (Lay Visitors)
  Police Stations (Lay Visitors)
  Prison Medical Officers (Training)
  Prison Medical Officers (Training)
  Plastic and Rubber Baton Rounds
  Plastic and Rubber Baton Rounds
  CS Gas
  CS Gas
  Mr. Edward Hopson
  Mr. Edward Hopson
  Immigration Checks
  Immigration Checks
  Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Metropolitan Police (Reorganisation)
  Metropolitan Police (Reorganisation)
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Departmental Broadcasting Unit
  Departmental Broadcasting Unit
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  "At the Edge of the Union"
  "At the Edge of the Union"
  Metropolitan Police (Firearms Training)
  Metropolitan Police (Firearms Training)
  Cemeteries (Wales)
  Cemeteries (Wales)
  Disabled People (Cinemas)
  Disabled People (Cinemas)
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Metropolitan Police (Cost-effectiveness)
  Metropolitan Police (Cost-effectiveness)
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act
  Gaming Act
  Gaming Act
  Public Disorder (Brixton)
  Public Disorder (Brixton)
  Motoring Offences (Fines)
  Motoring Offences (Fines)
  Crime Prevention Officers
  Crime Prevention Officers
  Licensing Law
  Licensing Law
  Metropolitan Police (Armed Searches)
  Metropolitan Police (Armed Searches)
  Metropolitan Police (Establishment)
  Metropolitan Police (Establishment)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Charitable Bodies (Trustees)
  Charitable Bodies (Trustees)
  Property (Charitable Purposes)
  Property (Charitable Purposes)
  BBC (Staff)
  BBC (Staff)
  Mrs. Muriel McCullough
  Mrs. Muriel McCullough
SCOTLAND
  Communicative Aids (Financial Support)
  Communicative Aids (Financial Support)
  Sport (Religious Discrimination)
  Sport (Religious Discrimination)
  Homoeopathy
  Homoeopathy
  Community Industry (Strathclyde)
  Community Industry (Strathclyde)
  Employment (Greenock)
  Employment (Greenock)
  Inverclyde Initiative
  Inverclyde Initiative
  Unemployment (Strathclyde)
  Unemployment (Strathclyde)
  Regional Assistance (Strathclyde)
  Regional Assistance (Strathclyde)
  Youth Training Scheme (Strathclyde)
  Youth Training Scheme (Strathclyde)
  Saughton Prison
  Saughton Prison
  Prison
  Prison
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Judges (Appointments)
  Judges (Appointments)
  West Highlands Free Press
  West Highlands Free Press
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Agriculture (Severe Weather)
  Agriculture (Severe Weather)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Independent Schools (Boarding Allowances)
  Independent Schools (Boarding Allowances)
  East Timor
  East Timor
  Export Stabilisation Scheme
  Export Stabilisation Scheme
  Hong Kong (Travel Documents)
  Hong Kong (Travel Documents)
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Boardin School Allowances
  Boardin School Allowances
  Irish Ambassador
  Irish Ambassador
  Peace Organisations (Aid)
  Peace Organisations (Aid)
  Indian Subcontinent (Entry Clearance)
  Indian Subcontinent (Entry Clearance)
  Ministerial Conference, San José
  Ministerial Conference, San José
  East Timor
  East Timor
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Middle East
  Middle East
DEFENCE
  Torpedo Development Programmes
  Torpedo Development Programmes
  Apprentice Training Centre, Rosyth
  Apprentice Training Centre, Rosyth
  Saudi Arabia (Warplanes)
  Saudi Arabia (Warplanes)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Urban Housing Renewal Unit
  Urban Housing Renewal Unit
  National Housing Stock
  National Housing Stock
  Home Purchase Assistance Scheme
  Home Purchase Assistance Scheme
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Water (Lead Content)
  Water (Lead Content)
  Croxteth Hall, Liverpool
  Croxteth Hall, Liverpool
  Housing Stock
  Housing Stock
  Nugee Committee
  Nugee Committee
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Private Water Supplies (Diseases)
  Private Water Supplies (Diseases)
  Hospital Pharmaceutical Service
  Hospital Pharmaceutical Service
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Local Authority Associations (Consultations)
  Local Authority Associations (Consultations)
  Health Care Provision
  Health Care Provision
  NHS (Complaints Procedure)
  NHS (Complaints Procedure)
  Silentnight Ltd.
  Silentnight Ltd.
  Social Workers (Assaults)
  Social Workers (Assaults)
  Snapethorpe Hospital, Wakefield
  Snapethorpe Hospital, Wakefield
  Benefit Uprating
  Benefit Uprating
  Heating Costs (Burnley)
  Heating Costs (Burnley)
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Home Help Schemes
  Home Help Schemes
  General Practitioner-related Ancillary Staff Scheme
  General Practitioner-related Ancillary Staff Scheme
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Widows
  Widows
  Women (Retirement Pension)
  Women (Retirement Pension)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Hospital Services (Chesterfield)
  Hospital Services (Chesterfield)
  Dental Fillings
  Dental Fillings
  Notifiable Communicable Diseases
  Notifiable Communicable Diseases
  "Health for All" Strategy
  "Health for All" Strategy
  Park Hospital, North Derbyshire
  Park Hospital, North Derbyshire
  Homoeopathy
  Homoeopathy
  Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation)
  Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation)
  Day Care
  Day Care
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Erith and District Hospital
  Erith and District Hospital
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit (Greenock)
  Supplementary Benefit (Greenock)
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Benefits (Statutory Instruments)
  Benefits (Statutory Instruments)
  Leeds Health Authorities (Revenue Allocations)
  Leeds Health Authorities (Revenue Allocations)
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Departmental Office, Huyton
  Departmental Office, Huyton
  Rates
  Rates
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  Radio Therapy (West Midlands)
  Radio Therapy (West Midlands)
  Maternity Allowance
  Maternity Allowance
  St. Luke's Hospital, Bradford
  St. Luke's Hospital, Bradford
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  "Official Report" (Price)
  "Official Report" (Price)
  Capital Allowances (Factories and Workshops)
  Capital Allowances (Factories and Workshops)
  VAT (Housing Improvements)
  VAT (Housing Improvements)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics

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

Nuclear Weapons: World's Stockpile
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 it is correct that the present world nuclear firepower is 6,000 times greater than the total firepower in World War II and that since the Geneva talks started on 12th March the world's stockpile of nuclear wapons has increased by 100 times the total firepower of World War II and, if so, whether they will take steps to stop this increase.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I cannot confirm the figures that the noble Lord has given.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the noble Baroness is nonetheless aware that the figures are true, or approximately true? Does she not agree that in this area the increase needs to be only approximate because it is so enormous that the quantity of firearms at the disposal of both super powers today is so great that the entire human race can be eliminated? Does the noble Baroness not agree that it is fundamentally necessary for the Government to take part in this process to halt further increase to ensure that the human race can be allowed to survive? Does the noble Baroness not agree that if the Geneva negotiations go through without any halt or any reduction in nuclear armaments, that would be a disaster from which the world might not recover?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the first point of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I cannot add anything further to my original Answer. On the second point, the Government's position with regard to the negotiations at Geneva is well known.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that these figures are to some extent without meaning in that no one has any way of calculating the firepower in World War II? Would it not be better to stick to the facts, which are that the Soviet Union has twice the megatonnage of the United States of America, if we are talking in terms of the firepower of nuclear weapons; and that since 1976 the Soviet Union has deployed twice as many weapon systems in the nuclear confrontation as has the United States? Is that not the main obstacle to the agreement which we hope to get at Geneva?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his question. He is quite right in saying that what we are seeking to do is get balanced and verifiable reductions in arms.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that there is another view which might be taken of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont? Does she not agree that inasmuch as it is constantly said that the Soviet Union has a massive monopoly in all these weapons, one may be entitled to ask what it is waiting for? The fundamental point is this. With the vast amount of thermonuclear weapons now spread over almost every part of the globe, if that lot goes off all the things that we, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and everyone in this Chamber cherish in terms of honour, peace and democracy will no longer exist because there will be no human beings left.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will know the answer to his own question, because last week he put a question to me in rather similar terms and I answered it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, surely my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney is being unusually moderate in asking for no further increase when we would all applaud steps to secure a major decrease. Will the noble Baroness accept that Her Majesty's Government's reservations in these matters stem largely from the problems of verification? A technology capable of creating the star wars programme and of detecting the details of the Soviet SS. 25 should be capable of developing effective verification methods.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not want to be drawn into the technical details of this matter, but I should like to assure the noble Lord and the whole House that the Government are as anxious as anyone to achieve arms reductions. However, it is a complex matter, and reductions must be both balanced and verifiable.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the constant reiteration of this Question in various forms by the noble Lord opposite is becoming somewhat wearisome to your Lordships' House?
Baroness Young: My Lords, this is an important matter, but I take the point that my noble friend makes that it is very difficult to add anything new to the Answers I have already given to earlier Questions.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it not obvious that if we really want to stop an increase in the production of nuclear weapons we must arrange for all concerned to stop testing weapons; in other words, to indulge in what is called a nuclear freeze? That is the only logical way to stop it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, again, the Government's position on a nuclear freeze is well known and I have often given it in this House.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, on the very important point of verification which has been raised by the Front Bench opposite, what is needed is not only technology which can assess what the other side has—I do not doubt that the Americans have that—but that the other side shall

1381
accept that assessment so that we can have a mutually agreed system of verification on which both sides would then work for a reduction? That is the problem.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his question.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to explain to the House how it is that she said she did not have the information to corroborate or otherwise the figures given by my noble friend Lord Jenkins, but apparently could accept figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I gave the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the Answer that I cannot confirm the figures, which is quite true. I shall, of course, have to read carefully in Hansard what I said, but I think that when I read my remarks it will be found that I agreed with what my noble friend said because he was making a general point about arms in the world today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that all these questions point to the absolute necessity of a successful political agreement in Geneva when President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev meet? Can the noble Baroness further confirm that Her Majesty's Government are taking a full part in the statistical preparation for all these meetings? It really is most confusing when questions on the details of arms are passed to and fro in this House. Can the noble Baroness give us an absolute guarantee that we are playing our proper part in these preparations, in view of the fact that we already possess nuclear weapons ourselves?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking that question. It gives me an opportunity to say, first, that we hope very much for a constructive outcome in the direct talks between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, and then that we are in consultation with our American allies both on the political and on the arms control side of these talks.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the total firepower all round is now so huge that its exact distribution between the two super powers is immaterial since each of them is in a position to destroy the other, and the rest of us, several times over? In these circumstances, will the noble Baroness do her best to encourage her colleagues in the Government to take a firm and active step at this time in the cause of peace?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that there is any disagreement in the House that we live in a very dangerous world. What the Government are trying to do in all our discussions, both with our American allies and with others, is to make progress in arms control talks where we are a party to them, and in the political dialogue.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I sense that the House feels that this Question has taken up sufficient time from today's Question Time.

Corporal Punishment and European Court Ruling
2.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Campbell and Cosans case.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are considering the appropriate course of action to take following the adjournment of the Report stage of the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill in your Lordships' House on 4th July.
Baroness David: My Lords, that is not a very satisfactory reply as four months have elapsed since the decision of this House. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are still intending to meet their international treaty obligations, which the Secretary for Education said was the case when he introduced the corporal punishment Bill in January of this year? While I understand that nobody knows exactly what is happening, will the Minister say further whether any guidance is being given to the local education authorities or teachers, who are in a very difficult and unsatisfactory situation as matters stand at the moment?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, no decision has yet been taken. This is a complicated issue which inevitably will take a little time to resolve. An announcement will be made as soon as the Government reach a conclusion, but I can give the noble Baroness the undertaking that in this country we honour our international treaty obligations, and we shall honour this one.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, would it not be better if cases arising from the alleged contravention of those rights which we are very properly committed to respect by reason of our treaty adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights could be heard at first instance by our own judges in our own courts? If, in the event, legislation to achieve this end is initiated in the forthcoming Session, can reliance be placed on the support of the noble Earl and his distinguished colleagues on the Front Bench? I say nothing specifically in regard to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, because I apprehend that for him no special exhortation is needed.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful for that question from my noble friend. I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, can the noble Earl give us a hint of the likely decision of the Government? We are very interested, and it has been quite a long time since the amendment was passed.
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Earl in a position to say whether corporal punishment has been suspended in the meantime?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, may we ask the noble Earl to make quite sure that his honourable friend is aware of the decision that was made in this House after a long debate upon the issue? Will he ask the Government to consider the point of view expressed in this House so that it becomes part of the legislation?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that my right honourable friend read that debate with great interest and that he has taken note of what was said in your Lordships' House.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is one boy being kept out of school in Warwickshire at this moment because his mother objects to him being caned and the headmaster will not have him back until he is willing to be caned; and that this is the sort of situation that could be going on all over the country, with education being disrupted while the Government are being so backward in coming forward with some sensible legislation?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the whole point of this Bill, which was defeated in this House, was to give parents the right to choose whether or not they wanted their children caned, so I do not think that the Government can be considered dilatory in that regard. We have no information about this particular matter apart from what was reported in the press. Suspension from school as such is not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The discipline of a school is primarily a matter for head teachers and for governing bodies. The local education authority concerned is no doubt aware of its general duty to provide education for this boy.

