Sitting of 22 April 1986

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL
Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Tourism
    Mr. Roger Kingasked the Paymaster General if he will detail the number of foreign tourists entering Britain in 1979 and 1985 and also estimate the number of jobs created from this source.
    The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The number of visits to the United Kingdom by foreign residents rose from 12·5 million in 1979 to 14·6 million in 1985. In the six years to June 1985 the number of employees in the hotel, catering and leisure sectors, which most directly depend on both foreign and domestic tourists' expenditure, rose by around 101,000. In addition, self-employment has grown, for example, by around 19,000 in the hotel and catering industries between 1981 and 1985.
    Mr. King: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that extremely encouraging reply. Does he agree that if tourists moved outside the general area of London into rural areas more jobs and more opportunities in the tourist sector would be established?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that the English Tourist Board has used the additional money that we have given it to increase by about 20 per cent. this year the subvention to regional tourist boards. We have asked the tourist authorities, in making use of section 4 grants, to concentrate on areas of high employment where there is potential for growth. We have taken on board my hon. Friend's valid point.
    Mr. Madden: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the retention of the Settle-Carlisle railway line would attract more people to this country and promote employment? What is he doing to persuade the Secretary of State for Transport to keep this important line open?
    Mr. Clarke: I remember from one of my previous duties the interest that arose in that railway the moment the railway authorities proposed to divert traffic from it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is continuing to look with interest at all the proposals to save this picturesque route.
    Mr. Adley: In view of the Americans' facility of self-delusion, will my right hon. and learned Friend turn his mind to current opinion in the United States, which appears to see this country as a seething cauldron of unrest? Will he, as a politician, do what is perhaps not fair of us to expect the official British Tourist Authority to do and bluntly point out that if the Americans really want an unsafe holiday surrounded by violence the best thing they can do is go to Florida?
    Mr. Clarke: I am afraid that there is a wave of feeling in the United States that it is not safe to come to Europe. That could lead to a decrease in the number of visitors to Britain. The tourist authorities have been bringing trade and travel representatives and journalists to this country to reassure them that our airport security is good and that safety levels here remain much higher than in United States cities. A formal political reaction might arouse more concern than reassurance. A concerted attempt to control terrorism, especially at airports, will do more than anything else to reassure American visitors.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the rather small number of new jobs to which he referred in his main answer are basically low-paid, seasonal, insecure and unskilled? Is he aware also that, in exactly the same period when that small number of jobs were created, we lost 1·75 million high-paid, regular, good jobs which earned more money for this country from abroad? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that in West Derbyshire it will take 30 years to erase the quadrupling of unemployment in the tourist industry during that period?
    Mr. Clark: The figure I gave was for the increase in those trades most directly concerned with tourism. People know that well over 1 million jobs are dependent on tourism in one way or another, and the figures I have given in no way refer to the people who work in retailing, public transport or other sectors of the economy, where tourism helps. Those are real jobs—36,000 for men. They are perfectly good jobs and, with respect, the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with events and with the times if he goes back to dismissing tourist jobs as somehow not real jobs. West Derbyshire depends very heavily on tourism, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be carefully noted there if he tries to denigrate the industry.
    Mr. Butterfill: Has my right hon. and learned Friend yet made any decision on the difference between the increase in funding he will allocate to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes we have. I shall give my hon. Friend the precise breakdown in correspondence later. We have agreed an allocation to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board and the amount for grants under section 4.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Canavanasked the Paymaster General what is the current total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Ian Lang): On 6 March 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,324,000.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister now tell us the truth and admit that there are over 4 million unemployed, most of whom are being thrown out of work because of the Government's disastrous economic policies? The Government then fiddle the books to try to conceal the true length of the dole queue, which is costing the country over £20 billion a year. Why cannot that kind of money be channelled into public investment to create real jobs for the unemployed people of this country?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The number of real jobs and people in employment in this country has risen in every quarter over the past three years. Over that period about 1 million new jobs have been created.
    Mr. Fallon: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the initiative for the long-term unemployed on Teesside some 70 per cent. of those called in by jobcentres are getting a positive result? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to jobcentre staff and assessers and invite the Opposition to visit some of this long-term work instead of criticising it as simply tea and sympathy?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. Our restart initiative to bring help to the long-term unemployed around the country should be widely welcomed. It will help direct those unemployed people to the many jobs that are available.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise the serious damage now being done to morale on the youth training scheme and the community programme by the prospects of unemployment for some of those reaching the end of their courses and in the light of the figures that he has just given? Does he agree that the manufacturing and construction sectors, especially, should deliberately be expanded in order to match the number of people who are eager and well-equipped to work in them?
    Mr. Lang: I have just told the House that employment in this country has risen by about 1 million in the past three years. This suggests that there are a large number of jobs for people completing youth training schemes and the community programme. About two-thirds of YTS graduates go into employment or training and twice as many people coming off the community programme go into jobs as other long-term unemployed people.
    Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently, after extensive research, The Mail on Sunday estimated that one-fifth of those who are currently claiming unemployment benefit simultaneously work in the black economy?
    Mr. Lang: We take very seriously any suggestion of fraud and would rigorously investigate any cases for which evidence is brought to us. My hon. Friend might like to know that we have expanded the fraud investigation staff by some 50 per cent. recently, and we plan further expansion.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the figures he has given to the House, massaged and fiddled though they are, are an absolute condemnation of six years of Tory Government incompetence? Will the Minister also confirm that when we get the June labour survey figures, as a result of the latest fiddle that the Government are embarking upon, we shall have a substantial drop in the percentage of those unemployed? Will the Minister also
    156
    say why the monthly labour market statistics are now leaving out such valuable information as the numbers of long-term unemployed? Is the Minister not ashamed of those figures?
    Mr. Lang: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the long-term unemployed amount to approximately 1·4 million. On the matter of fiddling the figures, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us which of the changes that have been made to the unemployment count he would reverse if the Labour party ever came to power?

    Business Expansion Scheme
    Sir Peter Blakerasked the Paymaster General what steps he will take to ensure that the current business expansion scheme does not disadvantage hotels.
    The Parlimentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): Under the Budget proposals for revisions to the business expansion scheme, hotel companies will continue to be eligible provided that they meet conditions on the backing of investments by property assets. Genuine risk-bearing investments will not be disavantaged.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the hotel industry will not be put at a disadvantage compared to other industries by the proposals in the Finance Bill? Can he say the same for the self-catering accommodation sector?
    Mr. Trippier: I am anxious to give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he is seeking. Well planned hotel projects and projects related to tourism will still be attractive investments, and BES tax relief will obviously be a useful incentive. It is important to stress that BES was first introduced to attract those who would otherwise not have made safe investments to take the risk, and that is the reason for the tax incentive. The new proposals by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean that risk-free investments are excluded, as I believe they should be.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that the business expansion scheme is admirable but suffers from one great defect—that the people who would be most likely to make such an investment are those most closely related to the people running the business? Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether there is some device—for example, channelling through an enterprise agency—which will make it possible for parents to put their money into their children's enterprises?
    Mr. Trippier: That point has been put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor several times, but there is, of course, the additionality problem. My right hon. Friend has always said that such money would be invested in those companies in any event without the additional incentive of the tax relief. That is the argument, but I shall be happy to draw my hon. Friend's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Maddenasked the Paymaster General what provision he will make for young people leaving YTS between April and September in the current year to help them into employment.
    Mr. Trippier: Many young people completing one-year YTS this year will be offered a second year of training. Those who leave will have access to help from the careers service and jobcentres, and we aim to improve further the employment prospects of ex-YTS youngsters through the recently announced new workers scheme.
    Mr. Madden: How many young people will leave YTS during the period from the end of this month to September? Is not the reality that if they do not have a job there is no alternative scheme? The Government are dumping these young people on the dole queues, deserting them and forsaking them.
    Mr. Trippier: There might be an element of truth in the hon. Gentleman's claim were it not for the fact that in the recent Budget a new scheme was introduced called the new workers scheme. Approximately 170,000 people will complete their one-year YTS in the period to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Obviously the new workers scheme is complementary to YTS. If continuation places are not sufficient in an area the new scheme will apply. I understand that there are some 600 YTS continuation places available in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in Bradford. I hope that those places will suffice to meet the need. If not, the new workerss scheme will complement what is available, and YTS leavers will be eligible for those places.

    Industrial Relations
    Mr. Charles Wardleasked the Paymaster General whether he will review the operation of industrial relations legislation passed since 1979.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We keep the operation of the legislation under constant review. We have made encouraging progress towards giving members a greater say in the affairs of their own union, a fairer balance of power between unions and employers, and better industrial relations.
    Mr. Wardle: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the action attempted by SOGAT at Wapping contrasts sharply with the general reduction in the number of industrial disputes following the introduction of ballots? Would SOGAT be in its present difficulties with the courts if it had simply balloted the members it had instructed to strike?
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. So far as I am aware, the only injunctions obtained against SOGAT—and certainly the sequestration of the funds—followed because it failed to ballot all its members to come out on strike. It is important that the Government have given union members the right to be consulted before they risk their jobs by becoming involved in strike action.
    Mr. Leighton: When the review referred to in the main question is undertaken, will the Paymaster General accept that the majority of British people feel that if Mr. Rupert Murdoch can essay his current industrial butchery and have the law on his side, there is something wrong with the law? Does he agree that if a union such as SOGAT, which did not set out to break, ignore or be in contempt of the law, has every penny of its funds sequestrated within days of entering a lawful dispute following a ballot, the law is grossly unfair and badly in need of reform?
    Mr. Clarke: SOGAT failed to ballot the wholesale membership, which it was calling out on strike. The union
    158
    must have known that that was unlawful. It went before the court and failed to withdraw the blacking instructions or, since then, to purge the contempt. The union has simply failed to comply with a law that has great popular support and has contributed to the improvement in industrial relations in other industries. The Government defend the right of members to be consulted before they put their jobs at risk. SOGAT led its members into folly and cost them all their jobs.
    Mr. Holt: While my right hon. and learned Friend is examining post-1979 legislation, will he also examine pre-1979 legislation, especially in respect of the undertaking given by one of the junior Ministers formerly in his Department to consider how legalistic and expensive the industrial tribunals have become and how out of touch with the working world?
    Mr. Clarke: We certainly keep the working of the industrial tribunals under review. It is right that workers who have established themselves with an employer should have protection against unfair dismissal. We wish the proceedings to be as devoid of legalisms and as informal as possible. We also believe that the procedures should not be misused by people with frivolous or reckless claims, causing unnecessary expense to many employers.
    Mr. Prescott: In view of the declared public sympathy of the Paymaster General for the printers' dispute, is he aware that the simple creation of new companies has swindled the employees out of £80 million in redundancy pay, thrown the right to strike and picket into confusion and allowed the sequestration of funds? According to Mr. Murdoch, that is all now possible under the Government's legislation. In the parliamentary reply that he recently gave me, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, comparing working days lost through industrial disputes under the present legislation with the situation under the Labour Administration, over 118 working days more per 1,000 employees are lost in disputes now than under Labour? Is it not about time that the Government's anti-trade union legislation was reviewed and repealed?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's figures are virtually meaningless. They are an average, inflated in our case by the miners' strike in one year and in the case of the Labour Government by the winter of discontent. The number of disputes last year was the lowest for 50 years—the lowest since 1936. The number of days lost to February this year was the lowest for 19 years. The average figures are quite meaningless.
    Mr. Prescott: They are the Government's figures.
    Mr. Clarke: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, if he will allow me to answer it, there is a limit to the extent to which I can comment on the current dispute between News International and the various print unions. However, if I may speak generally, Fleet street over the years has been epitomised by extremely robust and incompetent management and extremely militant trade unions which have defended rackets of all kinds. I am constantly astonished at the way the hon. Gentleman keeps resorting to Fleet street as an example of the effect of his new industrial relatons legislation, which will sweep away our existing laws.

    Registered Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Paymaster General what steps he takes to check that all those registered as unemployed are seeking work.
    Mr. Lang: All claimants are asked about their availability for work when they first register as unemployed and subsequently if doubts arise.
    I am not fully satisfied with the existing test, and I am exploring ways in which it can be improved.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend says that people must be available for work. However, he must know that there are several categories of people, such as mothers with young children or those who have taken early retirement, who draw benefit but are not seeking work and would not take a job if one were offered to them. Does my hon. Friend consider that the unemployment figures are compiled in a sensible manner? Will he change them?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are, of course, others who are seeking jobs but do not feature on the unemployment register count. The labour force survey provides a better picture of the employment world and has shown the creation of a million new jobs in the past three years.
    Mr. Haynes: Why do the Minister and the Government pursue that line about scroungers? This is a planted question, and that is what it is about. The Minister should have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, now that he sits at the Cabinet Table at No. 10, with a view to providing real jobs and getting people out of the dole queue and back to work in the manufacturing industries—not as waiters or tourist guides.
    Mr. Lang: I may be responsible for the answers, but I am certainly not reponsible for questions. A moment ago I mentioned the creation of 1 million new jobs—these are real jobs. I would be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of our booklet "Action for Jobs", which underlines over 30 employment measures and training measures designed to help people into those jobs.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Has my hon. Friend read of the racket, operating out of Nottingham, which has been exposed by the national press? The unemployed, or rather some claimants under that guise, are bussed to other parts of the country to act as door-to-door salesmen and claim to help the disabled. Does my hon. Friend agree that to help those who are genuinely unemployed we should stamp on those malpractices?
    Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I take his allegations seriously. If he has evidence to support this I shall be glad to see it. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the number of cases where action has been taken against fraud has more than doubled in the past two years and prosecutions have risen by over 50 per cent.
    Ms. Clare Short: I am sure that the Minister does not wish to mislead the House by partial quotes from the labour force survey. Will he confirm that, according to the analysis of that survey undertaken by the Employment Gazette in January 1986, we have the terrible total of 5,460,000 people in Britain who wish to have a job but cannot get one? Does the Minister also agree that as 41 per
    160
    cent. of the registered unemployed have been out of work for a year or more it is not surprising that they do not seek work every day of every week of every year?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady is quoting selectively. The fact is that the labour force survey shows that the number of jobs in Britain has risen by over a million in the past three years. There are more people on the unemployment count who are not seeking work than there are those who are not on the count but are seeking work.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister accept that in the north, Scotland and in Wales there are wards where 40 per cent. of the work force are unemployed. The predominant concern is the lack of jobs and the debilitating effect that that has on young people and on those in the 50-years age group who see no future of work once they have been declared redundant.
    Mr. Lang: I believe that there are pockets of high unemployment in all parts of the country. The Government's restart initiative, which will operate nationally from 1 July, will be helpful in this respect. It will draw in the long-term unemployed for interviews and give them help to try to find jobs.
    It is significant that, so far, over 90 per cent. of those who have been interviewed have been offered a positive employment opportunity.

    Tourism
    Mr. Proctorasked the Paymaster General what contribution tourism makes to the United Kingdom's balance of payments position.
    Mr. Trippier: The surplus of the travel account on the balance of payments was £600 million in 1985 compared with a deficit of £50 million in 1984.
    Mr. Proctor: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to repudiate the Opposition attacks on those who work in tourism and who contribute substantially to the country's economic prosperity? Will my hon. Friend give a breakdown of the figures that he has just given?
    Mr. Trippier: I am glad of the opportunity to repudiate what the Opposition have said about tourist industry employees. I wish that some of them had the nerve to address conferences on tourism and tell people who work in tourism that they do not regard their jobs as serious jobs.
    Mr. Prescott: I worked for 10 years in that industry.
    Mr. Trippier: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should be the last person to make the kind of remark that he has made in the past.
    United Kingdom residents spend about £4·9 billion abroad, but overseas visitors spend about £5·5 billion in Britain. We are obviously anxious to increase the latter figure.
    Mr. Warren: While awaiting anxiously the reply to a later question on the Order Paper on the subject of the Select Committee's report on tourism, may I ask my hon. Friend to acknowledge immediately that if tourism is as successful as he says it is, that which is given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should also be given to England, where the investment would realise far more?
    Mr. Lang: I must applaud my hon. Friend's initiative. He knows that that part of the Select Committee's report

    161
    was dealt with some weeks ago by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. We intend to give a full and considered reply in the near future to the Select Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Knowlesasked the Paymaster General when he proposes to reply to the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Committee on tourism.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have already announced the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendations for an alternative tourist board structure in the written reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 27 February 1986. We are still studying the remaining recommendations in the Select Committee's report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has just said, we hope to provide a considered response during the summer.
    Mr. Knowles: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. The response in the summer is awaited with interest by everyone in the tourist industry. Does my right hon. and learned Friend have the tourist figures for last year, and is he able to say which foreign country contributed the largest single increase?
    Mr. Clarke: Last year the number of tourists to this country from North America rose by 15 per cent. That is why it is important that Europeans generally, including ourselves, should reassure the American public that we are taking serious steps to cut down the risk of terrorism.
    Mr. Leighton: If, as the Paymaster General has explained, grants to the tourist industry are to be made to those areas with the highest unemployment, what is their purpose? Is it so that foreigners can be taken on guided tours of our large pools of unemployed people?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friends and I despair of seeking to explain to the Opposition that there are good and substantial jobs to be won in this country by boosting our tourist trade. There is a whole range of jobs, from management right down to the equivalent of the factory floor, in every branch of hotel and catering and in all the associated trades that depend upon tourism. Some of the areas of high unemployment, including the north-east, are to be found in very attractive parts of the country that contain great buildings and historic cities that attract tourists. We are succeeding in making better use of those natural advantages and we are creating new jobs in those areas.
    Mr. Hicks: In view of the contribution that tourism makes to regional economies, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is an urgent need both to widen the extent and to improve the quality of tourist attractions in areas such as the south-west in order to get away from the London, Stratford, Cambridge triangle?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that that should be one of our most important objectives. We are to open shortly a new British travel centre in London. Its main purpose will be to help visitors to disperse from London by telling them of the attractions of other parts of the country. We are asking the tourist boards to concentrate particularly on building up the tourist industry in areas of high unemployment which have a tourist potential and on seeking to extend the English tourist season.
    Mr. Prescott: As I spent 10 years in an industry that deals with tourism, may I make it clear to the Paymaster General that I have no objection whatsoever to the development of employment in tourism? However, is he aware that most of the jobs in the tourist industry are normally low paid and part-time and that the conditions are bad? It seems that a great many Tory Members are tabling questions about tourism, when the House should be concerned about the loss of 1·8 million jobs in manufacturing industry that has occurred under this Government.
    Mr. Clarke: It is no good the hon. Gentleman delivering his lecture to me about the virtue of tourist jobs. He should address it to the Labour chairman of the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who have spent their time today denigrating the boosting of this industry. It is simply not the case that they can be dismissed in the way that he describes. Given a continuing decline in manufacturing employment—as there has been for the last 20 years as a result mainly of technological change, and that even now the economy is expanding in a healthy fashion—it is important that we look to the new jobs in this area. He will discover, if he finds out more about industry, that there is a whole range of jobs available—[Interruption.] in tourist-related industry.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us conduct our proceedings in some sort of order. All these shouted comments from both sides of the House are not helpful.
    Mr. McCrindle: For what reason did my right hon. and learned Friend take the unprecedented decision to reject perhaps the principal recommendation on tourism of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, concerning the structure of the British Tourist Authority and the various national boards, at a time when he could not conceivably have given adequate consideration to the well-researched recommendations of that Committee?
    Mr. Clarke: We made a quick decision on that because we believed that continuing uncertainty about the structure of the boards would merely undermine their work during the forthcoming season. The issue gets raised repeatedly, particularly by the English members, who feel that at the moment somehow excessive aid is given to Scotland and Wales compared with England. A decision had to be taken about the structure so that those within the boards could get on with their work. We have increased our expenditure in all these areas. The figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) asked for a moment ago are that we raised our grant to the British Tourist Authority by about £20 million, that to the English Tourist Board by about £10 million, and section 4 grants by about £9 million. So all the boards in their present structure have more resources to devote to the industry.

    Tourism (Channel Tunnel)
    Mr. Hayesasked the Paymaster General if he has estimated the effect that the Channel fixed link will have on inward tourism in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Trippier: The fixed link will be a new international route and is expected to generate additional tourism to the United Kingdom. However, the likely increase has not yet been quantified.
    Mr. Hayes: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would be more robust with some of the whingers on the Opposition Benches and make it absolutely clear to them that the increased tourism which will be created by the Channel link will be pan-United Kingdom and not just jobs for the prosperous south.
    Mr. Trippier: Absolutely, and, at the risk of repeating myself, I obviously support all that has been said by my hon. Friends with regard to jobs in tourism. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not just tourism in the south-east or around the area that the fixed link will be going through that will be affected, because our policy is to encourage greater dispersal of visitors on the inland tourist front. It will be better for tourism in Britain generally.
    Mr. Boyes: While some of us hope that the Channel tunnel is never built, if it is we would hope that some of the tourists will come to the most beautiful region of Britain, the north-east of England. In the borough of Sunderland, of which my constituency is a part, 29,000 people are already out of work. The number of tourist jobs that will be created will be no compensation whatsoever for that number of unemployed. What we really want to know from the Minister for Unemployment is how many jobs building this tunnel will bring for the north-east?
    Mr. Trippier: I think that it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to deride in any way the jobs in tourism in the north-east. I take this opportunity of complimenting the north-east on the way in which it has developed and strengthened tourism. I am very familiar with the regional tourist board in that part of the country. It has been very successful. If the hon. Gentleman had listened a little more carefully to the reply to the substantive question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) he would have realised that this is wholly in tune with our overall philosophy. The tourists who are coming into Britain as a result of the fixed link will mean more jobs in the north-east as well.
    Mr. Boyes: How many?
    Mr. Trippier: It would be stupid and fatuous of me to predict an exact figure, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that over the last 12 months there has been a net increase in jobs in tourism of 50,000. Opposition Members must realise that we are talking about the most dynamic sector of the British economy in terms both of wealth and job creation.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Knoxasked the Paymaster General how many people were out of work in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency at the most recent count.
    Mr. Lang: On 6 March 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency was 3,570.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has risen very considerably under the two Governments in the last 12 years? How does he explain this in an area where wages and salaries are, and always have been, low, productivity is high and labour relations are excellent?
    Mr. Lang: The unemployment rate in the Leek travel-to-work area is 9·1 per cent. That is certainly higher than
    164
    we would wish, but it is lower than it was a year ago. My hon. Friend might like to know that unfilled vacancies at Leek and Cheadle are up by over 50 per cent. on a year ago. I commend to my hon. Friend our booklet "Action for Jobs", which contains details of over 30 specific training and employment schemes which we have launched to combat the unemployment problem. In particular, for the low-paid in his constituency the job start allowance of £20 for anyone taking a job at under £80 a week might be appropriate.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that many people in the Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency have already got on their bikes to seek work? If the Minister got on his bike to go to look for a job in the adjacent constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, South he would find that unemployment has risen far faster under this Government than it did under the previous Labour Government. The reason for that is the failure of the Government to expand the economy. May we have some action to expand the economy in Stoke-on-Trent, South, and some action to help the economy in general?
    Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman will know that employment has also been expanding rapidly. As the right hon. Gentleman also knows, I was in Stoke-on-Trent yesterday at the national garden festival, and there I found substantial evidence of Government help, amounting to many millions of pounds. In the community programme, that money created about two thirds of the 1,500 or more jobs at the garden festival.

    Retired Persons
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Paymaster General if he has any plans to remove retired people from the unemployment figures; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: We have no plans to do so. However, we shall continue our endeavours to ensure that those receiving benefits are genuinely available for work.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that unemployment figures include retired people who do not want to work, are not seeking work, and have no need to work? Does he know how many people in that category are included in the unemployment figures? Does he not agree that it gives a false impression about how many people are presently unemployed?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The 1984 labour force survey showed that some 60,000 people in the claimant count were not seeking work because they had retired. This underlines the fact that the unemployment count is not necessarily the best way of getting a true picture of unemployment.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister not ashamed of the fact that all we have heard today from Tory Back Benchers are suggestions about how the unemployment figures, can be further fiddled? If the Minister wants to reduce the unemployment figures he should at least extend the job release scheme to those under the age of 62. That was the way it applied under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Lang: The job release scheme has a useful role to play. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is the intention of any incoming Labour Government to reintroduce into the labour count retired people who have been removed from it?
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer about the number of retired people included in the unemployment count is totally unsatisfactory? There is no sense in including such people in the figures. What plans has my hon. Friend for introducing a work test to establish exactly how many people are actively seeking work?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is knowledgeable in these matters and takes a close interest in them. He will have heard me say that we are unhappy about the adequacy of the availability for work test and that we are looking at ways of making it more effective.

    Lost Working Days
    Mr. Sedgemoreasked the Paymaster General how many working days have been lost through strike action in the last 12 months for which figures are available.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: A provisional total of 2·6 million working days were lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes during the 12 months to 28 February 1986.
    Mr. Sedgemore: How does the Minister think the Wapping dispute will affect this year's figures? Would it not help the Government, the print workers, newspaper readers and even wretched Lobby correspondents upstairs if Mr. Rupert Murdoch were to be declared an undesirable alien and if his cringing sidekick, Mr. Andrew Neil, were to be given early retirement and a clapped-out print works in lieu of compensation?
    Mr. Clarke: Inflammatory remarks by the hon. Gentleman will do nothing to help the position of anybody involved in the Wapping dispute. The hon. Gentleman is naming the only substantial dispute in private industry in Britain at the moment. He seems to overlook the fact that my reply to his question showed that Britain has had the least number of days lost in the period that he asked about for 19 years.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Dykesasked the Paymaster General what information he has about the methods used to compile unemployment figures in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
    Mr. Lang: The OECD published "Standardised unemployment rates" in 1985. This gives a detailed description of the sources and methods it uses in compiling unemployment figures from national sources and the rates derived from these figures.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but since on a pro rata basis the United Kingdom figures appear to be higher than those in the other large countries in the OECD and the EEC, should not we be the country to take an initiative in both those bodies to stimulate the collective economy?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is difficult to make comparisons between the different methods of calculating unemployment figures, but it is interesting to note that we have a higher proportion of our work force in work than almost any other OECD country. The OECD expects employment in the United Kingdom to rise faster this year than in any other major European country.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dykesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Windsor for the arrival of their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet in honour of their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain.
    Mr. Dykes: As we are approaching my right hon. Friend's visit to Israel, and bearing in mind that we take over the EEC presidency on 1 June, may I ask her to consider carefully the advantages of another EEC initiative on the middle eastern settlement? Does she agree with many hon. Members that it is not only a matter of specific and important anti-terrorist measures, but of trying to deal with the fundamental problem of the middle east, and the Americans do not seem to be making progress in that more important area?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that since the end of King Hussein's initiative there have been no new formal proposals. When King Hussein came here recently I was able to discuss certain practical steps with him and I hope to take those forward when I visit Israel in several weeks' time, and to be in touch with the United States about them. We take over the presidency on 1 July. I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, hut I think it advisable that we obtain more agreement on the steps forward before we launch on an initiative.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the action taken against the 21 Libyan students the beginning of further steps by the right hon. Lady's Government to isolate Gaddafi, including the imposition of economic sanctions and the denial of credits and subsidised foodstuffs from the EEC?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will later be answering a question about the deportation of Libyan students. It is an action which we felt was legitimate and desirable under all the circumstances. We are considering further matters about Libyan pilots in Britain and further action that we could take. He will be aware of the actions which the EEC decided to take and, of course, the meeting of Foreign Ministers continues.
    Mr. Kinnock: In the light of that answer, may I ask the Prime Minister whether she has ruled out direct economic sanctions against Libya, as reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning? Does she accept that if that is true that would be cynical and inconsistent, given the support for the bombing of Libya last week?
    The Prime Minister: The refusal to sell military equipment is, of course, a direct economic sanction of a specific kind which we took but which has not apparently been taken by all of the European Community. Sanctions as a whole will only work provided everybody operates them, but there are some that we take unilaterally, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. Food matters have to be pursued through the EEC. We made our views known