Overseas Trade Report: Timing of Official View
2.49 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: 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 explain the circumstances in which they gave their official view on the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade (H.L. 238) before the document itself was available to Lords in the Printed Paper Office on 16th October.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the Select Committee on Overseas Trade made embargoed copies of its report available to the press and others a few days before it was published. Ministers therefore had an opportunity to consider the comments in the report and to decide
1384
whether an immediate initial response was needed in order to set the report in perspective. The statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was issued at the same time as the publication of the report.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Secretary of State's endeavour at a pre-emptive strike against a report which has not yet been seen by your Lordships has been widely interpreted as a panic-stricken reaction by the Government to this excellent report? The report shows clearly not only that the committee has dealt with the perspective mentioned by the department but also that the policies carried out by Her Majesty's Government over the past six years have been a complete disaster for this country.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord asks essentially three supplementary questions. I answer them in this order. There was no question whatsoever of a pre-emptive strike. It is entirely up to the noble Lord opposite and others what interpretation they place on the report. Lastly, the Government's policies have enabled us to improve manufacturing output, investment and productivity and to realise record levels of manufactured exports.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, does the Minister really regard his Answer as satisfactory? Has he taken note of the fact that all Select Committees are very important and this is one of the most important? The committee was appointed by your Lordships' House and should be amenable to your Lordships' House, and it is in contempt of your Lordships' House if it does anything irregular. A statement was issued to the press which was not available to Members of this House. Apprehension was created in the minds of people of all political persuasions about the future of the country, the cost of living, and so on. In those circumstances, should the committee not have been condemned for its irregular action?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that my Answer is satisfactory in that it is the Answer to the Question on the Order Paper. I recognise, as will all your Lordships, that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, chaired by such an eminent person as my noble friend Lord Aldington, is important. There is no irregularity in what the Government did. The chairman of the committee released the report at the time that he did. He released his own press statement at one minute past midnight. In that statement he called for interviews which could be held all day Tuesday and for a press conference to be held at 11.30. It was therefore not unreasonable that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should respond at the same time as the report was made public.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, the object of giving documents to members of the press with an embargo is to give them sufficient time to consider them and to present the information adequately to their readers. This imperils the whole process—
The Earl of Swinton: Question!
Lord Ardwick:—does it not? If it is suspected that the Government will make instant comment on the report, should it not also be revealed to the Opposition, so that we may get the crossfire—the two views—before people have had time to absorb the contents of the document?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there was no irregularity. If the noble Lord refers to Erskine May on parliamentary practice (20th edition), page 651, he will find that there was no irregularity. The press statement made by my noble friend Lord Aldington was widely available. It is my understanding that members of all parties had access to that wide circulation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, underlying this Question is there not a serious matter for your Lordships' House? I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can address his attention to the problem. Are we not being treated as second-class citizens? It is not a question of whether the Opposition has access to something but whether Members of your Lordships' House, whose Select Committee this is, have equal access; and on this occasion they clearly did not.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understand that exactly the same procedure was followed on this occasion as in the past. If your Lordships wish to change the procedure that is a matter for consideration, but as long as it remains it is fair to follow it. Comments are made on all such documents from time to time, sometimes quickly and sometimes a little later. The House will have a chance to debate the report early in the next Session, and I hope that it is agreed that that is the best way to proceed.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one difference between the statement issued by the chairman one minute after midnight and that made by the Government was that the former was made after 12 months' consideration whereas the latter was made after only a weekend's perusal? Does he share the satisfaction of committee members that the rather precipitate intervention of the Government has caused record sales for the report, which I understand is now in its third edition?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has just suggested sotto voce, one cannot have it both ways.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, since the noble Lord has given the reasons for his right honourable friend's early intervention in mentioning the report itself, will he use his good offices to draw further attention not merely to the report but to the appendix containing the evidence? Will he cause his right honourable friend to pass comment, preferably at an early date, on the interrogation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which is beautifully enshrined in pages 553 to 574?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, one great trouble is that the noble Lord frequently takes selected passages from a report to suit his argument. I am suggesting to your Lordships' House that the report in
1386
its entirety be considered in the light of the current developments which I described in my earlier response to supplementary questions and which reveal a satisfactory and improving position in British manufacturing industry.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the Government had taken the noble Lord's advice they would not have issued a statement within a few hours of the report's being published without having had time to examine it comprehensively, as he says.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my right honourable friend felt that it was necessary to make the statement so that the report could be set in the total perspective. Otherwise, it might have produced a biased and misleading view of the performance and prospects of the economy, which I repeat I outined in an earlier answer and which are satisfactory and improving.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the report is biased and unsatisfactory?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am merely repeating the fact—as the noble Lord knows full well because he has read the press notice issued by my Secretary of State—that the report needs to be set in perspective. Otherwise, on a first reading someone might have had a biased and misleading view of the performance and prospects of the economy.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister is surely not saying that the state of manufacturing industry in this country is satisfactory at the moment with the dereliction that there is throughout the West Midlands and the North?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I repeat again that manufacturing output since the trough of recession in the early 1980s has risen by 11 per cent., investment by 39 per cent., and manufacturing productivity by 31 per cent., and the volume of our manufactured exports is at a record level. That is an improving position, which is what I said.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister say whether unemployment has also risen to well over 3 million?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, since the Question is related entirely to this report, I am not prepared to be drawn upon that question this afternoon.

Middle East Peace Moves
3 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 seek to establish fresh negotiations in an endeavour to bring peace in the Middle East.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we shall continue to encourage realistic moves towards negotiated settlement of the conflicts in the Middle East. But the prime responsibility must remain with the parties directly involved. We fully support King Hussein's courageous initiative.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that very encouraging reply. I ask her to bear in mind that although there are grave difficulties in the Middle East, it was by the British Government, first through the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and then through Sir Geoffrey Howe, that real endeavours were made to stop the feuding and fighting and bring the two parties together. The last time it was a fiasco arising from misunderstandings which will have to be explained. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that the endeavours undertaken, first, by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and then, a year or two ago, by Sir Geoffrey Howe when he moved to the Foreign Office, will be continued? In that case I am sure that all sensible people will be behind them in the attempt to achieve peace in the Middle East.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that we shall continue to encourage and support all constructive moves by the parties concerned towards a negotiated solution which provides for Israel's secure existence and right to exist within secure and recognised borders as well as the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the participation of the PLO in negotiations as recommended in the Venice Declaration? Do the Government also support the participation of the Soviet Union in the negotiations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that we found the breakdown of the proposed negotiations in early October, which I explained in a Statement to your Lordships, a great disappointment. We must not allow this to be a fatal setback, and we need to be forward looking. We shall of course consider how we might best proceed because the fact is that an urgent need for a peaceful settlement remains.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Baroness has unwittingly failed to answer my question. Do the Government still adhere to the principles of the Venice Declaration, and do they support the participation of the Soviet Union in any negotiations on this matter?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, we still stand by the principles of the Venice Declaration.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that the statement made by the Israeli Prime Minister on 10th June was most helpful in trying to solve the Middle East problem? The Israeli Prime Minister also said that the initiative of King Hussein could do more harm than good. In this respect he was quite right.
1388
Does the Minister not agree that the Government should encourage the parties directly concerned to get together to discuss the problem?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot add anything further to what I have already said in answer to this question concerning our belief in the importance of supporting all constructive moves to find a settlement of this extremely difficult situation. We keep in close touch with King Hussein, and I believe that the Jordanians were as disappointed as we were at the postponement of the meeting with the joint delegation of Jordanians and members of the PLO and the fact that it did not take place.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not agree that what she says shows that it was very worthwhile in attempting to bring both sides together and that if these endeavours are not undertaken there is the possibility of hundreds more lives being lost, the situation becoming more aggravated and the chance of peace lost? I am sure that every civilised person in the House and outside will agree with the noble Baroness that Great Britain should continue with its endeavours that it started a few years ago to bring an honest and just peace to the Middle East.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords.

Business of the House
3.5 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the European Communities (Finance) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages this day.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House why he needs to press this Motion so that there is no chance for debate after Second Reading on the Bill? Can he say at the same time how it comes about that the Bill has been declared a money Bill when it would appear, from reading it, to be a Bill changing a treaty? Is he satisfied that this is indeed purely a finance Bill rather than a Bill which affects a treaty that we have signed and which asks for a change in that treaty? If it is the latter, then should this House not be enabled both to debate the Second Reading and if necessary divide on the Bill, and to go through the normal procedure of Committee, Report and Third Reading stages?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, as the noble Lord I think implied, this Bill has been certified by Mr. Speaker in another place as a money Bill, and it is quite usual to take all stages of such Bills on one day. This arrangement has been agreed through the usual channels. I do not think that any controversy is basically expected, although there may be arguments, naturally, durings its consideration. But it is, I believe, a reasonable procedure that has been followed frequently in the past. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Finance) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Bill that we are to debate this afternoon has two main purposes: first, to implement the historic agreement reached by heads of state and government at the Fountainebleau European Council—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, has not this matter been resolved by the decision of the House, however inadvertently it may have taken it?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that that is probably the case. I think that we are in a slight difficulty in that there is to be a debate taken on the Fountainebleau and After report of the European Communities Committee. My noble friend Lord Young is down to speak first on that. I think, therefore, that if the second piece of business is called, my noble friend would be quite in order to make his speech on that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I would have thought that the position was that we had taken the Second Reading of the Bill and that we could now resolve not to commit the Bill and to have no Report stage, but to have the debate on the Third Reading.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be not committed.
Moved, That the Bill be not committed.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
On Question, Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
The Bill which we are to debate this afternoon has two main purposes: first, to implement the historic agreement reached by heads of state and government at the Fontainebleau European Council of June 1984 on the Community's VAT ceiling and an abatement system for the United Kingdom; and, second, to enable the Government to make a supplementary contribution to the Community budget for the current year, in accordance with the Inter-governmental Agreement of April 1985. It goes without saying that the first of these purposes is much the more important.
Many of your Lordships will already be familiar with the provisions of the Fontainebleau agreement, not least from the excellent report prepared by the Select Committee on the European Communities. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the subcommittee who prepared the report and especially to their chairman, the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, for
1390
their report, which seems to me (if I may say so) a model of clarity and good judgment. It is a particular pleasure that we have the opportunity to debate that report as well this afternoon.
As your Lordships will recall, the Government have been trying since 1979 to establish a lasting and automatic system for reducing our excessive net contributions to the Community budget. An agreement of limited duration, covering 1980 and 1981, was reached in May 1980, and there were further ad hoc agreements subsequently, covering 1982 and 1983. These earlier agreements provided for payment of refunds to the United Kingdom from the expenditure side of the budget. The United Kingdom benefited greatly from these agreements, but they were ad hoc and temporary.
The accord reached at Fontainebleau in June 1984 marked a tremendous advance on these earlier agreements. It provided for a lasting and automatic system for reducing our net contributions, implemented on the revenue side of the budget by abatement of our VAT contributions. It provided also for raising the limit on the Community's VAT own resources revenue from 1 per cent. to 1·4 per cent. These two elements in the agreement were incorporated subsequently in a new "own resources decision" for the Community, which has to be ratified by all member states before it can take effect. The main purpose of today's Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify that decision.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I say a few words first about the abatement system and our net contribution and then about the raising of the VAT ceiling. First, then, the abatement system. We shall be entitled under this system to receive back 66 per cent. of the difference between our VAT share of contributions to the Community's allocated budget and our share of receipts from the budget. We shall receive this in the form of an abatement of our monthly VAT contributions in the succeeding year. The system will begin with effect from 1986, when we shall receive abatements in respect of our 1985 net contribution. In the current year, we are due to receive a flat rate abatement of 1,000 mecu (about £590 million) in respect of our 1984 net contribution. This too was agreed at Fontainebleau and is included in the new own resources decision. The 1000 million ecus will be made available to us as soon as the new decision has been ratified by all member states. This should be around the turn of the year.
Over this financial year and the next two financial years we expect to receive abatements totalling some £2·6 billion. We expect from next year onwards to be contributing less than half of what we would have had to pay if the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling had remained and we had been unable to negotiate further ad hoc refunds—which almost certainly would have been the case.
As I mentioned earlier, the new abatement system has two crucial features: it is automatic and lasting. The United Kingdom now has an absolute entitlement to VAT abatement linked to our budgetary position. When your Lordships discussed the statement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the Fontainebleau agreement, some scepticism was expressed about how lasting the system really was,

1391
since its duration was tied to that of the 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling. I repeat the assurance which my noble friend the Lord President gave then. Because the system is embodied in the new own resources decision, it can be changed only by unanimous decision of the member governments and their national parliaments. It cannot be changed without the consent of the United Kingdom Parliament.
Earlier this month my honourable friend the Minister of State, Treasury, laid before Parliament a White Paper on the 1985 Community budget which gave an estimate of £1·2 billion for the United Kingdom's net contribution after abatement for this calendar year. As my honourable friend said in another place, that is a high figure. It is far too high. It is, however, an erratic figure, and there are three points which I should like to make about it.
First, 1985 is the last year in which we are due to receive a flat-rate correction to our net contribution. The new system is to take effect from next year. So our erratically high net contribution this year will be automatically reflected in a particularly high level of abatement in 1986. The Commission's latest estimate is for an abatement of some £980 million next year compared with some £590 million this year.
Second, this year's net contribution figure has been inflated artificially by two exceptional factors. During the year we contributed some £119 million of supplementary financing under the Intergovernmental Agreement for the 1984 budget as well as the special contribution of some £250 million in respect of the 1985 budget. We also paid an extra £75 million of VAT own resources which resulted from the change in 1984 in the United Kingdom's system for collecting VAT on imports.
Third, the £1·2 billion figure also includes some £135 million in respect of the United Kingdom's contribution to the Community's overseas aid programme. That forms part of the United Kingdom's overseas aid budget and is shown as such in our public expenditure White Paper.
The second key element in the Fontainebleau agreement, which is likewise incorporated in the new own resources decision, was the increase in the ceiling on the Community's VAT own resources revenues from 1 per cent. to 1·4 per cent. The effect will be to increase the total revenues available to the Community by some 15–20 per cent.
I do not disguise from your Lordships that this aspect of the Fontainebleau agreement was less welcome to the United Kingdom Government. There are, however, three points which I ask your Lordships to note. First, the raising of the VAT ceiling was necessary to enable the other member states to fund our abatement. It was only as part of a package that the United Kingdom was able to secure an abatement system at all. Second, the United Kingdom's own VAT rate is virtually certain, because of our abatement, to remain below 1 per cent. If the Community were to adopt the draft budget for next year recently established by the Council, together with the amendment to our abatement figure recently put forward by the Commission, the United Kingdom's
1392
VAT rate would be only some 0·56 per cent., while other member states would be paying about 1·2 per cent.
Third, the VAT ceiling cannot be raised further without the consent of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. The reference in the preamble to the own resources decision to the possibility of increasing the VAT ceiling to 1·6 per cent. from 1st January 1988 in no way alters that fact. There is no commitment of any kind to raising the ceiling again in 1988.
Another important element in the Fontainebleau agreement was the commitment to establish a system of budgetary discipline in the Community. The report from your Lordships' Committee discusses this matter in some depth. In the light of the Fontainebleau agreement, the Council of Ministers established unanimously a system of budgetary discipline in December 1984. The system provides for the establishment of a reference framework each year to determine the overall size of the budget; a financial guideline designed to contain the rate of growth of expenditure on agricultural market support within that of the Community's revenues; and provisions for limiting the rate of growth of the other main areas of Community spending.
The Government do not claim that the new arrangements are perfect. What we claim is that they represent a considerable improvement on what has gone before. Perhaps the key element in the new arrangements is the guideline on agricultural expenditure. The Commission have undertaken to draw up their price fixing proposals and the preliminary draft budget in the light of the guideline. They have indeed done so during the course of the current year. As a result of this, agricultural market support expenditure for the 10 member states is planned to grow by only 2·5 per cent. next year. When we compare that with 27·6 per cent. in 1983, 16·1 per cent. in 1984 and 8·9 per cent. in 1985 we see the difference. Last year, real price cuts of 4 per cent. were imposed on the CAP; this year there are real price cuts of 3·5 per cent. Prices for most product régimes have been cut or frozen.
More than the guideline will be needed if the CAP is to be brought under control. Policy changes will be required as well. The scale of this task was highlighted in the Select Committee's recent report on the CAP and the excellent debate upon it which took place last week. The Government welcome the recent Commission Green Paper on reform of the CAP as a realistic attempt to address the fundamental issues. We agree with the Commission that restrictive pricing holds the key to getting the CAP under control. This will need to be supplemented by other techniques which have already begun to be introduced, such as a wider application of guarantee thresholds. Otherwise, the surpluses will continue to grow, and market support expenditure with them.
I turn finally to the second subject of the Bill before us today—the Inter-governmental Agreement on supplementary financing for the Community's 1985 budget. The background to this is that, without supplementary financing provision, the Community would have run out of money, both in 1984 and again in the current year; the raising of the VAT own resources ceiling will not take effect until next year.

1393
The Government regret that the Community found it necessary to ask for this extra money. However, we were satisfied that it was essential and that it had been reduced to the minimum possible. Without an agreement on supplementary financing, the Community would not have been able to agree on a budget for 1985, which included the necessary provision for our 1,000 mecu abatement.
Although the United Kingdom's gross contribution under the Inter-governmental agreement for 1985 will be some £250 million, our eventual net contribution will be much lower. About half of it will come back in the form of receipts to United Kingdom farmers and traders. The rest will next year be subject to abatement under the Fontainebleau system. We expect the eventual net cost to be something of the order of £40 million.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister described the Fontainebleau agreement as, "good for Britain and good for the Community". It has established on a lasting basis the important principle that we are entitled to automatic correction of our net contributions to the budget. Even with the new system, we shall be substantial net contributors to the budget, as will Germany and France. But the scale of our net contribution will be much less than it would have been in the absence of such an agreement. Once introduced, moreover, the system cannot be changed without our consent.
The passage of today's Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the important and historic agreement which brings us these advantages. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will feel that the second report of this Session of the European Communities Committee, entitled, Fontainebleau and After: Decisions on Future Financing for the Community, provides a useful background to the present debate on the Second and Third Readings of the European Communities (Finance) Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the generous comments he made on our report. The contents of the report no doubt will be pretty thoroughly raked over in the course of our debate. Perhaps in those circumstances your Lordships will be prepared in due course simply to accede without further discussion to a formal Motion that the House takes note of the report. With your Lordships' permission, I shall so propose at the end of this debate.
The work of the European Communities Committee in the past year on the financial problems of the EC is covered in its first and second reports, in the preparation of which it employed the same specialist adviser throughout and examined many witnesses, some on both reports. To all, as well as to its clerk, the committee is grateful for much help.
The first report, which speculated on the prospects for the future financing of the Community, surveyed many unresolved problems in a time of crisis. The Community was using all the revenue available to it and needed more, not only to finance new activities
1394
but also to maintain the existing activities at the same moment. Within the budget, the common agricultural policy was demanding more and more money to support guaranteed prices to farmers. The argument about the disproportionate size of the contribution of this country to the budget was entering its fifth acrimonious year with a permanent solution nowhere near in sight. In that first report the committee recommended that we should use the need tor a solution of the first of these problems, the problem of resources, as a lever to force the Community to find solutions to the problem of overall control of the budget and the CAP, and the problem of the British contribution. We also made some suggestions as to how these problems might best be tackled.
Throughout the whole of last year, these problems were at the top of the Community's agenda. A solution to the problem of the British contribution was agreed at the Fontainebleau Summit in June 1984, and a solution to the problem of the common agricultural policy was finally agreed just after the Dublin Summit in December. The aims of the Government in these long and difficult negotiations were broadly in line with the recommendations of Future Financing, and the fact that they have now produced this Bill, which will signify our agreement to an increase in the resources of the Community, shows that they think the outcome was satisfactory. The purpose of the follow-up report, Fontainebleau and After, was to see whether we thought so too.
I propose to address, first, the formula agreed at Fontainebleau for reducing this country's contribution to the budget. It is described in the fourth paragraph of the explanatory memorandum of the Bill. It was agreed that from this year onwards our net contribution, that is, contribution minus receipts, would be reduced by two-thirds. The Government welcomed this agreement as something of a triumph, and the committee found a certain amount to say in its favour. First and foremost, it would put an end to the absurd situation whereby this country, which is far from being the richest member of the Community, is the only member state, apart from West Germany, putting more into the Community than it gets out of it. Under this new system, France would also become a net contributor to the Community. It has been pointed out to the committee that this might induce the French to show rather more responsibility about Community expenditure than perhaps they have in the past!
Secondly, it is important to understand that this formula offers the United Kingdom a reduction in her contribution, and not a repayment. Ever since 1979, as the noble Lord the Minister has said, the Government have succeeded in persuading the Community to pay us back some of our excessive contribution. But the process of repayment has been long and complicated and liable to be held up at any stage if some part of the Community is less than perfectly happy with our behaviour. Experience has shown that the easiest way to get money back from the Community is not to pay it in the first place; and that is what this formula would enable us to do.
However, although this formula may be better than the previous arrangements, it is the committee's opinion that it could have been a great deal better still. In the first place, it applies only to this country.

1395
Therefore this country alone has a direct interest in making it work and making it last; any other member state which may find itself in a similar position in the future will have to negotiate its own agreement from scratch. A general formula, as the committee recommended in their report, applicable automatically to any member state which found itself contributing too much, would have been better for Britain and better for the Community.
Secondly, this formula relates contributions to receipts, but makes no reference to relative prosperity within the Community. Neither the Government nor your Lordships' committee have ever suggested that the Community is about getting back as much as you put in—what is called, in Community jargon, juste retour, or "fair return". This country's constant complaint has been not that we are net contributors to the Community, but rather that while this has been so other richer countries have been net beneficiaries.
This situation was foreseen when we first joined the Community, since the six nations who set it up for their mutual benefit were primarily agricultural nations and we were not. The hope then was that non-agricultural policies would be developed to push a fair share of the Community's resources in our direction: this has not happened. The Fountainebleau formula makes no connection between net contribution and relative prosperity, and leans instead in the direction of juste retour.
Finally, the Fontainebleau agreement contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. It was decided to make it a part of the agreement to raise the amount of revenue available to the Community, and to lay down that it should last only so long as that agreement before being reviewed. That agreement, to which this Bill will mark your assent, my Lords, is not likely, in the committee's opinion, to last much beyond 1988. Therefore this whole question, which has so divided the Community for six years, would under this agreement be reopened in two or three years' time.
The formula I have described is to be applied initially to our contribution to this year's budget, and will therefore lead to an abated contribution in 1986. It was agreed at Fontainebleau that our excess contribution in 1984 would be dealt with by an abatement of 1,000 million ecu on our contribution for 1985. When we drew up our report, this abatement was in doubt: there was no allowance for it in the 1985 draft budget, and there were fears that instead of a reduced United Kingdom contribution to Community revenue it would have to take the form of increased Community expenditure in the United Kingdom, like the rebates of previous years, with all the problems which that can involve.
Happily your Lordships' committee were over-pessimistic: the Council has stood by its commitment to keep our 1984 abatement on the revenue side of the budget. When all ten member states have agreed to raise the ceiling on VAT contributions, our VAT contribution to the 1985 budget will be reduced, and all the others increased proportionately to fill the gap. The only reason why we must wait for the new VAT ceiling, is that the increase in the other member states'
1396
contributions needed to pay for our abatement will take their contributions above the old ceiling.
I now turn to the system, first proposed at the Brussels Summit in March of last year and finally agreed after the Dublin Summit in December, to impose discipline upon the budget as a whole, and upon the CAP in particular. The system is based on the principle that the Community should adjust its expenditure in accordance with its revenue, and not vice versa. The system has two parts. First, as regards the budget as a whole, the Council of Ministers is to begin each year's budget procedure by setting an upper limit on total expenditure, to be known as the "reference framework". This is to be done by qualified majority voting, so that we will have a veto only in combination with one other of the larger member states.
Secondly, as regards the CAP, the Commission's proposals for agricultural expenditure will be drawn up according to a guide-line laid down by the Council; namely that the rate of growth of agricultural expenditure will be less than that of the own-resources base. The concept of the own-resources base is a difficult one, and I refer noble Lords to paragraph 17 of the report for an explanation. The effect of this guideline should be that if, as is proposed, the Community's resources are increased, all the extra revenue will be available for non-agricultural purposes. The guideline could only be breached by the member states acting unanimously.
The committee could find little fault with this system in theory. Much has been made of the fact that it is not legally enforceable; but we have been advised that it could not be breached without repeated breaches of faith by member states and an undermining of the position of the Commission.
Much has also been made of two apparent loopholes in the system. First, the guide-line may be adjusted in what are deemed to be exceptional circumstances. Secondly, the Council's obligation to make up for any breach of the guide-line by making savings in subsequent years may be waived in the event of aberrant developments. How widely or narrowly the Community will interpret these expressions, only time will tell. It has been suggested that the reference framework on total expenditure might prove more effective than the guide-line for agricultural expenditure. If this were to happen and the CAP were allowed to swallow an increasing proportion of a non-increasing total, then the situation of non-agricultural policies would be even worse than it is at present.
One unmistakably alarming feature of the system is that, like the Fontainebleau formula, it is to be reviewed at the same time as the agreement to increase the Community's resources. As I said before, in the committee's opinion this may mean as early as 1987. Another cause for concern is the extreme displeasure of the European Parliament, which objects strongly both to the system itself, mainly because it adjusts revenue and not expenditure, and to the manner in which the Council devised it without prior consultation. However, it must be admitted that the new discipline has so far been respected in practice, in particular in the composition of the preliminary draft budget for 1986. We are not yet able, in this case, to say "We told you so". You will now understand, my

1397
Lords, why your committee conclude that solutions of a sort to the two problems of the British contribution and the CAP have been found, and that therefore there is a prima facie case for agreeing, by means of this Bill, to increase the Community's resources. You will also understand why we find those solutions less than satisfactory, particularly with regard to how long they will last.
I turn finally to the own-resources question itself. As the Bill's Explanatory Memorandum explains, at present, member states turn over to the Community, as its own resources, a proportion not exceeding 1 per cent. of VAT notionally levied on a common list of goods and services; and this proportion is now inadequate. It was agreed at Fontainebleau to raise this VAT ceiling to 1·4 per cent. by 1st January 1986. The ratification of the new VAT ceiling is the first purpose of the Bill which is before your Lordships. When we were drawing up our report, the hope was that, because of the Community's urgent need for increased resources, the new ceiling would be in effect from 1st January 1985.
However, the German Government insisted that the new own-resources Decision must not be ratified sooner than the accession treaties for Spain and Portugal. Their intention may have been to speed up enlargement; and perhaps to some extent this was the effect. Even so, the new treaties for Spain and Portugal will not now be ratified by all member states this year, so it will not be possible to bring the new VAT ceiling into effect until 1st January 1986. This means that only the resources available under the old VAT ceiling will be available to the Community for this year's budget. Your Lordships will remember that the original 1985 draft budget was rejected by the European Parliament because it did not balance: this was because the Council was relying on gaining access to the new resources later in the year. When this hope disappeared, the Council drew up a new budget, relying not on a hypothetical injection of new resources, but on an inter-governmental agreement to provide extra funds outside the own-resources system.
Your Lordships are well aware that a similar device had to be resorted to last year, to fill the gap in the 1984 budget. Such a device is objectionable in principle, since in theory the Community is a body with its own resources, independent of the governments of its member states; and it is unsatisfactory in practice, since it places the Community at the mercy of 10 separate national parliaments, any one of which may find a reason to hold up the payment. However, the Community is committed to expenditure beyond its means, and is obliged to balance its budget; and beggars cannot be choosers. The ratification of this inter-governmental agreement is the second purpose of this Bill.
The likelihood that the new resources would not be available until 1986 was foreseen in our report. The sums which we did then convinced us that what with the budget deficits for 1984 and 1985, the extra expenditure involved in enlargement, the question-mark over the effectiveness of budgetary discipline, and the cost of our own abatement, the new resources, even when available, would not go very far. They would pull the Community out of the red, but only for a year or two at most, whereupon all these problems
1398
would have to be tackled again. And there is no reason to suppose that what was true then is not true now.
To sum up, my Lords, as we approach 1986 the Community has some cause for satisfaction. The wrangles over own resources, budgetary imbalances and the growth of the CAP are over for the time being; and the questions of enlargement and the integrated Mediterranean programmes appear to have been settled too. It should now be possible to consider the future of the Community, and to explore new areas of co-operation, in a calmer and less acrimonious atmosphere than has existed in Europe for some years. But all the signs are that this breathing-space will be a short one, perhaps no more than a single year. It is therefore essential that we should make the most of it. To deny the Community the increase in resources for which it now asks and which it so urgently needs would jeopardise these new hopes and indeed its whole future. With that in mind, my Lords, I support this Bill.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, for taking us shortly through the various steps that have been taken to reconcile the £1,200 million-odd net contribution from the United Kingdom for 1985 with the £690 million that was originally set out in the White Paper. His verdict, as I understand it, is that, of the increase, ultimately we shall be liable for only £40 million extra, rather than the £600-odd million that would otherwise be so. I take it therefore that that will leave the forecasts for 1986, 1987 and 1988 as set out in the Government's expenditure plans virtually intact at their present figures, because—I quote from page 47 of the White Paper Cmd. 9428, Part 2—
"These estimates take account of the agreement reached by heads of Government at Fontainebleau on 26 June 1984 on the future financing of the Community".
So we have the Second Reading and all the remaining stages of this Bill here today.
The House may ultimately reflect, though perhaps not today, that there was another occasion in 1972 when the European Communities Act was passed in a rush all on one day and that some time has elapsed since then. I venture to predict that the House once again in due time will have cause to regret that it proposes to pass this Bill through on one day.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, for having dealt with the excellent report which his Select Committee has brought forward on the Fontainebleau decisions and what is likely to happen afterwards. I thought that the noble Lord was perhaps a little less enthusiastic than he has been on previous occasions. In general, the support for Britain's membership of the European Community and the advantages that are alleged to flow from it tend these days to be somewhat subdued; the myth has yet to establish itself into reality.
The House will forgive me if on this occasion I adopt the principle so frequently enunciated by Her Majesty's Government for consideration when we deal with Bills which result in public expenditure; that of cost effectiveness. There are very few noble Lords opposite, especially those on the Front Bench, and certainly including the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, who

1399
would dissent from the propriety of our proceeding on this basis. Even on the revised estimate and reconciliation made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, of the truths or approximations contained in this statement published during the Recess, we are still left with a £730 million burden for 1985; according to the Government's expenditure plans some £750 million net in 1985–86, some £640 million in 1986–87 and £830 million net in 1987–88. These are the figures after taking into account all those miraculous concessions that have been wrung by a young, vigorous Prime Minister from a hostile Europe on Britain's behalf.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, said, by way of amelioration, it is less than we would have paid. That seems to be a pretty poor apologia. Had the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, been present on the Liberal Benches he would undoubtedly have said. "Well, what, after all, is a contribution of £700 million?" Having his calculator with him he would probably then say, "That represents only 0·50359 per cent. of total public expenditure in the United Kingdom", on the assumpton that our public expenditure runs at £139,000 million. Even on the basis of £600 million extra expenditure the noble Lord will observe that I am giving him the benefit of £100 million in case his eloquence wins a further £100 million concession—it would still mean that if the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, were here (doubtless he would be supported by the Liberal Benches) he would say, "What's it all about?" It is only 0·4136 per cent. of all public expenditure".
I have commented previously on the tendency of those on the Government Benches, whenever they refer to public expenditure which they want to incur but cannot provide any other justification for it, always to refer to it derisively as only nought point something or other of public expenditure. But when considering other items of public expenditure of direct benefit to individual citizens, then the Government get on their high and mighty horse and say, "We cannot possibly afford that. We do not have the resources for it. It is all paid out of taxpayers' money".
For the avoidance of doubt, we say that to pay £600 million in relief on the local authority housing programme, so urgently put forward by the present Minister of State (if we are to believe the press), involves only 0·3164 of total public expenditure. Therefore, why should there be all that hoo-ha about refusing to spend money on housing repairs and maintenance, which, as everybody in the United Kingdom knows, is a matter of very grave urgency, if only to prevent further deterioration rather than for any improvement?
Concerning this apparent waving away in a Bill another £600 million or £700 million, which is what is being done today, may I remind the noble Lord opposite that the cost of 20 kidney machines, which the Government are refusing to supply and the absence of which has already caused unnecessary deaths in the United Kingdom, represents ·0002860 of public expenditure? This puts into proper perspective the present write-off, the present gift, for the sake of agreement, of an extra £600 million. I am bound to ask this, having given the House notice of it. On cost
1400
effective grounds, what are we in the United Kingdom receiving in return for £600 million to £700 million per annum?
On past occasions we have had a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in particular, that we should remember that 44 per cent. of our exports go to Europe, which implies that without the Common Market 44 per cent. of our exports would not go there. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I should say that the figure for 1984 is precisely 44·7 per cent. However, what the noble Lord did not say and what sometimes, if I may say so, his colleagues on the Alliance Benches do not always appreciate, is that some 70 per cent. of that 44 per cent. represents fuel exports to the EEC. Whether or not the EEC were in existence, it would be a fool who would not be able to export fuel to Europe, which so urgently needs it. Quite clearly, that massive export is not at all dependent on membership of the EEC.
In fact, we have a massive deficit with the EEC in respect of manufactured goods, which is running close on £4,000 million, as against the surplus we had before we went into the EEC. In addition to that, thanks to the common agricultural policy, we have the dubious benefit of paying some 10 per cent. more for our food than we should otherwise pay.
Who benefits? Of course, the agricultural interest benefits. The previous report, produced also by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, shows it quite clearly. At page 12 it sets out the income disparities according to the most important kinds of farming. It shows quite clearly in the case of cereal farming that cereal farmers in this country receive two and a half times the EEC average net revenues from that particular branch of agriculture. Of course, agriculture benefits: and agricultural interests lie at the root of the party opposite.
As the brother of the present Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry was injudicious enough to point out in his famous article of October 1983, at least six Cabinet Ministers at that time had a vested interest in the common agricultural policy, by virtue of the fact of their being farmers. I did not say it: Mr. Samuel Brittan said it in a fully documented article in the Financial Times in October 1983.
Of course, the City of London benefits from it likewise. The whole rapid spread of Euro-bonds and Euro-dollars, following the Treaty of Rome and the accession of Britain, has of course buttressed the City of London as the financial centre, of even greater influence than it had before, within the golden triangle that has been established by the EEC. Those are the benefits.
One of the most remarkable things, when considering this whole question, is the way that, when it comes to the common agricultural policy, this Government abandon the ideology they lay down for industry having to be competitive in a competitive society, competing against Korea, competing against Taiwan, competing against Brazil, competing against all low labour cost countries, saying that we must compete or die; while agriculture, under the common agricultural policy, is one of biggest protectionist devices under the sun, ensuring complete protection, not competition, so far as British farmers are concerned.