    167
    strongly to the European Commission, when it cut out the management committee and decided on special export subsidies for the sale of butter to Libya.
    Mr. Kinnock: In that case, will the Prime Minister make further representations and put all possible pressure on our European allies so that they excercise the power that they must have to impose economic sanctions that are more effective against Gaddafi while not being so lethal towards his people?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we are doing just that and we are particularly concerned about the Commission giving special subsidies for exports of food surpluses to Libya, and we make our views known very strongly indeed.
    Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that a single bombing raid in itself is unlikely to stop terrorism? None the less, it does lay down to the terrorist a serious cost. Will she agree to lay down, in face of terrorism, yet more costs, such as the introduction of the death penalty for terrorism, and even introduce counter-terror activities, in our anti-terrorist operations?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the introduction of such a penalty would be a matter for this House. It has been debated on many occasions, but so far it has never got through. That would be the first thing that would have to take place.
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wallace: During her busy day, has the Prime Minister noticed early day motion 74, in the name of a number of her right hon. and hon. Friends, condemning the alleged lack of balance in BBC reports of the raid on Tripoli? Will she take this opportunity to dissociate herself from that motion? In particular, will she praise Miss Kate Adey, who, in difficult circumstances, maintained the best traditions of objective news reporting?
    The Prime Minister: The Government do not control the BBC. Hon. Members are as free to say what they like about the BBC, as is any other citizen.
    Sir Edward Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend do everything that she can to persuade the United States Government that no country dedicated to the defeat of terrorism can any longer afford to allow the extradition of terrorists from its jurisdiction to be impeded or frustrated by the absurd doctrine that murder perpetrated with the alleged motive of political interest is no longer murder, and so cannot be used as a ground for extradition?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The point has been forcefully made and will continue to be made. This matter is being increasingly recognised.
    Mr. Dalyell: At what point did the Americans tell the Prime Minister that they were going to use anti-personnel cluster bombs?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated in statements and speeches last week, we set down certain criteria for the permission. The Americans selected the targets within those criteria. It was for them to choose the weapons which—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: —It was for them to choose the weapons to secure the defeat of those targets within the target permissions which we gave.
    Q.3 Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowden: Has my right hon. Friend seen the survey recently published by the National Council for Educational Standards, which shows that the examination results in ILEA schools are 30 per cent. below the national average, while at the same time ILEA spends over 40 per cent. more per pupil? Is this not a great indictment of a Socialist, dogma-ridden education authority? It is failing in its duty to the children it is there to serve.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. ILEA spends far more on the education of children than many other authorities, including those with similar problems. The results are not good. Indeed, they are worse than any other similar authority. Surely this shows that it is quiet wrong to tackle the education problem merely by pouring more money into it. Commitment and devotion are required on the part of the staff, with more choice on the part of parents.
    Mr. Barnett: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Inner London education authority contains boroughs, some of which are among the most deprived in the country, that it is dealing with children coming from families speaking 145 different languages, that it has problems of quite a different nature from the problems of any other authority, and that the expenditure is entirely necessary? Speaking as a parent of children who go to ILEA schools, I am satisfied with the performance of their teachers.
    The Prime Minister: I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly in the latter part of his question. He will be aware, for example, that ILEA will spend on each secondary school pupil in 1985–86 the sum of £1,933. Metropolitan districts, some of which have similar problems, will spend on average £1,113 on each pupil, and some of them get better results.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the failure of Foreign Ministers yesterday to agree on the banning of export rebates for Libya, is there nothing that the British Government can do to stop the use of taxpayers' funds directly to subsidise cheap food for Libya? Is not the management committee irrelevant, since on 15 March the Commission took it upon itself not to publish either the subsidy or the destination of cheap food?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that matter with the Commission when it circumvented the management committee and gave a particular export subsidy for exports of butter to Libya. I am afraid that unless the rest of our Community partners agree with us there is nothing we can do alone.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that on Thursday new regulations come into effect in the United States which will give the United States authorities control over high-tech hardware, software and personnel in this country? In view of the Attorney-General's opinion that

    169
    such a claim is both illegal in international law and an infringement of our sovereignty, what protection will the Prime Minister give to British firms?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there has already been a debate in the House on the subject, initiated by his colleague the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). The position was stated in that debate and has been given a number of times since. In general we reject United States claims to extraterritorial jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. One of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues is in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about a particular firm. That will be pursued.
    Mrs. Beckettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the more conciliatory tone that the Prime Minister has offered of late mean that she now accepts that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is not the best basis for foreign policy?
    The Prime Minister: The best basis for foreign policy is what is in the British interest.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that millions of people up and down the country will welcome the fact that since the Budget, and, indeed, because of the Budget, there has been a sharp and continuing fall in the level of the mortgage rate?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. That is very good news for all who are purchasing their houses. Last year the number of new mortgages reached 1 million for the first time. That is also good news for home ownership.
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wardell: Is the Prime Minister aware of any evidence that any of the 39 human beings, including women and children, who were killed in the American air raid in Libya had been involved in terrorist activities?
    The Prime Minister: I indicated our view both in statements and in a speech. Terrorism thrives on appeasement, and Opposition Members are appeasers.
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after yesterday's meeting in Luxembourg many of us feel that our European partners' response to state-sponsored terrorism is woefully inadequate, particularly when, notwithstanding my right hon. and learned Friend's robust support, they could not be persuaded to close down the Libyan people's bureaux in various capitals, which are clearly being used as places from which terrorists act?
    The Prime Minister: I rather agree with my hon. Friend. The European Community has gone further than it has been prepared to go before. It agreed to a severe cut in the size of people's bureaux throughout Europe. It agreed to confine members of those bureaux to the city where they are posted, to restrict the size of other official Libyan bodies to the minimum necessary and to apply a much stricter visa regime to Libyans. That is a good deal further than previously, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we should have liked a lot more to be done. We must consider how much further to go ourselves.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the Prime Minister believe that her safeguarding of British interests includes allowing the Americans free choice in the nature of weapons to be used, as she said five minutes ago? Would this extend beyond the anti-personnel cluster bombs to nuclear bombs, for example? Do we get a clear answer on that?
    The Prime Minister: It is a perfectly clear answer. We set down the criteria for targets which we believed were within legitimate self-defence. We were advised that the use of F111 aircraft was the best means of striking those targets. The precise methods that the United States uses is a matter for the United States within the criteria set down—[Interruption.] Of course it is a matter for the United States.
    Mr. Buchan: In view of that inadequate reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Libyan Nationals
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the decision announced to the press today to expel a number of Libyan nationals from this country.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Twenty one Libyan nationals have today been served with notices of intention to deport on the ground that their deportation is conducive to the public good in the interests of national security. I took this decision in the light of the latest information about the active involvement of those concerned in organising Libyan student activity in the United Kingdom in support of the Gaddafi regime. I have authorised their detention while arrangements for their deportation are made. The House will understand that, in a matter affecting national security, it would not be right for me to disclose further details of the information available to me on which I took the decision to initiate deportation action. I shall not hesitate to use my powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to deport other Libyan nationals if evidence is received of their involvement in activities which might endanger security.
Mr. Kaufman: Mr. Speaker, may I first thank you for granting this private notice question following the failure of the Home Secretary to volunteer a statement on a matter about which his Department has saturated the media for the past seven hours.
I do not question the reasons for these deportations. I do ask about the timing, and must ask the plain question: why now? How long has the Home Office had the evidence on which the Home Secretary acted? Did it obtain it before, or after, the United States bombing of Libya?
On 1 May 1984, following the murder of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher, I asked the Home Secretary's predecessor about Libyans being trained by our armed forces, whose training was described by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces as being compatible with British defence interests. Since then, have further Libyans been admitted for training at Oxford airport flying school?
Two years ago I asked about 280 Libyan nationals being trained by British Airways and other airlines, most of them near Heathrow, and within close proximity to that airport, with all that that might imply. Two hundred and fifty are still being trained at Heathrow, Gatwick and other airports. The Government have said that they have issued guidelines about security risks. Is that all that they intend to do?
Was the Home Secretary consulted in advance about the internal security implications for this country of the decision to allow the use of British bases for the bombing of Libya? If so, did he say that it was in the British interest?
Is it not a fact that it can be easier for certain overseas nationals to enter Britain to commit acts of terrorism than for an Indian grandmother to enter Britain to attend a family wedding—[Interruption.] It is true.
After two years of complacency following the death of WPC Fletcher, why have the Government suddenly acted
172
with such speed? Have they at last realised, following approaches from the Opposition two years old, that some potential terrorists are at large in this country? Or does it follow the outcry against the Prime Minister's collusion over the American bombing of Libya? Is this simply a cosmetic exercise to cover up the unacceptable face of Thatcherism?
Mr. Hurd: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, the operation had to be timed exactly, as it involved 11 police forces. I was anxious that a short, factual statement should be made publicly as soon as we had received information that the first stage had been completed. I did not want there to be any misunderstanding, in Libya or elsewhere, even in the short term, about the purpose of the operation. I am ready to keep the House informed where the scale or sensitivity of the operation requires that.
Steps are being taken to ensure that pilots and engineers being trained in this country can do no harm either at the airports or in the aircraft. There are some legal and practical complications about further action, but the Departments concerned are reviewing the matter urgently.
Of course I was consulted, and I certainly support the Government's decision, which has frequently been defended and explained in the House. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the powers that I exercised in this case are serious ones, which are defined clearly in law. Student activity in support of a foreign Government need not in itself harm national security, which is the test. However, I judged that, following the threats last week, in this case there was a threat to national security. Therefore, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that I reviewed the position last week in the light of the latest information and decided that the criteria within which I must exercise my powers were met and that the presence of those 21 students in this country was no longer conducive to national security.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Did my right hon. Friend see the press reports last week suggesting that two of the Libyans arrested following demonstrations were in this country on visas which expired months ago? What check is made on such visas? If there is a genuine check, will my right hon. Friend ensure that such people do not stay in this country' after their visas have expired?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, I saw the report. The answer to my right hon. Friend's question is yes.
Mr. A J. Beith: Is the student who went on radio and offered to undertake a suicide mission among those to be deported? Why was he not deported earlier? Is willingness to take part in organised student activity the only relevant criterion, or will the Home Secretary consider others? Will he take special account of the position of those Libyans in this country who are opponents of Colonel Gaddafi and who would be at risk if they returned to Libya, and may even be at risk in this country?
Mr. Hurd: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The person concerned has not, for some time, been in a position to act in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is also yes. I am aware that by no means all the Libyans in this country are friendly towards, or supporters of, Colonel Gaddafi.
Sir Edward Gardner: Do aliens who have been served with notices of intention to deport have any right of appeal?
Mr. Hurd: My decision was taken in the interests of national security under section 15(3) of the Immigration Act 1971. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, in those circumstances there is no right of appeal to the immigration appellate authorities. Those concerned have a non-statutory right to make representations to a panel of three advisers, and they have been informed of that right. Some have already indicated that they do not wish to exercise it.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the Home Secretary advise us of the number of Libyan students resident in the United Kingdom? Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what substantial body of information about the harmful activities embarked upon by the 21 students was available post-14 April?
Mr. Hurd: About 1,800 Libyan students are in this country, but, as I have said, many of them must be reckoned as critics or opponents of the Gaddafi regime. The 21 to whom I have referred today are organisers of activity in support of the Gaddafi regime. Such activity is not in all circumstances harmful to national security. I reviewed the information about their organising activity after the events of last week and decided that the presence of these 21 people in this country in the present circumstances was no longer conducive to national security, so I took the action I have announced.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Why have only 21 Libyans been deported? Why not deport all Libyans now in this country, as that is what the vast majority of people in the country want?
Mr. Hurd: Because my powers are limited in the way I have said, and I have exercised these powers in the interests of national security. I shall not hesitate to exercise those powers again when it seems to me that the criteria that I have been describing are met.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is not the failure of the Government to do anything meaningful about the training of Libyan pilots and engineers supine and passive, and does that not therefore make the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's reply less than helpful and less than relevant?
Mr. Hurd: I have already answered that question. Steps have been taken to ensure that these people, whether the small number of pilots or the small number of engineers, can do no harm at the airports or in aircraft. We are considering further measures that will be necessary.
Mr. Michael Mates: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this action. Is he looking equally closely at other nationals in this country whose Governments have been known to sponsor and support terrorism? In particular, if the evidence which has been reported is correct that Syrians might have been involved in the preparation of the bomb that nearly got to the El Al airliner, will he not flinch from taking equally robust action against Syrians, whether or not they have diplomatic immunity?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on that particular example, but the general point
174
that he makes is right. My concern has to be not just with Libyans but with any of those whose presence in this country is not condusive to the national security.
Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the expulsion of 21 individuals a crude, blatant attempt to whip up anti-Libyan hysteria in the country, remembering that the Government are very unpopular, and is it not also an attempt to justify further attacks against civilians in Libya?
Mr. Hurd: No, this is a measured and considered response to the organising activity in this country of those particular 21 people.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon and dissociating all Conservative Members from the pathetic utterances of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether these measures are not totally inadequate? In the late 1930s the appeasers had their way, and history will prove our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to be one of the most stalwart defenders of civilisation and freedom in the world.
Mr. Hurd: I have taken the measures that lie within my power and responsibility. Other measures have been taken. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, in our view further measures are still needed by our partners and ourselves.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Home Secretary agree that the vast majority of the British people will support strong, non-violent action against people when there is evidence to suggest that they are involved in any way in terrorism? Is this why the Government have taken this action? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the British people overwhelmingly reject violent retaliation against civilians who have not been engaged in terrorism?
Mr. Hurd: I have a strong feeling that opinion is shifting on the latter point made by the hon. Gentleman. As the facts are more clearly deployed, there is a much better understanding than there was a few days ago of the strength of the arguments which led the Government to take the decision that they took.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: How large is the Libyan community in Britain, and have any limitations been placed on Libyans seeking entry?
Mr. Hurd: Of course there are limitations. That is why the remark of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was so mischievous. He knows that ever since the St. James's square disaster particular care has been taken to scrutinise the entry of Libyans, under arrangements which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) announced at the time. Those arrangements have been in force ever since. I am informed that there are about 7,000 Libyans in this country subject to immigration control.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Home Secretary aware that a significant number of Libyans, who may not have been a security risk in this country last week, are likely to be a security risk now that the Government have authorised the bombing of their homes?
Mr. Hurd: I have to look at the situation from time to time to see whether the evidence available to me justifies the use of my powers. That is what I have recently done, and shall continue to do.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that for some years Libyans have been undergoing engineering training in my constituency. He will also be aware that during that time they have given no trouble and that the criteria he has used are acceptable to those Libyans as well as to my constituents. Anyone found acting against the best interests of this nation should be expelled under our rules. That also applies to those students now undergoing training in Perthshire.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Today is an Opposition day and we have already had an extension of Question Time. We must now move on.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall not take it if it is a continuation of the private notice question.
Mr. Faulds: No, it is not, Sir. Not at all. In the matter of priority of parliamentary consideration, how comes it that this private notice question on the deportation of Libyans was granted today, when the much more important matter of the use of British bases by the United States Government was not permitted on Monday, when the Foreign Office wished to make a statement but was overruled by No. 10? Why was that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know anything about that.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House I will put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Value Added Tax (Land) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 704) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Value Added Tax (Land) (No. 2) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 716) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Cope.]

Police Complaints Procedure (Amendment)
3.47 pm
Mr. Peter Pike: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to establish an entitlement for a complainant to have access to the report of the police on the substance of his or her complaint; and to make related provision.
I have sought the leave of the House to introduce this Bill because I wish to remove a justified criticism of the present procedure, which was introduced under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985. I have not introduced it as an anti-police measure. Indeed, in my view it is just as important to the majority of police that complaints can be investigated thoroughly and correctly, and that that can not only be done but be seen to be done.
In any free and democratic society it is essential to ensure that an individual has the right to make a complaint against those charged with protecting the community and enforcing the law and order. The number of police who give rise to such complaints, and the number of incidents, when seen in their true perspective, represent probably only a very small percentage. However, that does not mean that we do not have a problem.
The public's confidence in the police, and in their right to make a complaint in the knowledge that it will be fairly investigated, will be strengthened by the Bill. At present, after completion of an investigation, the complainant is given virtually no information by which to determine whether that investigation was carried out fairly. The complainant is ultimately notified if the Director of Public Prosecutions recommends any action. If no prosecution is recommended or instituted, the assistant chief constable then determines what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken. Many complainants feel that the action taken is not sufficient. However, it may be quite reasonable if the report has not been done fairly or adequately and the action taken is based solely on it. After all, if the basis of the report is wrong, the action taken will also be wrong.
The Bill provides for a complainant to have access to the substance of the report arising from his or her complaint. I do not expect the full details of all investigations to be given. Such a suggestion could inhibit an inquiry. In many cases there would be a substantial amount of material, but the substance of the report should sastisfy those concerned that all the relevant items had been investigated in a full and correct way.
I accept the point which has been put to me in the past 24 hours, that the individual complained about should have a right to see the substance of the report. I do not dispute that those complained against also have rights. It is possible that on a few occasions an unfair or unjustified complaint has been made. The essential point that I am pursuing is that it is important to bring this issue into the open. Secrecy breeds suspicion and allows uncertainty to remain. The problem is not new. It must have existed in almost all civilised societies. There is an old Roman saying—I shall not attempt the Latin version:
"But who is to guard the guards themselves?"
I do not pretend that the measure will end all the criticisms of the present procedure. However, it will be a welcome improvement. It will assist Members of Parliament whose constituents raise this issue with them from time to time. Frequently, they hear only one side of

177
the case. I recognise that, whatever the problem—whether it concerns housing or another subject—one hears only the favourable points and not the adverse factors which need to be taken into account.
I am dealing with two cases in my constituency arising from the police complaints procedure. Time does not permit me to go into the details. The point at issue is that neither complainant is satisfied with the outcome of his complaint and the resultant investigation or action. If the substance of the report were made available, the complainant would be able to see on what basis the decisions and actions had been taken, and I, too, could make such a judgment.
Both constituents feel that they have suffered an injustice and are not happy with the position. Because the investigations have been carried out by the police, albeit from another police force, my constituents do not feel that the investigations have been conducted fairly. They feel that all the points they have raised to support their cases may not have been taken into account and investigated fairly and fully. Without the substance of the report, the question must be unanswered.
When the police act unfairly or improperly, it is essential that an individual in a civilised society should be able to make a complaint, confident in the knowledge that it will be dealt with responsibly. I do not believe that such confidence exists. That is bad for the complainant, for the police and for society as a whole. The Bill will help to remove these doubts and will be an important step in strengthening and improving our present procedure. It is important that we take this step. This modest and sensible proposal will improve the position. On that basis, I hope that it will receive the support which it deserves.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jack Straw, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mr. Richard Caborn.

POLICE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Peter Pike accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to establish an entitlement for a complainant to have access to the report of the police on the substance of his or her complaint; and to make related provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 April and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

Statements and Private Notice Questions
3.55 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this point of order, but it relates to the principle of a private notice question versus a statement from a Minister and is directly within your responsibility.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that Ministers have now become aware of the fact that on a private notice question you quite rightly limit the time for questions from those other than the right hon. or hon. Gentleman asking the question. For example, today you gave 15 minutes of the House's valuable time for the private notice question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
In my view, the issue is so important that the Home Secretary should have made a statement. There is no question in my mind but that you would have given more time to question the Home Secretary had he made a statement rather than having to respond to a private notice question from my right hon. Friend. The point is that you ought to consider the amount of time that you allow for supplementary questions to a private notice question.
There is now no doubt that at this time of crisis in relation to Libya, America and Great Britain, Ministers are seeking to wriggle out of their responsibilities to the House. Today, the Home Secretary should have made a statement. Because he did not, and because you were placed in such a position, other right hon. and hon. Members who wanted to ask questions were, through no fault of yours, denied the opportunity to do so. In those circumstances, you ought to consider extending the time on a private notice question if the issue is of sufficient importance to warrant a statement from the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The point is that the Government did not make a statement and I granted the private notice question. A private notice question is an extension of Question Time. The whole House knows that I have a high regard for the time given to Back Benchers. It is precisely because there is such a long list of Back Benchers wishing to speak on the two Opposition motions that I gave only 15 minutes for the private notice question.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It only wastes time.
Mr. Dalyell: It will illuminate the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) very properly asked the Home Secretary whether he was consulted in advance. The Home Secretary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The private notice question is an extension of Question Time. I cannot deal with that. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question on a matter for which I am responsible. I am not really responsible for anything like that.
Mr. Dalyell: Your responsibility is to provide clarification. Unless you give time, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to clarify from the Home Secretary's answers whether he knew in advance. It is important to give time so that the Home Secretary's answers can he clarified, so

179
that we know what he really meant and whether he knew about the attack on Libya in advance, or was consulted afterwards. That is why my right hon. Friend raised a substantial issue.
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that I have an exceedingly difficult job balancing what is important and what is even more important. The two Opposition motions today are very important, and I had to make that judgment.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would consider the genuine and important points of order that my hon. Friends have raised, in the light of a decision that you made a few weeks ago, which I thought was very helpful to the House. You will recall that on that occasion, following a point of order that I raised, a Minister then rose on a point of order and made what you turned into a statement because you said that it was an abuse of a point of order.
The point that my hon. Friends are making is that when a Minister is using the device of a private notice question to evade giving a full statement, you might consider turning that into a statement, with the consequences for questioning that would ensue from that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The trouble is that I do not have that power. It is a matter for the Government whether they make a statement.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have had enough of this.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. However—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Then why is the hon. Gentleman trying to raise a point of order?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My point of order arises on an additional point.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with the first point of order. I must balance these matters. Many hon. Members, including a maiden speaker, wish to take part in the debate that follows. I gave an extension of 15 minutes on Question Time today, and that was a good run for a private notice question.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My point relates to the same issue, Mr. Speaker, but approaches it from a different angle. I believe that the point is very important. Is the only distinction between a private notice question and a ministerial statement that a Minister has decided that the matter warrants precedence over other business, whereas you decide that for a private notice question? To some extent, therefore, they surely have the same status. If they have the same status, there must be times and occasions when you might wish to ensure that they are given equal time in relation to procedure in debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. There are times and occasions when I do that, and I have done that today.

Opposition Day
  12TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Housing
    4.1 pm
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: I beg to move,
    That this House calls for a new approach to housing policy which combines investment in good housing with responses to family and individual needs reflecting the informed opinions of tenants and home buyers, in order to bring about solutions based upon choice, freedom and fairness, to improve the quality of life throughout the whole community.
    Mr. Speaker: I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Rooker: In the Queen's Speech last November the Prime Minister said:
    "Labour could not hold a candle to our record on housing."—[Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 19.]
    The Government amendment to the Opposition motion today appears to reflect that view, although I notice that the name of the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction does not appear on it. It is therefore important to set out some of the old problems as a result of the Tory record to see why new solutions are required.
    Our housing is old and deteriorating. One in four homes in England pre-date the first world war. I must add that those homes are not the only homes that are deteriorating. Britain spends less of its wealth on housing than any of the 11 Common Market countries and is behind the United States, Sweden, Norway and Finland in that respect. Indeed, we are at Third world levels in relation to the wealth we spend on housing.
    The period of this Government has seen the national house-building programme plummet from an average of 285,000 new homes a year under the previous Labour Government to only 180,000 a year for the first five years of the Conservative Government. That is a drop, as I have said repeatedly, of 2,000 new homes every week since the Conservatives came to power in 1979.
    So far, the best year that the Conservatives have managed was 1983 when 217,000 new homes were started nationally. Unfortunately it seems to have escaped the Prime Minister's attention that her best year of home starts is 47,000 new homes below the 1978 figure which was the worst year for new home starts under the previous Labour Government. That shows above all else that the Prime Minister's claim in the debate on the Queen's Speech in November is quite preposterous.
    All of us know that the Government generated a pre-election boom in home improvement grants. However, once the election was over the chopper came down quite firmly. The number of home improvement grants in 1985 is less than half of the 1984 total. The Government's Green Paper "Home improvements—a new approach", effectively spells the end of home improvement grants as a policy instrument for raising the standard of an area. Even those living in decent housing—this point escapes Ministers—need to know and be sure that their neighbours' homes will be looked after, if only for the narrow interest of preserving the value of their own homes.

    181
    The Government Green Paper, to all appearances, is finished. We have hardly heard a pip from the Government because of the overwhelming response against the proposals contained in that Green Paper.
    The Government must be constantly reminded that, in the rush of pre-election time-limited bonanza, extra staff throughout the country had to be taken on by local authorities. Because of the cuts, tens of thousands of our fellow citizens who applied for grants during that time, will never receive them unless there is a substantial and vast change in Government policy. People are extremely bitter. How can they now be blamed for being reluctant to spend money on their homes when a programme of improvement might resume rendering them ineligible for the grant that they might otherwise have received.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rooker: I will give way later as I wish to make progress now.
    On top of that failure, the demolition rates have also been cut. The building figures of new homes are down nationally and demolition levels are also down. It therefore follows that it is crucial that improvements are vastly stepped up. We do not need lectures from the Government, as the Labour party first introduced the system of home improvement grants for private sector home-owners.
    To add to the crisis, there is also an increase in households beyond the increase in population. The Government are aware that many "hidden" homeless people are forced to share other people's homes. The legally defined homeless figure rises each year the Government are in office. In 1985 it topped 90,000. I do not see how the Government amendment fixes figures in relation to the 90,000-plus homeless families in 1985. Those people are not homeless out of choice. Their freedom is severely limited and they do not believe that the system is fair.
    Is it Tory freedom and fairness which has caused an estimated 14,000 families to be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Are Conservative Members satisfied with the quality of life that they mention in the amendment for the estimated 750,000 handicapped people living in housing that is not suited to their needs? To add further to the crisis on the Tory record, it is known that long-stay patients in psychiatric hospitals are mainly long-stay because there is no alternative accommodation. In the face of that, how can the Government, through their manipulation of the Opposition motion, say that there is choice, freedom and fairness?
    I stress two further points to highlight the Tory record on housing—the record which the Prime Minister said that the Opposition could not hold a candle to. After six years of Conservative Government—the figures relate to April 1985—no fewer than 4 million out of the 18 million homes in England were either unfit for human habitation, lacking in basic amenities such as an inside toilet or hot and cold running water, or were in need of substantial renovation.
    Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rooker: I must continue.
    182
    That figure of 4 million represents 20 to 25 per cent. of the homes in England. That is some record and certainly shows that there is not much fairness. I give way to the first hon. Gentleman who wished to intervene.
    Mr. Latham: I notice that when the hon. Gentleman was giving the figures for new housing starts, he compared the Labour party record with the Government's record. He did not give the same comparison for improvement grants. Will he do that now?
    Mr. Rooker: I shall be quite happy to recount the figures. However, my point is that the Opposition's housebuilding record, as I have said, was 2,000 new starts every week better than the Government's. We were demolishing old and decrepit housing faster than the Tory Government. It naturally follows that, if we are to maintain housing standards, there must be a vast increase in improvement grants. No one can deny that, because of the pre-election boom, the Tories engineered a boom in home improvement grants to hide the cuts in new housebuilding and the further cuts in demolition. There is no denying that. That is not part of my case, but the record overall is not one of which the Government can be proud.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Mr. Rooker: There is also the Tory record on rents and mortgage interest. Even with the recent decreases in the latter, mortgage interest has on average been 50 per cent. higher under the Tory Government than it was under Labour.
    I want to be fair to the Government. I am in favour of being fair and placing the facts on the record. The increase in the retail price index between 1979 and 1985—in the first six years of the present Government—was 74·6 per cent. At the same time, rents went up by 144 per cent., and the index for mortgage interest rose by 158 per cent. That is the scale of the increase in mortgage interest compared with inflation under the Tories. Ministers may not agree with the figures, but it was provided by the Library and confirmed by a Minister in a parliamentary answer on 28 January.
    Despite those figures, the Government have the brass face to tell us that we cannot hold a candle to their record on housing. Despite that appalling catalogue, the Government are arrogant enough to claim in their amendment that they are fulfilling the housing aspirations of the British people.
    Mr. Marlow: There are two aspects to the provision of housing. One is national Government and the other is the local authority. The hon. Gentleman says that a great number of houses are sadly below standard. What proportion of those houses is in Labour local authority areas? Will he also explain why, although Lambeth has much higher rates than Wandsworth, the housing situation is much worse in Lambeth than in Wandsworth, a Conservative local authority with a lower rate? What is the secret? What is the difference? Why does that happen?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) always asks about Lambeth, to which he is, of course, extremely grateful for his home improvement grant.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way again. I did not say that the hon. Gentleman criticised Lambeth—he did that himself. I said that he is eternally grateful to Lambeth.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Mr. Rooker: Many of my hon. Friends—
    Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it is not a point of frustration?
    Mr. Marlow: I am not a net debtor to Lambeth.
    Mr. Rooker: Millions of home owners and tenants are demanding a change of policy. What we do not save in our housing stock we shall lose. The next generation will have to foot the bill.
    Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question?
    Mr. Rooker: There is no one answer. No one in his right mind would claim that there is one answer. None of my hon. Friends would claim that there is, and I am sure that the Minister would not either. However, a start must be made. The Government could make a start by redressing some of their own faults. They could, for example, lift VAT from improvements and repairs carried out by registered builders. The money lost in VAT would be saved out of the black economy. The Government made a fantastic and fundamental error in 1984 in imposing VAT. The imposition has caused considerable difficulties. Lifting the burden of VAT from improvements and repairs by registered builders would pay for itself.
    A programme should be pledged to ensure that within two to three years at the most every home in the land has hot and cold water, a bath and an inside toilet. That is a very modest proposal, but each of those basic amenities is lacking in at least half a million homes.
    The labour and materials are there, and, heaven knows the need is there. The investment would be a prudent one, and putting decent amenities into our houses would save the NHS a fortune.
    The Government must scrap the Green Paper on home improvements. We need proposals that would not penalise home-owners as the proposals in the Green Paper seem to do. Private money could be encouraged into improvement work through public channels. That has been advocated by some Labour-controlled local authorities.
    Grant procedures must be simplified to encourage those who are bewildered by the form-filling that is needed if they are to take up the opportunities. With the present lack of either newbuild or demolition, the take-up of grants needs to be positively encouraged rather than cut again as it was in 1985.
    On no occasion have the Government increased the financial limits of the grants or the cheap scheme for the first-time buyers which they inherited from the Labour Government. They should do so immediately.
    We need a national programme for the repair and modernisation of our 5 million or 6 million council dwellings. The Government should set it up in a way that actively involves the tenants. The Government know the scale of the problem. It is not fanciful to say that there is a demand for repair and modernisation. The Government's own report of last November on the condition of public sector housing stock itemised one area of stock after another—flats and houses categorised by age—and arrived at the need to spend £18 billion on bringing that stock up to good condition. A start should be made on a national programme actively involving tenants.
    184
    We must go further. It is crucial that tenants and home owners should have new rights to be involved in the modernisation, repair and improvement of their homes. Another of our modest proposals is that there should be a right to demand that the work is done satisfactorily before payment is made for repairs or improvement. That vital right does not exist today for local authority tenants or for home owners on the receiving end of improvement grants. They have no right to insist that the work be done to their satisfaction before the local authority can pay the builder or the contractor.
    Mr. John Maples: Or the direct labour organisations.
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, or the DLOs. People will not feel responsible for caring for the improved properties unless they are involved.
    Some Conservative Members have joined us in another demand that we have made on three or four occasions in the past year. The money locked up in local authority bank accounts, being the proceeds of the sale of property or land, must be released. To ignore £6 billion is simply not prudent financial management. I am sure that all the Ministers at the Department of the Environment agree. However, they cannot say so, because the Treasury will not permit them to do so.
    We need an immediate increase in resources devoted to the Housing Corporation, in order to enable the voluntary sector of housing authorities and co-operatives to flourish and to contribute in the area in which it can contribute so much—catering for the special needs of the young and the elderly. In addition, the voluntary sector should once again be able to concentrate on what it can do extremely well—rehabilitating rundown housing for family purposes.
    I make a plea on behalf of the Opposition generally and of some Labour Members in particular who have defective housing in their constituencies.
    The House must seriously consider the problems of defective housing and put muscle behind the Housing Defects Act 1984 which had all-party support. However, there must be the proviso that resources will be made available to make the Act a reality. If that is not done the House will be conning hundreds of people.
    We must not throw good money after bad—nobody is asking for that. However, hundreds of thousands of families who live in defective housing—owners and tenants—need to know where they stand. They are in homes which they cannot sell and for which there is a block on improvement grants and modernisation by public sector landlords. It is crucial that we take action.
    Without returning to the quick-build policies of the 1950s and 1960s—I have had to use statistics as a qualification of the scale of the damage, but we are not interested in playing the numbers game for the sake of building junk housing—which caused so much distress to people trapped in high-rise blocks and walk up deck-access flats, we must have a national comprehensive building programme for all kinds of tenure. That includes those who wish to rent, those who wish to buy and those who wish to do a bit of both through shared ownership.
    Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman has referred to those who wish to buy, and the motion refers to choice. I am sure that he will agree that most people, given the choice, would prefer to own their homes. Can the hon. Gentleman