1401
Regarding the revenue and the expense of the European Communities, it is quite clear that the bulk of the expenditure of the EEC, in fact practically the whole reason for its existence, lies in the common agricultural policy itself, which in 1985 will take some 70 per cent. of its total revenues. As the Select Committee report under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, pointed out, agricultural expenditure is still rising. Although this country pays some £600 million or £700 million net, after all receipts, to the European Community, the moral validity of that would be on a slightly sounder basis were it not for the whole nature of the expenditure upon which quite large sums, including sums provided by the United Kingdom, are based.
If noble Lords examine the 1984 budget of the European Communities—and similar considerations apply to 1985 and I shall refer noble Lords to individual titles of the various budget items if they wish—they will find this. In relation to the storage of intervention food stocks alone—which are not the stocks held by wholesalers or retailers as a normal buttress against variations in trade and demand but are Government intervention stocks bought into intervention—the total cost for 1984 was £2,187 million and the cost for cereals alone in 1986 is likely to be £640 million. Your Lordships may be interested to know that of that total amount of £2,187 million the United Kingdom receives back £46 million for storage. That is bully for us—but that is already taken into account in determining the net contribution. It is also set out in the report that the cost of cereal storage is estimated to rise to £ 1,704 million in 1990–91. That is assuming that the price of storage of wheat remains at £19·20 per tonne and the stocks are still rising.
I have dealt with the cost of storage. I shall not weary your Lordships with the stories in the press which are verified by press comment, whether favourable to the Government or not, over a wide spectrum that these stocks are rapidly deteriorating. And those costs have still to be accounted for. Therefore we are contributing on a massive scale, not to assisting in the reconstruction of our own country; we are contributing to this massive waste of expenditure on food that is never going to be consumed and which has been put into intervention. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, that the accounts do not yet show the extent of the financial implications of the deterioration in stocks that has taken place.
Your Lordships will also bear in mind, in view of press reports spread over a wide section of the press, that in the last fortnight it has been revealed that the Court of Auditors has unearthed some £500 million worth of fraud, details of which already have been provided in another place and with which I shall not weary your Lordships. Is this kind of expenditure, or our contribution to it, more desirable, more cost-effective, than expenditure on housing, on the National Health Service and on various other quite desirable projects which I believe all sides of your Lordships' House would prefer rather than pouring money down the drain?
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, referred with satisfaction to the budget discipline. But he also said—and I must do him justice—that it was not yet
1402
perfect. He can say that again! In doing so, he referred us to the agreements arrived at Fontainebleau; and the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, pointed out some of the defects. I propose to enlarge upon them for the record and for your Lordships' information. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, quite correctly said that much of the budgetary discipline depended upon the fixing of a reference framework for agricultural subsidy (for that is what it is) under the guarantee system of FEOGA.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, the reference framework refers to the total expenditure of the budget and not merely to the agricultural expenditure.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, my Lords. I accept that correction from the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, though as the noble Lord is well aware the non-compulsory expenditure is already dealt with by special article in the treaty itself and is therefore largely self-controlling. Article 1, at paragraph 2, reads:
"In order to fix the reference framework the Council shall act by qualified majority in accordance with Article 148.2, second indent of the EEC Treaty".
Yes, it is all very well and good: it shall be decided by qualified majority. That of course means, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, was at pains to point out, that Britain is virtually on her own in this. The only way that she can object to the establishment of whatever reference framework for the total can be established is by getting one of the other major states to support her; because the revised representation of Article 148, after the admission of Greece, will read as follows: Belgium will have five votes; Denmark, three; Germany, 10; France, 10; Ireland, three; Italy. 10; Luxembourg, two; Netherlands, five; United Kingdom, 10; Greece, five; and, for their adoption, Acts of the Council shall require at least 45 votes (as it now is) where this treaty requires them to be adopted on a proposal from the Commission and 45 votes in favour cast by at least six members in other cases.
Britain's veto has in fact gone, because France and Germany are never likely to combine with the United Kingdom for the establishment of a reference framework which prevents the continued expansion of the common agricultural policy, as the noble Lord knows only too well and indeed as is reproduced in the other report. The percentage of the working population of this country engaged in agriculture is 2·7; in Germany it is 5·9 and in France it is 5·3. And they have a vested political interest, as the exercise of the German veto on the price of cereals recently portrayed. They have a vested interest in its maintenance and in its enlargement.
But even on the assumption that with the United Kingdom's agreement a reference framework was established, noble Lords should take a look at Article 6 of the same treaty:
"At the request of a member of the Council or the Commission … the majority referred to in Article 1/"—
which I have just read to your Lordships—
"may amend the reference framework".
In other words, whenever it suits the other members of the EC to enlarge their agricultural reference, their compulsory expenditure, they can do so; and we have given away our right of veto.

1403
Indeed, we set a precedent for it two years ago when, under the chairmanship of a man called Gaston Thorn of Luxembourg, the Council arrived at a price fixing which was against the expressed wishes of the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Walker, as your Lordships will recall. It was decided it should proceed by qualified vote and Britain—be it noted—did not insist upon her veto, for the simple political reason that, on the one hand, the British Government did not wish to seem to the public to be supporting the increased expenditure involved, and, on the other hand, that they thought their silence would at the same time produce benefits to the farming population on whom they have such a political dependence.
The Select Committee's report says that in any event this solid basis, to which the noble Lord referred in his introductory speech, is not really so stable after all. I quote from the Select Committee's report:
"However, both the abatement mechanism and the provisions of budgetary discipline are linked in duration to the 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling. It is widely expected that the VAT ceiling will have to be raised again in January 1988. Negotiation on this and therefore on the abatement system will have to begin before the end of 1986. Thus, although there will be a longer period before the next discussion of the 'British Problem' a permanent solution has not been found. Nor has the problem disappeared".
So much for the solid basis mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham.
I am sorry to have to reproach the noble Lord over this Bill, which he knows as well as I do is merely a figleaf to cover the Government's nakedness of policy in the EC, their complete absence of any constructive thought as to how the burden on this country of participation in the common agricultural policy can in fact be eased.
My noble friend Lord Ardwick will doubtless confirm, if he thinks it necessary when he speaks later, the fact that it was 10 years ago that I joined the European Parliament. Regularly every year since July 1975 I can recall our being told in the most fervent terms by most of the member states how urgent it was for the common agricultural policy to be reformed. Nothing has been done. And all Fontainebleau does is to provide a legalistic framework from which any of the member states can extricate itself at will without in any way offending the letter of the so-called law or agreement they have established or without, I must say, acting in any way at variance with the very often quite unscrupulous way in which the states have respectively acted over the past six or seven years.
These are harsh truths, but if we are going to talk in legal terms may I remind your Lordships that most agricultural expenditure is compulsory expenditure. It is therefore demand led, and farmers have a right under Community law to receive such moneys as are due to them under the regulations that now exist. Therefore no cash limits—a term much beloved of the Government—can be applied save that the legislation be amended, and that needs the full consent of the Council.
On the basis of the last 10 years' experience, it would be a very bold man indeed, even from the Liberal or the SDP Benches, who could cross his heart and say he is quite confident, on the basis of a qualified majority, of the regulations on compulsory expenditure being
1404
amended. If those people cannot cross their hearts and say that, they really have no business to shove the whole of their own impetus behind the myth they have created about the benefits of Europe, and certainly they have no business to support this Bill.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord for introducing this Bill and to thank the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, and his committee for the report, which is so timely in relation to the publication of this Bill and which enables us to be far better informed as to what the Bill contains than would otherwise be the case.
The attitudes towards this Bill depend on the attitudes people hold towards the European Community itself, and I suppose they fall broadly into three groups. First, there are the people who totally disapprove of the EC as such. After the last 31 minutes, I do not think I need to elaborate on the attitudes of people in that group. (Incidentally, I wish the clock could be altered: I do not wish the 32nd minute to be recorded during my speech.) If one disapproved totally of the EC, then of course every pound spent on it is a pound wasted and every additional pound spent is an additional pound to be deplored. That is a perfectly legitimate point of view on the part of those who believe that we ought not to be in the EC.
If there has been any doubt about the position of the Labour Party in recent months, as various aspects of Labour Party policy have been somewhat blurred in the desire to improve their position in the polls, I think that after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, there can be no doubt whatsoever about the position of the Front Bench of the Labour Party in your Lordships' House. It is a perfectly proper position. They are entirely entitled to take it, and it follows from that position that their attitude towards this Bill must be as has been stated by Lord Bruce.
The second group is the group which is represented by Her Majesty's Government. They take the view that British membership of the EC is desirable. The party came to it a little late—that was a pity but they came to it in the end—and they see it as an advantage to be there but they see it in a somewhat short-term view. They look all the time at the immediate return, year after year, of what they are going to get as a result of membership of the EC and, as was made clear by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young, their measure is the relationship between the amount that we put into the EC and the amount that we get out of it. This comes very near to the attitude now abandoned I think of "juste retour"—an attitude which I have always found very difficult to follow.
If all that you are trying to do in relation to the EC is to see that your own particular country gets out of its contribution to the EC as much as it puts in, then for the life of me I cannot see why you go in at all; because if all you are trying to do is to get your money back it would be very much cheaper never to put your money there in the first place. All you do by putting your money there and then trying to claw the same amount back is to lose some in the process of the transfer. So

1405
the "juste retour" attitude towards the EC has, in my view, extremely little to recommend it.
The Government, I think, have somewhat shifted their position from one of "juste retour", but they have not shifted it very far in the calculations they are making as to exactly how much has been put in and exactly how much will be got out year by year. Of course, I am not saying that the Government and this country should not be aware of what is being put in and should not calculate what is being received, but I do question, as I shall go on to do in a moment, whether that ought to be the dominant consideration in terms of our relationship with our EC partners.
However, we can from these Benches, though with qualification, welcome the fact that the Fontainebleau agreement was made and we can therefore welcome this Bill which is based on the agreement. At least it brings an end to the unseemly squabbling which had reduced our standing in Brussels to zero and which had made it extremely difficult for us to exercise the kind of influence that we ought to be exercising year in and year out but have failed for years to exercise because of the quarrels that have gone on. If the Fontainebleau agreement did nothing else but bring this quarrelling to an end—if indeed it has; certainly it has done so temporarily—then to that extent it is to be welcomed. It is also, of course, an achievement that the Government have secured the abatement that is in this agreement and which is reflected in this Bill.
It is satisfactory, too, that there is now a system of discipline for the administration of the schemes. But I must say I find it very difficult to accept the Minister's statement when he tells us that this is final and settled. The House will not expect me to agree with a very great deal of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but I must say I am with him in being very sceptical as to whether we shall not in a year or two's time have the whole issue of the size of contribution raised. Our attitude from these Benches towards that suggestion might well be very different from the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the Front Bench of the Labour Party, but I should be extremely surprised if this really is the final, last word about what the size of the British contribution is to be. In my view, it would be surprising if that were so.
There is of course a third approach towards the EC; that concerns what our payment should be and upon what it should be based. The third approach is the Alliance approach. The Alliance believes that the future of this country is tied up with the development of an effective, vigorous and united Europe. That means that we must ensure that we are playing our full part in that Europe. Therefore we fully accept that this country has to make a substantial contribution. We do not see the benefits to be gained by making that contribution as being properly measured in the return that we receive from it year in and year out. We see many other very much more important benefits which can be obtained. However, before I refer to those benefits—which to my mind are overwhelming and, in the mind of my party, remain overwhelming—let me say that once again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the position as regards the CAP remains totally unsatisfactory.
I point out that the bias towards agriculture which is built into the treaty, and from which we have suffered
1406
ever since the Community was set up, would not have been present if the United Kingdom had been in on the negotiations from the beginning. If a great country with large industrial interests had taken its full part in the negotiation of the treaty, then the countries which had so much at stake in political terms as regards agriculture would not have been able to bias the treaty in the way in which it has been biased. Indeed, it is undoubtedly true that it has been so biased. That comes out again and again in our failure to reform the CAP.
I am not saying that the CAP has been a total failure—very far from it. Let us remember that in the early years the CAP made it possible to bring about reforms in agriculture which were long overdue, strengthening the agricultural industry without the heavy social costs which, throughout continental Europe, would have been paid in terms of the development of an industrial proletariat made up of people moving out of the agricultural areas. That would have happened if the CAP had not been there to rescue agriculture. However, that time is past; it is no longer necessary to boost agriculture in the way in which it was boosted.
If we are to make real progress we must tackle the question of the CAP far more vigorously than it is being tackled at present. It is not totally true to say that no progress is being made. It is true that the increase in contributions to the CAP is less great than the increase in the size of the Community budget as a whole, but it is still too great. Unless there is a commitment to get on with solving the problems of the CAP, to see that agriculture does not dominate the policies of the EC, as it has done in the past, then the other potential benefits will not be forthcoming. The other potential benefits are undoubtedly overwhelmingly great.
So far no one has mentioned the fact that Spain and Portugal are being brought into the EC. Not long ago both Spain and Portugal may have moved into (and remained permanently in) the totalitarian sectors of the European continent. The fact that they are now democratic countries seeking membership, and welcomed into membership of the EC—albeit with some reservations in certain areas—is a great triumph. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to the fact that the Germans and the French were ganging up. Those of your Lordships who remember (and nearly everyone in your Lordships' House does so) the history of the 20th century and the relationship between France and Germany must surely be thankful for the contribution that the Community has made to the fact that it is now impossible to imagine that France and Germany will be at each other's throats, and indeed that they are accused of ganging up. Thank God for that ganging up.
We on these Benches want to see a movement of the moneys that go to the CAP for the development of social and industrial policies—policies of transport, policies of research and policies to deal with unemployment. We want to see the money channelled in that direction so that the EC can really give a lead on the problems which beset us all, so that we can do something through the EC to hold our place against the threatening competition both from the low standard of living countries and from the high standard of living countries—competition which we

1407
cannot hope to meet unless we act in unity. Those are the big jobs which lie ahead.
Let us remember that if we put this money into the development of social and industrial policies it will not be additional money that is being spent in Europe; it will be money which will not be spent in this country because by being spent in Europe it will be better spent. It will mean that we shall be able to move moneys which would be devoted to research and to industrial policies on a small scale in this country—because the national scale is no longer large enough to deal with them—into Europe in order to develop European policies of a more effective and more economic kind. That is the type of Europe for which we are looking. For that Europe we would be prepared to pay not only the 1·4 per cent., minus its abatement, but more if we were really going to get the type of Europe for which we in these parties have always stood and still stand.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, has included in his resume of the Select Committee's report everything that needs to be said. It was an excellent report and it is something which your Lordships' House will certainly have appreciated very much indeed. I do not think that it is important at this stage for me to make a long speech. Therefore I shall confine my remarks entirely to the particular aspect of the Fountainebleau agreement which affects the finances of this country and which, to me, sends out strong danger signals. Indeed, that is due to the fact that the agreement to reduce the contribution for the United Kingdom was an ad hoc arrangement, devoid of logic and, to my mind, contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of Rome, if not to the principles of the Treaty of Rome. It was based on the principle that the United Kingdom should not pay more than she puts in, that this refers to the United Kingdom alone and that the principle of juste retour should be applied.
We certainly gained a great deal from the agreement, but much less than we would have done if the principle of the safety net, as argued by the United Kingdom at the Brussels meeting of the European Council, had been accepted. Juste retour does not mean a fair return. In accountancy terms, it means accurate or balanced, whereas "fair", which has no equivalent word, so far as I know, in any other European language, has an element of reasonableness in addition to accuracy. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is a chartered accountant and he will know that chartered accountants in this country use the words "true and fair" when certifying the accounts of a company. That is done because we all know that a number of assets cannot be valued accurately and can only be valued reasonably.
On the very first day of taking evidence, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, asked Mr. Ian Stewart, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the following question. I quote from the Minutes of Evidence:
"I can see the short-term advantages to this country. But would it not be better to concentrate not on ad hoc arrangements that deal with particular Member States but on setting contributions which are clearly fair at the very beginning? That would give rise to much less controversy"
1408
He asked a second question:
"We shall not get anything right until we get the fundamentals right. Have we not got to start at the very beginning to get it right for the future?"
to which Mr. Ian Stewart replied:
"You are more optimistic that I am, Lord Benson, about the ability of the Member States to imagine that they have a blank piece of paper in front of them and to switch from the existing system—or most of it—to something entirely new. In theory, Lord Benson, I very much agree with you; in practice, I doubt if it could be done".
My feeling is that we are stuck with a bit of "ad hocery" which can last a short time only, as it appears that the 1·4 per cent. ceiling will be breached before two years are up. What is more, further ad hocery will have to be undertaken when Spain and Portugal join the Community. The principle of capacity to pay seems to have been sunk without trace, and with it any hope of a fair return. In a year's time we may see the renewal of bargaining and bickering but meanwhile we have certainly won something and so I back this Bill.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, we are doing ourselves rather proud. Three major debates on Europe in one week is to treat the subject on a symphonic scale. However, we got the order of the movements aesthetically wrong. This debate might well have been the opening movement, the new beginning after Fontainebleau. Then we could have gone on to the unresolved problems of agriculture; and the last movement would have been European Union and its hopeful glimpse into a hazy future.
Today's subject has not, I am afraid, attracted many speakers. The financing of the Community is an arid and arcane—almost impenetrable—subject. It has been heavy going even for the pundits on Lord O'Brien's committee, of which I was one of the humble members. There is only one man I know who has revelled in penetrating the mysteries of Community finance, one man who has an intimate knowledge of it, and that is my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who served in the European Parliament as Rapporteur on the Community budget and dedicated an entire year to the subject, bringing to it his expertness as an accountant and the most remarkable assiduity. My respect for my noble friend's knowledge and admiration for his enthusiasm do not, however, compel me to share all the views that he has advanced this afternoon. In fact, I belong to something now called the Labour Movement in Europe, which consists of members of my party who still have faith in the European experiments.
The Bill which we have before us today has run into heavy weather in another place. Of course, any international agreement must do so, given our adversarial parliamentary system and the obligation on an Opposition to oppose. Any agreement concerning the Common Market must also incur passionate criticism from some people who wish either that we could leave the Community or that we could disrupt it and change it into something quite different.
But the criticism of Fontainebleau and all that is more impressively based. Both the House of Commons Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and our own House of Lords Committee, which are reasonably objective bodies,

1409
have been less than enthusiastic about what has been achieved. I would describe the conclusions of our House of Lords report as sceptical and just avoiding pessimism. Perhaps we were a little too impressed by the fact that this was our second report on the subject and the Fontainebleau decisions did not meet all the criteria that we had originally demanded.
Unlike some other critics who would like the Community to spend no more in future than it is now spending, or to spend perhaps even less, we in our committee were in favour of increasing the Community's own resources. We believed that such an increase is basic to its development. But there were other criteria that we set. Agricultural spending had to be restrained and the problem of Britain's excessive contributions had to be solved, because it was exacerbating relations and preventing the Community from pursuing more constructive policies.
We had to recognise in our conclusions that a settlement on the lines we recommended was prevented by the realities of Community politics. We were apprehensive that the problems with which the Community has grappled will appear again in too short a time, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, has said. It has yet to be seen how the agreed system of budgetary discipline will work out in practice. It may prevent the extra resources from being swallowed up by the CAP, but there will not be much for new policies.
We ended our report on a note of the mildest optimism. It must be hoped that at least for a year or two the financial affairs of the Community will provide a more peaceful background to its enlargement and to the vigorous thought about its future development which is clearly necessary.
I go along with all this criticism and all this lack of enthusiasm, but I also feel that I must look at it in a different perspective and in a strategic way. With all its unresolved and semi-resolved problems, the Community is in a healthier state than it was two years ago. In fact, largely due to President Mitterrand, the Community has come along with a generous abatement of the British contribution. It has even ended the anomaly that wealthy France, a land swimming in fat, as Goering enviously put it, was a net recipient of Community money and is now to join Britain and Germany as a contributor.
There is a general recognition which we all share that the CAP must be restrained, but the difficulties of doing so must not be put down to lack of political will. As the present Government of Mrs. Thatcher know, the difficulties of cutting public expenditure are immense. However flinty hearted a Chancellor may be, and however authoritative the Star Chamber that decides the disputes, in the end political necessity and not prudence will decide whether a cut has to be made. Moreover agriculture is singularly difficult to discipline, partly because of its political power, partly because of the misery that even marginal reductions in prices may cause, and partly because of the long cycle of farming operations.
One of our most impressive witnesses, Dr. William Wallace, Director of Studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, said:
1410
"… we should be realistic in recognising that there is virtually no way in which the European Community can reduce expenditure on agriculture in the next two to three years. Even some of those potential new structural policies which will in time reduce output are likely to cost more in the short term: you pay people for going out of production and they have to be paid out of national budgets or the Community budget".
I think we shall recognise in time, if we do not do so now, that Fontainbleau was an historic summit. The Community was attempting to shed the frustrations of the 'eighties and preparing for its enlargement and development.
Nobody has been more critical than I have been about the way in which the Prime Minister pursued Britain's just claim to a permanent abatement of its contribution—she did so in a way which, to put it mildly, was lacking in charm and exacerbated relations with the other member states. But it is only fair to acknowledge that the positive document which she presented to the Community, and which we now reprint in our report, was a welcome change of mood and an effort to restore the faith of the other member states in the sincerity of Britain's European commitments.
Now the Community is seeking to strengthen itself and perhaps even to amend the funding treaty. Never has the case for a stronger union been as compelling as it is today. Economically, the removal of its internal barriers is essential if our relative prosperity is to be maintained in the new world of high technology. Politically, we have need of even closer co-operation if we are to use our full persuasive influence on the two super-powers to abandon their dangerous policies of confrontation.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have taken part in many debates on EC matters in another place but I think that this is probably the first time I have taken part in such a debate in this House. I must say that in another place the interest in the subject appears to be very low. Why that is I really do not know. Perhaps it is because the problems which we face in relation to the EC, particularly in relation to finance, are such that the honourable Members in another place cannot grasp the detail and become rather bored, but the attendance in your Lordships' House today is rather better than I had expected. I think that is altogether good because the more people who know about the EC, and the implications of the EC not only for finance and not only in relation to our own budget but in relation to the sovereignty of this nation, the better it will be.
The Bill before us is intended to enshrine into British law and to give treaty status to an undertaking resulting from this new phenomenon, the intergovernmental agreement. In 1984 we were presented with the inter-governmental agreement to provide the European Community with a reimbursable advance. This country's share of the total was some £ 119 million. This agreement was reached in spite of the fact that there is no provision in the Treaty of Rome for the Community to borrow money. Yet we agreed that we could lend them money which they had no duty to repay because they did not have the power to

1411
borrow it in the first place. That is the kind of thing we do in relation to the EC.
The Government sought to give Parliamentary approval to this inter-governmental agreement by means of an Order in Council but on being challenged in the courts by Mr. Oliver Smedley, a public-spirited gentleman who cares deeply about our parliamentary democracy, they decided to change tack and go to the House of Commons for a supplementary estimate through the Consolidated Fund Bill procedure. Mr. Smedley was unsuccessful in the courts and is faced not only with paying his own costs, which are considerable, but with being spitefully hounded by the Treasury for their costs. That is the fate which awaits anyone who dares to challenge the doling out of vast amounts of public money to the insatiable EC and the insane common agricultural policy which constitutes the main raison d'être of its existence.
Now we have this Bill and again Parliament is being asked to enshrine into law not a properly negotiated and properly documented treaty but a nasty piece of scrappy paper arising from what was not a formal meeting but an informal gathering. My Lords, if we go on in this way and the EC continues on its profligate course, the European Communities Act will be littered with addenda which will be of greater length than the Act itself.
I have read the debates in another place and what is surprising—what in fact is amazing—is that at Third Reading of this Bill no voice was raised in support of the Government except perhaps that of Sir Russell Johnston, a confirmed Euro-federalist, who gave only oblique and grudging support. So when the matter came to its finality in the House of Commons there was nobody there to support the Government in bringing the Bill into law. There were many reasons for this. First, as I have already stated, many people simply do not understand the way in which the Community works and how it is financed. I also believe that there was a lack of support for the Government because people on both sides of both Houses are becoming increasingly worried about the direction the Community is taking and about the ever increasing amount of money it takes to finance the Community, particularly agriculture.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Ardwick, have described the Fontainebleau agreement as reasonable and good. I do not happen to agree that that is the case for by making such an agreement, by agreeing to make these very considerable payments over a long period of time, we have seen the Prime Minister reneging on her promise in 1981 of broad balance in relation to the financing of the Community—
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may just finish this point. Not only have we seen that, but the British Government when negotiating this agreement threw away a very good negotiating position by failing to tie the agreement on own resources with proper financial control and reform of the CAP.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I just want to say that I agreed with all the reservations in our report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I heard my noble friend agree with all the reservations in the report, which is a very good one, of our own committee but, nevertheless, he paid tribute to the report and said that he thought generally the Fontainebleau agreement was a reasonable one. I happen in the most kindly and friendly way to disagree with my noble friend's view on that for the reasons that I have just given.
The fact is that there is nothing in the Fontainebleau agreement which in any way ensures that there is enshrined in the treaty or anything like it proper control of finance within the Community. As I have already said, this was the opportunity, when Community members were demanding an increase in own resources, to say, "No, there will be no increase in own resources until the CAP, which we all agree is a nonsense, is reformed, and properly reformed". Far from the financial arrangements proving satisfactory, we already know that even before Spain and Portugal become full members the 1·4 per cent. is under pressure. In 1986 with the 1·4 per cent. in place the leeway between income and expenditure will be only 900 million ecus—in other words, 1 ·35 per cent. VAT. The noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, said—and I believe he was quite right—that this agreement had in it the seeds of its own destruction; and indeed by the very figures we have now and by the very progress we see, the noble Lord will be proved right in all too short a time.
I ask the Government; what assurances can we have from them that they will resist any further increase in VAT contributions? Will they themselves resist, and ask Parliament to resist, any increase to 1·6 per cent.? That is implicit in the Bill before us, but will the Government give the assurance this afternoon that having made this agreement they intend that it will last for a very long time? As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, said, it would be nearly permanent. Will he give the assurance this afternoon that the Government will not, under any circumstances, within the foreseeable future agree to an increase in VAT contributions to 1·6 per cent.? Will he also give an assurance that there will be no further "top-ups" of £250 million, or whatever our contribution may be, should the Community overspend its resources as it has so often done in the past?
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington asked what benefits we obtain from the Community. Those who ask that question are often accused of being destructive. But we are entitled to ask: what benefits do we receive from membership of the Community; what benefits do we receive for the expenditure of public money; and what benefits do we have in return for the loss of sovereignty which we have undoubtedly suffered as a result of our membership? We are entitled to ask those questions and we are entitled to have an answer.
Before we went into the Community we were assured that because of the large market of 250 million or 260 million people the opportunities for trade would be very much better; that because this country would feel the cold wind of competition we would improve our trade with the Community; that we

1413
would be able to send more and more goods into Europe; and that our trading relationship with Europe would be very much better than previously. Indeed, I was then the Member of Parliament for Swindon and the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, who was then head of the British car industry, wrote to all my constituents and the employees of British Leyland—BLMC as it was—in factories throughout the country, saying that unless we went into the EC the British car industry would collapse. Well, we did go into the EC and we all know that the British car industry was well nigh on the point of collapse. Indeed, at present we are running an adverse balance of trade in motor vehicles with the EC of £2,800 million as compared with a surplus of over £500 million in 1973. We are entitled to ask what benefit that has been to this nation.
We are also entitled to point to the adverse balance of trade of £9,000 million this year. I think we ought to ask, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, this question particularly: what does that deficit do for unemployment in this country? Is it not a fact that the £9,000 million adverse balance in manufacturing trade represents about 1 million jobs which he could do with to help solve the unemployment problem in this country? The Government, who are imposing financial stringency at home, seem to be willing to countenance huge increases in Community expenditure to finance the ridiculous common agricultural policy. Just think what the noble Lord opposite could do with £700 million in his fight—and I believe he wants to fight—against unemployment. Just think what he could do at home in building houses and schools and investing in manufacturing industry with the £700 million which is going on the wasteful CAP. I ask him seriously to think about that.
I ask him seriously to examine whether that money is being used to the best effect. We all know—I shall not go into this in detail—that the surpluses of wheat, butter, sugar, skimmed milk, wine, beef and all sorts of things are all increasing every year. As my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington pointed out, not only is it costing us money to dump those products on the world market but it is increasingly costing us more to store that food in intervention stocks. As I have already said, we also sell this food at knock-down prices on the world markets to the deteriment of third world countries and, indeed, to the benefit of our perceived enemies. We sell countless thousands of tonnes of wheat and butter and large quantities of wine to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is waxing fat and getting drunk at our expense. No wonder the Soviets are rolling around the aisles laughing at a Community which is as stupid as that; but that is what we are doing. In fact, we in this country and the other countries of the EC are contributing to the betterment of that country, which is perceived to be our enemy.
Of course the CAP does other things too. It damages the environment. It has forced up land prices to an enormous level which prevents young farmers from going into farming. That is the kind of thing we are financing. Believe me, there are further troubles to come. The Select Committee is hopeful, and I believe it is right to be; I hope that it will not be disappointed. But there are some very real difficulties to come in the financing of the EC. Let the farming community
1414
beware of these problems which are to come, because with the accession of Spain and Portugal there will be very grave difficulties in financing the EC. Make no mistake about it: once those countries come into the Community there inevitably will have to be a shift of resources from the northern states to the Mediterranean states, and that will mean that the Mediterranean states will have more and the northern states will have less. That spells trouble for our own farming community.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask one question? Does the noble Lord not welcome the arrival into the European Community of two young democracies? Does he not realise that one of the most hopeful features of what is happening in Europe is that those two countries are entering the Community?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, Spain and Portugal are now exactly where they always have been. In my opinion, we would have been in a much better position to help those two countries—which I agree were new young democracies—if we were not within the straitjacket of the EC and in particular the CAP. But, as I have already said, we are disappointed with this agreement. We do not believe that it solves any of the problems which face the Community. It does not in any way solve the problem of the runaway inflation of the common agricultural policy. It is not permanent. The Government will be back again asking for more money very shortly. I sincerely hope that when they come back, as they surely will, unless the noble Lord can give the assurance which I ask for, this House will then remember this debate and Parliament will say, "So much—no more".
5 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and useful debate this afternoon. We have covered a wide range of topics related to the Bill that is before us, and to the admirable report from your Lordships' Committee on the European Communities. The Bill is an important one. It will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the agreement reached at the Fontainebleau European Council on the future financing of the Community. I have spelled out in some detail in my opening remarks the specific benefits to the United Kingdom of that agreement, though I may have cause to repeat one or two of them in a moment.
On the Community level, too, the agreement will have several long-term benefits. I have been heartened by some of the feelings of goodwill displayed towards the Community which your Lordships have shown and by the recognition that the United Kingdom's future must be within Europe. The agreement on the British budget problem has enabled the Community to concentrate its energies on a positive approach to its future growth and development. There are signs of a new determination to achieve a genuine common market in goods and services, which is important for the creation of wealth and jobs. Europe is now beginning to look seriously at how it can make the most effective use of its economic strength and compete successfully in world markets.
Perhaps I may turn now to some of the points raised in our debate. We had a very interesting and helpful