    185
    explain how such aspirations would be realised by the 6 million public sector tenants if a future Labour Government stopped the sale of council houses?
    Mr. Rooker: A future Labour Government would not remove the right to buy—we have made that absolutely clear. It is no good the hon. Member looking surprised, for it is there, chapter and verse, in "Homes for the Future".
    Mr. Robert Atkins: It is called a U-turn.
    Mr. Rooker: It is not a U-turn. Let me give an example to prove that. In 1967 the Labour Government gave home owners of leasehold houses the right to buy the freehold, and that was without Conservative party support. Recently, the Tory Government went to the European Court to defend that piece of socially just legislation. We do not deny that we opposed the Government's proposals in the Housing Act 1980. But although our proposals are not the same as the Government's, because we want to replace what has been sold, we now accept each other's position. There is no argument about that and there is no point in the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) refering to a U-turn.
    We accept people's right to buy, in the same way as the Tories opposed the right for home owners to buy their freeholds which had been granted under the Labour Government. No Labour Government have ever stopped a council—whether Tory or Labour controlled—from selling houses to its tenants.
    Mr. Maples rose—
    Mr. Rooker: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Maples rose—
    Mr. Rooker: No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech later. I give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. George Park: Is my hon. Friend aware that, over a quarter of a century ago the Labour-controlled council of Coventry was building houses for sale?
    Mr. Rooker: The record of Labour-controlled local authorities providing homes for sale, up and down the country, is clear. If the Government half close the gap between their average levels of house building and that of the last Labour Government it would mean an extra 50,000 new homes a year. Our target is simple and we have made it clear. We will build and plan to repair and improve at a rate faster than the present rate of housing decay. The problem of house decay is serious and, if we do not meet it, future generations will have problems with which they will be unable to cope.
    Poor housing is an injustice for all our community, but those who live in it live out the injustice on a daily basis. An investment in housing is an investment in people both in their homes and in their jobs. We cannot offer real choice, freedom and the fairness inherent in decent housing unless the nation wakes up and starts to put people first. That is our intention.
    4.25 pm
    The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'welcomes the Government's approach to housing policy which combines investment in good housing with responses to family and individual needs reflecting the informed opinions of tenants and home buyers, in order to bring about solutions based upon choice, freedom and fairness; and congratulates the Government on its achievements since 1979 in fulfilling housing aspirations and improving the quality of life throughout the whole community. '.
    The amendment recognises the crucial truth about the debate. Phrase like "putting people first" or "choice, freedom and fairness" may be new themes to the Labour party, but they are not new themes for the Conservative party. They have been the basis of our housing policy for the past seven years, since the introduction of the tenant's charter and the Housing Act 1980.
    It is right that I should welcome the Labour party's conversion to the importance of choice, freedom and fairness, but it has been some time coming. The Labour party's attitude to the introduction of the right-to-buy policy followed different priorities from those outlined by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) when he discussed the policy in his speech.
    When the Labour party was faced with one of the most popular housing policies introduced by any Government, what did it do? It opposed it. It did not put people first, it put the wishes of local authorities first. Even now, when the overwhelming popularity of the right-to-buy policy has forced the Labour party to accept it, it has done so grudgingly.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: A U-turn.
    Mr. John Patten: It has done a sort of U-turn, but more of that in a moment.
    From the policy paper "Homes for the Future", to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) referred in his telling intervention, and which the Labour party conference approved six months ago, it is far from clear whether it has accepted the right-to-buy policy. I demonstrate that by quoting from the document which tells us that the right to buy
    "has the effects of restricting choice for tenants".
    With regard to the public sector stock, it says that the right to buy
    "has only made matters worse".
    Which is the real Labour party policy? That approved by the Labour party conference, or that skated over by the hon. Member for Perry Barr?
    Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
    Mr. Tony Banks rose—
    Mr. Rooker rose—
    Mr. Patten: I shall give way in a moment. I did not interrupt the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr.
    In that document, the Labour party proposed to allow local authorities to
    "determine whether, in the light of all the circumstances, council tenants should be able to buy their houses".
    That is not so much a conversion as a case of half falling off the donkey on the road to Damascus—a mixture of "Me-tooism" and totally muddled Labour party policy formulation.
    Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
    Mr. Patten: I shall give way with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman later. The U-turn referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) shows how much the ground has been shifted—it is ground not of Conservative party choosing but of the choosing of British people.
    Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
    Mr. Patten: I shall give way in a moment as I promised.
    Mr. Peter Riddell revealed yesterday in the Financial Times that Labour's own research had revealed that the party was
    "in danger of being seen as rooted in the 1960s and the 1970s in its approach".
    The hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Perry Barr are trying to drag the party into the 1980s. They have some way to go yet. But how much will it all cost?
    This morning a new document on housing was launched. It is a glossy new document published in the new, fashionable soft-focus colouring, blurred round the edges, such as we are accustomed to seeing in some newspapers. It refers to a new package of housing policies. But how much will it cost? My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is waiting, with his little calculator, for evidence of how much it will cost so that he can add it to the £24 billion of pledges that the Labour party has already given.
    I shall give way to the hon. Member for Perry Barr if he will tell me the cost. The hon. Member for Copeland is also sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Perry Barr if they will tell me the cost of their programme. It appears either that they do not know the cost of their programme, or that if they do know how much it would cost they are refusing to tell the House.
    Mr. Rooker: What is the cost of the 4 million people who are living in decaying and unfit housing? What is the cost of the people who are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? What is the cost of the 90,000 people who are homeless every year, and of the 4 million people in the dole queue who are being wasted?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. One does not answer one question by asking five or six others. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give a straight answer to a straight question, let the hon. Member for Copeland, who is in charge of the Labour party's policy on the environment, get up and tell us the cost. If he will not do so, either he does not know or he is trying to perpetrate a fraud on the electorate by putting forward an uncosted and false prospectus.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Patten: If the Opposition Front Bench will not tell us the cost, perhaps the hon. Member for Bootle will tell us what it is.
    Mr. Roberts: I shall say something about the cost of housing investment later, Mr. Speaker, if I catch your eye. As for U-turns and public expenditure on housebuilding, one of the Government's main arguments during the proceedings in Committee, of which I was a member, on the Housing Bill of 1980, in favour of the sale of council houses was that one could use the capital receipts from the sale of council houses to replace those that had been sold.
    188
    Why have the Government done a U-turn? Why will the Government not allow local authorities to spend their capital receipts on the building of houses? Has the Minister read the Labour party's document "Homes for the Future"? Is he in favour of the Labour party's commitment to replace every house that is sold by building a new one?
    Mr. Patten: We are, of course—
    Mr. Roberts: Answer.
    Mr. Patten: That is exactly what I am going to do. The hon. Gentleman should restrain himself. He asked a direct question. The answer is that each year we are permitting a proportion of the accumulated sums of money from council house sales to be spent on new building. Not all the £6 billion is now backed by cash. Much of the £6 billion has now been spent on other purposes, so not all of it is available. We are reviewing the capital control system. We have had this argument across the Floor of the House on a number of occasions since I became Minister for Housing. A new series of questions now has to be asked about the cost of the Labour party's programme. The Opposition Front Bench refuses to give that information because it does not have it. Therefore, I give due notice that I shall return to the issue again and again.
    Mr. John Powley: Did my hon. Friend hear correctly the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), who said that it was the Labour party's policy to replace every council house that is sold with another council house? Will he speculate on the cost to the Exchequer and the financial institutions of this country of replacing about 900,000 council houses?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the confusion in the Labour party's policy. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr. He said that he did not want to play the numbers game. He also said that there was a pressing need to build more and more houses. I invited him to give the answer, but he has not chosen to explain how that programme will be paid for.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Patten: I shall give way later to the hon. Gentleman. I am conscious of the fact that during our last debate I was unable to give way to him.
    It is as difficult as ever to tell what is the official policy of the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party on this issue, as expressed in their amendment on the Order Paper which has not been selected for debate. The Social Democratic party seems to accept the right to buy. That leaves the Liberal party, as I am always being reminded by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, in the extraordinary position of being the only party that does not officially accept the right to buy. The amendment of the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party does not suggest that they are about to resolve this confusion. If my right hon. and hon. Friends have not read the amendment, I recommend them to read it. It reads like a John Cleese parody of the risible results of consensus policy making.
    Mr. David Alton: Before the Minister leaves that point, will he give way?
    Mr. Patten: Perhaps I shall get a straight answer from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alton: The answer is unequivocally yes, the Liberal party would retain the right to buy. The amendment specifically says that it would.
    Mr. Patten: If that is now official Liberal party policy, it is extremely useful information to have from the hon. Gentleman.
    The hon. Member for Perry Barr ended on the question of the right to buy and home ownership, and naturally, I began on those issues in order to take up his points. The right to buy has been successful because it recognises the wish of the great majority of the British people to own their own homes.
    Mr. Tony Banks rose—
    Mr. Patten: Mortgage famines have disappeared and mortgage rates are coming down. Mortgage rates are being significantly reduced, for the second time in a matter of weeks.
    Mr. Banks: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Patten: Before I turn to the rented sector, I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Banks: On the Minister's point about the right to buy in the private sector, according to the most recent survey in the London borough of Newham, only 7 per cent. of the population can afford to buy a house that costs about £35,000, which is a low price in the south-east. Is the Minister aware that because of the massive unemployment and other poverty that has been brought about in Newham by this Government's policies, the right to buy in the private sector is effectively denied to the people of Newham?
    Mr. Patten: In the Housing and Planning Bill we are trying to include additional incentives for flat dwellers, a substantial number of whom live in the London borough of Newham, which will make it more possible for them to buy their homes. I do not want to devote the burden of my speech to the right to buy, but I had to deal with the points that were made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr.
    More choice, freedom and fairness are needed in the rented sector. I have made that point time and again since I have been Minister for Housing. I hope that the hon. Member for Perry Barr recognises that fact. The right to buy and home ownership have not been the only tunes that I have played either in debates in this House or in Standing Committee. That is one of the best ways to avoid the mistakes of the past.
    The hon. Member for Perry Barr referred to choice and fairness. Council tenants did not have much choice about the design of the estates and tower blocks that were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Alas, those designs reflected what the bureaucrats and architects in central Government and local government thought was best. The people were not consulted. All those who were involved made that fundamental mistake. The result has been many of the housing problems that face us today. We are trying to deal with the failed solutions to past problems, and we are now in the third or fourth cycle of trying to solve them. I very much regret that the management record of many local authorities has not made solving those problems any easier.
    I have said it before, but it has to be said again, that just as there are far too many homes standing empty in the private sector, so there are 116,000 houses and flats standing empty in the public sector. That is more than the total number of people who are accepted in this country as being homeless. In fact, 26,000 houses and flats have
    190
    been standing empty for more than 12 months. Those houses and flats are an affront to the homeless of this country.
    Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Patten: No. I have given way on many occasions, and in the interests of those right hon. and hon. Members who are hoping to speak I must make progress with my speech.
    We hear a great deal from Labour-controlled local authorities, in particular, about the need for more expenditure, but rent arrears now total more than £200 million. In the worst 20 authorities alone, rent arrears equal about £94 million.
    Labour authorities should tell us what they have been doing with the substantial sums of money spent on their stock. If their housing is in poor repair, how did they allow it to get into that state? What have they been doing for the past 30 or 40 years? Sheffield, for example, has been under Labour control for all but two of the last 40 years, and in the last six years alone it has spent £180 million on housing. Wolverhampton has been Labour for 30 years since the war, and in the last six years it has spent £115 million. Manchester has also enjoyed Labour control for most of the last 30 years, and it has spent £340 million on housing in the last six years.
    What have these authorities been doing for so long with so much money? What has been the result? On the most recent figures available to me, Sheffield has nearly 3,000 empty homes. It is owed nearly £10 million in rent arrears—15 per cent. of its annual rent income. Wolverhampton has nearly 2,000 empty homes—5 per cent. of its total stock—and rent arrears are nearly £3 million. Manchester has 6 per cent. of its stock standing empty—nearly 5,000 houses and flats. It is owed £4·5 million in rent arrears. What a record of the results of more than a generation of Labour control in those areas of housing. What a tribute to generations of Labour control. What an affront to the homeless.
    Perhaps the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who I understand will wind up the debate for the Opposition and to whose speech I look forward, will find time to comment on Lambeth's record of 1,800 empty council houses and over £9 million in rent arrears—25 per cent. of its annual rent income.
    The records of many of these councils are very poor, but they cannot be held entirely to blame. Many council housing departments are simply too big to manage properly, as I think all hon. Members recognise. I know that I have the agreement of the hon. Member for Perry Barr, because he quoted some telling figures in his speech on Second Reading of the Housing and Planning Bill. He told us that seven councils have more than 50,000 houses and flats to manage, and that a further 52 councils have between 20,000 and 50,000. The hon. Gentleman was certainly not exaggerating when he said that there was scope in that size of management for the bungling depersonalised approach. He was right and I commend his courage in saying it.
    We have to find ways to break up these great empires and to achieve more diversity of management and ownership. I believe that there is a growing consensus in the House that those are desirable ends, even if we might not necessarily be able to agree on all the ways of

    191
    achieving them. We have to encourage more tenant participation in the organisation and management of the blocks of flats, houses and estates in which they live. The Housing and Planning Bill will promote just this kind of change, and I welcome the enlightened attitude of Opposition spokesmen of all political parties in the Committee on that Bill to these new attempts to help tenants of housing in council ownership.
    Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend mentioned parts of the record of Manchester. Probably, like me, he has received a letter from a Mr. Taylor of the city of Manchester, who has been seeking to misrepresent the Housing and Planning Bill. He is not only doing that, but is threatening to set up a conference for the purpose of inviting trade unionists and other councils further to misrepresent the Bill. Can my hon. Friend say what action the Government will take to prevent Manchester from putting politics rather than people first?
    Mr. Patten: I am afraid that that letter has not come through to me. Perhaps my civil servants thought that I was too weak a spirit to receive such a threat from Manchester and decided to keep it off my desk. I deplore the way in which local councils, such as Manchester, or indeed Leicester, from time to time threaten people wishing to purchase their own homes that they will diversify management of tenure in the estates on which they live.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: What message does my hon. Friend have for those constituents of mine in Leicester, East who have been trying for the last three years to buy their own flats and have been prevented because the Labour party is denying them the right to do so? Those people are desperately keen to buy their own homes, but the Leicester city council, which is Labour-controlled at the moment, is refusing to allow them to do so. They want to be property owners, and they are being denied that right. What can we do in the Housing and Planning Bill to help them?
    Mr. Patten: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has observed sotto voce, that is the authentic face of the Labour party at grass-roots level. What is going on in Leicester shows the yawning gulf between practice in so many Labour authorities in this land, alas, and the sensible, pragmatic and non-ideological words which come so often from Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. If my hon. Friend would like to write to me with examples of these shocking incidents, I shall look into them and see whether there is anything that I can do.
    Local estate-based management is one of the key changes which my Department is advocating to local authorities through our priority estates project and the urban housing renewal unit.
    Another matter that has been of great concern in recent debates on the Housing and Planning Bill is the need to bring in private investment. I must say to the hon. Member for Perry Barr that the misrepresentation by at least some parts of the Labour party of the intent of that Bill and the stories being put around in Labour party leaflets in places such as Wandsworth—I was shown a shocking example today—that the purpose of the Bill is to make it possible for tenants to be removed at will, freely and at the
    192
    stroke of a pen, is wrong. The hon. Gentleman knows that. We are to have a chance to debate it on Report on Thursday. I simply want to put him on notice now that I shall do all that I possibly can to make sure that the truth is told about these proposals.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State hopes to say more about these initiatives when he replies to the debate. I should like to say how pleased we have been by the positive response that we have had from so many local authorities, many Labour authorities among them, to the offer of help by the urban housing renewal unit. More than 100 authorities have already asked for help from the UHRU and many schemes are being worked up. These authorities have realised that they do not themselves have all the answers, so they are prepared to work in partnership with central Government and with the private sector to try to provide some of the answers.
    We have to look at new ways of providing rented housing. That is a theme to which we have to return in the House. The private sector certainly has a part to play, as do housing associations and other forms of investment institutions. This is critically important. These alternatives can not only offer tenants the prospect of better management, but can offer more choice, more freedom and more fairness compared with the hopelessly divided forms of housing that we have, with owner-occupation, council renting and precious little in between. This is one of the great blots on the social landscape of this country and is unique in the Western world. We have to do something to break down those barriers.
    We need to spend money, too, on improving and repairing the stock. We were given the uncosted benefit of the uncosted thoughts of the hon. Member for Perry Barr and his uncharacteristically demure and self-effacing colleague the hon. Member for Copeland, who said what they were going to do, but not how they were going to pay for it, and when.
    We have been spending money. We have spent a record amount on home improvements since 1979. We have spent more than £3 billion, and approximately £0·5 billion is being spent this year. It is the same in the public sector, where about £2·5 billion is being spent from the capital account and the revenue account on housing repairs and renovations—not before time. In 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government, only £1 billion was spent. We have increased the amount of money spent on council house repairs and renovations by some 14 per cent. since 1979.
    Let there be no tales from the Opposition about the Government not wishing to begin the substantial task of trying to bring back into good repair our housing stock and to undo many of the mistakes so tragically made in the last 20 or 30 years. Those are the areas in which expenditure is needed. It is not needed to play the numbers game or to provide vast new housing estates on which so much was spent in the '60s and '70s, to such disastrous effect.
    Those are our priorities. We want to help those who wish to buy their own homes. We want to improve diversify management for tenants, and we want to devote more resources to bringing back into use, by improvement and repair, houses for everyone, especially the homeless. Those are the priorities that really mean putting people first.
    4.51 pm
    Mr. Nick Raynsford: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make my first speech in the House on this subject. I say that for three reasons. First, I have worked in housing for the last 14 years, a major part of which was with the housing organisation SHAC. Secondly, housing has, sadly, been neglected far too much in recent years and has been given far too low a priority, both in terms of public expenditure and emphasis by the Government. Thirdly, the Government's policy on housing is so woefully lacking that there is a crying need for a new approach and a new policy to try to ensure that many of our fellow citizens who have to endure shameful conditions of poverty and squalor and homelessness have the prospect of a decent home.
    There is no doubt about the extent of the housing crisis. We know from the official figures that on the most cautious estimate something of the order of one in 10 properties are totally unsatisfactory—unfit unfit for human habitation or suffering from a lack of basic amenities such as bathrooms and WCs, or requiring considerable expenditure to tackle disrepair. There is a huge backlog of properties in bad condition. They are to be found in the private rented sector, especially in constituencies such as mine.
    I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the two hon. Members who represented Fulham in the last 40 years—Michael Stewart, now Lord Stewart of Fulham in another place, and the late Martin Stevens whose unfortunate death led to the by-election which resulted in my election to this House. In my constituency a substantial number of properties are privately rented and many of the people who live in them have to endure appalling conditions. I was able to show those conditions to my hon. Friends the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) when they visited Fulham a couple of months ago. They saw some of the worst conditions anywhere in Britain.
    Apart from privately rented housing, many owner-occupiers live in properties that they do not have the money to maintain. They are living in houses that are literally falling to bits around them, and action is needed to tackle that problem if we are not to see a much greater problem of deterioration in owner-occupied houses. As we all know, there is a huge backlog of poor condition council properties. Many of those houses were built to prefabricated systems that have proved unsatisfactory. Those systems were often encouraged by central Government and local authorities are now being given the blame for them because they followed the advice of central Government 20 or more years ago.
    There is also a serious problem of unmet housing needs. We know from surveys carried out by organisations such as Shelter that 1·25 million households are registered on council waiting lists. That is a rather imperfect measure of need, but it shows the extent of the problem. Perhaps more graphic are the shameful figures of homelessness, of which the most recent for last year were published last week. They' show that 94,000 households were accepted last year by local authorities in England as homeless. That is the highest number ever recorded and an increase of some 13 per cent. on the previous year. That is a measure of unmet needs.
    194
    The problems of poor conditions and unmet housing needs have been greatly exacerbated by Government cuts in housing expenditure. I should like to put a couple of figures on the record. The Minister said a great deal about the Government's spending record, but for every £100 spent on housing in the last year of the last Labour Government, only £30 was spent by this Government last year. That is a measure of the extreme cuts in expenditure on housing for which this Government have been responsible. We spend less as a proportion of our gross domestic product on housing than any other European country. We spend less than West Germany and less than Greece. We are at the bottom of the European league for spending on residential accommodation. The figures for public sector house building are a disgrace. Ten years ago 170,000 new homes were started. Last year, the figure was just 33,000 one fifth of the level achieved 10 years ago. That is the record of this Government.
    The Minister talked about the polarisation between owner-occupation and council renting and said he wanted something in the middle. Many of us want that. Many of us, including myself, have served on committees of housing associations that have been striving to provide alternative tenures. For every three homes that housing associations were providing in 1979, the last year of the Labour Government, only one is being provided now, and that is because of cuts by the Government in expenditure on housing associations. That shows the hollowness of the Minister's claim that he is seeking some additional tenure through that medium. Some £20 billion is required to meet the backlog of poor condition in the council sector, but the current allocations go only a small way towards meeting that need.
    Home improvement grants have been mentioned and I should like to put some more figures on the record. The Government's policy on home improvement grants has been a classic example of stop-go-go when they seek to inflate the economy or to give an impression of activity, and stop when the Treasury says no. Last year, the number of home improvement grants approved was some 137,000, a 40 per cent. cut on the number a year before of 229,000. Is that the way to plan for the future? Is that the way to give confidence to people who want to improve their homes? Is that the way to run any public administration? The answer to those questions is no, it is a disgraceful way to proceed.
    Government policy does not involve only cuts because it is also one-sided. The Government are obsessed with the owner-occupied market and in assisting the extension of owner-occupation. They ignore the needs of those people who either cannot afford or do not want to own their own homes. The right to buy has frequently been mentioned, but the chief criticism of the right to buy in the Government's own Housing Act 1980 is that it provides a benefit to those council tenants who could and want to buy, and totally neglects the needs of the homeless, the badly housed and council tenants who want to transfer to other accommodation. It is a one-sided policy that neglected the needs of an important section of the population. It is rather similar to a policy towards the National Health Service that simply looks after the interests and needs of consultants and ignores the needs of nurses. That is the same as the one-sidedness that we see in the Government's housing policy.
    The one-sided approach is exemplified in the Housing and Planning Bill, 1986 which will have its Third Reading

    195
    and Report stage debate in two day's time. That Bill is a measure of the Government's preoccupations. Does it attempt to tackle the need for additional home building? The answer is no. Does it attempt to tackle the need for a better improvement policy or take any further that Green Paper on improvements that was published last summer and has since been forgotten? No, there is no proposal on that score. Does it do anything to meet the needs of the homeless? No, it does not. The Housing and Planning Bill proposes a series of fiddling changes around the edge in that it allows more generous discounts on the right to buy, facilitates disposals on privatisation, and extends the almost entirely abortive assured tenancy scheme.
    When he was speaking about privatisation, the Minister mentioned empty properties. He should know that over 200 properties are standing empty in Fulham Court, an estate that has been deliberately left to go to rack and ruin by the local authority while it has been attempting to sell that estate and privatise it. That is a measure of the criticism that ought to be directed at local authorities that neglect housing needs in their areas.
    Those are the actions of a Government who have abandoned their responsibility to meet Britain's housing needs. In their obsession to be seen to be doing something the Government are simply fiddling around the edges, neglecting all the fundamental principles of a housing policy.
    In some ways I feel rather sorry for the Minister because that is not his fault. The Government's policy is being determined not by the Department of the Environment but by the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Security. The cuts in capital investment about which I have spoken are very much the product of the Treasury. I must stress that when the Housing Bill 1980 was going through Parliament it was the clear pledge of Ministers that local authorities would be able to use their full capital receipts in order to build new houses. That pledge has been reneged on and that is real evidence of a U-turn.
    There have also been cuts in subsidies. Under this Government the subsidies available to local authorities for housing revenue accounts have been cut drastically, forcing substantial increases in the real level of rents paid by tenants. Those increases were justified by Ministers at the time on the grounds that there was a generous rent rebate system to assist those tenants who could not afford them.
    Shortly afterwards—here comes another U-turn—the Department of Health and Social Security decided that the cost of that increased expenditure on rebates and allowances caused by the increase in rent levels was too much. Therefore, another Government Department cut expenditure caused by increased rents, for which the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction were responsible. As a result, one is seeing an increase in poverty, in rent arrears and in misery among people who do not have the means to pay their rent and who are seeing their housing benefit cut.
    If one wants a further example one needs to look no further than the miserable story of the board and lodging allowances. The Department of Health and Social Security decided to cut expenditure on board and lodging allowances because it regarded this expenditure as excessive, and as a result it is creating homelessness and
    196
    causing enormous misery among young people. The Department of the Environment is powerless. It has to sit back and watch another Department effectively dictating housing policy. That is a measure of the pretty pass into which the Government have allowed their housing policy to fall.
    To illustrate the absurdity of the Government housing policy I want to focus on that one issue of bed and breakfast. We have here the symbol of all that is wrong about Government policy. There is an increase in homelessness and local authorities have fewer resources to meet the needs of homelessness and are placing more and more people in bed and breakfast hotels. In parallel, single people who do not qualify for assistance under the (Housing Homeless Persons) Act 1977 have to occupy board and lodging accommodation because they cannot find a home to rent, for which the DHSS has to meet the bill. As a result, we have an increased expenditure on board and lodging and bed and breakfast when it is known that it would be cheaper to pay for new houses for tenants to occupy.
    For the record, on 20 December 1985, the Minister for Social Security, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), gave figures showing that the cost of accommodating a family with two children in board and lodging accommodation would be some £10,800 a year in Cheltenham and £13,150 in London, but if they were housed in proper council housing the cost would be just £5,060—about half the cost of keeping people in squalor and misery in bed and breakfast accommodation. That is all that would be needed to provide a decent home for such people to live in. The Minister tried to give the Labour party a lecture about finance, economics and costs. I can only say that those figures show the economic and social lunacy of the Government's policy. They are paying more for keeping people in squalor rather than investing in new homes for people in need.
    The tragedy of all that is that the unmet housing needs in Britain are not so massive as to make it impossible for Britain, if it wanted, to go a long way towards eliminating homelessness and bad housing conditions. If there were a political will and a realistic programme over the next 10 to 15 years, we could go an enormous way towards ensuring that few people, if any, had to suffer the misery of homelessness and we could eliminate slum conditions.
    However, we do not have the political will at the moment and as a result we are suffering the problems that I have identified. We require a programme that ensures more investment in house construction and improvement, not a massive return to the days of high-rise and system building—that is not needed—but a sustained programme providing traditionally built houses that people want. That, sustained over 10 to 15 years, would ensure that there were sufficient homes to meet needs.
    A programme of improvement, carried out by housing associations and public authorities, with an effective improvement grant system, not subject to a stop-go approach, would ensure that we tackle the backlog of bad conditions, with local authorities playing a major role in improving conditions on their poorer estates. That requires money. Not only would it improve homes but it would ensure additional employment and would go some way to tackle the scourge of unemployment.
    We need a fairer subsidy system. How can we honestly proceed with a subsidy system which ensures open-ended

    197
    largesse to those people who are lucky enough to be buying their homes and paying the highest rates of tax through the mortgage interest system, when we are cutting housing benefits to the poorest tenants who depend on that benefit to try to make ends meet?
    Someone with an income of over £30,000 a year would qualify for some £1,480 a year in tax relief. Someone with an income of £4,000 to £5,000 a year would qualify for about £250 in mortgage tax relief. The Labour party is not opposed to tax relief. We are in favour of helping owner-occupiers, but we are opposed to the gross distortion of tax relief which ensures that the greatest benefit goes to the wealthiest. Of the £4·75 billion that went on tax relief, over £1 billion of tax relief went to people with incomes of over £20,000 a year. How can the Government justify that when they are cutting housing benefits to people on incomes of £5,000 a year?
    Finally, there is the need for freedom of choice, which requires a healthy rented sector as well as an owner-occupier sector. It requires the choice of renting from the council or from a housing association and the choice to buy. Those choices require a reasonable supply of accommodation and a fair subsidy system, recognising that people have different preferences at different stages in their lives. Older and younger people may want to rent and they may in the meantime wish to own a home. They should not be trapped into one tenure for their lifetime. They should have the option to move from one tenure to another.
    That new approach, advocated by the Labour party, requires a recognition, first, of the extent of the crisis—a recognition of the needs—and, secondly, investment to meet those needs, together with the political will to carry such a policy through until the scourges of homelessness and bad housing are no longer the blot they are at the moment on British society.
    5.7 pm
    Mr. Den Dover: It is with the greatest honour and pleasure that I welcome the hon. Member for Fulharn (Mr. Raynsford) to the House and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. It is evident that we have a first-class authority on housing on the Opposition Benches and I look forward to his contributions over the years. I hope that it will not be too long before he obtains some sort of promotion.
    I spent five hours one afternoon and evening recently canvassing in Fulham and I want to support what the hon. Gentleman said. There is a wide gap between the massive council estate with multi-storeyed housing, such as the Clement Attlee estate that I canvassed during those five hours, and the good rented or privately owned accommodation of the professionally up and coming people in Fulham.
    It is one of the Government's aims to narrow the gap between those two extremes. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the London Docklands Development Corporation in the East End, where we now see housing for sale and the breakdown of the enormous housing estates owned by the council. Some 96 per cent. of housing in that area is owned by the council.
    In addition to congratulating the hon. Gentleman, I want to back up his compliments to the former Member, the late Martin Stevens. He entered this House, together with so many of my other colleagues and myself, in 1979, and it is a compliment to his efforts that his name was
    198
    mentioned on the doorstep of many council flats and homes during our canvassing. I would like to pay tribute to his efforts.
    One of the Governments undertakings over the last seven years has been the priority estates programme. It is no good seeing these massive council estates with enormous voids—some 5 or 10 per cent. of houses empty—without saying, "What can we do about it?" We speak about how much homelessness there is, the lack of facilities, the lack of hot and cold water and of bathrooms in many houses. It is no good if we allow so many council houses to be empty. The best approach is to make sure that the tenants of those council estates manage their own affairs. The local authority housing management is too remote, perhaps being five, 10 or 15 miles away from the point of action. That is not good. Tenant committees are needed, with authority to spend, and to make decisions.
    Where we have seen the priority estates programme working, just south of the river, we see the voids vanish within a matter of weeks and much better cost-effectiveness in the management of those estates. There are people actively wanting to live on those estates, instead of trying to get out of them. These are the advantages of local management and choice by the local tenants.
    Regarding the improvement programme, I agree that the Government have seen a massive expansion, followed by something which is almost grinding down to a halt. It is that very word—expansion—which is so labour-intensive, which does not suck in imports, and which could help ease the unemployment situation in the construction industry, where there are already some 400,000 people unemployed. Something needs to be done about this.
    More needs to be spent on improvements. I criticise the Government in that they have failed to allow the capital receipts which have flowed into the council coffers from the sale of council houses, in accordance with Government policy under the 1980 Housing Act, to be spent on doing up rundown housing estates. If that money is not spent now, we shall have a much bigger bill to pick up in later years. Will the present formula ensure that the more houses a local authority sells, the more it will be able to spend money on doing up those housing estates?
    It is a national cake and if one authority sells perhaps 300 or 400 homes, and another sells none, they all take a share. That cannot make sense. I hope that, when we allow them to use capital receipts, it will be on the basis of being in proportion to the houses that they have sold.
    I feel that the Government have made a massive change over the last seven years. They have reduced housing subsidies, which were far too high, and we have seen housing ownership and sale of council houses which I greatly applaud. There is nothing wrong in giving people what they want. The swing towards more and more private houses being built, without any drain on local authorities or the Government, is much better than having unwanted, unnecessary council houses. The Opposition's pledge to build one new council house for every one sold is silly, and will be seen as such in later years.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. John Cartwright: I should like to add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) on his impressive maiden speech. I have had the benefit of being briefed over

    199
    the years on housing issues by the hon. Member in his previous incarnation, and it was wholly appropriate that he should make his first speech to the House in this debate. Those who recall our maiden speeches in this Chamber will have envied the assurance and style with which he addressed the House. We were impressed by the sincerity which he brought to the debate, and his detailed knowledge of the issues involved. I am sure the whole House looks forward to hearing him again on this and other issues.
    The motif of choice, freedom and fairness now seems to be the watchword when it comes to discussion of housing issues. I echo what I took to be the message from the hon. Member for Fulham—that those are not the priorities, important though they be. The first priority must surely be greater investment. We are simply not building enough new homes, nor are we investing enough in the maintenance of our existing housing stock to maintain it in a reasonable state of repair.
    There is a wide measure of agreement that we now need about 145,000 new homes a year up until 1991 simply to meet the growth in the formation of new households. If we add another 60,000 to 80,000 new homes a year to make good the losses through slum clearance and changing employment patterns, that means that we ought to be building something between 205,000 and 215,000 new homes a year. We have not achieved that since 1980. The 1985 completions were only 187,000 new dwellings.
    We are as a result storing up problems for ourselves. Some of those problems are hidden in the overall national statistics. It is a sad fact that the big cities and urban areas are the worst hit by our current housing problems. It is there that we find the biggest concentration of unemployment, the biggest concentrations of low incomes, and, therefore, poor housing.
    Those who represent these areas know all too well what this means to ordinary people. Homelessness is growing, waiting lists are getting longer, young married couples are forced to live with their parents at the start of their married lives. Families are divided, transfers are more difficult, and overcrowding of council property is now a fact of life in many of our urban areas. All these problems we see at our advice services every week. They were problems that we were beginning to overcome in the late seventies but they have returned to haunt us, with little prospect of any early solution.
    They have brought with them some new problems—for example, the problem in London of the young single homeless. It is an unusual Friday night for me when I do not have at my surgery a young person whose parents have moved away from London, leaving him high and dry. These young people are moving around sleeping on floors, occasionally in cars. This underlines the need for more investment in housing.
    Looking at the condition of the existing housing stock, the Department's own survey reminds us that something like £19 billion is needed to bring housing up to a reasonable standard of repair at a cost of about £5,000 per home.
    These are cold statistics. For those of us who live with the problem, they translate into things such as dampness and condensation, mould growth and fungus, which we see in council flats throughout the winter months. They translate into inadequate, inefficient heating systems, with
    200
    people unable to maintain an adequate level of heating in more than one room. They mean rotting window frames, peeling paint, leaking roofs, and all the rest of the defects in rundown, inner-city council estates.
    If the Minister feels that I may be making a political point, I refer him to what was said recently by the Group of Eight, the body which brings together the construction industry and the housing professionals. They went to see the Minister on 13 March, and the RIBA president, Mr. Larry Rolland, commented on what they told him. He said:
    "The Government is failing to fulfil its responsibilities in the face of massive and growing deterioration in the stock of local authority housing: the longer work is delayed, the more disproportionate will be the cost."
    The Group of Eight went on to make clear
    "its view that the total amount of … planned spending by Government on construction was quite inadequate in relation to the scale of the problem."
    That is the view of the industry and of professionals.
    There are similar problems in private rented accommodation and in owner-occupied housing. Yesterday the Association of Metropolitan Authorities published the provisional results of its 1985 house condition survey in Greater London. To be fair, it shows some improvement compared to the last official survey in 1979. Only 6 per cent. of housing stock is unfit, compared to 9 per cent. in 1979. Property lacking basic amenities has dropped from 9 per cent. to 4 per cent. of the stock. That is the impact of the generous improvement grants made available up to the time of the last general election. They hit a peak of £183 million in 1984–85 but, as we all know, they are now much more tightly rationed.
    The interesting thing about the survey by the AMA is its suggestion that 500,000 homes, or one home in every five, in Greater London now need repairs costing more than £5,000; that is an increase of 28 per cent. compared with 1979. Of the homes needing such repair, 54 per cent. are owner-occupied. That underlines the broad spread of the problem of disrepair in housing stock. The case for a sensible programme of repair, rehabilitation and improvement of housing is absolutely overwhelming, even on the basis of the old proverbial view that a stitch in time saves nine.
    There is considerable agreement among all parties that we need greater choice in housing. For many people there is no choice. All they can do is put their names on an ever longer council waiting list because there is no way in which they will ever be able to afford homes of their own. Their income is simply too low to encompass that possibility. Others in slightly happier circumstances are restricted; they can choose only between going on to a council waiting list or buying a home of their own, even when neither choice is best for them and when both are difficult. For many young people with the necessary resources, buying is often easier than renting because it is easier to find a house to buy than to find a decent property as a sensible rent.
    I think we all accept that we are looking for new forms of rented housing to meet that demand. As a result of the growing consensus, I hope we can find ways of bringing together the skills of the building societies and the other financial institutions who can generate the funds that are needed; the skills of the volume builders who can build what people want to live in; and finally the skills of the housing associations which have proved that it is possible to provide efficient and sensitive localised housing

    201
    management. If we can bring together all those skills, I hope we can provide a new source of rented accommodation which we in the Alliance refer to as social housing but which will provide an alternative to local authority renting for those who desperately need rented homes.
    I endorse everything that has been said so far about the need to break up large-scale, centralised, local council housing management. All too often it has proved to be neither sensitive nor efficient. We want to encourage a variety of different approaches. By all means, let us have localised management, but let us try much harder than we have in the past to encourage genuine housing cooperatives in which tenants can run their own affairs and their own homes. There is limited experience of this yet, but many tenants in my constituency say, "We could not make a worse job of it than the local authority." Some of us hope that they might do a better job.
    Apart from housing co-operatives, we have advocated neighbourhood housing trusts, bringing together tenants, representatives of the council and perhaps outside experts. There is a range of different approaches under which we could devolve more power to ordinary people. The aim must be to do just that—to give tenants much more control over their homes and over their environment. If we are looking seriously for greater choice, we should be doing more to help first-time buyers by encouraging more low-start mortgages, and more shared ownership in which people buy part of their home and rent another part.
    Why have the Government not persevered with the concept of "do-it-yourself' shared ownership which was tried as an experiment a couple of years ago? Housing associations acted as agencies. When people found their own home in the private market they used the housing association as a vehicle for the purpose of shared ownership. That was an imaginative scheme and it was extremely popular. I have the sense that perhaps it was not so popular with the Treasury; that may be why it was not developed to a greater extent. I hope such imaginative and enterprising schemes will be reconsidered. The home purchase assistance scheme, under which grants from public funds were made to match the savings of individuals towards a deposit, was another approach to bring home ownership within the grasp of more people.
    When talking about ways of assisting people to own their own homes, it is only reasonable to deal with the interest which has been exhibited by Conservative Members in the position of the alliance on mortgage tax relief. I cannot understand why there should be confusion. We made it clear in our general election manifesto that we would retain mortgage tax relief, but that we would limit it to the standard rate of tax. That has been our position since 1983, and it remains so. I recognise from my constituency experience that tax relief is an important element in enabling people with limited means to own their own homes. Neither I nor the alliance is in the business of changing the rules of the game after people have started to play.
    If we are talking about fairness, we should point out on the other side that it is not reasonable for councils to put up rents to such an extent that they can subsidise the rates charged to all ratepayers as a result of the profits made from council tenant. That is not a fair approach; nor are the cuts in housing benefit which the least well off are now suffering.
    202
    One wider problem that flows from the absence of choice in housing, is the inhibition it places on mobility. People can no longer move around the country seeking work because of the problem of moving home. Often my constituents want to move to another London borough because of a change of job. It is easier to help people to emigrate to Australia, Canada and New Zealand than to enable them to shift from one London borough to another.
    There are also people who have followed the advice of the Government; they have got on their bikes and gone out to seek work. Some have come to London and have found work—even if not brilliantly paid. They then come to my advice centre on Friday nights because it is impossible to find anywhere to live in London. So they have a choice which I would not want to inflict on anyone—a job in one part of the country with no home, or a home in another part of the country and no job. It must be a priority in housing to tackle such mobility problems.
    Despite the knockabout in the earlier part of the debate, there is a growing measure of agreement among all parties about the need for new approaches to housing. Housing has been a major social problem throughout the post-war period. It is about time we solved that problem. I think we are now agreed that there is no one solution, be it owner-occupation put forward by one side or council renting put forward by the other side. Both have a contribution to make, but we need to encourage many other contributions. New approaches are urgently needed if we are to get more and better housing.
    If we are to get the much greater private investment which is essential to the solution of the housing problem the Government should seek to build on the growing consensus that is emerging. We will only get more private investment, if investors believe that there will be stability and a measure of agreement, whoever is in power in Whitehall. We cannot expect people to invest if they believe that housing policy will be totally changed as a result of change of Government.
    Bad and inadequate housing is at the root of many of the problems of our great cities and urban areas. I hope that, even at this comparatively late stage, the Government will give the housing problem the priority that it richly deserves.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Michael Latham: Before I say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), may I echo the congratulations of the House on the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford)? It was a remarkably fine performance. He is right to come to the House and talk about housing, as he has a deep knowledge of it. When I was on the board of Shelter and he was director of SHAC, I often used to read his papers, which were of great benefit to homeless people in the country. We shall look forward to hearing from him many times on this subject. Many of us were pleased that he referred to his distinguished predecessor, Martin Stevens, a man who was greatly respected and admired in the House and in his constituency, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said.
    It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich—as always, because he too has a deep knowledge of housing. He and I have followed each other in housing debates many times in past years. The hon. Gentleman was right to mention the importance of tenant participation. The one thing that has clearly come out of

    203
    the initiatives taken by the Government, whether it be the priority estates project or the urban housing renewal unit, is the need for new thinking in the management of existing estates. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is well aware of this, and has said so in speeches. I think that there is a broad consensus on this matter. It is important that we develop it and concentrate on it.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will make sure that the urban housing renewal unit is not simply involved in a monitoring activity but is up front pushing local authorities to get things done so that we can get effective reports back to the House of what is happening on the ground with regard to the achievement of the urban housing renewal unit.
    Several Members have mentioned improvement work. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) concentrated particularly on the capital receipts question, as did the hon. Member for Perry Barr. First, I must declare an interest, as I always do when speaking on housing and building. I am a long-standing director of a building company, and have been involved in this industry for many years.
    I have said many times in the House that in my view improvement work is one of the single most vital aspects of construction activity. First, it is the most labour and craft intensive. Secondly, it is the one most directly related to the aspirations of ordinary folk in improving their own homes. Thirdly, in my view it is particularly good value for money. That is why personally I welcome the action that the Government have taken over the years in substantially increasing the improvement grant programme.
    I interrupted the hon. Member for Perry Barr, to ask him to give the figures. He had, perfectly properly from his point of view, contrasted the public sector housing build starts of this Government and their predecessor.
    Mr. Rooker: That is not true. I took the national building programme, public and private together. I never at any time distinguished between the public sector and the private sector.
    Mr. Latham: I stand immediately corrected by the hon. Gentleman, and accept what he says. However, I think that he would also say—because he referred to public sector starts—that that was particularly in his mind. Both he and the hon. Member for Fulham made a contrast between this Government and their predecessor in regard to public sector starts. There is no doubt that there has been a significant reduction in public sector starts under this Government.
    Everybody knows, as the hon. Member for Woolwich hinted, that housing thinking has moved on since the 1960s. We no longer talk, as Anthony Greenwood did, of 250,000 council houses a year. These mass building programmes are no longer necessary or desirable. They have created the very problems that the House is addressing today and that were addressed by both the Minister and the hon. Member for Perry Barr, from the Front Bench. The problems of squalor, social deprivation, tower blocks and so on came directly from the mass building programmes of the 1960s and 1970s.
    The Government have been right, in my view, to shift the emphasis in two directions—first, towards
    204
    improvement work and secondly, to encouraging people to get into home ownership. There has been a significant increase in that regard, about which I shall say a word later.
    I am disappointed that there has been a reduction in the number of improvement grants in the last year or so. Having said that, and having been critical of the Green Paper which was produced last year by my hon. Friend's predecessor, I accept immediately that there was a need for change and reform in the improvement grant system. Improvement grants were being made to people who did not need them. This was said by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, on which I serve, and it has been accepted that there was a need for change. Nevertheless, I urge my hon. Friend to bring forward new Government proposals. Last year's Green Paper has in effect disappeared down a black hole, so let us have some new proposals and a reasonably steady level of provision of improvement sector work.
    I wish to make a suggestion to my hon. Friend which I have made before in the Public Accounts Committee and on the Floor of the House. In my view there is a very real case for transferring responsibility for improvement grant work to the building societies, lock, stock and barrel. To all intents and purposes the local authorities act as agents for central Government in this regard. The vast majority of the money advanced by local authorities for improvement grant work is refunded by the Government in form of loan, grant or whatever.
    That being so, there is a real case—I am a vice-president of the Building Societies Association—for telling the building societies movement as a whole, particularly in the new era of greater freedom that will result from the Building Societies Bill which is now before the House, "Here is the figure that we as the Government are prepared to offer you this year and next year in improvement work. Take it, recycle it and offer it to people by way of improvement grants. You can charge an administration cost of 1 or 2 per cent." That is how it will be dealt with—no clawbacks, no holdbacks, no penalties, no targets and no bureaucratic problems of staffing such as local authorities have. In that way, we would deliver a more effective improvement grant programme to the people of this country. I commend that thought to my hon. Friend for serious consideration.
    As for shoddy workmanship and cowboys, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, I express some disappointment to my hon. Friend about the response of the Green Paper and about the lack of action since. The Green Paper of last year said that the Government hoped that the building societies and builders would have discussions to ascertain whether the building societies were prepared to limit finance—mortgage or grant—to builders who were covered by a warranty scheme.
    There is no need for any further discussion. This should be got on with now. In the same way, local authorities should be restricting their grants to responsible builders who have proper warranty schemes. This was recommended several years ago by the Director General of Fair Trading. I believe that the time for action is now, and I hope that my hon. Friend will talk it over with the Department of Trade and Industry to get something done about it. As the Director General of Fair Trading has shown, far too many people are getting ripped off by cowboys and shoddy workmanship. Every hon. Member knows this, from his constituency postbag.

    205
    The time for action is now, with no more discussions or working parties. There are clear proposals, and warranty schemes are in place. Let us get on with restricting the grant work to builders who are involved in such schemes.
    With regard to private sector housing, there are five points in a private builder's game plan—finance, land, marketing, buildings and sales. Marketing and sales are entirely a matter for the industry. They are not within the control of Government or part of Government. Building is effectively controlled by the National Housebuilding Council, and I would like to see the council involving itself in improvement work also. On finance—about which I asked the Prime Minister a question today—all the signs are that we are moving into an era of lower mortgage rates, which is welcomed by every hon. Member and by millions of home owners. All the mechanisms, therefore, are in place for a substantial increase in private sector housebuilding in the coming 12 to 15 months, and there is no reason why that should not be so.
    It is important that we achieve consensus on the one matter that has not been mentioned at all this afternoon, and which is not mentioned in either the motion or the amendment—the question of land and planning. I do not know the Labour party proposals on that matter; they were certainly not included in the policy document put to its party conference last year.
    As we approach the election—I hope and expect this Government to be returned to office, but Britain is a democracy and people will look at different proposals—I hope that the Labour party will not come forward with proposals for community land acts, land commissions, large development land taxes and all the other things that stifled the market in the past.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The private sector built more houses for sale, as did the volume builders, under the previous Labour Government than it has under this Government, despite the Community Land Act.
    Mr. Latham: I remember serving for hours and hours and hours on the Committee stage of that Bill, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that the building industry believes that the Community Land Act did it any good, I suggest that he talks to it—
    Mr. Roberts: I did not say that.
    Mr. Latham: I know that the hon. Gentleman did not say that, but the reality is that the Act had a severe cramping effect on the industry. Let us continue with consensus on this matter.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that we need more housing debates. I really want to hear more about the vital role that land and planning have to play in the release of housing for our people.
    I commend my hon. Friend the Minister on his start as Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. He is showing great energy and dash, and I wholeheartedly support him.
    5.41 pm
    Mr. Kevin Barron: It was a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). I am sure that he dearly wanted to get off his chest the good speech that he
    206
    made, especially in view of his activities before entering the House. Many of us felt that way when we made our maiden speeches.
    I want briefly to speak against the Government's amendment, which I believe to be hypocritical in view of their housing record over the past six years. There has been a reduction in the housing investment programme allocations of about 70 per cent. under this Government, and some of the legislation of the past two years has done nothing to meet the housing need. I refer especially to the Housing Defects Act 1984. The Opposition did not oppose its passage through the House, although we frequently warned about its pitfalls. Indeed, the Act is seriously defective in what it sets out to do.
    Four villages in my constituency have large estates of houses classified as defective under the Act. The Act gives the Rotherham metropolitan borough council the responsibility to make grants to reinstate those homes to a standard where they are saleable and mortgageable. It also gives the council power to buy back those homes from people who have bought them from public bodies. However, the council is in tremendous difficulties with the implementation of the Act.
    One major problem is that there is no reinstatement scheme to repair Reema houses. We are still waiting for a scheme to be accepted by the Department of the Environment so that money can be awarded. There is also the problem of lack of funds.
    The Minister spoke about what the Government have been doing on housing, and he referred to Labour authorities such as Sheffield and Lambeth. It is a pity that he did not go a few miles down the road from Sheffield to Rotherham, which has a serious housing problem. Its housing investment programme allocation for the financial year 1986–87 has been cut by just under £1 million, from £7 million to £6 million. In 1985, when the HIP allocation was £7 million, it also had an allowance of £117,000 to spend under the Housing Defects Act to alleviate problems on these estates. There is no such money this year. The Minister has made available an additional £30 million to assist local authorities which have been obliged to sort out problems under the Act, but not one penny of that new money will go to the Yorkshire and Humberside region—it has been spread between the south-west and the midlands.
    That leaves the question of what we do on those estates, given the attitude of the owners of the houses that have not been sold. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members face this problem. The Act provides that people who bought houses from public bodies should receive help. The problem in my constituency, however, is what to do about the houses on the estates still in the hands of public bodies such as the National Coal Board.
    The NCB has told me on numerous occasions that its policy has been to sell those houses to the sitting tenants. However, that cannot happen under the Act because grant would not be available to reinstate the homes to mortgageable standard. The NCB has also offered whole estates to the local authority. Indeed, before this Government took office my local authority bought a whole estate at Laughton Common. It has resold nine of those houses, and is quite prepared to do the same with the remainder of the estate if money is forthcoming. People living on the estate are secure in their belief that the local

    207
    authority will do that. However, it no longer has any funds to buy such estates and, indeed, would not wish to do so because they are now classified as defective under the Act.
    Another option suggested by the NCB is to sell the houses on the open market. On 6 December 1985, during my Adjournment debate on this matter, the Minister said that he had good news for the Rother Valley. He said:
    "I understand that a private sector party is interested in acquiring a considerable number of the National Coal Board's empty Reema properties in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I can give the House the good news that agreement has now been reached on the sale of 21 vacant NCB houses in Maltby. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am to hear that news."—[Official Report, 6 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 603.]
    My information is that that sale fell through because the buyer discovered that he could not obtain assistance under the Act to repair the houses, if that became necessary, so that they would be at a standard in which people could live.
    Currently, the NCB appears about to accept an offer for both the empty and the tenanted houses on the Maltby estate, with more than 250 houses now up for sale. The Minister will know what I said about this matter in December, and I shall not change what I said then. If it is true, as we read on the Order Paper, that the Government have been so good in dealing with housing, I want to know from the Minister what will happen on that estate.
    If the 250 homes are sold to the private sector, it presumably will not have the money that the Minister has talked about to reinstate them, to bring them up to a stage at which they will be mortgageable. Indeed, whoever buys the homes may decide that people can live in them for another 10 years, paying rent, so that the price paid for them will be recouped and the homes can then be discarded. What will happen when the Housing Defects Act is implemented on that estate by the local authority? For the other 98 homes there will supposedly be grants so that they can be brought up to a mortgageable level. They will be reinstated and made good. Presumably the other 250 homes will remain in a state of disrepair.
    I warned the Minister in December that the Housing Defects Act was deficient and would leave many problems unsolved unless the Minister took action. My local authority believes that that is still the situation. It has been asked to give grants under the Housing Defects Act to bring the 98 houses at Maltby up to a mortgageable level, but at the same time no help has been provided for the other 250 houses. This makes nonsense of the matter. Indeed, it is wrong to ask the local authority to spend public money in this way, because even when that money has been spent and the 98 homes are reinstated it may still be impossible to sell them because of the condition of the neighbouring houses, which could even be attached. Thus, the problem that we have had since the Act was put on the statute book has still not been solved.
    We really need action now, so that we can protect the tenants and home owners on these estates. Maltby seems to be in the firing line at present because of the attitude of the National Coal Board towards selling the tenanted homes that it owns, but I am also concerned about houses in my constituency at Kiveton Park and Aston. If there is no reinstatement of the homes being sold by the National Coal Board, at least three estates in my constituency will be blighted, not because there is any major structural
    208
    default in the houses—for many years I lived on the estate at Maltby—but because of an Act introduced by the Government which protects only the people who bought homes from public bodies and does not seek to protect other homes which are presently owned by public bodies.
    I shall use every opportunity that I can to bring this matter to the Minister's attention. I understand the need to compensate people who brought homes in good faith from public bodies, but a serious problem in my constituency has been created by the very Act that has compensated others, and the problem will not go away. The problem will not be solved by allowing public bodies to sell homes to the private sector. Presumably grants will not be available to reinstate such homes to the level achieved in homes bought in terms of the Act.
    Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to talk immediately to the National Coal Board to stop the sale of homes unless they are dealt with in the same way as the other 98 homes which were reinstated, so that they are brought up to the standard that is referred to in the Minister's amendment—housing fit for people to live in and bring families up in. Under the Housing Defects Act, the situation on the three housing estates in my constituency will be the opposite of the statement on the Order Paper.
    5.55 pm
    Mr. Mike Woodcock: In spite of the comments we have heard this afternoon, much has happened over the past three years to improve housing policy in this country. In particular, thanks to the policies of the Government, we have moved much closer to a true property-owning democracy. Private ownership is, and should be, the first and major plank in the nation's and the Government's housing policy. The Government should do all that is possible to encourage it. Private ownership makes people more responsible; it frees state resources; it brings greater security; it promotes family life and it improves the environment. Long may we continue to support through mortgage tax relief the sales of council houses, incentives to renovate older homes and, we hope, through the reform of the rating system, private ownership.
    The second plank in our housing policy will probably continue to be public sector housing. While I believe that this is a poor option next to private ownership, nevertheless, it is invaluable especially in areas of social need. However, necessary as it is, it should be a diminishing part of the nation's housing policy, because there is no reason why state resources should be deployed where private individuals are capable of providing for their own housing needs. This afternoon I wish to speak about the smallest plank in our nation's housing policy, and I refer to the private rented sector.
    Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
    Mr. Woodcock: I will not give way at this stage.
    The private rented sector was once the largest plank in the nation's housing policy, but it is now, I am delighted to say, the smallest. But, while it is the smallest plank, it is still a necessary part of our housing policy, and an area that successive Governments have attempted to reform. However, far from improving the situation, they have helped to destroy that plank. How has that happened? One