1415
contribution from the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, the chairman of Sub-Committee A of your Lordships' committee. I think that there are only two points in his speech with which I would like to take modest issue. The first is about the durability of the United Kingdom's abatement system. This is a matter which has been raised also by other noble Lords. It is because the United Kingdom's system is tied to the 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling and forms part of the same Community legislation that it cannot be altered without the unanimous consent of all the member states and their parliaments. This is the tightest safeguard that is available in the Community. It is certainly not a weakness of the arrangement.
The other point in the noble Lord's speech on which I should like to comment is the question of the exclusivity of the Fontainebleau agreement and his suggestion that the formula made no reference to relative prosperity. It is true that the abatement formula relates to the United Kingdom and makes no allowance for changes in relative prosperity. However, the Fontainebleau conclusions themselves state that:
"any member state sustaining a budgetary burden which is excessive in relation to its relative prosperity may benefit from a correction at the appropriate time. The basis for the correction is the gap between the share of VAT payments and the share of expenditure allocated in accordance with the present criteria".
Therefore, if other member states were to fulfil the criteria laid down in the conclusions, they too could seek to negotiate a correction of their excessive contributions.
Several noble Lords expressed criticism of the fact that the Community was being provided with extra resources when it was still failing to make any impression on the excesses of the common agricultural policy. The Government agree that the Community is still not doing enough to control and reduce its expenditure on agriculture. We made this clear in last week's debate on the reform of the CAP. As my noble friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said at the end of that debate:
"The prospect of finding improvements in the operation of the CAP which will benefit producers, taxpayers and consumers is one which the Government welcome, and we intend to work for effective measures which will enable agriculture to develop on a secure but rational basis in the years ahead.".
It was largely owing to our pressure that last December the Council of Ministers reached the conclusions on budgetary discipline to which several noble Lords have referred. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, suggested that the budgetary discipline conclusions were inadequate because they allowed for the discipline to be relaxed in the event of exceptional or aberrant circumstances and for that relaxation to be decided upon by a qualified majority of the Council.
On the first point, many of your Lordships are farmers, or have been farmers, and will understand that it would have been unrealistic to seek to impose a totally rigid discipline on something as unpredictable as agriculture. On the second point, I remind your Lordships that all decisions during the Community's budgetary procedure are taken by qualified majority, which is about two-thirds. Therefore, it is natural that the Council should follow the same rules for budgetary discipline as it does for budgetary procedures
1416
generally. As to its effectiveness or otherwise, I echo the remark of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, that the new discipline so far has been respected in practice. In other words, so far, so good. I can assure the House that the Government will be doing all that they can to make sure that the budgetary discipline is respected in the future as well.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and I went to school in the same year, when calculators were not present. However, he has evidently completely mastered the use of them and we have had a demonstration this afternoon of percentages to six or seven places. But what matters is not the percentage cost of all these elements. The £1·2 billion to which the noble Lord has referred is indeed an important figure, and it is higher than it was.
I think I said in my opening statement that it was an erratic figure and that there were three points which your Lordships would wish to consider and remember about it. First of all, this is the last year in which we are due to receive a flat-rate correction to our net contribution and our erratically high net contribution this year will be automatically reflected in a very high level of abatement for 1986, when it is likely to be some £980 million compared with £590 million this year. Secondly, this year is artificially high because of two exceptional factors. We contributed some £119 million of supplementary financing to the Intergovernmental Agreement for 1984.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, forgive my interruption, but for the purpose of clarification will the noble Lord say for the record what the estimated rebate will be in the next financial year?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, at the Commission's latest estimate—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the abatement.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think £980 million but if that it is not correct I shall let the noble Lord know. I shall check it.
Perhaps I may continue. There were £ 119 million of supplementary financing under the IGA for 1984 as well as the special contribution of £250 million in respect of 1985. We also paid an extra £75 million VAT own resources, because, as your Lordships may remember, we changed the basis of collecting VAT on imports. Of course, included in that amount is £135 million which in other cases would be in our overseas aid budget. When we look at the £250 million which is in the IGA for 1985, of that £250 million we shall in due course receive back half in receipts for farmers and traders and the eventual net cost to the United Kingdom is in the order of £40 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised two matters, but first of all let me declare a lack of an interest. Though I live in the green and pleasant village of Graffham in the County of West Sussex, I have no land, I have never been a farmer, and I hope never to be a farmer, so I can safely declare that.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I was very careful in what I said and would not have dreamt of suggesting that the noble Lord had an interest.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I accept the rebuke. It was not the noble Baroness opposite who made the suggestion but other noble Lords who made the suggestion about an interest in farming. Of course, we must agree that the agricultural support expenditure in the Community takes up over 70 per cent. of the budget, which is too high. It is too much, but progress is being made which is real progress. Cuts in real prices over the last three years have been achieved and agricultural support expenditure has been increasing at a declining rate. It has been increasing but at a declining rate. Financial guidelines limit agricultural expenditure to levels below the growth in own resources. I hope very much that what we have achieved is but a start. It is absolutely necessary to keep up a momentum; otherwise productivity gains mean that surpluses will keep growing, even if prices fall. Therefore the next price fixing will be crucial. But this is not a debate on the CAP. It is there, it has to be dealt with, and I hope very much that negotiations over the forthcoming years will deal with it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, agreed that Government policy on our net contributions should not be dominated by our concern about juste retour; nor is it. The Government are prepared to be a net contributor on a reasonable scale. But I do not think that we could have accepted contributions on the scale that would have occurred if no agreement had been reached at Fontainebleau; and because of Fontainebleau, the Government can now pay more attention to other Community issues such as helping to complete the internal market, helping to create jobs in Britain and in other member states, and the various other matters which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, rightly said should be and are our concern. I suspect that they will best be dealt with by working within the Community framework.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, for his support for the Bill, albeit with published reservations. He described Fontainebleau as an historic meeting; I believe that it will be seen to be such. However, I wish that I could see from noble Lords exactly opposite more support and understanding of the way that the Community works. It is important that we work within the framework of the Community. We clearly are, and will continue to be, part of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, made a short but valuable intervention. I agree with him that if we were recreating the Community from scratch we should not start from here and we should create a fairer system of financing. But we are not in that situation. I hope that he agrees that the abatement system agreed at Fontainebleau represents a major step in the right direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, appears to have doubts, not so much about the Community itself but about its ability to receive the 1984 intergovernmental agreement. The Court of Appeal supported the Government's procedural action. The Community and the other member states entertained no doubts about the legality of the 1984 advances. Surely he would not wish to dispute that consensus.
The noble Lord was concerned that the Government may give way on increasing the VAT
1418
limit to 1·6 per cent. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said in another place:
"Naturally, we should have to consider on its merits any request for an increase in own resources, but Her Majesty's Government would not welcome any proposal for a further increase in own resources during this Parliament. I cannot see us initiating am such request". [Official Report, Commons, 1/7/85; col. 139.]
I can do no more than repeat those words.
The Bill has a second purpose—to enable the United Kingdom to pay it contribution under the intergovernmental agreement of 1985. Several noble Lords were critical of this agreement. The Government too regret that this agreement is necessary. The fact is, however, that without this money the Community will not be able to implement the budget it has now approved for this year. The United Kingdom has to pay its share.
The Government have never claimed that the Fontainebleau agreement on our abatement or the system of budgetary discipline which accompanies it are ideal. Clearly they are not. What we firmly believe is that both present a tremendous improvement on what preceded them. The United Kingdom is far better off under these arrangements than it was. far better off than it might have been if my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had not stuck to the negotiation with such tenacity, and far better off than we should have been if we had failed to reach any agreement at all and the Community had continued to live a hand-to-mouth existence within the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling. Within that ceiling there certainly would not have been any room for rebates, refunds or abatements to the United Kingdom. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

European Community Financing: ECC Report
5.14 p.m.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury Lord O'Brien of Lothbury had given notice of his intention to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Fontainebleau and After: Decisions on Future Financing for the Community (2nd Report 1984–85, H.L. 66).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I now invite your Lordships to take note, without further debate, of this second report? I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Gartcosh Mill: Proposed Closure
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will comment on the social, economic and employment consequences of the proposed closure of the Gartcosh cold rolling mill and the effect that this might have on the steel industry in the context of the Scottish economy.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that the British Steel Corporation is seeking to justify

1419
the closure of Gartcosh cold mill, with the resultant job losses, by saying that it would enable there to be an increase in cold mill capacity utilisation at Port Talbot; that it would reduce surplus capacity; that it would cut fixed costs; and that it would alleviate the need for substantial capital investment at Gartcosh to improve competitiveness and capacity. It is stated that the Gartcosh plant has a low capacity, that there is no product at Gartcosh that cannot be manufactured elsewhere in BSC and that substantial savings can be made in transport and other costs.
The employees and their unions, together with local communities, believe that all those suppositions can be refuted. They are concerned not just with the social and economic implications of the closure of Gartcosh but with the wider implications for the Scottish and the national economy.
The past practices of BSC have led many people to believe that the closure of Gartcosh and the refusal to invest in new coking ovens at Ravenscraig are backdoor attempts to force the closure of Ravenscraig steelworks. BSC has tried twice before to close Ravenscraig but has had to step back because of overwhelming opposition. The unions in particular have run successful campaigns to keep Ravenscraig open. It is claimed that the closure of Gartcosh will not put Ravenscraig at additional risk, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
Over the past few years the Government have agreed to a massive cut-back in capacity and jobs in the steel industry, claiming that that was necessary to meet EC quota targets; yet the Government have never challenged those targets and have allowed a massive reduction in steel industry employment which is much greater than for other EC members. From 1974 to 1984 the United Kingdom steel industry workforce has declined by 68·2 per cent. Over the same period the West German workforce declined by 34·3 per cent., the Netherlands workforce by 25·5 per cent. and the Italian workforce by 21 per cent. In France, the workforce declined by 46·1 per cent.
Although perhaps in the 1970s job losses were inevitable because of the general crisis in the industry, continuing heavy job losses in the United Kingdom would appear to be because of this Government's obsession with privatisation: the more slimmed down and undermanned the steel industry is, the more paper profit it can show. The objective of making BSC profitable in that narrow sense has been carried through irrespective of the economic and social consequences in the areas where closures have occurred.
Closure of Gartcosh would involve 550 BSC employees there and 160 directly at Ravenscraig, with about 200 more who are involved in sub-contracting. Thus over 900 redundancies would directly result, with an inevitable multiplier in the local community taking it to well over 1,000.
In June 1985 the figures for unemployment in the area concerned were as follows: in Coatbridge, among males 20·4 per cent. and among females 17 per cent.; in Motherwell, among males 20·9 per cent. and among females 17·9 per cent.; in the Easterhouse area, among males 36·1 per cent. and among females 28 per cent.;
1420
and in Moodiesburn, among males 16·8 per cent. and among females 15 per cent. It need hardly be added that an additional 1,000-plus on the dole, in an area with some of the worst unemployment and social conditions in Europe, would be quite catastrophic.
A major worry about the closure of Gartcosh is that it is a prelude to the closure of the Ravenscraig complex. This, if it were to happen, would result in 3,000 direct redundancies and an unknown number of indirect redundancies in an area with little or no alternative employment. As well as the loss of income in the area through the loss of wage earning capacity, the closure of the steel works would drastically reduce the rate of income to local authorities just at the time when they need to improve their services because of the social effects of high unemployment.
The Government are continually claiming that the economy is reviving. Steel is an essential element in industrial regeneration. Gartcosh would be the most obvious supplier of components to the new Nissan plant in County Durham. BSC claims that Gartcosh's orders will go to Shotton, Llanwern or Port Talbot, although it is admitted that it expects to lose about a quarter of present orders. Shotton is not yet a full-furnished mill and will never, I am advised, be able to handle Gartcosh's specialised output for the automative industry, and Llanwern and Port Talbot do not yet have this capacity. I am advised that it will take about three years to upgrade Llanwern. Therefore, it seems very likely that BSC will lose its orders for special steel to overseas competitors. This is particularly harmful to the United Kingdom economy as a whole. At the monent Gartcosh exports sell to the USSR and to West Germany. If BSC loses the ability to produce special steels, particularly for car making, Britain will lose its exports and will have to increase its imports. Yet it is in the area of special steels that the United Kingdom is likely to remain most competitive.
So far as concerns BSC's claim that the closure will not affect Ravenscraig, one quarter of Ravenscraig's total output presently goes to Gartcosh. If, as is suggested, BSC is unable to transfer Gartcosh's present orders to other BSC plants, Ravenscraig will have to reduce its production. The employees believe that it is because BSC anticipates this situation that it is refusing to invest in a new coke oven and is instead relying on the as yet unproven method of direct coal injection which is likely to reduce Ravenscraig to one blast furnace within two years. This will increase the unit cost of production, particularly in relation to the modernised Llanwern plant, and will provide BSC with the excuse that it is looking for effectively to end steel production in Scotland.
The small amount of investment immediately necessary to upgrade Gartcosh and the £90 million or so necessary to provide a new coke oven at Ravenscraig would enable both plants to carry on their effective production of steel and steel products for the United Kingdom and overseas markets. The costs, particularly in social terms, of the possible closure of, first, Gartcosh, and then Ravenscraig are so enormous that the Government should be exerting the maximum effort to ensure that this does not happen.
Finally, if people say that Gartcosh is a long way from Camden, let me say that the United Kingdom's manufacturing base is of crucial concern to all of us.
We cannot sit back and allow vast areas of the United Kingdom to become virtual deserts of deprivation and hopelessness. And if the Government respond by saying that the matter is one for discussion between the BSC and the unions, let me say that I am a working union official and I am in touch with the unions concerned. There is a general feeling among the unions and their workpeople that this is a political decision forced upon BSC by the Government requirement to achieve a quite artificial profit level.
May I put it to you, my Lords, that this is not the way to attack areas of social concern and deprivation in this country. There are other considerations rather than narrow balance sheet considerations when looking at the steel industry and its position in the economy, particularly its position in the Scottish economy. I thank your Lordships for your attention.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will await with interest the response of the Government to this important Question. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for putting it down. I wonder whether the Government realise the extent to which Scotland is up in arms on this matter. It is not just a case of all the Members of Parliament of all parties with the exception of one "idiosyncrat"; it is not just the Confederation of British Industry, although it is divided in its views; and it is not only bodies like the Ancient Trades House of Glasgow, or the chambers of commerce, which have expressed such widespread concern about this matter. My impression is that the man in the street in Scotland shares that concern to a degree which, within my recent recollection, I do not recall being expressed in regard to any other issue in the political or economic field. I look forward therefore with great interest to see how the Government will respond to this frightening situation. They have said, it seems to me, some funny things so far.
Before coming to these issues, may I point out that, apart from all the matters to which the noble Baroness referred, the implications from the point of view of the unity of the nation are very considerable. It would be another most divisive element in the present scheme of things if this decision were adhered to and if, as so many fear, Ravenscraig were not given a lease of life beyond 1988 or 1990. The political implications that would be a consequence of that happening are, without wishing to exaggerate, more than somewhat disturbing.
The Government have said that Gartcosh and Ravenscraig are not the same problem. In one sense, that is true. They say that the future of Ravenscraig is a strategic issue for the Government; Gartcosh is for the British Steel Corporation. Can that be true or sensible if Gartcosh, as widely argued, has always been regarded as Ravenscraig's cold mill and an integral part of the complex, although situated some distance away? That it is an integral part of the complex seems borne out by the circumstance of the 160 job losses in Ravenscraig consequent on the closing down of Gartcosh.
I look forward with interest to what the Minister will say in reply. It is, after all, people who are going to be affected. Already, Gartcosh has caused a loss of 700 or
1422
so jobs. If Ravenscraig goes, the consequences will be quite disastrous. I can only say that almost everyone with knowledge in the field to whom I have spoken has said that the question facing Ravenscraig steelworks is that of survival beyond 1988. Can we have some reassurance on that? Others have said that the probability that Ravenscraig will still be operating in 1990 is small. an we have some impressive reassurance from the Government about that?
The importance of this question from every aspect—not just the social and economic but the political—cannot be exaggerated. I hope that the Government are seized of the feeling of the people in Scotland, and will respond to show their awareness of the importance of this matter.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I must apologise because I did not have my name on the list of speakers earlier, but I feel that we ought to back up my noble friend and the noble Baroness who so ably introduced the Question, because it is of immense importance to Scotland.
Frankly, the whole thing gives off a curious smell. I know nothing about steelmaking but I know something about business. I have also been in politics for some little time. It is sticking out a mile that if Gartcosh goes then obviously Ravenscraig must eventually go. I do not think that any assurances which the Government can give can detract from the fact that anyone looking at a business of this sort must see that if Gartcosh goes then in three years' time Ravenscraig will be found to be unviable and the obvious one to close. The decision on not reinstating the coking ovens gives credence to the view that this is the first part in closing it down.
It is a quite extraordinary thing to do because Gartcosh has an order book and a reputation of its own. The cold mill at Gartcosh is supplying Austin Rover—they insist on their steel—Ford Halewood, Ford Germany, BMW in Germany in smaller quantities, all over North England and the Midlands, and exporting to Russia and Canada. The productivity in the whole complex has grown enormously and has constantly been breaking records previously set. Now the Government are intending to close it down. I do not think there is any other conclusion that one can reach if Gartcosh goes.
It appears to me that the allegation made—that this is being done to facilitate privatisation of the steel industry—holds water. It is the traditional thing to do. One takes over a company, looks at what is making losses, savagely cuts that off, trims it down; loses customers but puts the company back into profit. That is the way to put any company back into profit, but is that the way to deal with a steel industry of immense importance to the whole country and to the whole area of Scotland?
The noble Baroness revealed some horrifying figures. In one district there are 28 per cent. unemployed. One will not only take away what would amount to 1,000 jobs but also hit the already low morale of the people in the area. I do not think that it can be done and the Tory Party retain any credibility in Scotland. It would not annoy me terribly if that were so. But what we are thinking about is the state of the

1423
industry and the state of morale in Scotland with the blow that this would strike. That is why we plead with the Government to think again. We plead with the Ministers in Scotland to put their reputations on the table and to say—and mean it—that they will resign if Gartcosh goes. There is no shadow of doubt that it is an absolutely vital issue and that their reputation—already low—hangs on their intentions with regard to Gartcosh.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for having raised this matter. I must apologise for the fact that my name is not on the list of speakers. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me. I have been in Scotland for the last few days. I understand that this Question was put down only on Thursday. A message reached me in northern Scotland yesterday afternoon, on the Sabbath, that this subject was to be debated. I have been in the chair of a board meeting in Edinburgh. I quickly add—I hope your Lordships will sympathise—that it is of an enterprise which is expanding and providing more jobs in Scotland, one of three in which I am involved, and it was an appointment which I had to keep. By aircraft and fast car from Heathrow I arrived here at five o'clock, and was therefore unable to be here for the previous debate.
I want to speak because, as some of your Lordships will know, I was Secretary of State responsible in 1972 for the Government decision to undertake the modernisation of Ravenscraig and therefore to make sure that that was one of the five steelmaking centres in the United Kingdom. I was also responsible for the decision that there should be an ore terminal at Hunterston to serve Ravenscraig before that. Small vessels were necessary which went up the Clyde almost to Glasgow to deliver ore. Of course, the era of large bulk carriers had arrived and it was necessary to have a deep water port and therefore the Hunterston Terminal came into existence particularly to serve Ravenscraig.
I naturally have a personal interest, as well as knowing how much it means to Scotland, that Ravenscraig's capacity and potential should be fully understood. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—I think that I am breaching no confidence in saying this—when he handed over to me in 1970 indicated that the steel industry was one of the matters of great importance to Scotland. He was absolutely right. When I handed over to him in 1974—involuntarily, I will say, as a result of an election—I was able to say, "During the last four years we have been able to do what was required because of this great modernisation programme at Ravenscraig, and the steel industry is still there and in good heart and in Scotland". I am glad that the noble Lord will be speaking in this debate shortly.
Of course, in those days we did not visualise the world reduction in the demand for steel which has occurred. The whole world has suffered from this phenomenon of less steel being required. May I refer to Japan. In those days, in the early 1970s, we saw the Japanese just about doubling their capacity for
1424
steelmaking; and we wondered whether they were guessing aright. They guessed wrong, and have been in a lot of trouble since then because much of their capacity is simply unused. They over-estimated. But so did most of the rest of the world. Steel has not been needed in the quantities which were expected. Even so, special types of steel have been in demand; we must remember that. What we have to consider now is whether there will be an upsurge in demand for steel in the future or whether other substances—plastic or other metals—may be used instead.
I cannot over-emphasise that if Ravenscraig were to be closed this would be disastrous, not only to Motherwell and the area around there but also to the industrial heartland of Scotland. It would have an impact on those involved not only in the steel industry but in the many ancillary industries and services which are connected. My right honourable friend and successor, Mr. George Younger, has done everything humanly possible to point this out and also to point out how shortsighted it would be to take a decision which would close Ravenscraig when there could be an upsurge, with more steelmaking required than is required at present. It may be that demand will come again.
The matter before us this evening is the "Gartcosh connection". Will the proposed closure of Gartcosh prejudice the future of Ravenscraig? I am not technically qualified to comment on that question. However, I ask my noble friend and the Government to give an absolute assurance that the proposed closure of Gartcosh will not prejudice the future of Ravenscraig. In passing, I mention that I remember the reduction and virtual closure of the steelworks at Glengarnock in Ayrshire. It caused some distress at the time. However, since then I have been told that the industries which have taken the place of the steelworks have by now produced more jobs than there were in the steel industry. Of course that situation was on a much smaller scale. We all rejoice in the fact that there has been a successful replacement of jobs in that community of Ayrshire, which was very much dependent upon the steel industry.
The scale of the situation was very small compared with that which we are dealing with now; namely, the connection of Gartcosh with the future of Ravenscraig. I believe that a decision on Ravenscraig should not be taken yet, should not be prejudiced by what may happen at Gartcosh; and when it is taken it certainly should have in mind the long-term prospects of steel and Britain.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the House should be grateful to my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden for raising this very timely Unstarred Question regarding Gartcosh and steel. I welcome the fact that the matter was raised by someone with London roots and not by a Scotsman, because if a Scotsman had raised it everyone would say, "Ah, the Scots are greeting again". My noble friend dealt with the matter correctly, because she was thinking in terms of the nation and not in terms even of Scotland or Lanarkshire or the west of Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has just spoken, says this matter has been part of his life,

1425
and the same applies to me. Indeed, it has been part of the lives of many noble Lords who are present. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, is here. The noble Lord as well was involved in this matter at one time. It was a united effort which gave us Ravenscraig in the first instance. I remember the ad hoc committee which was led by a distinguished Scotsman and which I think included Walter Elliot. I think that it was Mr. Macmillan who eventually decided that we should have Ravenscraig. We had to fight for it, and here we are fighting again to save it.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that the need for steel may come again. What seems to be at stake here is a decision by the Government which will mean that when we need that steel, wherever we make it, it will not be in Scotland. That fact has been seized by the people of Scotland as the essential matter. The people of Scotland are convinced that there is a link between Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, and the figures produced by my noble friend prove it. The production from Ravenscraig which goes to Gartcosh will not even be taken up elsewhere. I think that the British Steel Corporation now admits that there will be a 25 per cent. loss. At the beginning of the argument it said that there would be no loss at all. It now says that there will be a loss of 25 per cent.
Bearing in mind the other decisions which it has taken in relation to modernisation, it will eventually present Ravenscraig with the tremendous task of overcoming rising unit costs as a result of the decision which it takes on Gartcosh. The Government suggest, "Oh yes, what happens to Ravenscraig is an important Government decision, but we shall leave Gartcosh to the British Steel Corporation". The British Steel Corporation can make a decision which will inevitably prejudice Ravenscraig, in which case the Government will have no argument other than to claim that Ravenscraig must close because all the figures say so. That is what is at stake.
I do not know how many of your Lordships go into the Library and read the Glasgow Herald. However, the headline today reads:
"Tories in open revolt over steel".
The same type of headline appears in the Scotsman. Who are these revolting Tories? There was a packed private meeting of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association's western area council. That area covers half the Tory MPs in Scotland—but, mind you, there are not many of them—and the whole industrial west. They made a demand and they voted by more than four to one in favour of a motion moved by Mr. Brian Cooklin, chairman of the Conservative Candidates' Association, urging the Government to:
"use all its influence and power to ensure that both Gartcosh and Ravenscraig are reprieved for the next three years".
Three years is mentioned because in 1982 Mr. MacGregor tried to close Gartcosh. There was an outcry in Scotland and so it did not go ahead. He changed his mind. He then had the bright idea of sending the semi-finished products from Ravenscraig to the United States—a MacGregor brainwave. We saw that as death by attrition. Again it was turned down by the Government and a pledge was given that nothing would happen as regards Ravenscraig until three years had passed.
1426
Our concern now is that a decision on Gartcosh will inevitably prejudice Ravenscraig. Every Tory in Scotland, except one, has seen that to be the situation. Sir James Goold has tried very hard to keep the lid of the pot from just being blown off. Sir Hector Monro has been told to be quiet. Other Tory MPs in Scotland have been told the same thing, but they refuse to be quiet. We now have the candidates making a plea to the Government.
If it is important for Government influence to be used in respect of Ravenscraig, then it is important for it to be used in respect of Gartcosh. Neither George Younger nor the Government can duck this issue. They can fold up their tents and creep away. As a matter of fact, I think that the chairman of Cunning-hame South Conservative and Unionist Association has given the Government until March and has said that if they take a decision against Gartcosh he will resign from the party. He is not alone in that view.
I want a decision on this matter long before March, because so much depends upon it. There are throughout Scotland suspicions about the British Steel Corporation which have sprung from its past and from what it has tried to do. I sincerely hope that the Government will listen to what is being said today by their own organisation in Scotland and by the local authorities in Scotland. A short time ago there was an all-party meeting held in Glasgow which involved the regions and the district councils. It was an all-party meeting attended by Conservative, Labour and Liberal members. Everyone was there and all were unanimous that there is a direct link between Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, and that Gartcosh must be saved. The position about Gartcosh is of course that it takes so much from Ravenscraig. Indeed, it produces special steels that would inhibit our own steel-using industries which are working for the automotive and the North Sea industries. That steel can be produced elsewhere; it would not need to be imported. At the same time, here we are in Scotland; we have the SDA working under both governments to get new industry into Scotland. If there is no steel in Scotland, there will be no steelmaking industries there. All this build-up of structure to bring in new industry is wrong. You do not need to send down to Wales for it, a journey of 400 miles there and 400 miles back, and we can all see what that does to unit costs in respect of steel users in Scotland. This will not do. Gartcosh takes one-third of the Ravenscraig strip output and one-quarter of Ravenscraig output of strip and plate. This is the important thing, and now the Steel Corporation says that orders will be lost to the tune of 25 per cent. and those steel users in Scotland will be faced with the additional cost in respect of it.
Then there is the effect on the ports, Grangemouth particularly. The figures per annum from the customers are as follows: Austin Rover, 52,000 tonnes; the Soviet Union, 28,000 tonnes (from Grangemouth); and GKN 19,000 tonnes. Tube Investments, Ford United Kingdom and Ford Germany also use Grangemouth. Then there is Stelrod and Dalbeathie which have to be considered. I can understand why Sir Hector Monro is concerned about the effect on industry as far away from Gartcosh as Dalbeathie.