    209
    central reason is that successive Governments have paid more attention to electoral advantage than to what is fair, reasonable and in the best long-term interests of the housing market. The fact is that there always have been and always will be more tenants than there are landlords, and that has tempted Governments of both persuasions to carry forward reforms that are popular with tenants and to ignore reforms that might be popular among landlords. The result has been a continuing decline in the private rented sector; an increased reluctance to relet properties by private landlords; an increase in interest by irresponsible landlords; and a grave shortage of accommodation. All this has been to the advantage of no one.
    There will always be those who choose or need to rent, such as young people who are either not earning enough or have no desire to buy their own home at that point of their lives; people who stay in an area for only a relatively short time, such as transient and temporary workers; people who tragically are from broken marriages; people who prefer to rent privately rather than from the public sector; people who prefer not to live on council estates; and people who want something better than the public sector can provide. All these people need a healthy private rented sector, and they find it almost impossible to find the kind of place they wish to rent.
    On the other hand, thanks largely to the Government's policies, a vast number of people in this country have money that they wish to invest. Some people recognise the advantage of investing in property. Many people would be willing to invest in the private rented sector if they could get fair treatment. Those two groups—those who want to rent property and those who could provide the property to rent—should come together. However, far from encouraging that, our present policies are preventing it. Our laws have moved too far in terms of protecting tenants and have failed to consider the legitimate interests of landlords. By passing successive rent legislation, this House has added to the national housing problem and prevented many people from obtaining a decent roof over their heads.
    No one will deny that there are bad landlords and that tenants, like other consumers, need protection from unscrupulous people. However, landlords also need a fair deal. I therefore ask the Government why it should not be possible for landlords and tenants freely to agree rents that are legally enforceable. Why are local authorities entitled to register rents of private property even in cases where neither the landlord nor the tenant wants that to happen? In so doing, they help to destroy the private rented sector in an area, an opportunity that some Left-wing councils exploit to the full.
    Why should it be possible for local authorities to continue the registration process, even when the tenant in whom they had an interest has left the property? Why should it be possible for private landlords to be barred from representing themselves in county courts on possession actions, when tenants are free to represent themselves? Why do county courts continually, year after year, have such backlogs of actions that landlords are denied justice merely by the passage of time? Why should it not be possible for county courts to enforce their judgments on housing matters?
    Mr. Marlow: Would my hon. Friend like to point out to the Labour party that many of those "landlords" are little old ladies who have been left a small asset by their
    210
    husbands, which nevertheless forms a significant part of their income? If the Labour party cared, it would probably care for some of those old ladies.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should declare his interests.
    Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman knows them.
    Mr. Woodcock: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is quite right. Landlords come in all shapes and sizes, as do politicians. But far from discouraging investment in the private rented sector, we would do well to encourage it. That would be to everyone's advantage. I shall give one further and very valid reason for the Government taking action over the private rented sector. The present Rent Acts significantly contribute to unemployment. Government interference in a free housing market results in considerable waste and in a lot of overuse and underuse of accommodation. Above all, it leads to an immobility of labour.
    We have heard much about the need for unemployed people to get on their bikes in search of employment. My constituency has a very high unemployment rate. Many people have told me that they have been round the country searching for jobs, but find that local authorities are unwilling to provide accommodation—
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Unable.
    Mr. Woodcock: Local authorities are unwilling and unable to provide accommodation unless the person has a job. However, the person cannot get a job unless he has a house. The law does not help the private rented sector to meet that need.
    Professor Patrick Minford, one of the best known monetarist economists in this country, recently claimed in an article in the Economic Affairs magazine that one fifth of the rise in unemployment since 1960 could directly be explained by our Rent Acts. Perhaps the Minister w ill take note of Professor Minford's arguments.
    I shall make a few suggestions about how my hon. Friend the Minister could improve housing, and could demonstrate the Government's professed belief in the private rented sector. First, why not make rent agreements freely entered into by landlords and tenants legally binding? Secondly, either remove the local authority's statutory right to register rents on private property, or give local authority tenants the same statutory right to a fair rent as private tenants have. Thirdly, remove the county court's discretion to bar landlords from representing themselves in possession actions. Fourthly, require county courts to enforce their own possession judgments. Fifthly, give a statutory right to have possession cases heard quickly. Sixthly, make shorthold tenancies enforceable for a term agreed at the outset. Finally, make fair rents payable on registration, at the time when they are deemed to be fair, and not a year later.
    If the Government did those things, there would be a significant improvement in the nation's problems, a terrific increase in private investment, a freeing of state resources, and the Government would demonstrate their belief in the private rented sector as well as making a considerable improvement to the unemployment problem. The Government have shown themselves willing to take actions which may not be electorally popular but which they believe to be right and just. I ask whether the time has not come for the Government to take such actions in the private rented sector.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. Tom Pendry: I intend to be brief in this all too short debate. Unlike many hon. Members, I am not a housing expert. Of course, I exclude the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) from the charge of having some expertise. However, one does not need to be an expert to recognise the housing problems that exist. I make no apology for saying that I shall relate my remarks to the housing problems that the, Government are causing my constituents. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I shall devote my speech—much of which has been shed because of the lack of time—to doing just that. My local authority is little different from many others, at least in the Greater Manchester area. Consequently, many of my points are quite general.
    The House will know that in its 1983 manifesto the Tory party clearly said:
    "Our goal is to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe".
    One did not have to listen too long to the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) to know that that is already a pretty sick joke. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, both public and private sector housing are being hit by the Government. Council tenants are the victims of cruel cuts in the housing budget, which is barely a third of what it was under the last Labour Govenment. People in the private sector are being hit by the clampdown on improvement grants. Many owners are trapped in homes needing major repairs, but they cannot afford to do them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has recently visited Tameside and can vouch for what I am about to say. That local authority has over 5,000 families whose homes are unfit for habitation, and more than 10,000 council homes—half its stock—which do not have adequate heating. About 1,000 of the pre-war council homes are in urgent need of modernisation. Perhaps I can attract the attention of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) by saying that they have problems in Leicester also. Indeed, it is a pity that we do not hear more about them from the hon. Gentleman.
    Such problems are not confined to the public sector. In the private sector in Tameside, 3,000 homes are unfit for habitation and 2,500 lack basic amenities. Indeed, 12,130 properties need repairs costing over £3,000 per property, and 7,000 of them need repairs that will cost in excess of £7,500 per property. The cost of outstanding repairs to the pre-1919 properties in the private sector is estimated to be £103 million, or 31 times the council's renewal budget for 1985–86.
    Those are the startling facts that we have to face when we go back to our constituencies and surgeries and hear about the sad cases of our constituents. Moreover, 1,135 Tameside families have been accepted as homeless, there are 6,000 on the general waiting list. A further 3,220 people are seeking transfers for one reason or another. Almost 2,700 of them are pensioners. Indeed, 1,500 are aged over 70. About 1,500 single people aged under 25 are also on the waiting list. From my surgery I know of one casualty of the system who is aged 65. She is a widow with an artificial leg, and she suffers from bronchitis. Her home in Hyde, in which she has lived for the past 40 years, is crumbling. She has an outside toilet and a stone sink,
    212
    and her home is bitterly cold in winter. The council scheme to modernise it is estimated to cost £11,000, but has been postponed because of Government action.
    By now the House will have a good idea of the problems in my constituency, but I must go on. The recitation of these facts may be tedious to Conservative Members, but the problems are rather more than tedious to those who have to face them day in, day out. Tameside's housing investment programme allocation for 1985–86 is worth only 45 per cent. of the value in 1979–80 and that causes us great concern. Its housing investment programme bid for 1985–86 was £23·5 million, but the actual allocation was just over £10 million. How can the local authority be expected to cope with such immense problems? I hope that the Minister will give us a hint when he replies. However, I very much doubt whether he is even listening to the debate.
    The cut in this year's programme has meant that Tameside's plan to build 140 new dwellings has been shelved, and there are no new public sector starts for 1985–86. Plans to modernise 450 council properties have been cut, and now only 240 properties are included. Tameside's bid for its programme this year was estimated by the council to be £24·7 million. The Government promised it £10 million, but the actual amount is £8·4 million. I hope that as a result of this debate the Under-Secretary of State will at least review the shabbily low figure that has been provided for my local authority.
    As my hon. Friends who represent other constituencies in Tameside know, because we are forever telling the House, Tameside is a low-wage area. More than 75 per cent. of council house tenants are in receipt of housing benefit. The financial circumstances of most of those people mean that they cannot even consider owning a house. As many of my colleagues have said, purchasing a house is not an option available to them. It is an academic question.
    The council estimates that a total housing programme of £42 million per annum sustained over a five-year period, is needed, to make meaningful inroads into the housing problems in my borough. The council and I recognise that the amount available will not be anywhere near £42 million per annum, but we expect to receive a more realistic sum.
    Recently, the chairman of the housing committee in my constituency, Councillor Peter Baily, sent the Minister a document entitled, "The Case for Housing Investment in Tameside". If the Minister has lost the document, I can provide him with another copy. If he reads it, he will recognise that there are gigantic problems. This morning the chairman of the housing committee said to me:
    "The size of the problem in this borough can only be resolved by an injection of Government cash of sizeable proportions and releasing hundreds of local skilled building craftsmen who are languishing on the dole."
    I am sure that those comments could be echoed by other hon. Members.
    I promised you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would speak briefly. Therefore, I conclude by saying that the Minister must recognise that one reason why the Government lost the Fulham by-election and are doing badly in the polls is that they do not have a socio-economic strategy for salvaging local housing. In view of the Government's unpopularity, I hope they will consider that now is the right and proper time to do something positive. If they do not do so, it will be just another nail in their

    213
    coffin. I assure the Government that when their funeral takes place there will be a rush by many of the homeless people of Tameside to be pallbearers.
    6.12 pm
    Mr. John Powley: I suspect that not many hon. Members or people outside the House would disagree with the sentiment expressed in the title of this debate which, according to the business statement, is, "Housing—putting people first." I support that sentiment. The motion moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) contains sweet words and nice-sounding phrases. It contains words with which one could easily agree. Indeed, any stranger to this planet would probably support a number of aspects of the motion, but there is a problem.
    Many of my hon. Friends have been involved in housing for a considerable time. We are aware that the motion, nice-sounding though it is, is in sharp conflict with the performance of the Labour party when it had the opportunity to put housing policies into practice. It is as well to recall the Labour party's performance. It sought to municipalise as much housing as possible. It had a declared policy of building as many council houses as possible and of buying up as much land as it could on which to build council houses.
    A number of my colleagues have referred to some of the social and economic problems which the Government inherited simply because there was a mad scramble, in the vain hope of solving the housing problems, to build more council houses. As the waiting lists became ever longer, more council houses were built. Local authorities were on a treadmill, which resulted in a great deal of heartache and caused social and economic problems in many cities and towns.
    The Labour party's policy of municipalisation did nothing to solve the housing problem. All it did was to shift the tenure of a house from owner-occupied to tenanted. I know from experience in local government that many Socialist-controlled local authorities deliberately built council estates in previously Conservative-represented wards simply to change the political balance in those wards.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Nonsense.
    Mr. Powley: The hon. Gentleman says that that is nonsense, but we all know that it is true. Many Labour-controlled local authorities followed that policy. The Labour Government sought to buy the council tenant's vote by one means or another. The Labour party came to office in 1974 on the promise that it would apply a rent freeze. Of course, it forgot that the housing revenue account would have to be propped up by the ratepayer. There is no such thing as a rent freeze, because at the end of the day somebody has to pay the bill. I mention a few of the Labour party's policies to emphasise that the words in the motion are one thing, while the practices have been quite the opposite.
    Despite the support, or half-support, of the Labour party for the sale of council houses in one form or another, I urge caution. The Labour party's words will never be put into practice, even if it were to gain office. Housing matters are administered by local authorities. The quite definite policy of local authorities which are controlled by Labour party groups is to oppose the sale of council
    214
    houses. If a Labour Government said, "Our policy is to sell council houses," would they instruct Labour local authorities to sell council houses?
    Mr. Tony Banks rose—
    Mr. Powley: If that happened, I suspect that a way would be found for local authorities not to sell council houses. My local authority has sought, by every means possible, to oppose the sale of council houses. In 1980 it opposed the right-to-buy principle. It changed the tenure of some tenants in my area, which meant that they were unable to exercise their right to buy if they had exchanged a house. A number of means were devised by Norwich city council to inhibit the sale of council houses. I do not doubt that if it came to pass, Labour-controlled authorities would seek to inhibit the sale of council houses and deny tenants the opportunities that they desire.
    I turn to a few points which are important if we are to improve the housing stock. We need to increase the number of council homes which are offered for sale, especially in my constituency, which has an abominably low level of owner-occupied housing. About 35 per cent. of homes are owner-occupied and 52 per cent. are tenanted. Those percentages must be reversed if we are to improve housing conditions in my constituency.
    We need a waiting list in all areas of the country which accurately reflects true housing need and not just the wants of some people and some local authorities which seek to inflate their waiting lists just to try to convince a Minister that they need more in their housing investment programme allocation.
    We need to dispose of much of the land held by local authorities and nationalised industries so that private housing can be built. We need a bigger switch of resources from new build because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) said, the need for large council house building is now virtually at an end. We need to switch our resources from new build to improvement and repair. That must go on to a greater extent than at present. We need greater efficiency among many of our local authorities for the operation and management of our council estates and the operation of our repairs and direct labour organisations, much as I dislike them.
    I believe that were we to follow some of those policies, many of which were implemented by Conservative-controlled councils when they had the opportunity, there would be a distinct improvement in the quality of housing and it would reflect what the motion says. It would be putting people first in housing matters.
    6.21 pm
    Mr. Frank Cook: Two things have given me some delight this afternoon. The first was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, (Mr. Raynsford). The authority with which he made that speech and the confidence that was displayed was, I suggest, a pleasure to all in the Chamber. I count it a privilege to he able to call him Friend rather than Member. My second delight is that we are graced with the presence of a Clerk somewhat more comely than the usual more hirsute incumbents who give us the benefit of their sterling assistance as we pursue our procedures in the Chamber.
    I do not have the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to

    215
    comment on housing as a national issue. I leave that his greater expertise. However, I offer for the consideration of the House some comments on housing in my parish of Stockton in Cleveland. It is important to realise from the outset that not for ten years has Stockton district had the freedom of action in the democratic decision-making process afforded by Labour control at both national and local level.
    Stockton has about 18,500 units in its housing stock. That is about a 10 per cent. reduction on the figure held in 1979 when the Government took office. Therefore, one can see that there has been an obedient, if somewhat reluctant, response to the Government's doctrinaire requirements of house sales. In the past five years, that same Government have filched more than £30 million from the subsidy of the housing revenue account. In 1979 that subsidy was £4 million per year. Extrapolating from that, based on an index of escalation—even the deliberately misleading index published by the Government's ministry of massage parlours—the subsidy should now stand at more than £6 million per year. In fact, it is nil. It was zero last year and the year before.
    The last time the Government gave any positive direct financial support to the housing revenue account was five years ago, when they chipped in the princely sum of £13,000—not even the cost of a dog kennel in Dulwich. The Government have filched £30 million when more than 27 per cent. of Stockton district council's housing stock is more than 25 years old and badly in need of major renovation and the urgent attention that that term implies.
    It is true that in Stockton at present the average basic rent is £18·12 per unit per week. It can be logically reasoned from that that if the Government were now providing subsidy in real terms, as they profess, and as previous Governments did, that rent would be a mere £12 per week. In other words, they have deliberately imposed, through policy decisions, a £6 per week deduction from the pockets of Stockton tenants. That is a cynical and Scrooge-like mechanism to squeeze the most from those who can afford the least.
    Stockton's spend this year under the housing investment programme will be £13–5 million. If the Government had not sought to interfere over the intervening years, it would have been nearly £30 million, much more in line with real needs if we bear in mind the terms of the motion and the amendment which is to provide
    "good housing with responses to family and individual needs".
    I shall turn briefly to Stockton's housing capital programme. It is true that, under a Labour Government, Stockton district council averaged 330 new builds per year, even under a Tory-controlled council. Now, under the Tory Government, it can achieve an average of only 55.
    However, under the Government's restrictions, the council has managed to average a yearly total of 540 housing improvement completions. That is despite the fact that its total bid over the previous five years for housing improvement was £64·5 million and its sanction allocation from the Government has been a mere £23 million. That is 74·5 per cent. less that it deems necessary. In this year alone the Government have limited their housing investment programme allocation to £3·3 million, when
    216
    Stockton has provided hard evidence that more than £15 million is necessary, even by the Government's own standards.
    How then, with all those restrictions, has Stockton council succeeded in averaging 540 housing improvements with all the odds stacked against it? It has been done by imaginative application of initiative and creative accounting—in the interests of its tenants, of course.
    Mr. John Patten: Tell us more about that.
    Mr. Cook: I shall tell you in a minute.
    Mr. Rooker: Do not tell them.
    Mr. Cook: If the Government dispute that, are they saying that the houses should not have been refurbished? The creative accountancy took the form of exploiting loopholes left in the Government's restraints. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends know, regardless of the Tories' hilarity, that we have now learned that the Government intend to close those loopholes. In other words, not only does the regime want to halt housebuilding, it wants to stop renovation schemes too. Otherwise, what is its motivation for pursuing such measures?
    In the brief time left, I wish to make specific reference to Stockton's submission for assistance under the urban housing renewal programme and the community refurbishment scheme for the Clarences in Cleveland, where conditions are appalling. I challenge the Minister to visit that estate to see for himself the distress imposed upon tenants whose only crime is imposed indolence and concomitant low incomes. If the Minister will not agree to visit the area, will he at least consent to examine this small album of photographs which graphically record that estate's grievous need for urgent assistance—proof positive of the need for response to family and individual needs. I am confident that he will then give a positive response to Stockton's application on behalf of the Clarences.
    In support of that, I quote Stockton housing department's most recent report:
    "If a decision should be delayed until September"—
    I hope that the Minister is listening; he appears not to be—
    "or October of this year, then obviously it will not be possible to spend any money that might be allocated before March of 1987."
    That means that the inhabitants of that estate could well be condemned to a further three winters exactly like the last. A decision is needed now. Can the Minister please assure me that he will give that matter his most urgent attention?
    6.29 pm
    Mr. John Fraser: It is my most pleasant duty to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) on both his election and his maiden speech. Many people have to come to the House and build a reputation but my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham comes to the House with an established reputation. I have known my hon. Friend for many years. He has worked with Housing Advice, and for the housing association movement, and is greatly respected. My hon. Friend is fortunate to come to the House with such a reputation and I am sure he will establish a similar one for himself on other matters.
    My hon. Friend's success in the by-election was not simply a personal triumph. All the opinion polls in Fulham

    217
    revealed that the two major issues were housing and unemployment. The electorate in Fulham gave a decisive and unequivocal verdict about the Government's policies on those two major issues. Those matters will determine the results of other elections in many seats in the next general election.
    The Opposition have proposed the motion tonight because we believe that people should come first and have a right to a home at a price that they can afford, with choice and flexibility over where they live, control over their own homes and environment and the right to a home that is dry, warm, and well maintained. A home with such characteristics is an essential precondition to a happy and healthy life, to the stability of the family, to mobility of employment, and to security and contentment in old age. We believe that caring about people means caring about their homes.
    There are two tragic aspects of Britain's housing conditions today. The first is the condition of the housing stock. Some 3·9 million families live in homes which are either unfit for human habitation, lack the basic amenities or are in need of substantial repair. Those figures are based on returns recently sent to the Department of Employment on the housing investment programme returns. I can also quote the figure of just under 100,000 families who last year were literally homeless and vulnerable. That is an escalating, shameful and costly total.
    Another measure of the tragic state of Britain's housing is revealed in the description by the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission is no ally of the Labour party and it does not write our political pamphlets. It certainly does not write them in Lambeth. The commission did not misuse language when it described the crisis in council housing and the 85 per cent. of council-owned dwellings requiring repairs and improvements. I could continue to cite the condition of people and their homes and the increasing number of people who live in homes that are damp or in poor repair, with leaking roofs, dry rot, and so on. Many of these people are owner-occupiers, the elderly or the less well-off, who are the victims of the current recession.
    Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Fraser: No, I will not give way.
    The main feature about the housing crisis is that there is no division between the tenant and the owner-occupier. It is becoming more and more apparent from the crisis that there is a community of interest between those who live in the poorer owner-occupied homes, those in the privately rented sector, and those in council accommodation. All these people share the consequences of the famine of funds that has been imposed by the Treasury and probably reluctantly agreed to by the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. The Treasury has done for the homeless of this country what drought did for the hungry in Africa.
    The second tragic aspect of British housing is that the acute shortages and the poor condition of much of the housing stock is actually avoidable. We are not faced with an act of God; rather we are faced with a tragedy which I should perhaps not call man-made or person-made, but woman-made. It is a woman-made disaster.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said, the political will is lacking. There is no shortage of funds to invest in housing in Britain. All of us with mortgages
    218
    receive letters from the building societies inviting us to spend more of their money. Each building society is competing with the other to lend money. The building societies in turn are competing with the banks to lend money and both institutions are awash with cash. The local authorities are not short of money to spend on housing. Indeed, the amount of capital receipts which are unspent and largely unspendable, at £6,000 million, is four times greater than the housing investment programme permitted by the Government on the last occasion.
    The real Minister for Housing is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury is more in the business of forging shackles for local authorities than in the business of building homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) spoke about loopholes. He should have taken care, as his words were given careful attention by that stooge of the Treasury who calls himself the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. We heard the Minister asking for more details about the loopholes from a sedentary position because he will want to work that information into his draft document on the limitations of capital spending by local authorities.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Mr. Fraser: There are no insuperable problems to the solving of our housing problems. The fault lies with the Treasury and the pace at which it has allowed local authorities to spend their money or the money that is freely available on the open market.
    The scale of the failure to deal with the housing problems is illustrated by the evidence of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to the Duke of Edinburgh's inquiry. It calculated that at the present rates of building—which includes both private and public building—it would take 900 years to replace the existing housing stock. To put that another way, if William the Conqueror, who landed in 1066, had adopted in addition to administrative and constitutional changes a housing policy which involved replacing the hovels and shacks of the conquered Saxon kingdom, and if he had moved at the same rate as the Conservative Government, he would have come to the House of Commons now and said "Je l'ai fini".
    The figures of new housing starts are available. If we compare the figures for the last complete year of starts under the Labour Government—1978—with the present figure, the reduction in new house starts in the public sector is approximately 92,000. That figure has not been compensated in any meaningful way by an increase in private sector housing. The completion figures are equally dismal. The Government cannot pretend that there has been a change of emphasis and that somehow private sector housebuilding has compensated for the loss of between 70,000 and 90,000 local authority homes a year while the Government have been in office. Last year, fewer houses were completed for private purchase than in 1978.
    Lambeth's housing record has been attacked and compared with that of Wandsworth. However, I want to reveal a few of the facts about Wandsworth's housing programme. Last year, on the latest figures available, Wandsworth did not start one social home and it did not finish any social homes. It did not have any social housing under construction, yet, at the same time, there were 204 families either in bed and breakfast accommodation or in hostels. That statistic of no public housing was repeated

    219
    in Hammersmith, Fulham, Merton, Sutton, and many of the surrounding boroughs that could make a real contribution to housing in areas of acute housing stress. That is one aspect of how local Tory boroughs follow their Tory masters in Westminster.
    Last week I visited the Tory-controlled borough of Reading. That authority is not untypical of many Tory authorities. As soon as the Tories took control of the authority in 1983 they stopped building council homes, in spite of the fact that 120 families were homeless and 3,200 people were on the housing waiting list. Reading is in the affluent silicon valley and in the relatively affluent Thames Valley.
    Reading reveals a new and ugly consequence of the Government's housing policy. The hoods and the heavies line up outside the post offices in Reading to collect the money from people who live in bed and breakfast accommodation before those people step off the pavement. Indeed, there have been times in Reading when the police have had to be called in to stop that ugly trade in homelessness. Homelessness has become a boom business in Britain. Millionaires make fortunes out of it.
    When the police in Reading interfered with the collection of giro money for bed and breakfast accommodation, the hoods and heavies working for the landlords went round and collected the giros themselves and gave the tenants the change, making sure that the exploitation continued and the money went to those who run those squalid places. That is the picture of housing in one of the more affluent parts of Britain.
    Many people are stuck because of the ending of improvement grants. I believe that about a quarter of a million people are waiting for improvement grants that have been cut as a result of the reduction in the housing investment programme.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Fraser: No, time is too short.
    Someone came to see me the other day. His was a typical case. He had come from the West Indies during the second world war to join the Air Force and serve this country. In his sixties, his health became poor and he fell upon hard times. Because of his ill-health he was not able to put his repair grant application in on time. Because of the moratorium on spending, Lambeth cut out its improvement and repair grant policy, as did Croydon and many other local authorities, both Labour and Conservative. The man was beside himself. How was he to stop the rain coming through his roof? His neighbours were besides themselves, too. They did not know how they were to stop the rain coming into their houses, either.
    It happened that the man suffered a stroke, so serious that a stair-lift had to be put into his house. He was therefore deemed to be so disabled as to qualify for an improvement grant on compassionate grounds.
    That is the scale of the problem of housing and repair improvement grants. It is repeated in many other districts. Many people who are fortunate enough to be able-bodied live in despair and terror about what is to become of their homes. There is no opportunity for them to resort to rented housing. That is what has happened to housing as a direct result of the Government's policy.
    Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Fraser: The grants boom before the 1983 election was bribery, but we welcomed it. However, within a year that pattern of grant had been cut by 40 per cent., and cuts are still being made.
    The Government have a housing policy with gimmicks. There is the urban housing renewal unit. There is clause 5 of the Housing and Planning Bill, for evicting tenants. We will discuss that on Thursday. However, what Government policy amounts to is a row of gimmicks and no guts. It is a policy that is increasingly earning—as in Fulham two weeks ago—the outrage and contempt of the public.
    The Labour party has the necessary political will. The funds are available; there is enough money in the kitty to deal with the housing problem. We shall use energy, ingenuity and investment to increase the provision of housing across all forms of tenure. We have no ideological attachment to renting, buying or indeed swapping between different tenures. Our ideological attachment is to the meeting of need, and we have no obsession with tenure. We will emphasise quality as well as quantity—quality of construction, conversion, management and cost in use. We reject a housing programme based on the proposition that if people are hungry enough they will eat.
    We also believe that as far as possible there should be a choice of tenures and the chance to change from one form of tenure to another. We believe in the development of a subsidy system that is fair across the tenures and is geared to meeting need and stimulating housing investment. In the case of mortgage interest relief, the greatest benefit goes to the higher rate taxpayers. We believe in fairness across the tenures, and that is what we shall achieve.
    Our emphasis will be on people and their wishes and choices. We reject a housing policy in which a year of spend, spend, spend, such as 1982, can be followed a year later by cut, cut, cut. We reject a policy based on an obsession with tenure and little else, and we reject Tory policies that are a shabby abdication of the Government's central responsibility for meeting housing need. We reject those policies and ask the House to support our motion.
    6.46 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I begin on a happy note by joining all those who have complimented the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) on his maiden speech. I make no secret of the fact that I spent several hours in Fulham trying to impede the hon. Gentleman's entry to the House. Like other hon. Members, I was struck by the depth of affection and warmth shown to his predecessor, Martin Stevens, to whom many people have paid tribute.
    The hon. Gentleman made a well-informed speech. That is no less than I would expect from someone whose organisation has been funded by my Department for eight years. I see that the miserly £69,000 paid to SHAC in 1978 had been generously increased to £128,300 by 1985.
    In housing terms the hon. Member's status in Fulham is that not of a secure tenant, but a licensee. He is well known as a housing expert and I am sure that we will all welcome his contribution to debates on the subject.
    I have a small quarrel with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that he said that for every £100 spent on housing under Labour £30 is spent now. Those figures conveniently omit capital receipts, and are based on HIP