1427
An interesting study has been done by the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce. They do not mince words, and they demand action by the Government. All Scotland demands action by the Government because so much importance is attached to this. Here was the great industrial heartland of Scotland. In Lanarkshire they have already suffered blows, and remember the integrated unit is Gartcosh, Dalzell and Ravenscraig, and if part of it is ripped out inevitably the rest will be killed. I will not say the Government are doing it because eventually they want to maximise profits in the steel industry to make the industry more attractive to privatise—I am not saying that, although it is being said. I am just voicing the thoughts of the people of Scotland. The Government will never be forgiven in Scotland if they let Gartcosh go.
It is all very well to say how many people are already employed in Glengarnock. I can give the figures for unemployment in that area just now; and they are far, far higher than they were when there was a thriving steel industry. It is easy to say, "Oh yes, there are more employed there than when they were eventually making steel"—when the whole steel industry had been run down there, and they were employing a fraction of what they used to. Do not let us hear that argument from BSC.
My Lords, I passed Glengarnock this morning and saw what was going on and what is involved in expenditure for the SDA, clearing the whole area. I do not under-estimate that they can do something; but they cannot tackle a problem which was the heart of the steel industry, of Motherwell—a whole town. It is right in the heart of the city; it is the heart of the town. If that is ripped out, that whole community goes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will allow me to interrupt him, I hope he realises that he is making the same argument that I was trying to make. I gave Glengarnock as an example of what could be done on a very much smaller scale. But it could not apply to Motherwell.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the noble Lord has used something that I have already seen in some of the pro-Government propaganda in respect of the number of people employed at the present time. The noble Lord is comparing it with when the industry was dying, not when it was flourishing. That was the weakness of his argument. The noble Lord seemed to say, "I must say something for the Government" when all he had to do was to attack the Government and let them know their job, which is to save Gartcosh and to save Ravenscraig. If you want to save Ravenscraig, you must first of all save Gartcosh.
5.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, may I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, on putting down this Unstarred Question. I totally agree with her and with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that this is a subject of great importance, not only to Scotland but to the whole country. I welcome the opportunity
1428
provided tonight for the Government to offer their comments on the subject.
May I just add that a number of my noble friends have telephoned me to say how sorry they were not to be here tonight. They had hoped to take part in our deliberations—and I am sure that that applies to a number of other noble Lords as well. But I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who, with the help of modern technology, has managed to make it tonight. I should like to thank him for such wise words from his great experience of the subject, and for paying tribute to the work of our right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Important issues have been raised on this Question and in the remarks made this evening. It is always a subject of very great concern when it is intended to close a works employing a large number of people. The Government share the concern and greatly regret that redundancies and reduction in employment opportunities will result from closure. But before I deal with the issues at the heart of the Question, your Lordships may find it useful if I set out the background to the particular decision by the British Steel Corporation to close the Gartcosh cold rolling mill.
Earlier this year, in consultation with the Government, the corporation undertook a review of its strategy for the next three years. The outcome of that review was announced on 7th August. This included the decision by the British Steel Corporation that Gartcosh should close, with the loss of 711 jobs, 551 at Gartcosh itself and a further 160 employed in supporting services at the Ravenscraig works. The noble Baroness was right when she said that further job losses will occur, but it is difficult to quantify them as it takes time for the effects of any closure to work through. Furthermore, the Government are encouraging, and people are taking, mitigating action—and I shall come on to that in a moment.
The statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 7th August said that the closure of Gartcosh was not subject to specific Government approval although the Government were aware of the intentions of the Btritish Steel Corporation arising from the strategy review. While the Government are involved in decisions affecting the five integrated steel works—Ravenscraig, Teesside, Scunthorpe, Llanwern and Port Talbot—the British Steel Corporation can, as part of its managerial responsibility, take subsidiary closure decisions in order to reduce or eliminate financial losses and bring capacity more closely into line with demand.
Gartcosh is one of four cold rolling mills operated by the British Steel Corporation. These four mills as a group were operating at only some 65 per cent. of available capacity. That was an untenable situation, and there was a clear case for bringing capacity into line with demand. Therefore, the corporation decided to do this by closing the mill which had the smallest capacity and was least well equipped to cope with the demands of the future, taking into account many other factors such as location in relation to markets and operating costs. That mill is Gartcosh. The closure will raise overall capacity utilisation from the 65 per cent. level I mentioned to 78 per cent., and is expected to

1429
improve the strip products group's financial performance by £11·5 million a year.
The decision was taken, therefore, in the context of the process of bringing capacity and demand more into balance. As such, it was in accordance with the strategy of the corporation agreed in consultation with the Government.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but in the way he is putting it it sounds extraordinary. Is he saying that the Government held a joint review of steel-making with the British Steel Corporation and that they put forward no view on Gartcosh, leaving that entirely to the British Steel Corporation? Does the noble Earl mean that they did not say to the British Steel Corporation, "This has enormous implications for employment and everything else"? Is the noble Earl trying to tell me that they protested, or did not protest, or they had nothing to do with it? If that is the case, then it is a sore dereliction of their duty.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, what I said was that the Government and the corporation had worked together, and we knew what the corporation's strategy was and we made the appropriate comments. The noble Lord is a little premature in getting up to intervene, because I am going on to deal with some of the specific points he has just raised.
The objective of this strategy has been, and is, that the corporation should be restored to commercial viability. The prospect for achieving such an objective would be greatly diminished if BSC were to retain capacity which it is unable to use. Consequently, at the same time as announcing the intended closure of Gartcosh, the corporation also announced. its intention to acquire and close a privately owned hot strip mill in South Wales in order to remove surplus capacity in that sector of the United Kingdom industry. I shall mention that acquisition again later, because it is also relevant in another way to the issues we are considering today.
At this point I think we would all be well advised to pause and think just what might have happened if the corporation's strategy had not been followed. Given the oversupply of steel worldwide and the substantial surplus of production capacity—difficult odds indeed—the corporation is now trading profitably again and building to secure a future for its remaining 63,000 employees. I wonder whether, without that strategy, steel production would have been possible without massive and increasing injections of taxpayers' money on an annual basis.
The corporation's recent decisions have provoked strong reactions of opposition from many interests in Scotland. In view of the loss of jobs, and what I believe was seen wrongly as an implied threat to the main works at Ravenscraig, it is understandable that there should have been such reactions. Many arguments have been deployed against the decision. What has aroused the greatest concern, however—as again tonight—has been anxiety over the possible repercussions of the closure of Gartcosh on the Ravenscraig steelworks. It is claimed that the closure of Gartcosh is a preliminary to the inevitable closure of Ravenscraig.
1430
As a result, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland have had meetings with many groups to hear their views. Those groups have asked that the Government should intervene to reverse the corporation's decision. That was asked again tonight.
The Government's view on the closure of Gartcosh is that the decision is a matter for the commercial judgment of the board of the British Steel Corporation. It is rightly a management decision, and is in accordance with the agreed strategy. We do know, however, that an essential feature of that strategy is that, barring unforeseen changes in underlying market conditions, steelmaking will continue at all five of BSC's main integrated sites, including Ravenscraig, for at least the next three years—that is to say, for the full extent of the period covered by the recent review. This is clearly agreed between the Government and BSC.
In consequence of this, it is our view that the present concern about Ravenscraig is misplaced and, I believe, very damaging. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, asked me for a specific assurance as to the future. I can say, in view of what I have already said, that it has as good a future as any commercial operation could reasonably expect. The chairman of BSC, Sir Robert Haslam, has said this firmly and publicly. Moreover, the corporation has taken other measures which will underpin Ravenscraig's future and compensate for the loss of Gartcosh as an outlet for Ravenscraig steel.
The acquisition and closure in due course of the Alphasteel hot strip mill in Wales, to which I have already referred, removes some of the surplus capacity in the United Kingdom, and thus enables the company's quota to be redistributed within the corporation's own strip mills. This is to the benefit of the corporation as a whole, and therefore to Ravenscraig as part of that corporation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again, but how is closing the Alphasteel mill and then transferring their equipment to somewhere else in Wales, and closing down Gartcosh, going to help with the surplus capacity?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is not what I said. I fear that the noble Lord misheard me. I said that you are talking of two different types of mill, and the closure of the Alphasteel mill will enable BSC to redistribute that capacity within the hot rolling mills, which includes Ravenscraig.
It is important to note that Ravenscraig will become the major supplier by supplying 75 per cent. of the needs of the corporation's modern cold mill at Shotton, which produces coated steels. This is a major market section which is expected to expand over the next five years. Furthermore, the corporation is to spend up to £15 million on new investment at Ravenscraig to improve the continuous casting process and to install new direct coal injection equipment to reduce the steelwork's requirement for coking coal. Similar schemes have worked well. I would mention the one at the Scunthorpe works, and experience worldwide shows them to have been highly promising.

1431
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that the BSC was not undertaking coke oven investment at Ravenscraig. No, it is not, but nor is it at any of its other plants. I can tell the noble Baroness, adding to what I have said, that Ravenscraig will operate economically on two blast furnaces and not one as she suggested, and this is confirmed by the BSC demand forecast.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, how long will that last without any reinvestment and modernisation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, so far as I am aware it is for the three-year programme, which is the same for all the hot rolling mills. Thus, to link Ravenscraig's future to that of Gartcosh is, I hope I have proved, misleading.
It is reported that the British Steel chairman, Sir Robert Haslam, when he gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee on 23rd October, said:
"The closure of Gartcosh will in no way determine or prejudice the future of Ravenscraig. We think this linking of Ravenscraig with Gartcosh does an injustice to both Ravenscraig and the employees there, and is doing them a disservice. Consumers, and possible consumers, who hear this being rammed home time and time again could become disaffected by Ravenscraig and it is in danger of becoming a source of self-fulfilling prophesy".
I agree with that statement, and I believe that any noble Lord who has spoken tonight would also have agreed with such an important statement made by a chairman of a nationalised industry appointed by his Prime Minister. The future, excluding worldwide influences, lies with those who work at Ravenscraig, those who serve it, those who transport its products and the management. The closer they can all work together the better the prospects for the future.
While it is true that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has recently met the Ravenscraig trade union committee and is urgently considering their evidence (but I cannot comment further at the moment), what none of us can condone is that the local unions have not talked, and moreover are reluctant to talk, to the BSC. My Lords, that is no way forward.
From what I have said, I hope the House will see that in setting out the background to this issue I have already gone some way to answering the second half of the noble Baroness's Question; namely, what effect the closure of Gartcosh might have on the steel industry in Scotland. The Government believe that, regrettable though this closure may be, it does not have the wider implications sometimes claimed. The remaining operations of the British Steel Corporation at Ravenscraig, together with its principal establishments in Scotland, the Dalziel plate mill in Motherwell and the Clydebridge tube works in Glasgow, will continue to operate unaffected. The only exception will be those changes directly resulting from the switch between Gartcosh and Shotton as the principal destination of the output from Ravenscraig's hot strip mill.
I shall now comment on the other consequences of closure referred to by the noble Baroness. The Government regret deeply the impact which the closure will have on the immediate area. We recognise
1432
that it is an area which has suffered significantly from a decline in the older industries such as coal mining and steel. Gartcosh mill is situated almost exactly on the boundary between Strathkelvin District (in which the mill is located) and Monklands District. Its closure will unfortunately increase the unemployment by 0·1 per cent. in the Glasgow area and 0·3 per cent. in the Lanarkshire area. These areas are already areas which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, are above the Scottish unemployment rate of 15·8 per cent.
Local effects will of course be greater, in Coatbridge, Airdrie, Gartcosh village itself, other communities in the vicinity, and in Glasgow in such areas as Easterhouse. It always happens that the job losses extend more widely to the local economy than the direct losses alone because of the effect on services and suppliers. Given this situation it is only right to ask: what are the Government doing? I am pleased to tell the House that the Government are considering, and are encouraging others urgently to consider, how new job opportunities may be provided to replace those lost at Gartcosh.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, have I understood the noble Earl to say that the Government are considering asking other people to consider doing something?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord did not hear me aright. What I said was that the Government are considering and are encouraging others urgently to consider.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is what I said.
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are fortunate that redevelopment measures are already in place around Gartcosh specifically to cope with these problems, which are not new to the area. The Scottish Development Agency has two integrated projects run in conjunction with the local authorities, in Coatbridge and in Motherwell, which already have made significant achievements in simulating new business development. They are attracting companies to locate in these towns and improving the physical and commercial environment of the area. These projects will continue until 1987 in Coatbridge and (we hope) 1990 in Motherwell, and we have made clear our expectation that they will make a contribution to the work that needs to be done to create more jobs when Gartcosh closes. There are other economic initiatives at work in the area, also supported by the Government through the Scottish Development Agency, which will also be able to make a contribution to this work.
In addition, the Government have asked BSC (Industry), which is the organisation set up by the British Steel Corporation to support job-creating initiatives in areas affected by steel closures, to consider suitable action for Gartcosh. This might include the development of a workshop complex in the premises at Gartcosh, on the model of similar developments elsewhere which have been very successful in providing premises for small businesses. Two of these developments are in Scotland, at the site of the former Glengarnock steelworks and the former

1433
Clyde ironworks, and they are excellent examples of how such premises can be converted to a new and productive use.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy have referred to the Glengarnock project. I can confirm that that project has created more jobs than were lost, and the size of the losses directly from steel were greater than at Gartcosh.
Most noble Lords have stated that because of a combination of factors the closure at Gartcosh will inevitably lead to a loss of sales by BSC. But none of BSC's major customers has said that because of the Gartcosh closure they will place their orders elsewhere. That includes the car industry, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. It is true to say that similar considerations apply to exports. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said that a 25 per cent. loss of the market was admitted by BSC. That is not true. BSC stated that they expect no loss of market as a result of the Gartcosh closure, but in their financial forecasts of the effect of closure they have allowed for loss of sales of 2,500 tonnes.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, seemed to indicate that there was no future growth for steel and that the heyday of steel would not come again. I can assure him that all the present forecasts are that steel consumption and demand are likely to increase from present levels for the next five years. That includes the European Commission's forecasts for the Community as a whole. That is good news.
Getting across to the general public the Government's concern is often difficult. It is not, sadly, prime media news but I hope I have clearly explained that the Government are fully aware of the impact of the impending closure of the Gartcosh cold rolling mill and are taking additional action. We are conscious that it will have a direct effect on individuals, local businesses and other enterprises. But we believe the measures to which I have referred will create new job opportunities in the area.

Poole Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
A message brought from the Commons that they have come to the following resolutions:
That the Promoters of the Bill shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the
1434
House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That, no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Water (Fluoridation) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Merseyside Development Corporation Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Weights and Measures Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment: ordered that the amendment be printed.
West Glamorgan Bill [H.L.]
A message brought from the Commons that they concur in the resolutions relative to the Bills communicated in the message of 23rd October.

Berkshire Bill [H.L.]
A message brought from the Commons that they have come to the following resolutions:
That the Promoters of the Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give

1435
notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That the Petition relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Bill
A message brought from the Commons that they, having considered the resolutions of this House relative to the Bills communicated in the message of 23 rd October, have come to the following resolutions:
That the promoters of the Bills shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be
1436
recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill
A message brought from the Commons that they have come to the following resolutions to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents of the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Yorkshire Water Authority Bill
A message brought from the Commons that they have come to the following resolutions to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Bill shall have leave to suspend Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid:
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill presented to this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on

1437
the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill, as amended, to the House, forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.

  STERLING M3: GROWTH
  STERLING M3: GROWTH
  "OFFICIAL REPORT ": INCREASE IN PRICE
  "OFFICIAL REPORT ": INCREASE IN PRICE
  "LIFE IMPRISONMENT—AN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM": REVISION
  "LIFE IMPRISONMENT—AN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM": REVISION
  ARMAGH: REPORT ON RUC OPERATIONS IN 1982
  ARMAGH: REPORT ON RUC OPERATIONS IN 1982
  PRIORITIES BOARD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
  PRIORITIES BOARD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
  POULTRY MEAT (HYGIENE) REGULATIONS 1976
  POULTRY MEAT (HYGIENE) REGULATIONS 1976
  LESS FAVOURED AREAS: REPRESENTATION ASSESSMENT
  LESS FAVOURED AREAS: REPRESENTATION ASSESSMENT
  MEDICAL STAFF: PAY REVIEW BODY
  MEDICAL STAFF: PAY REVIEW BODY
  STATE EARNINGS-RELATED PENSION SCHEME
  STATE EARNINGS-RELATED PENSION SCHEME
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT AND VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY PAYMENT ELIGIBILITY
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT AND VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY PAYMENT ELIGIBILITY
  AIDS DISEASE: CONTAINMENT
  AIDS DISEASE: CONTAINMENT
  COMBINED HEAT AND POWER PROJECTS
  COMBINED HEAT AND POWER PROJECTS
  FAST REACTOR PROGRAMME: EUROPEAN COLLABORATION
  FAST REACTOR PROGRAMME: EUROPEAN COLLABORATION