    221
    allocations. If he includes capital receipts, and arrives at the figure that is spent rather than the provision, he will find that the answer is somewhat different.
    Whatever mistake the hon. Member for Fulham may have made pales into insignificance in comparison with what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has just said. He said that he regretted the ending of improvement grants. In 1979 we spent £90 million on improvement grants. Last year we spent £450 million. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the audacity to say that improvement grants have been ended. In fact, much more money is being spent in that way than was spent under Labour.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) endorsed the priority estates project. The project has encouraged the local management of tenanted estates. Measures contained in the Housing and Planning Bill, which we are to discuss on Thursday, are designed to continue and accelerate the progress of innovation in forms of tenure and management.
    The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) mentioned the AMA survey. I believe that he gave a somewhat partial quotation. The survey indeed shows that the number of properties needing repairs that would cost more than £5,000 rose slightly from 18 to 19 per cent. What the hon. Gentleman did not say was that the study also suggests that the number of statutorily unfit dwellings fell from 9 to 6 per cent. of the stock, and of dwellings lacking standard amenities from 9 per cent. to 4 per cent.
    Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Gentleman should read Hansard tomorrow. I mentioned that point.
    Mr. Young: I shall be delighted to read that in Hansard. The picture given in the AMA survey was not all bad.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about do-it-yourself shared ownership. My Department wrote to all local authorities in January 1983 telling them that they no longer needed specific approval from my Department to carry out do-it-yourself shared ownership. I understand that a small number are doing so. In addition, there is nothing to stop local authorities funding housing associations to carry out do-it-yourself shared ownership, and I understand that a number are doing so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) I mentioned tenant co-operatives. Everyone is in favour of tenant involvement and tenant cooperatives. He asked whether we could have progress reports on the urban housing renewal unit. I shall be happy to answer any questions about that. In opening the debate my hon. Friend said that there was an enthusiastic response, not least from the members of the AMA which had been initially somewhat hostile. The idea is that the unit should be a catalyst and should try to prod local authorities to consider new solutions for the difficult problems faced on unpopular estates.
    Of course we shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion that improvement grants should be run by the building societies, but obviously that is something that we shall discuss with the Building Societies Association.
    The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) raised a constituency matter which followed up on his recent adjournment debate. My Department is in touch with the Department of Energy concerning the houses he mentioned on the National Coal Board's estate at Maltby. My Department is considering the implication of the proposed sales to a private buyer.
    222
    On a happier note, the hon. Member mentioned a scheme for improving Reema housing. I understand that a system of repair to these houses is currently with PRC Homes Ltd. for appraisal. I shall keep the hon. Member informed of important developments.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) spoke of the need to involve the responsible private sector and to initiate some movement in that area in the interests of job mobility. My hon. Friend put forward a five-point agenda of worthwhile suggestions of how that could be done, for which we are grateful.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) reminded the House of the reluctance of some local authorities to sell council houses. The Labour party policy on the right to buy is now crystal clear. Tenants in our inner cities will have the right to buy and local authorities are to have the right not to sell. One cannot have a fairer policy than that.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made a valid point that my department should approve earlier in the year the schemes which are submitted under the urban housing renewal unit. Thus the spending can be achieved during the current year We have already approved a number of schemes this year and, of course, we intend to make decisions as soon as possible to achieve spending in the current year.
    Many of us read in yesterday's press of the Labour party's campaign of freedom and fairness which is launched today. The Times said that the drive will concentrate, among other things, on housing. Some of us hoped that today's debate would witness the launch of some fresh initiative and existing new policies on housing. Nothing new has emerged from the Opposition Front Bench. Most of the sensible proposals that it put forward are already being implemented.
    Mr. Terry Lewis: Where?
    Sir George Young: I shall come to that in a moment.
    I hope that the Opposition Front Bench can persuade its colleagues in London that housing is an important issue. I have a copy of the Labour party manifesto for the London borough of Ealing. Of its 81 pages, four cover the policy for policing in Ealing and 10 cover policies for women—including a policy for banning suggestive calendars at the works depots. But how much is there on housing? Twenty-one lines in the manifesto are devoted to housing, tucked away in the planning and environment section. There is more space on nuclear policy, on fairs, circuses and zoos, and on animal products, than there is on housing. In Ealing we shall have an exciting new policy of a ban on the sale of kittens in pet shops. There will be a borough pet-watch scheme.
    The section on housing contains no new ideas, but simply a commitment to a massive campaign of municipal building. That is a return to the quick-build policies of the 1950s and the 1960s which were rightly condemned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). There was no mention of partnership with the private sector, tenants' involvement, or the other ideas which were mentioned in the debate. It represents a step backwards.
    The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) mentioned Wandsworth. Wandsworth has pursued an active sales policy—it has sold almost 7,000 council dwellings and around 4,000 of the dwellings have been bought by sitting

    223
    tenants. On balance, priority has been given to council tenants who account for half the 15,000 to 20,000 potential purchasers on the council's special waiting list for the purchase of former council properties.
    Co-operation with the private sector has been a great success in Wandsworth. For some estates the only realistic policy is disposal to the private sector for resale. Some have doubted whether there was a market for high-rise council blocks. Recently, however, Wandsworth successfully disposed of the Livingstone estate to Regalian Properties. That demonstrates that there is a substantial market. The first 24 refurbished flats which were put up for sale by Regalian were sold within two and a half hours of being put on the market.
    The sales have provided substantial capital receipts for Wandsworth, a prescribed proportion of which can be reinvested in housing. In 1985–86 Wandsworth expected to supplement its HIP allocation of £17 million with some £36 million of capital receipts—£31 million from housing. In the past year, Wandsworth has raised more housing capital receipts than any other London borough.
    Wandsworth has demonstrated that sales have not led to an increase in the waiting list if priority is given to council tenants, who help to create additional vacancies for lettings. Sales have also provided additional resources to make faster progress in tackling the problems that remain.
    During the debate, there were a number of criticisms about the Government's economic policy. It is beneficial to consider some of the impacts of that policy on housing. In 1979 the mortgage rate reached 15 per cent. Since then it has fluctuated but it has now fallen to 11 per cent. and some societies hope that there will be a further reduction. A person with an average building society mortgage would have been paying £137 per month in November 1979. With the present mortgage rate of 11 per cent. that person pays £110 per month—saving £27 per month. That equates to a reduction in income tax of roughly 4p in the pound.
    As interest rates fall and as earnings continue to rise, home ownership has become attainable for more people. That has enabled the public sector to concentrate its resources on those who cannot or do not want to buy. An inevitable consequence of Opposition policies would be a rise in interest rates, a rise in mortgage rates, and therefore a growing dependence of more people on the public sector.
    The hon. Member for Perry Barr criticised the imposition of VAT on repairs and improvements. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether the Labour party is now committed to lifting VAT on repairs and improvements? What would the cost be? From the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to come to the Dispatch Box, I take it that there is no commitment.
    Mr. Rooker: When the Government imposed VAT in the 1984 Budget we said that we would remove it. That is not a new policy, it is existing Labour party policy.
    Sir George Young: It is most helpful to have that commitment on the record. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are trying to cost the Opposition's expensive policies, and we are grateful for that further commitment.
    The homeless or those on the waiting list are disadvantaged if they have to compete with more people
    224
    for public sector accommodation if private accommodation for sale has been made more expensive because mortgage rates have been driven up by economic policies which push up interest rates.
    The Government's economic policies have also benefited council house rents. By keeping inflation down we have enabled council rent increases to be kept at a low level. On average, weekly rents have risen by only 70p in each of the past three years. The Government's economic policies have benefited not only owner-occupiers but local authority tenants.
    A couple of hon. Members mentioned improvement grants and asked for the Government's reaction to the Green Paper. The Green Paper produced some worthwhile responses. Some parts of that Green Paper have been welcomed in the debate, especially the section which asked for verification that the money had been well spent. It was suggested that the money should be linked to policies that have guarantees. Other parts of the Green Paper were not so well received. The Government will come forward with conclusions on the Green Paper as soon as possible.
    The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that Labour party policy was to focus on choice, freedom and fairness. That is an excellent description of the approach to housing policy which has been followed by the Government since 1979. We welcome the conversion of Opposition Members to our point of view. In my reply to this debate I have tried, modestly, to point to some of the considerable achievements in Government policy in the past seven years. However, we are under no illusion about the scale of the problems that still remain, especially those of homelessness and of disrepair to the housing stock. We shall continue to make every effort to tackle the problems that remain, to look for new and imaginative solutions and to bring together all the available resources in both the public and the private sectors.
    Despite the inevitable rhetoric in some of the speeches, there is in fact much common ground between us about the way in which we should proceed. It is on those sensible policies that we propose to make progress. I commend to the House the motion, as amended.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 269.

    Division No. 151]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Alton, David

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

    Anderson, Donald

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Buchan, Norman

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Caborn, Richard

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Campbell, Ian

    Barnett, Guy

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Barron, Kevin

    Canavan, Dennis

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Beith, A. J.

    Cartwright, John

    Bell, Stuart

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Clarke, Thomas

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

    Clay, Robert

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clelland, David Gordon

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Blair, Anthony

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Conlan, Bernard

    Boyes, Roland

    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Corbett, Robin

    225

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Craigen, J. M.

    Martin, Michael

    Crowther, Stan

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Maxton, John

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Meacher, Michael

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Meadowcroft, Michael

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

    Michie, William

    Deakins, Eric

    Mikardo, Ian

    Dixon, Donald

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Dobson, Frank

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Dormand, Jack

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Douglas, Dick

    Nellist, David

    Dubs, Alfred

    O'Brien, William

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    O'Neill, Martin

    Eadie, Alex

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Eastham, Ken

    Park, George

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Patchett, Terry

    Ewing, Harry

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Faulds, Andrew

    Pendry, Tom

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    Pike, Peter

    Fisher, Mark

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Flannery, Martin

    Prescott, John

    Forrester, John

    Radice, Giles

    Foster, Derek

    Raynsford, Nick

    Foulkes, George

    Redmond, Martin

    Fraser, J. (Norwood)

    Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

    Freud, Clement

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    George, Bruce

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Godman, Dr Norman

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Gould, Bryan

    Rooker, J. W.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hancock, Michael

    Sheerman, Barry

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Haynes, Frank

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Silkin, Rt Hon J.

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

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

    Home Robertson, John

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

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

    Stott, Roger

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Strang, Gavin

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Tinn, James

    Lambie, David

    Torney, Tom

    Lamond, James

    Wainwright, R.

    Leighton, Ronald

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Wareing, Robert

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Weetch, Ken

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    White, James

    McCartney, Hugh

    Wigley, Dafydd

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Williams, Rt Hon A.

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Winnick, David

    McKelvey, William

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    McNamara, Kevin

    McTaggart, Robert

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    McWilliam, John

    Mr. Ron Davies and

    Madden, Max

    Mr. Sean Hughes.

    Marek, Dr John

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Amess, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Ancram, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Arnold, Tom

    Benyon, William

    Ashby, David

    Best, Keith

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    226

    Blackburn, John

    Ground, Patrick

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Grylls, Michael

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hampson, Dr Keith

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

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Harris, David

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bright, Graham

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Brinton, Tim

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Hawksley, Warren

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Hayes, J.

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

    Browne, John

    Hayward, Robert

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Heddle, John

    Budgen, Nick

    Henderson, Barry

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Hickmet, Richard

    Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

    Hicks, Robert

    Butterfill, John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

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

    Holt, Richard

    Cash, William

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Howard, Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

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

    Chope, Christopher

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunter, Andrew

    Coombs, Simon

    Irving, Charles

    Cope, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Couchman, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Critchley, Julian

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Crouch, David

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Dicks, Terry

    Knowles, Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Knox, David

    Dover, Den

    Lamont, Norman

    du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Lang, Ian

    Dunn, Robert

    Latham, Michael

    Durant, Tony

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

    Evennett, David

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fallon, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Farr, Sir John

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Fletcher, Alexander

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Major, John

    Forman, Nigel

    Malone, Gerald

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Marland, Paul

    Forth, Eric

    Marlow, Antony

    Franks, Cecil

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Mather, Carol

    Freeman, Roger

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Fry, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Galley, Roy

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Moate, Roger

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Gorst, John

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Gow, Ian

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Greenway, Harry

    Mudd, David

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon

    Neale, Gerrard

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Needham, Richard

    Grist, Ian

    Newton, Tony

    227

    Norris, Steven

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

    Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

    Sumberg, David

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Pollock, Alexander

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Porter, Barry

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Powley, John

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Thurnham, Peter

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Renton, Tim

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Tracey, Richard

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Trippier, David

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Trotter, Neville

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Viggers, Peter

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Waddington, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Rost, Peter

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Waller, Gary

    Ryder, Richard

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Watson, John

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Watts, John

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Wheeler, John

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Whitfield, John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shersby, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Silvester, Fred

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Wood, Timothy

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Woodcock, Michael

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Yeo, Tim

    Speed, Keith

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Speller, Tony

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Spencer, Derek

    Squire, Robin

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mr. Michael Neubert and

    Steen, Anthony

    Mr. Francis Maude.

    Stern, Michael

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Government's approach to housing policy which combines investment in good housing with responses to family and individual needs reflecting the informed opinions of tenants and home buyers, in order to bring about solutions based upon choice, freedom and fairness; and congratulates the Government on its achievements since 1979 in fulfilling housing aspirations and improving the quality of life throughout the whole community.

    Transport
    7.13 pm
    Mr. Roger Stott: I beg to move,
    That this House strongly condemns the Government for the crisis in public transport which is the direct result of de-regulation of bus services, the abolition of the metropolitan councils and the drastic reduction in finance for public transport; and urges the Government to emulate the proven success of Labour transport policies implemented by Labour councils throughout Britain, which are based upon choice, freedom and fairness, to improve the quality of life for the whole community' and particularly for those who depend entirely upon public transport.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Stott: Since 1981, apart from a very brief period when I shadowed information technology, I have been on the Opposition transport team on the Front Bench. During that time I have watched the various Secretaries of State for Transport come and go. Apart from the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, every one of them has put through legislation that has seriously weakened and undermined the principles and the concepts of an integrated transport policy. But in my view, and I suspect in the view of many other hon. Members, the Secretary of State who has done most mortally to damage Britain's public transport system is the current one, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the Conservative party's original Neanderthal man, someone who takes a great deal of pride in inhabiting the higher astral planes of lunacy and who, by his legislative efforts in the House of Commons, has offered up Britain's public transport system—which involves the carriage of millions and millions of people every day—to the vagaries of the free market and the discredited values of free marketeers.
    Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Stott: Not yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is a short debate, that is why.
    It is only in the United Kingdom that public transport has been reduced to the status of a political football, to be kicked around the park by Conservative Ministers and councillors in an attempt to reduce revenue support, rate precepts and local accountability. Years of painstaking work by Labour councillors throughout the land, who have worked tirelessly to provide decent, cheap, integrated public transport, has now been sacrificed on the altar of free enterprise.
    The whole continent of Europe and practically all the developed world recognise and accept that the provision of a proper public transport system is a prerequisite for the foundations of a decent life for their citizens. Governments of the Left and Governments of the Right all over the developed world have continued to provide resources to build on and to enhance the provision of mass public transport. On the continent of Europe and elsewhere there has been a renaissance in the railway industry, but here in the United Kingdom our railway industry is subject to profit centre accounting, appalling failures in punctuality, the closure of railway workshops and totally unacceptable overcrowding of trains as a consequence of timetable changes.

    229
    In 1974, when the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties were formed, the passenger transport executive/passenger transport authority arrangements were agreed. We saw emerging from that structure a genuine attempt to integrate public transport in our large conurbations—the buses with the trains, the trains with the ferries—a strategy to reduce inter-modal competition, to provide travel cards, through-ticketing, concessionary fares for the elderly and schoolchildren, saver tickets, support for section 20 railway lines and the development of timetables after consultation with the general public, and, particularly in Labour-controlled areas, to stabilise and reduce fares, as a consequence of which ridership increased dramatically. We also saw, as a consequence of those policies, fundamental and noticeable improvements in the local environment. During that time, of course, we also saw the development and the coming to fruition of the Tyne and Wear metro—something of which the Opposition, at least, are extremely proud.
    Those achievements have been possible because the metropolitan counties, the National Bus Company and the municipal operators have been able to use their expertise and the economies of scale that are available to them to respond flexibly to any given situation. Indeed, all these points were acknowledged—in my view properly—some years ago by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which had a report on several PTEs and several municipal operators.
    So we asked the Secretary of State why he looked into the crystal ball when he could have read the book. Why embark upon a system of deregulation that would undermine years of transportation planning—planning which had the solid backing of the people in the metropolitan areas, as demonstrated time after time through the ballot box?
    It was not just a partisan politician such as myself who was saying that. It was every user and every operator of public transport. Such diverse groups as Friends of the Earth, the women's institutes and Rural Voice were saying it. The Secretary of State's manic myopia was, to say the least, grossly insulting to the elected representatives, the professional transport planners and everyone else who opposed this piece of lunacy.
    Regrettably, the GLC and the metropolitan counties have now gone out of existence. The joint boards are now having to deal with the provisions of the Transport Act 1985, and deregulation will become a reality in the autumn of this year. Some of the worst fears that I and my hon. Friends told the Secretary of State about during the long hours in Standing Committee are now beginning to be realised. I shall outline some of them and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that they can tell the House what is happening in their constituencies.
    Mr. Adley: I should like to concentrate the hon. Gentleman's mind on the realities of life. Can he tell me which investment schemes British Rail is still awaiting decisions upon from the Government? Can he tell me of any year during which there was a Labour Government when a higher level of public money was invested in British Rail?
    Mr. Stott: I acknowledge and respect the hon. Gentleman's interest in the railway industry. He is a stout
    230
    defender of the industry and has tilted against many conventional windmills on the Government side of the House. I will leave the answer to his question to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). Perhaps he will answer it when he is winding up. One advantage of coming from Wigan is that one can play rugby well and can get rid of a ball quickly when necessary.
    About 70 per cent. of routes have been registered under the Transport Act 1985 by the municipal operators—not the passenger transport executives. It is clear that few services will be provided after 8 pm and virtually no services will be provided on Sundays. In the county of Berkshire only Reading, which is served by its municipal transport company, will have services on Sunday and after 8 pm on weekdays from October. I am advised that in the rest of Berkshire there are no registered routes for those days.
    Another example is the municipality of Kingston upon Hull. I am advised that it has registered 67 per cent. of its routes. I am also advised that the Labour council there will have to make some difficult decisions. As a consequence of the 1985 Act, it will have to make redundant 300 of its 810 employees. In addition, the local authority will have to meet the cost of the redundancies from its own resources, thus making it almost impossible to finance tendered services, the almost 40 per cent. of services that have not been registered. If the Government's lunacy comes to fruition, Kingston upon Hull will have fewer bus services in the city and another 300 people on the dole. So much for this brave new world.
    From a questionnaire sent to its members by the Federation of Public Passenger Transport Employers about a whole host of issues, it appears that less than half the non-registered routes will not be put out to tender. Yesterday, the Secretary of State answered a question by his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). In a question about London the hon. Member asked:
    "Will my right hon. Friend congratulate LRT on the improved services that it has provided since it was established following its removal from the auspices of the GLC?"
    The Secretary of State replied:
    "I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to the chairman and board of LRT".—[Official Report, 21 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 6.]
    The hon. Member for Ealing, North is not in the House. He made a statement to The Standard which was printed a little time before he put his question. The Standard reported:
    "Harry Greenway, Tory MP for Ealing North, says there are growing protests from people at the long wait at bus stops and at the general decline in service. He said: 'I am getting more and more complaints from people who claim they have to wait sometimes an hour for a bus. Such a delay is inexcusable.'"
    That hon. Member said that to The Standard and then came here and congratulated his right hon. Friend about the way LRT was being run.
    I should like to give some interesting figures from the constituency of Derbyshire, West. Today I was given a document produced by Mr. Keith Orford, the adviser and spokesman for the public transport unit at Matlock. He advises me:
    "North of Matlock the service to Bakewell via Winster will operate every hour, but the last departure from Matlock will be at 16.30. Only two buses a day will operate into Elton and Stanton and Birchover will only be served on Mondays by service to/from Bakewell."
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he is talking about services that have been registered, or whether the county council has already taken a decision about exactly what other services it regards as socially necessary and for which it will invite tenders?
    Mr. Stott: I am quoting from the document that Mr. Orford sent me this morning. To be fair to the Minister, I imagine that these are registered services and that other services are open to tender. It is that to which I should like to turn my attention. I suspect that the Secretary of State and his Department are proud of the number of services that have been registered to operate commercially from 26 October. They form about three quarters of the number of road service licences that currently exist. The impression is given that this means that 75 per cent. of existing journeys will be operated commercially.
    When the Minister was pressed by me and by some of my hon. Friends, following parliamentary questions that we tabled some weeks ago about the current mileage undertaken by those operators and what mileage would be registered, he failed to give us a reply. He said the information was not available, yet every bus company, most local authorities and the traffic commissioners, for fuel duty rebate purposes, hold the necessary sources of information, and those sources could quickly have been processed by his Department. It is a disgrace that the Minister did not answer the question and told my hon. Friends that the information was not available.
    Last year, my own council, Greater Manchester, said on page 68 of its TPP submission to the Minister that 72,070,000 miles were being run. That figure could have been made available by Ministers. It is now possible to tell the House the figures for registered services, those services that make a profit. In my area of greater Manchester, 64 per cent. of present service miles have been registered by the Greater Manchester Bus Company. An extra 4 per cent. have been registered by other operators, including National Bus Company subsidiaries, independents and even an occasional taxi driver.
    We must bear in mind that, before the Transport Act 1985, some 96 per cent. of all services in greater Manchester were run by the PTE and only 4 per cent. by other operators. I suspect that that applied to every metropolitan authority. No doubt the Secretary of State will say that it is premature to judge what effect there will be on the services and that that cannot be done until the PTEs and the PTAs have gone out to tender and have decided upon services to fill the gaps left by operators promoting services commercially.
    This raises the interesting question of how much money will be available to support those services. I shall take again the example of Greater Manchester PTE. Some months ago, it estimated that support to the tendered services would require at least £30 million a year. The best estimate at the moment is that the PTA should bank on having only £15 million from October onwards. Based on that, the director general of the Greater Manchester PTE estimated at a meeting last Friday that it would be possible to support only some 20 per cent. more services.
    In other words, that would mean that, in the Greater Manchester area, from October onwards, some 10 to 12 per cent. of those bus services will not run.
    There is a human price to pay for all that carnage. In my area—my hon. Friends will tell the House what is
    232
    happening in theirs—2,000 people in bus garages, administration and elsewhere will be made unemployed by the PTE in order that it should remain viable and profitable.
    I hope the House will bear with me if I continue with the theme of financial chaos. I have referred to the problems of finance. Tenders are supposed to be let for supported bus services during the summer to start towards the end of October. It would not be unreasonable for a bus operator to expect a reasonable length of tender in order to cover the costs of establishing the new services, particularly if one of those operators is the new, thrusting, entrepreneurial, dynamic operator that the Secretary of State wants to see. Would not such an operator consider that for tendered services at least there should be some reasonable length of contract? In order to meet that, would it not be reasonable for the PTA to expect that it should have some idea of the likely levels of expenditure over, say, the next two years so that it may decide how many tendered services can go out this year, next year and the year after? Not a bit of it.
    The PTA in Greater Manchester has been writing to the Department of Transport since before Christmas in an attempt to find out the likely level of expenditure which it will be allowed by the Secretary of State for 1987–88. On 6 January, one of the Secretary of State's civil servants replied to the effect that he was surprised that the PTA wanted to know that figure. The same civil servant relented somewhat in March because he then accepted that the authority did have a right to know, but he restated the Government's position. The only advice that he could give my authority was that given in 1984—that planning should be on the assumption that revenue support expenditure should be reduced by 25 to 30 per cent. over the next three years. That leaves the PTEs and the PTAs, and no doubt the municipal authorities, still guessing as to what will be the likely levels of expenditure next year and the year after.
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman is right to support his case with illustrations from his area, which he knows well, but is it fair that, for example, Lancashire, which I believe is his county, has a transport subsidy per head of population of £13, while Greater Manchester, whose case he is using to illustrate his point, has a subsidy per head of population of £30? That simply does not make sense to the rest of the country.
    Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman and I shared many happy hours on the Bill in Committee but I think that he has hold of the wrong end of the stick. I was talking about the information coming from the Department of Transport to give PTEs and municipal operators some idea of the likely level of revenue support from that Department and elsewhere.
    Let me take the hon. Gentleman a step further. I do not know whether he was here, but a few months ago the Secretary of State pushed through an order setting the maximum precept limit, which he unwisely referred to as putting the stopper on the amount of public money spent on providing public transport in the metropolitan areas. It is some stopper; in every PTA area the precept has gone up because authorities have had to pay for the cost of deregulation and they have had to foot the bill for the nonsensical Government grant policy.

    233
    Let me tell the House the cost to authorities such as mine, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and others of deregulation, of the needless expense of making bus workers redundant, of the waste of assets that will be mothballed or sold off below book value, of the bureaucratic exercise involved in forming new companies and transferring assets around the place, of dismantling the existing systems based on co-operation and replacing them with ones where only profits count. As for grant policies, the Secretary of State for Transport sets one limit for expenditure, while the Secretary of State for the Environment, independently and arbitrarily, bases his rate support grant on altogether different and even less meaning full formula. The PTAs are then penalised by the Secretary of State for the Environment because they have the temerity to spend up to the levels that the Secretary of State says they can. That is reflected in a higher rate of precept in all the county council areas.
    Let me give some examples. The rate is higher by approximately 40 per cent. in Greater Manchester than it need be. The rate is higher by 82 per cent. in Merseyside, 82 per cent. in South Yorkshire, 17 per cent. in Tyne and Wear, 28 per cent. in the West Midlands and 59 per cent. in West Yorkshire. The result of the Secretary of State's stopper is that the PTAs are forced by the Government to levy higher rates to pay for the Government's own policies, which will mean worse services.
    The Transport Act 1985 removes passenger transport from the long-held status of a strategic national industry and relegates it to a use-it-or-lose-it activity. If current Government thinking is correct, the rest of the developed world is incorrect. No other Government in the developed world are prepared to subject the business of moving millions of people every day of the week to the inconsistencies of market forces.
    Mr. Rob Hayward: I believe that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that no other country in the developed world would do that. What is happening in Japan, which is privatising the whole railway system and has already privatised the underground system?
    Mr. Stott: Privatisation is different. We are talking about deregulation. No other country in the world is embarking upon leaving the mass movement of people to the vagaries of the free market. They all recognise the sense of a regulated transport system.
    Until the Transport Act 1985, the United Kingdom was beginning to catch up with the rest of the world in the provision of mass transit systems. Unfortunately, some areas of Britain had a woefully inadequate transport provision, but overall we were beginning to get it right. We were beginning to set in hand plans for mass transit systems that would take us into the next century, building on the successes of the Tyne and Wear metro and the many and varied innovations that have been pioneered by the GLC, the NBC and the PTAs.
    But along came old Nick, dragging the rotting corpse of Adam Smith behind him and eulogising those burnt-out ideas whose time has been and gone. The Secretary of State has been tearing down the safety net of social provision and replacing it with the vagaries of the free market.
    One of the most emancipating elements in the lives of ordinary people is the ability to be mobile. The provision of a regulated, integrated, inexpensive public transport
    234
    system has the support of millions of British people. They may not be completely wedded to Socialism, but the vast majority of them care about and will vote for and demand fairness for all, not a free-for-all. That is where the Government have made their biggest mistake. Public transport cannot be auctioned off in the market place. Public transport is an integral and necessary part of the nation's social provision.
    For most of the country, Sunday 26 October will be the day that the clocks are put back one hour. For the bus industry and its passengers it will be the day that the Secretary of State turns back the clock 56 years. British summer time ends on 26 October. The public transport winter replaces it. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite are laughing about that, I have to tell them that on 8 May this year the people of the United Kingdom, when they vote in the municipal elections, will give the Secretary of State the biggest trampling that he has ever had.
    7.40 pm
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `congratulates the Government on its radical approach to the long standing problems of public transport, its determination to obtain value for money and its introduction of policies of competition and deregulation for the benefit of the passenger which are based upon choice, freedom and fairness to improve the quality of life for the whole community and particularly for those who depend entirely upon public transport.'.
    That was an extraordinary outburst from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). I suppose that it is part of the new caring initiative that we have read about in the Financial Times. If so, I advise the hon. Gentleman to try again. It was not very good. His motion speaks of the crisis in public transport. I agree with the Opposition that there has indeed been a crisis with a reduction in services and higher fares, and subsidies spiralling out of control. Subsidies rose from £269 million in 1974 to £558 million in 1984, at constant 1984 prices, and over the same period services fell by 12 per cent. The crisis was the result of years of regulation, restriction, integration and socialism, and what I can now only call Stottism.
    We are putting in place the solution of deregulation, competition and privatisation. We are setting operators free to provide the services that customers want. Competition makes operators efficient and makes them provide passengers with the quality of service they want. So I am glad to be able to tell the House that the crisis is ending.
    Let us look at what has happened. First, London Regional Transport. There is no crisis here. The improvement in efficiency and in service to the public is truly remarkable. I remember that when the London Regional Transport Bill was being debated, the Bill's critics went on about fares rising 20 per cent. above the rate of inflation, 33 tube stations closing, 34 bus routes being withdrawn—remember the advertisement "Come in No. 9, your time is up"?—and concessionary fares coming to an end. I wonder how they dare return to this subject this evening. The hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) do not dare come to the House. They are not here, and I do not wonder about that either.
    Fares have not gone above inflation, no tube stations have been shut, and bus mileage was trimmed by a tiny 2 per cent. to match supply with demand. The No. 9 still

    235
    runs. The present level of service will be maintained, as the decline in bus patronage has now been arrested. Londoners still enjoy concessionary fares.
    Mr. Don Dixon: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why, when the London Regional Transport Bill was in Committee, he included a clause providing concessionary passes for pensioners in London, but refused to put a similar section in the Transport Act 1985 which would have safeguarded concessionary passes for pensioners throughout the country?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman now knows that that clause was not necessary, because the boroughs have since come together to provide slightly better schemes than were provided by the GLC.
    My predictions of possible cost savings, which were pooh-poohed by the Opposition, were, I fear, wrong. The late unlamented GLC proposed to increase revenue subsidy for London Transport from the £190 million that it had planned for 1984–85 to £245 million by 1987–88. These enormous sums would have had to be found by the ratepayers and taxpayers on top of the cost of capital, which is provided as a grant to London Regional Transport, not a loan. The House will want to hear these figures.
    LRT's performance has shown that subsidies at these levels are not necessary. I set Dr. Bright and his colleagues tough managerial objectives. Unit costs were to be reduced each year by at least 2·5 per cent. in real terms, fares were to be stable in real terms, investment in the system was to be increased, and revenue subsidies were to be halved in three years so that they would be no more than £95 million by 1987–88. In every respect LRT has hit or beaten my targets. LRT has published an estimate of its revenue deficit for 1985–86. At £109 million it is a remarkable £81 million less than the GLC's plans for the previous year—an enormous saving. For the present financial year, 1986–87, the estimated deficit falls still further to £79 million, which is about £150 million less revenue for ratepayers and taxpayers to find.
    These figures are not the product of creative accounting, a concept which I prefer to leave to the GLC. They result from a continuing and relentless attack on waste and inefficiency. That will continue to lift the burden from the shoulders of ratepayers and taxpayers. We may soon see the total elimination of revenue subsidy in London, if London Regional Transport continues as it has begun. This would mean a saving of £245 million a year for Londoners compared to the GLC's plans. Those are dramatic figures, and they demonstrate the total hollowness of the Opposition's arguments against the London Regional Transport Act 1984.
    The grant for capital investment has increased from £150 million for 1984–85 to £216 million in the current year. We invest in the future; the GLC subsidised the past. We are seeing the rapid development of an efficient and attractive public transport system in London. I stress the word "attractive". Patronage is booming, the Underground had its busiest year ever last year and services are being increased by 3 per cent. The long-run decline in bus travel is halting. Contrary to what was alleged yesterday at Question Time, the waiting times and the speed and performance of London's buses are the same as they have been for the last three years. No cuts overall are planned
    236
    in the service but London Regional Transport is quite rightly systematically changing the pattern of services to meet what people actually want. To speak of a crisis in London's public transport is to turn the English language on its head. The fact that LRT is doing so well shows what a determined management can do when faced with a challenge. The next step is for London buses to face the rigours, and the stimulus, of bus deregulation in London. That is the best way to ensure lasting reductions in subsidy and improvements in services.
    Next, long-distance coaches. Again, there is no crisis here. Hundreds of new services have started—over 900 have started and 700 of those are still in business—since the deregulation of long-distance express coaches. The number of passengers carried on the NBC's national express services has increased by about 50 per cent.
    Fares have been reduced in real terms. On some important routes, notably London to Exeter and London to Newcastle, they are lower in cash terms now than they were six years ago.
    Equally striking is the improved quality of coach services—the national express rapide services and the numerous luxury commuter services bear elegant witness to that. Passengers have made it clear that they want quality and are prepared to pay for it—in a deregulated industry, operators provide the kind of service that passengers want.
    Then railways. For the longer distance there is now competition between rail, air, coach and car. Inter-city is gradually "getting there". We have worked to ensure that it becomes both unsubsidised and competitive. The impact of competition has already brought benefits to rail travellers. Attractive cheap fare offers have been developed. High quality executive Pullman services are offering new standards of service. Contracting out is going to lead to higher standards of catering and cleaning. Intercity is able to plan for new rolling stock within its financial resources. Electrification of services to Norwich will soon be completed. The east coast main line electrification, the biggest railway investment project for 25 years, is now under way.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Many of us agree that inter-city services are excellent, but what about those clapped-out diesel engines that are often used on inter-city services from various stations, such as York, Peterborough and Edinburgh? Those of us who use inter-city services a lot know that British Rail has a heck of a problem with those diesels that are rather ancient. Can the Secretary of State say anything about investment plans?
    Mr. Ridley: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we are catching up with the appalling neglect and backlog of under-investment under the last Labour Administration. In a moment I shall have something to say about investment in railways, when I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman's point.
    I admit that there are many railway services that will always run at a loss and require Government support. The public service obligation grant for this year is about £830 million. Even here there has been a remarkable turnround in value for money. Over the past three years British Rail has been able to reduce its dependence on PSO grant by 25 per cent. Over £250 million at today's prices has been cut off the bill to the taxpayers. That has not been done by closures, which would deprive communities of rail

    237
    services, as Opposition scaremongers are always trying to make out. It has been done by effective management to improve efficiency.
    I pay tribute, as I hope Opposition Members will, to Sir Robert Reid and his board for what they have achieved. Contrary to the popular myth, this success has not led to a fall in the standard of the services offered. The chairman told the Select Committee on Transport two weeks ago that the financial targets need not undermine, and have not undermined, the quality of service on the railway.
    Mr. Stott: If that is the case, can the Minister explain what I know from personal experience? I get the train from Wigan to London every week. This year, apart from two occasions, that train has been woefully bad at time keeping. If the Secretary of State were to catch a train and to walk into a second-class compartment, he would find it heaving with people. People have to stand almost all the way from Wigan to Westminster. That is a consequence of British Rail policy. That is what people have to put up with.
    Mr. Ridley: One of the worst features of some hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Wigan, is the use of their personal travelling experiences to make a general case.
    Mr. Stott: When does the Secretary of State travel? What is his experience?
    Mr. Ridley: As a frequent train traveller, I have had experiences which have been just as unfortunate as those of other hon. Gentlemen. I keep them to myself and do not direct them into public complaints, as the hon. Gentleman has sought to do.
    I accept that there are areas where the board is not yet achieving its quality targets. That concedes the hon. Gentleman's point to some extent. We shall ask British Rail to look for improvements for the travelling public. For example, punctuality still needs to be improved. Improvements in quality are important. I shall be discussing with the chairman of the board what needs to be done as we work towards agreeing objectives for the next few years.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend not pleased to note that we have now reached a situation where he, as a Conservative Minister, is congratulating a nationalised industry, and the Labour party, which is supposed to support nationalised industry, can do nothing but knock it?
    Mr. Ridley: I hope that Opposition Members soon will be pressing for the privatisation of the railways.
    Improved efficiency on the railways has made it possible to authorise an increasing level of investment, which is the answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). British Rail plans to spend over £2 billion over the next five years, more than half of which is already authorised. What better demonstration could there be that improved costs and efficiency are the way to the high-quality, modern railway that we want? So there is no crisis there either.
    The hon. Member for Wigan was less than fair to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in passing to him the poisoned chalice. The hon. Member for Aberdeen will not be able to answer. If he likes, I shall give him a note of the answer.
    Next, buses, where Opposition hopes of a crisis are looking dimmer every day. The first of the benefits of
    238
    deregulation and competition, which the Transport Act has brought, are already to be seen in many towns where the National Bus Company has introduced minibuses. At the beginning of 1984, as a response to the new policy, the NBC introduced a fleet of minibuses into Exeter to provide a flexible, high frequency service. In the first year alone it reported a 60 per cent. increase in passenger traffic on the same routes, with the minibuses carrying some people who had previously used cars. Loss was turned to profit and more people were employed. Now I believe that patronage has increased by nearly three times.
    Minibuses for Exeter led the way. There are now about 1,000 in Worcester, Cheltenham, Oxford, Norwich, Leicester and many other towns, and I understand that they are coming into London soon. The list is growing all the time as more and more NBC subsidiaries see the scope for serving passengers and turning losses into profit.
    Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I was told today that there will be an estimated 19,000 redundancies in the National Bus Company. Is that fact or fiction?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. There have been 20,000 redundancies in the National Bus Company over the past 10 years. That is what the hon. Gentleman must be thinking of. That is the problem with which we seek to deal.
    The success of minibuses shows the scope for the bus industry to operate profitably and to expand. It proves that there is room for innovation and that passengers can be tempted away from other forms of transport. The Transport Act gives all operators, not just the NBC, the incentive to examine their services, to find out what passengers want and to provide it. If they do not, a competitor will.
    The implementation of the Act has started well, despite the hopes of Opposition Members. Alarmists and irresponsible people like the hon. Member for Wigan have been up to their usual scaremongering tactics. In the last few weeks they have put about claims that bus services will be drastically reduced because they have not all been registered. The hon. Gentleman was at it again this evening. In fact, by the end of February, some 15,000 commercial services had been registered, representing about 75 per cent. of the existing network. The hon. Gentleman said it was 68 per cent. for Manchester. It is a revelation that 75 per cent. of the services have been registered, because nearly all those services were being subsidised previously. Now it turns out that those services did not need subsidy. Is that not another astonishing result that has come already from the Transport Act?
    The most irresponsible lie is that those registered commercial services are the end of the story. The hon. Gentleman was trying to say so again this evening. When he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, he admitted that that was not what he had meant. He had left out the vital part which makes it clear that other services will run after deregulation. Local authorities have both the power and the money to subsidise those additional services which they believe will be necessary to meet local needs. This scare, too, is typical of the Labour party. We saw it with coaches, with LRT and with concessionary fares.
    The decision about which local services to subsidise is, as the House knows, for local authorities. We have increased the provision for local public transport support

    239
    outside London from £247 million in the last financial year to £273 million in 1986–87. That is an increase of 10 per cent.—substantially more than the rate of inflation. So there is more money than there was last year. The consequences are reflected in the local authority rate support grant totals.
    The Opposition keep suggesting that the new passenger transport authorities will not have adequate resources for public transport subsidies. The hon. Member for Wigan was at it again today. Let me give him some figures. Let us take South Yorkshire as an example. Public transport subsidy in 1986–87, after redetermination, will still be about £40 per head. That may be a reduction of one third on last year's figures, but it is still far in excess of the amounts of subsidy paid in the shires, which averaged about £5 per head last year, and were below £2 in Somerset. Are we seriously asked to believe that an authority spending £40 for every man, woman and child in its area, cannot fill the gaps in its public transport operation? If authorities cannot provide the necessary socially desirable services with that kind of money, something is wrong with them. Talk of massive cuts in local services is, quite frankly, rubbish.
    Public transport subsidy—excluding redundancy payments—in the metropolitan districts next year is likely to average about £30 per head compared to a figure of about £5 in the shires. That suggests that there is considerable scope for further cuts in future, reducing the heavy burden on ratepayers, which I am conscious still remains, and to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Finally, on the question of concessionary fares, we were told when the Bill was going through that it would be the end of concessionary fares as we know them, passes would be replaced by tokens, and authorities would find it impossible to administer schemes applying to all the operators who would be providing the services once deregulation had set them free. This further campaign of scaremongering was intended to play upon the fears of the most vulnerable people in the community—the old and the handicapped.
    In fact, many county councils have announced plans for schemes applying to the whole of their area. They include Essex, Kent and Lancashire—three of the largest counties in the country. I understand that in Lancashire the scheme will cover all the eight districts in the county which have their own transport companies. Similarly Derbyshire, where considerable doubts were expressed about the effects of deregulation on concessionary fares, has now announced a scheme for half-fare passes covering the whole of the county area. We said that the Bill would give authorities flexibility to make suitable arrangements, and we have been proved right. We have also made allowances for the changes introduced by the Act by the increase of 13 per cent. in provision for expenditure on this item.
    In the metropolitan counties, we were told that existing schemes would collapse with abolition. But we took full account of the cost of existing concessionary fare schemes in setting maximum precept levels. In the event, five out of the six joint boards in England have maintained their schemes for elderly and disabled people practically unchanged. The sixth—South Yorkshire—has decided to introduce a small standing fare of 5p per journey.
    In London, as I predicted, the boroughs have agreed to continue the existing arrangements for concessionary
    240
    travel in 1986–87 without resort to the statutory reserve scheme. I think that the scares about travel concessions were particularly mean and many old people have been unnecessarily worried. These fears were groundless, deliberate and mischievous, and I hope that the Opposition will suffer grievously from peddling such rubbish.
    To sum all this up, service has improved on coach, rail, underground and bus. Fares have been held at their real value, and in some cases reduced. Concessionary fare schemes have been maintained. The annual savings to the public purse from reduced revenue subsidies to London Regional Transport and BR are already about £350 million—with more to come in the future, including a contribution from buses. This has enabled increased investment to take place in the public transport industries. I am proud of this record.
    The only crisis that we witness today is the crisis of a Labour party which has no new ideas, as the hon. Gentleman amply demonstrated in his speech.
    I regard the Opposition motion as impertinent, and I ask the House to pass the amendment and to reject the motion with contumely.
    8.4 pm
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I think that the Secretary of State has some justification for his remarks on British Rail. He was however, pretty selective in his statistics relating to London Regional Transport, to which I shall return later.
    It is a tragedy for the country that our public transport policies have become so politically controversial. It is therefore important that the Select Committee on Transport—I note that at least two, and perhaps three members of the Committee, of which I am a member, are present in the Chamber—should try to find some common ground as it undertakes its current investigation into the financing of the public transport services. So far we have been examining the railways and interrogating members of the British Railways Board and departmental officials. We are also looking at new developments, including the so-called Pacer and Sprinter trains, tomorrow morning.
    My current view is that, slowly and surely, the railways are getting themselves out of the mire. The coal strike was of course a major setback. Permission for new capital programmes such as the east coast main line, Bournemouth-Weymouth, East Anglia, and Hastings has been forthcoming, and we have to say that correctly and truthfully.
    Many of our stations, particularly the London terminals are becoming what they always should have been, busy, clean and quite exciting places providing some excellent facilities. One has only to look at Victoria or Waterloo to see what changes have taken place. I think that it is absolutely tragic that that lovely station at Great Malvern, which has just been done up, should have been damaged by fire the other day. British Rail is looking at some of its masterpieces, and that is one of them.
    A promise has also been given in the House that extra capital resources will be made available to the railways to take proper advantage of the Channel tunnel development. This should provide a massive stimulus for the railway network if enthusiastically pursued.
    I was in Fort William the other day and had the wonderful experience of seeing the integrated system whereby the Wiggins Teape mill is sending its paper by

    241
    rail from Fort William to arrive south of London next morning. Wiggins Teape exports to the Common Market and it could take advantage of the arrangement by sending its paper to Italy or to Austria. But it is when we compare our standards with those of our Common Market neighbours that we realise how far still our railways have to go. New rolling stock is desperately needed, particularly on the southern region. What will happen—perhaps the Minister will deal with this—if British Rail Engineering Ltd. abandons Eastleigh, as is now rumoured? Surely we need to sustain a major railway workshop in the south.
    Sir Robert Reid's article in The House Magazine, and his evidence to the Select Committee, were optimistic. Despite the continuing high levels of investment that is needed, he feels he can keep within the tough PSO limits. It is true that productivity has risen, as has passenger volume, and for this achievement I bow to management and unions. I think that both are to be congratulated. They have shown common sense, the results of which are now beginning to be revealed.
    I should like to see a moratorium on all closures for at least three years, and a continuing exploitation of the capital assets of the railways. With regard to the stations, for instance, much more can be done and more thought could be given to streamlining ticketing. It is at that point that delays occur which lead to people occasionally missing trains.
    I oppose the possible loss of the Settle-Carlisle line, England's most dramatic railway. British Rail itself has shown that it is possible to make a line profitable if one exploits the scenic beauty. In this case, it has made a profit of £1 million. There is surely a case for a heritage grant to restore and maintain the line.
    I would want reconsideration of the closure of Marylebone station, which is now regularly used for steam excursions to Stratford-on-Avon and elsewhere. We urgently require a new coach station in north London, but why must it Marylebone?
    Much improved rail links are needed to our principal airports. This comes high on my list. More and faster inter-city cross-country trains are also needed. There is a need for the link between the Midland and Southern via Snow hill to be rapidly built. I want to see the docklands light railway integrated with the Waterloo and City line.
    I would like to see a moving belt for heavy luggage at certain stations. Why cannot we do what the Danes do? I saw such a belt when the Select Committee visited Ejsborg recently. At Portsmouth harbour, moving belts on the platform to take luggage down on to the boats would help elderly people with their cases. Such facilities would improve people's travelling.
    We also want a more forthcoming and helpful work force. That is happening. Trains on the Portsmouth line do not now shut their buffet cars at Haslemere; they are open all the way to Portsmouth, which is encouraging. People are talking to us and saying nice things over the radio. Things are beginning to happen, so let us keep that up, but we also want flexibility from the Government.
    However, I do not take the same rosy view of the bus industry as does the Secretary of State—to me its future is bleak. It is clear that a substantial number of rural routes may disappear or require high subsidies if they are to remain open. Surely this exercise, which has totally missed out, was to encourage the entrepreneurs to register routes. Where are they? They have not appeared.
    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh yes they have.
    Mr. Ross: There are three in my constituency, and I can tell the House exactly who they are.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The Wyre borough has a very imaginative scheme, including school buses and taxis. It will work very well in the rural areas.
    Mr. Ross: We have heard that in Manchester the figure is 4 per cent. outside of the National Bus Company. It is less than that in my constituency. Two of the routes registered are exactly what we expected—one a taxi company that will run hourly on the most profitable routes, and the other a coach company that will run its coaches two minutes before the NBC runs its buses.
    One scheme that I very much welcome is from a hotel that will run a minibus service to a railway station. For years I have been trying to persuade the bus company to do that, and it is now thinking of doing so. However, that is the only good thing to have come out of the exercise.
    We have been given some statistics already. I understand that in Clwyd 65 per cent. of routes have been registered, while in Gwynedd the figure is 60 per cent. In my part of the world 85 per cent. have been registered, but there is little competition. Where is it? I do not want to tread on the ground of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), but I understand that Manchester will have a shortfall of at least £10 million, and perhaps even £15 million, to cover the services that will now have to be subsidised due to other expenses falling upon it. It will also have some competition on the Glossop-Manchester line, where a bus service has been registered. In Ryedale and West Derby some rural services may disappear.
    I have to tell the Secretary of State that many of the minibuses appeared not after the 1985 Act, but before it—largely because of the withdrawal of the bus grants. That is why, at long last, other methods of transporting people are being considered, and I welcome that. It is too early to say with any certainty how it will all pan out in the end. The traffic commissioners are inundated with work, and some of the documentation is faulty. It is becoming obvious that there will be future problems with the Act.
    The Secretary of State gave certain assurances that management-worker buy-out schemes would be given priority, but it now appears that they may not have that opportunity. I want to question the right hon. Gentleman on that issue while I have the opportunity. Will he give management-work force bids priority? In early press releases he said that he was hoping that such bids would come forward, and indicated that they would he considered sympathetically. Do they now have to compete with open market bids?
    We have suffered under Sealink, and I do not want the bus company in the Isle of Wight bought by the same gentleman because that would be an absolute disaster. There would be a total monopoly. I know that the management and work force have put in a bid, and I hope that they will be given every opportunity to succeed. After all, the Secretary of State has strongly indicated that such bids would be sympathetically considered, but it now appears that they will have to compete with bids from the private sector. It could be that some will miss out, which would be disastrous for constituencies such as mine.

    243
    If bus subsidiaries fall into the wrong hands, that could create monopolies, and the Secretary of State must protect us against that. It is tragic that by his total commitment to market forces, fine systems like the Tyne and Wear metro are put at risk—
    Mr. Ridley: No, it is not.
    Mr. Ross: Of course it is put at risk.
    Cross-country timetabling on buses will become almost impossible. I can go into my local inquiry office and find out how to go to Bournemouth and then on to Dorchester on a bus. That will not happen in future because no one will know what services are running. Travel cards and through ticketing will be highly unlikely. I have experience of that—I am still arguing with British Rail and Sealink. They withdrew the concessions for the disabled, the forces and students. They have returned the concession to the disabled, but not to the others. That hurts in my constituency. At the end of the day, the local authorities will take all the blame if the routes do not run. That is what always happens.
    The Secretary of State has a great deal of personal responsibility in London. I travel by bus every day, and frequently travel on the underground. Returns may be marginally higher, but the service has certainly deteriorated. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a 30p ticket on the 507 bus has risen to 40p—a 30 per cent. increase? That is far more than the rate of inflation. Some underground lines are no longer running as far as they used to run—for example, those to Uxbridge in peak periods. The Bakerloo line is cutting back all the time.
    The only good news of late is that Westminster city council has decided to keep most of its bus lanes, despite all the criticism from another place. I am sure that it is right to do so. All the buses seem to be for sightseeing tours; too few of them pick up passengers at the bus stops, so there are long queues. Quite frankly, the criticisms of the bus lanes are wholly wrong.
    I find it difficult to support either the motion or the amendment. I cannot support the Labour motion, but then I cannot support the Government amendment either. I tabled an amendment but it was not called. However, I believe that my amendment is nearer right than wrong, and that it will be proved right at the end of the day.
    8.16 pm
    Mr. Rob Hayward: I have listened to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) during other debates. I had the fortune, or perhaps misfortune, to listen to him on many occasions during the debates on the Telecommunications Bill, so his scaremongering this evening came as no surprise to me. During the proceedings on that Bill we were told that it would lead to no public telephone boxes, no rural services, no services for the disabled, no directory facilities, and so on. Wat has happened? Two years after the Bill was enacted, we have all those services, and most of them have improved. It therefore came as no surprise to listen to yet another torrent of scaremongering tonight—it has happened over and over again in transport debates.
    It was significant that the hon. Member for Wigan made reference to no other form of transport than buses. He made no reference to coaches, to railways, or to any modern developments such as the docklands railway. Why
    244
    not? It is because during the past two, three or four years, Opposition Members have persistently set about using scaremongering tactics. As each piece of legislation has passed through the House, we have been told that services would disappear. At every Third Reading we are told that either long-distance coaches, London transport, or any service one chooses to mention will disappear. What is the truth? Anyone travelling on the M4 knows that he can hardly move in the inside or second lanes because of the number of coaches. Such services take a fair amount of time to develop. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) may say that they are not there now, but people have to develop the expertise. The entrepreneurs do not spring up immediately; it takes time. That is precisely what has happened to the coach services.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quoted costs for the ordinary passenger. People now have an alternative. It is no longer a case of take British Rail or leave it and do not come to London. People regularly use coach services because they prefer them. That pressure is applied to British Rail, and I welcome the improvement in its services as a result. It is now recognising that passengers have an alternative.
    When I first entered the House, there were scaremongering stories about the Serpell report. There have been three speeches in the debate so far, but no reference to the Serpell report, yet in 1983 it was the talk of the Opposition Benches. It was another general election scare.
    I also disagree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about services in London. If they are deteriorating as he suggests, why are more and more people using the underground and buses? That is happening, despite the fact that inner London has a progressively declining—and in some areas a rapidly declining—population. All the population statistics show that there should be a progressively diminishing use of bus and underground services. However, the long-term decline on the buses has been halted and the number of people using the underground has risen.
    Is it not significant that there is only one London Member in the Chamber this evening? Surely, if, as has been predicted so often in debates, this Government's schemes would be a disaster for London Regional Transport, Labour Members would be lining up to cite examples of complaints about the No. 12 bus, the underground services to Cockfosters or the west end of London, or services anywhere else. Instead, such examples are notably absent.
    It is really amazing that the scaremongering tactics continue. This evening we have heard that the next case will be that of buses. People genuinely fear the future and change, but change need not necessarily be revolutionary: it can be evolutionary.
    Reference has been made to minibus services.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: I represent a constituency in South Yorkshire, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Earlier, we heard the Minister talking nonsense. After the introduction of our policy, which he criticised, the votes increased at every election. I ask the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) about private ownership. Hon. Members talk about private ownership of transport as though it is new. The municipalisation of transport came about because of the total failure of private

    245
    ownership of the railways, buses, trams and so on. Therefore, there is nothing new about privatisation; it is an old idea and it has failed.
    Mr. Hayward: I am pleased to say that I am not aware that any hon. Member's children were educated by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), because he has an interesting interpretation of history. The decision to nationalise British Rail and municipalise the bus services immediately after the war stems from a political viewpoint with which I happen to disagree and with which he agrees. The decision resulted not from complete failure one way or the other, but from a difference of political viewpoint and should not be interpreted otherwise.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wigan has left the Chamber, because I wish to refer to developments in Avon, an area he knows well. Reference has already been made to minibus services. There were previously extremely few minibus services around the country; they could almost be counted on the fingers of one hand. Under the catalyst of the recently passed Transport Act, we have seen the blossoming of such services throughout the country.
    Mr. Flannery: Where?
    Mr. Hayward: In Bristol, in the county of Avon—to the extent that the evening newspaper the other day carried a full page article under the headline, "Bullseye! Bus is on target". What a change for a headline to say that a bus service is on time. The reason is that minibuses have been introduced throughout Bristol.
    The article states:
    "The fleet started operating in February and the City Line bus company soon declared them a success, with a 20 per cent. increase in passengers recorded."
    That has happened in only two months. The buses are serving roads which in my constituency have never had a bus service. Pensioners, who were being frightened by Labour party spokesmen, can now get on and off buses outside their own doors. Previously they had to walk a quarter of a mile or half a mile to get on a large, almost immovable, double decker service, which could not go down the side streets. Now pensioners are lauding the service over and over again. The sub-heading to the article is: "Have a good day? We certainly did". The article is written not by bus operators or Tory Central Office but by the reporters from the Bristol Evening Post who travelled on the buses.
    Another such article states:
    "As we got off the bus, three people refused to get on as it would have meant standing. But they were happy to wait on the stop, confident in the knowledge that another would be along in a minute."
    When was something like that last written by a reporter about any municipal bus service or rail service? That is the sort of change that has taken place in my area and other areas of the country.
    Mr. Ridley: I was told by the National Bus Company that it was the prospect of the ending of network subsidy that made it conclude that it was necessary in the first place to try minibuses.
    Mr. Hayward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. I referred to it as a catalyst. There is no doubt that it acted as a substantial catalyst to move bus companies to provide a service that people want to and do use.
    246
    What I also find depressing about the speech of the hon. Member for Wigan is that he did not refer to future investment. He said nothing about the docklands light railway or developments in terms of future services, electrification or improvement in rolling stock on British Rail. I support very strongly the development of the docklands light railway, as it is a long-overdue innovation. It will afford the opportunity for large numbers of jobs to be created in an area of London that currently has high unemployment. I want to put on record my hope that the City of London corporation does not oppose the light railway to the point where it becomes impossible to develop. Such a development will be to the benefit of the people in that area, in terms not only of employment but of transport.
    I believe that the public transport services in this country are not adequate at present but they are improving. Over the past few years, substantial changes haze taken place. I welcome them, as I believe that the public generally welcome them, which is why people increasingly use these services.
    8.26 pm
    Mr. David Marshall: Last year, according to Ministers and supporters, the 1985 Transport Act would lead to lower fares, better services and many more jobs being created. Many Labour Members took a vastly different view. In fairness, at this time, it is still as difficult as ever to state with absolute certainty what the final outcome of the Act w ill be. However, I believe that some chickens have come home to roost when it comes to jobs.
    I accept that in the short term in many areas there will be lower fares and better services, but only in the short term. That situation will not last long. After the initial battles have been fought and won there will he a return to the present fares level, and perhaps even higher fares. Many services will disappear or will be drastically curtailed, and frequencies will be substantially reduced so that the companies will be able to stay in business.
    I declare an interest as a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I will confine most of what I say to the Scottish situation, with special emphasis on the Strathclyde region and Glasgow.
    Earlier this month my hon. Friends the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and myself met the directors of Strathclyde passenger transport executive to discuss the transport situation in the region and in the city of Glasgow. It is perfectly clear that tremendous problems confront the PTE as a result of the 1985 Act. Because of this the travelling public of Strathclyde, which has half of Scotland's population, will also face tremendous problems.
    Present financial support from Strathclyde regional council for bus services operated by the PTE is about £8 million per annum, yet the 1985 Act requires the newly formed company to be viable year by year and only allows for the company to be funded on one occasion after reconstitution, with approval having to be given by the Secretary of State. Any further loss in any given year could give rise to the company being put into receivership. Presumably if that ever happened it would be swallowed up for a song by some asset-stripping entrepreneur. Even more restrictive is the fact that any proposal to the

    247
    Secretary of State showing a predicted loss will be rejected out of hand, and the new company will not be allowed to commence trading.
    The tremendous problem facing the PTE as a result of all this is perhaps best illustrated by stating that £1 million represents the average wage of approximately 100 employees or 2 million passengers carried for a 50p fare. If those figures are multiplied by eight, one can see the full horror of the scenario now facing Strathclyde PTE. Given the short amount of time available for the submission of a business plan, the end result has been the submission of a plan that means the closure of two garages—leaving only four garages in Glasgow—and the prospect of 574 redundancies in August and September. That is just for starters in an area that already has unacceptably high unemployment.
    A breakdown of those redundancies shows that 113 redundancies will be made in management and administration, 18 among engineering supervisors, 30 among inspectors, 171 among traffic staff, 125 among craftsmen, 84 among manual workers and 33 others. That represents a reduction in the number of employees from 3,247 to 2,673. Thus, 574 jobs are being thrown down the drain for no good reason. Where are most of those good people going to find jobs, particularly in Scotland? There is nowhere for them to go and there are no jobs for them to find. They have just been thrown on the scrapheap.
    One of the most objectionable aspects of the Act is that Strathclyde PTE and the other municipal operators in Scotland—in Grampian, Lothian and Tayside—are apparently being set up with a substantial compulsory form of debt, in order to prevent unfair competition with small operators. But as far as I am aware no such strictures are being imposed on the Scottish Bus Group. Yet compared with it, the PTE and others are very small. The PTE will operate about 560 peak-hour buses as against about 3,000 operated by the Scottish Bus Group. The bus group is really 11 separate companies, yet it is collectively one operator as far as competitive legislation is concerned. It will be able to have common ticketing, co-ordinated fares and other things that other companies will not be able to have. In addition, it has the tremendous advantage of having built up very substantial resources over the years, which it will be able to use to wage a low fares policy in an attempt to eliminate or take over its competitors' services.
    It is significant that the National Bus Company in England has not been given similar advantages, as far as I am aware, over its competitors. Why has the Scottish Bus Group been treated so favourably compared with every other operator in Scotland and England? The intention is simple. It is that the bus group should be able to gobble up as much as it can of Scotland's bus services. In a year or two it will then be privatised and sold off by the Government.
    Another nauseous aspect of the Act is its affect on employees, and in particular on their pensions. It is true, as Ministers said at the time, that existing employees may have their pensions protected. For example, Strathclyde PTE has made an application for admission to the local government superannuation scheme. But the business plan that has been prepared and submitted states that the preferred option for new employees is for a new superannuation scheme, which is extremely unlikely to be
    248
    capable of providing similar benefits. What a way to treat workers who will be doing the same job of work side by side, but who will be subject to two different types of pension scheme.
    In order to remain in business, many companies will be tempted to pay lower wages and to attack bus workers' wages and conditions. The Act could well have been devised to facilitate greater exploitation of workers by their employers. Perhaps that was the motive for it.
    I understand that 75 per cent. of existing services in Scotland have been registered and that the Scottish Bus Group has registered 81 per cent. of its services.
    That is an indication of how it intends to operate. But in the Highland region only 20 per cent. of existing services have been registered. How does the Minister explain that away? How will Highland region be able to subsidise the tendered services necessary to maintain a semblance of its existing services?
    Mr. David Mitchell: Where has the money been coming from to provide services on loss-making routes in that area?
    Mr. Marshall: I assume that the local authority has taken a positive decision to subsidise socially desirable and essential services. There is nothing wrong with that. It is both acceptable and desirable. But it will be impossible to do that to anything like the same extent in future, because the money will not be available.
    I do not know whether my next observation will prove true of other cities, but as a result of the Act, there will be utter chaos in Glasgow city centre. Is the Minister aware that in peak hours the number of buses using Argyll street, one of the busiest in Glasgow, will increase from 100 to 168 per hour? In Union street, the number will increase from 120 to 295 per hour, and in Hope street it will increase from 180 to a massive 309 per hour. That is only for the services that are already registered. As those three streets link up in the centre of the city, hon. Members can imagine the traffic jams that there will be. The city centre will come to a standstill. Timetables will mean nothing and utter chaos will result. The city will not be able to cope.
    The sad thing is that there will be no overall benefit to the bus operators, because there just are not enough passengers to fill those buses, or even to half-fill them. Many of the people will not be prepared to sit and wait for the amount of time that it will take to make even a short journey. It just will not work.
    There is great cause for concern about the position of British Rail in Strathclyde. It cannot plan ahead or estimate what effect bus deregulation will have on its income. A catastrophic drop in income, which could happen almost overnight, would mean many hundreds of extra redundancies. As Robbie Burns, the Scottish bard, once said:
    "Forward tho' I cannae see,
    I dread and fear."
    That admirably sums up the public transport situation.
    What is the Minister's assessment of the Act's effect on ferry services? He has now had enough time to assess the position. I can foresee many of the services that at present feed into the ferry services no longer operating. If the ferries become non-viable, will they be withdrawn, and will the islands be left with much more restricted services?

    249
    Deregulation day may be 26 October, but 26 January 1987 is an even more important day. We will then see just how many registered services are withdrawn after the initial three-month registration period. We will then see the full extent of the crisis in our public transport services as a result of the Act. As I have said, some chickens have already come home to roost. Thousands of jobs have been sacrificed on the altar of Tory party ideology. In the long term, no great benefit will accrue to the travelling public, although there may be short-term benefits. Yet again, the victims will be the most needy members of our society: the unemployed, the elderly, the young, the handicapped, the disabled, the non-drivers and the non-car owners. The Act must be committed to the wastebin by the next Labour Government.
    8.37 pm
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: One becomes accustomed to the hyperbole of motions, but I must comment on two aspects of today's motion. I could not help but smile at the reference to the abolition of the metropolitan councils. The Labour party has a cheek to insert that into the motion, as I believe that it is now in favour of their abolition and has no intention of reversing the clock. But I was also surprised to read of the
    "proven success of Labour transport policy".
    For most of the years between 1964 and 1979, a Labour Government had full responsibility, and the Opposition now have no right to lecture this Government on the problems of public transport.
    I wish to comment first on investment in road construction; secondly, on the disturbance from noise, vibration and other environmental disadvantages as a direct result of decisions taken by transport Ministers and, thirdly, on the impact of bus deregulation. I welcome the current substantial programme of road building and maintenance. It has been unfairly and unjustly under-played and unsung. It deserves all the praise that the House can give it.
    At the risk of being marginally parochial, I should like to comment on the current ministerial plans for the M42. Although this route may be primarily concerned with commercial transport, it has a direct impact on the motion because of the volume of public transport using the motorway. I understand that that motorway plans to deal with traffic flowing from the west midlands to the east and east coast ports. The perceived wisdom is that the M42 should join the M1 at exit 24. If one steps back a few paces and looks at the map of Britain, one sees clearly that there is no justification for that decision. If the traffic flows from the west midlands to the east coast ports on the Humber, it does not matter whether it joins the M1 at exits 23, 26 or even 27—the traffic would be moving north up the M1 and then to the Humberside ports. Traffic flowing to the growing ports on the East Anglian coast would wish to use exit 23 or lower exits because it would be travelling south of my home city of Nottingham. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look again at his plans for the M42 and exit 24.
    Let us assume that the proposal is cast in tablets of stone and that the link will be at exit 24. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider on commercial and public transport grounds the six-mile stretch from junction 24 to the Nottingham boundary. That single track, six-mile stretch passes the largest solid fuel power station in
    250
    Europe, and horrendous accidents occur on it. If there is to be a dual carriageway, I plead for dualling from junction 24 to the city boundary.
    Whether or not my hon. Friend duals that six-mile stretch, he is committed to a major trunk road improvement on the A453 just outside and within the Nottingham city boundaries. The decision affects the public transport provision. If the improvements on the A453 result in a dual carriageway through or around the large estate of Clifton, it will have an impact on what is almost a small town, because 30,000 people live in the Clifton-Wilford-Silverdale area of Nottingham.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the extra time he has allowed to consider the matter and to look carefully at the competing alternatives. I thank him also for acknowledging clearly from day one the need for a public inquiry. I ask him to assure those 30,000 people that the inquiry will be open and conducted without prejudice.
    We cannot separate the disturbance caused by commercial traffic and heavy public transport traffic in Greater Nottingham with an urban population of 550,000. I understand the problems—they concern the statute of limitations, or whatever the phrase is—caused by roads being built before a certain date when the affected population receives no help. It is clear that, if new improvements, widening or reconstruction affect people living nearby, they have redress in law to obtain soundproofing and the like.
    What is the position of people who live near a main road that carries much commercial and public transport traffic? What happens if that road existed before the Act provided protection? I draw the attention of the House to decisions made some miles away by Ministers of Transport which have a direct bearing on the environment and against which people have no protection. I draw attention to another parochial case concerning the Silverdale and Wilford estates in my constituency through which a dual carriageway passes. Only a few years ago, a decision was made to build a bypass loop road to the east of the city deliberately to bring large volumes of traffic on to the dual carriageway. The homes of people on the estates shake, even on Sunday morning, yet they are told that they have no protection in law because the road existed before the bypass. The bypass is five miles away and they therefore receive no compensation. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider this matter again.
    I turn to the main part of the debate—the impact of deregulation. Reference has already been made to deregulation of motorway coaches, and I should like to refer to buses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, rightly, that it would appear from initial registration that we are dealing with 75 per cent. commercially viable, free, stand-alone, unsubsidised public transport services. I am delighted, because that 75 per cent. is better than we had hoped. In Nottingham, despite the horror stories and scare tactics which hon. Members on both sides of the House have noted month after month, 97 per cent. of existing services have been registered by Nottingham City Transport plc—so much for the so-called decimation of public transport under the legislation.
    Mr. Richard Caborn: Now let us see it work.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Nottingham will make it work. In addition to the 97 per cent. registered by Nottingham

    251
    City Transport plc, one of the subsidiaries of the National Bus Company, Trent, has said that it, too, will take the opportunity to provide services into the city. The previous regulations did not allow it to do so.
    I again thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his treatment of concessionary fares. We have all heard the scare stories. My postbag is full of letters from elderly people who are terrified about what will happen when the legislation "stops" them from being given concessionary fares. It is clear that the concessionary fares scheme in Greater Nottingham will remain. Because other operators will be involved, the scheme will be even better. Unfortunately, that will be quickly forgotten. It is up to Conservative Members constantly to remind people of the shameful way in which the Opposition use every possible device—no matter how much anguish it causes the elderly—to peddle abuses.
    It is true that we have heard of loss of jobs. On paper—I say on paper—our undertaking will employ 100 fewer people than before. I stress that that is on paper because the staffing levels were something in excess of 1,100 persons. Of that so-called loss of 100 it transpires that 40 were unfilled vacancies and of the other 60, half have already been absorbed and the city will take the others, if necessary, into other jobs within the city council's employment. There is not the slightest risk of anybody being made redundant or the slightest difficulty in ensuring that everybody is employed. The 100 people that the new plc will not employ will mean lower costs.
    On the matter of socially desirable routes, it sounds as if there is only 3 per cent. to subsidise. To be fair, some of the 97 per cent. of registered routes may have a lower frequency. [Interruption.] I do not wish to mislead the House and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) should not be so juvenile. Within the existing budget of a city as large as Nottingham was £750,000 of blanket subsidy from the rates. All that will happen now is that that £750,000 will be used by careful, well targeted and specially allocated subsidies to tendered socially desirable routes. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) laughs. I challenge him to question me because that is the truth.
    The scare campaigns go on. The citizens in our area were told that the wicked Transport Bill would cost the poor ratepayer £2·6 million extra on the rates. The Minister already has the details. Every single item on the list is phoney, because it is there already. Whether that Bill had become law or not the expenditure would have been part of the city's expenses on such things as pensions, administration, concessionary fares, debt charges, holiday pay, children's fares, concessions to the blind and disabled and so on. Every one of those items was a legitimate charge before the Bill and it is a perfectly legitimate charge afterwards. Nothing has changed. That is the way the scare stories go on.
    I hope that when the population look at the way in which the Transport Act 1985 will work out, certainly in my area, they will realise what a con game was carried out by the Labour county council and the Labour city council and will realise that the Act is good for them because it puts the customer first, not the local authority.
    8.52 pm
    Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and the Secretary of State have alluded to what they claim to be a fictitious agitation and fear for the retention of free off-peak transport for old people in London and concessionary fares elsewhere. It was a legitimate fear. In fact, it was the most powerful lobby that London Members have experienced.
    For a long time, no assurances were given that the Government would seek to persuade local authorities to retain those concessions. If they were retained, it was as a result of a great deal of agitation and lobbying, mainly from the Labour movement and the Labour party. Those are the facts and most old people understand that in London and elsewhere. Therefore, the indignation we have heard is artificial.
    I bring to the debate a background, many years ago, as a railway worker. I am now sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and am currently the chairman of the TGWU group in Parliament, which is 31-strong. I speak with some authority on the feeling of the organised workers in the bus industry, other sectors of the transport industry and members of the TGWU. We organise over 90 per cent. of road traffic workers in public transport.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South about motorways and other major highways and about the safety of the transport sector which intertwines with the management and Government policies towards the nation's transport. Road haulage workers in the TGWU are responsible for the bulk of freight carried by road. They work by day and night. Their alertness at all times is vital to road safety, including passenger road safety. That is why the House must look with deep sympathy at their worry about the weakening of rest period provisions, which, although customary in the United Kingdom, are threatened from September by EEC regulations. Perhaps the Minister will mention that worry.
    The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) basically agrees with the Opposition's motion. He has agreed with members of the Select Committee on Transport on most of our criticisms of the Government's approach to transport especially with regard to the Transport Act, 1985, which has been freely alluded to in the debate. I understand that he cannot support us because he would have to bless Labour party policy. I imagine that is why he is prevented from joining us in the Lobby tonight.
    However, most of what the hon. Gentleman had to say underscores the agreement of the bulk of the members of the Select Committee. I say "the bulk", because the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who is sitting on the Conservative Benches, did not agree with the majority of us on that Committee. Nonetheless, some of his hon. Friends and one Liberal Member joined us to spray considerable doubt and criticism on the Transport Act 1985. In fact, the Select Committee's painstaking report gave a great deal of ammunition to our spokesmen on the Bill. The report was authoritative and based on experience.
    Both the Opposition motions tonight disown the free-for-all basis of the Government's doctrinaire policies on transport. Years of experience, argument and discussion called for integration and co-ordination of all forms of

    253
    movement on wheels and in the air. In other words, there is a call for planning. Although "no real co-ordination" is the Minister's watchword, the reverse is called for by so many transport experts. That claim is supported by common sense and history.
    Some hon. Members, unfortunately not too many, will remember the pirate buses that operated in London. Experiences of that sub-standard system led to the creation of London Transport. Transport which puts people first requires public control for public purposes. That is the firm belief of the Transport and General Workers Union. It would be hard to find a member of that union with great experience of these matters who would come close to the Government's position on transport, although some must have voted for the Conservatives at the last general election. However, they must have been convinced by the Government acting under false pretences, but they would never dream of doing that now, when they consider the future for public transport.
    The full impact of the Government's policies on bus deregulation has yet to be felt, but the changes in subsidy are causing sharp increases in fares. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) who was a fellow member of the Select Committee. He takes the same view as I, that although the initial impact of deregulation, privatisation or the innovative services, may produce extra public services, in the long run they will not work. In the long run, they do not reduce car traffic, they will cause congestion.
    That is the simple logic of demand, needs and prices. The terraced streets of our major cities are being choked with cars, large and small. Ambulance and fire services cannot carry out their duties quickly. The congested roads mean more late arrivals at work, unpunctuality and less transport efficiency. Congestion wastes fuel and causes more wear and tear on those who require transport in their daily lives, especially those who work all hours of the night and day.
    Since I have had the honour of being sponsored by the TGWU, I have been proud to specialise in matters concerning road passenger industry workers. The bus and coach workers who are an important group, are very worried about pay, reasonable hours, and their pensions. Those matters have not been settled in the National Bus Company.
    I have already alluded to the massive redundancies that face those workers. They are worried about retaining their hard-won rights and they wish to be treated like decent human beings. They may not be so treated if the scale of privatisation envisaged by the Secretary of State goes ahead. The workers are worried about bus services, deregulation and the lowering of standards.
    I have been told today that it is important to consider the standard of the vehicles which will be used by the privatised companies. Those vehicles must be up to the mark to gain the necessary licence and the traffic commissioners' blessing. We must look carefully at the conditions in which some of these vehicles are kept. I ask the Secretary of State carefully to consider the way in which many of these privatised vehicles will be kept. That will have a bearing on the overheads of private enterprises which are in competition with public ownership, as the public sector must, under the existing regulations, ensure that vehicles are kept in decent garages and are properly maintained.
    254
    It is too early to judge the results of innovations. That was apparent when we visited the Worcester-Hereford trial area. Conservative Members should consult the leader of the Hereford Tory group on the Conservative-controlled Hereford county council to discover what the council thinks after its experience of bus deregulation. The Opposition have ventilated those points sufficiently in a previous debate.
    The Select Committee on Transport revealed wider opposition to the full aspects of the Transport Act 1985. With their fetish for privatisation, the Government have done nothing so far—not all Tory Members support that view, but it is certainly the belief of the guru who holds the office of Secretary of State for Transport—to allay the fears of transport workers. As the Opposition said, the Secretary of State has helped to bring about the defeat of the Tories at the coming municipal elections and at the next general election. The Labour party will provide transport for people and not simply for private profit. We believe that the latter weakens the trade union movement and the conditions of organised transport workers. Transport will be an issue at the general election as it has not been before to any profound degree. The issue will help us win a Labour victory, sanity for the people and justice for the transport workers.
    9.5 pm
    Mr. Roger King: The motion says:
    "That this House strongly condemns the Government for the crisis in public transport which is the direct result of de-regulation of bus services".
    However, total deregulation has not yet occurred. One cannot but think that the Opposition are trying to strike while there is much indecision and concern about the future prospects of public transport because after deregulation, when it is seen that all the fears were unfounded, it will be too late to present such a motion to the House.
    As we have heard, the Select Committee on Transport, of which I am a member, visited Hereford among other places to see the experiment of deregulation. Many lessons were learnt there, some good and some bad. One thing that we learnt was that people in that area were for once in their lives being treated as customers rather than as passengers. We saw what a difference that made to them and what elation there was. At long last they were wanted by the bus undertakings that were providing the service. It was a miracle.
    I shall never forget what was said by one Hereford lady. I think that she was a Liberal. Tut-tutting away, she said, "It really is a disgrace. The centre of Hereford is full of buses these days. We shall have to move the parking meters to make room for them." A Liberal—a person who I would have thought would be strongly in favour of a public transport system—was criticising the fact that car-parking space would have to be lost to accommodate the expanded bus service.
    Deregulation will cause some problems as experiments in the new way of providing passenger transport in our conurbations develop. However, I am convinced that the formula is correct both for our cities and for our rural areas. My hon. Friends have mentioned a number of successful experiments. Another one is taking place in Luton—well away from my constituency. It was described recently in The Sunday Times in an article

    255
    entitled "Fast lane for buses". It highlights a gentleman by the name of Bob Dudley, who runs a small minibus undertaking in that area. He is now making about £1,000 a week
    "from six smart blue and white vehicles."
    Mr. Dudley started his deregulated service earlier than most. According to the article:
    "Dudley is convinced that the change will bring more jobs to the bus industry. 'There is so much opportunity here and in other towns that for any coach operator to say that unemployment will result is a load of nonsense. An improved service will lead to more people using buses and more jobs.'
    This is happening in Luton. Dudley's six minibuses run every five or six minutes between the town centre and estates for a flat 20p fare (10p for children and pensioners) against the 45p municipal fare."
    The result is not surprising:
    "In two years the number of full-time drivers has increased from two to five, with four to five part-timers as back-up."
    Mr. Dudley says that if he could raise £100,000 capital he could operate another 20 buses profitably in the Luton area.
    Private operators are already successfully in the field in Exeter, the Isle of Wight, Worcester, Shrewsbury, and other places. Some of them are subsidiaries of the National Bus Company. They are proving successful in providing the services that the community requires. They are very different from the old monolothic undertakings with their fixed systems.
    Jobs have been provided in the bus industry in other ways. There is the manufacture of buses. Freight Rover in Birmingham is currently the subject of a takeover bid or management buy-out. I rang the management today and found that Freight Rover has 500 minibuses on order. It is working flat out to provide a new product for an expanding market. That is the future.
    The motion also discusses the future of the railway industry. The Opposition have criticised the railway for being rundown and neglected. I often wonder whether the Opposition ever bother to read any of the information that is published. Railnews is a testament to the achievement of management and unions and their acceptance and understanding of the future for the industry. The paper is full of good news. Line after line deals with expanding services and new products being introduced.
    Mr. Flannery: My train was an hour late yesterday.
    Mr. King: In 1979, when Labour went out of office, the Cambrian railway system, which runs from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth, Aberystwyth and Pwllheli was down and out. The speed limits were set at walking pace and there was old rolling stock. There was a total air of neglect and closure was threatening. What has happened after seven years of Tory Government?
    The line has been expanded and developed—there is new rolling stock, new equipment, new sprinter trains and the reintroduction, for the first time in many years, of a through service from Pwllheli along the old Cambrian coast express. That is one example of a rural railway which has been totally revitalised as a result of the Government's policies of investment and the encouragement of investment in the railways.
    It is good news all the way. Journey times from Lincolnshire, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, the east and west midlands and north Wales will be as much as 20 minutes quicker as a result of new rolling stock. There has
    256
    been an improvement of 40 minutes in the journey time of one Cambrian coast line train. There are new trains to Nottingham and Sheffield, and there will be a two-hourly sprinter service. Thanks to the Government's support, help is on the way for the hon. Member for Sheffield. Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). The hon. Gentleman's train may have been late today, but, starting soon, it will be on time thanks to the investment that the Government are bringing to the railways.
    The policy of the Government is simple—the passenger is no longer just the passenger, but has become the customer. He has the freedom of choice to decide how he will travel. The customer will dictate the level of services and where those services go. The response from the railway and the bus industries—sometimes lethargic—is that they have awakened to the fact that competition means a revitalised industry and many new opportunities. Management buy-outs are thrusting their way forward to obtain the bus industry from its present management. That augurs well for the future of public transport in this country.
    9.12 pm
    Mr. Bob Clay: I served on the Standing Committee which dealt with the Transport Act 1985. I have had some difficulty in trying to work out how the Government will answer for the rubbish that was discussed in Committee, given the reality of the situation.
    I have found this evening's debate staggering, although I must confess that the Government have been ingenious. There have been few times when Government predictions have become so unstuck so quickly, yet they talk as though nothing had happened.
    I do not think that The Economist is a Marxist journal or even a Labour party journal. Last week's edition discussed deregulation and, in contrast to this evening's speeches, it said:
    "Unavoidably, there will be some muddle on the roads. That's competition. Some unprofitable services will end. That's Government policy. But already there is avoidable muddle in preparing for deregulation, and more services may collapse than even the Government intends. That's Whitehall."
    That contrasts strongly with the nonsense and the pure mythology which we have heard from the Government this evening.
    I make no apology for speaking for my own area because I think that the Tyne and Wear transport system is a system of which not everyone in Tyne and Wear can be proud, but the Labour party and the Labour movement can be proud. In my area fares have increased by 20 per cent.—a 20 per cent. increase on a low fare policy. Yet the Government claim that they are bringing in policies to reduce fares. There have been hundreds of redundancies and the misery and confusion of deregulation. Mr. Martin Ballinger, the general manager of Northern General Transport, who is not a great friend of the Labour party so far as I am aware, said recently in public that from the point of view of bus management, deregulation is like playing darts in the dark.
    It is disgraceful that tonight the Secretary of State and many of his supporters have tried to give the impression that on average 75 per cent. of all existing services have been registered commercially. That is not so. It is possible that 75 per cent. of the routes have been registered. I shall pass on with interest and malicious pleasure to the people living on estates in my constituency and to other people

    257
    living on estates in the Sunderland and Tyne and Wear area, who do not have the benefit of any registered bus services and who have enjoyed until now a bus frequency of up to eight buses an hour, the fact that the Secretary of State has said that 75 per cent. of the services have been registered commercially. Their services have not been registered commercially. No buses have been running on a Sunday, or on weekdays after 7 o'clock at night.
    In some cases the existing route has been registered, but where there used to be a bus every 10, seven, or even three minutes an hour on some of the busiest corridors, only two or, at the very most, four buses an hour are now running. That has to be contrasted with the nonsense that we have heard from Conservative Members about minibuses. If the orders from one of the major manufacturers of minibuses in this country have increased by only 500 as a result of the Government's policies, Conservative Members ought to be worried. They have no conception of the number of vehicles that are required to carry public transport passengers in urban areas that enjoy good public transport policies.
    Mr. Caborn: I served on the Standing Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). Does he realise that, since we served on that Committee, the Secretary of State has taken a great delight in ripping the centre out of the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority, that since 1 April fares have increased between 250 and 300 per cent., that use of the buses has fallen by 35 per cent. and that this has had a profound effect upon the community in south Yorkshire? We have been told by the committee that is running the transport service that the works services are not being registered. The price increase now being paid by each family is between £7 and £10 a week. That throws into disarray the argument that the Secretary of State lodged against the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority.
    Mr. Clay: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was a great admirer of the south Yorkshire system. As a bus worker I watched the success of that system and argued successfully for the introduction of a similar system in my area. It breaks my heart to hear those figures about south Yorkshire. It also breaks my heart that although in my area, which enjoyed the second lowest fares in the country after south Yorkshire, the overall fare increase so far has been only—I say "only" because of the comparison with south Yorkshire—20 per cent., the 5p flat fare for children has already been doubled from 5p to 10p. Conservative Members may say, "What is a 5p increase?" If a family with two children makes one return journey a day for five days a week, that fare increase alone will cost the family £2 more each week. That is before taking into account the increase in adult fares.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North referred to the fact that no works journeys have been registered in south Yorkshire. That also applies to the Sunderland area of Tyne and Wear. Nobody has registered the existing works journeys that carry people to and from the shipyards, the pits and Rolls-Royce. They will not be registered because they are not regarded as commercially viable.
    It is a myth to say that 75 per cent. of the existing services have been registered. The bus mileage will be way below the previous figure. It is not the people who see public transport as a profit-making operation, but the
    258
    people who depend on it in the evenings, on Sundays, very early in the morning, when it is the only way that they can get to work, who will suffer as a result of this—unless, of course, the passenger transport authority can put more money into providing a massive range of subsidies because it cannot have the cross-subsidy that it has depended on until now.
    Mr. Caborn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Not again.
    Mr. Caborn: Have you finished?
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: There are other hon. Members who want to speak.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Hon. Members should address the Chair.
    Mr. Caborn: Does my hon. Friend know that in south Yorkshire where 64 per cent. of the routes have been registered, only 31·6 per cent. of the total registered mileage is included in that 64 per cent? I think that underlines the point that has been made.
    Mr. Clay: That is one of the most revealing statistics that has been given tonight, and it gives the lie to the empty propaganda that we have heard from the Government Benches.
    Mr. Flannery: Sheer lies.
    Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, has used an unparliamentary expression which I would be extremely tempted to use myself, but I want to move on.
    It is hypocritical of the Government to make the point that even those parts of the services that are not registered—they claim that it is only 25 per cent., but we argue that it is more—can be subsidised by the local authority.
    Tyne and Wear has had a 17 per cent. increase in its precept for public transport. That is very interesting given that the Government argued—this is another matter that we have been debating tonight—that the abolition of the metropolitan counties would save rates. We have a situation in which the passenger transport authority in my own area has already had to increase its precept for public transport by 17 per cent., despite the fact that the abolished county council had held the overall precept, including that for public transport, steady for two years. That precept will have to be increased even more in the future when the full reality of what will need to be subsidised dawns on people later this year.
    The whole theme of what we have heard from the Government tonight has been minibuses, and this sums up the argument. I ask myself what this country would look like—it is laughable if one thinks about it—if we were seriously to consider running public transport systems on the basis of minibuses. I have nothing against minibuses. I wrote a pamphlet with some mild criticisms of my own much admired and respected PTE some years ago suggesting that it might buy a few minibuses. I wish that it had, and no doubt it now will.
    It was not the Government who thought up minibuses; they came in long before the Act. Minibuses are very good for an estate which has not a large number of people using public transport, and in rural areas in some cases, but the idea that the cities of this country—London, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Sunderland,

    259
    Edinburgh, Glasgow—can have a public transport system in which minibuses play anything more than a very peripheral part is an absolute absurdity.
    The tragedy is that, because of the abolition of the metropolitan counties, the withdrawal of subsidy, deregulation, the chaos that is being created, the demoralisation, and the way passengers are being driven away from public transport, in those areas such as Tyne and Wear and south Yorkshire, where ridership had gone up, we may end with third or fourth-rate public transport systems in which the Government have achieved their objective and the only public transport is minibuses because hardly anybody else is in a position to provide or use public transport. That seems to me to be the final irony of the Government's obsession with minibuses.
    It is a mini-policy for public transport and I hope that my hon. Friends will not only support the Opposition motion tonight but be determined to carry out its sentiments and rebuild, when we have a Labour Government, on the lines of the inspiring example of areas such as Tyne and Wear and south Yorkshire.
    9.25 pm
    Mr. Tom Sackville: I should like to speak about Greater Manchester, of which my constituency forms a part. There has been a spate of inaccurate information aimed at scaring the public, especially the elderly, about cuts in bus routes. It is a malicious campaign and those responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves. My local newspaper, the Bolton Evening News, said on 9 April under the headline:
    "Going, going, gone!
    More than one tenth of the bus services now running in Greater Manchester will disappear on Oct 25".
    The paper tells us that out of 600 routes now operating, 439 have been registered, and on the same page there is a quote from an executive of the PTA who says:
    "100 communities … stand to lose all public transport".
    When we look to see how those figures are arrived at, it becomes clear that there is a suggestion that because a service has not been registered the people in the area will lose public transport. That is a mischievously inaccurate suggestion that is designed purely to scare the most vulnerable members of the public.
    It is said in slightly more rational statements by Labour politicians that a subsidy of £15·5 million is available for the remaining routes, and that even with an 11 per cent. increase in fares there will be an £8 million shortfall. We are told that only by cutting 10 per cent. of the routes can that shortfall be made up. We are asked to believe that no possible savings can be made in operating costs. That is plainly nonsense.
    Greater Manchester PTE bus unit costs are some 25 per cent. higher than average bus costs in other metropolitan areas. The assumption by the Opposition and apparently by officers of the PTE is that, in spite of this clear evidence of extravagant and wasteful management, there is no scope for major savings. Clearly, savings are possible in labour costs. There are absurd and unnecessary overtime agreements in some depots, and savings can be made in servicing and in repairs and maintenance. During the debate we heard how immense savings have been made by London Regional Transport with only a minuscule
    260
    reduction in passenger mileage. Is it seriously suggested that it is not possible to make savings in Greater Manchester transport?
    To make up the alleged £8 million shortfall would require only a 5 per cent reduction in costs. This does not even take into account the operating surpluses on many of the routes already registered to be operated by Greater Manchester buses. Is there a business in Britain that cannot make a 5 per cent. saving on costs? In the last few years, British industry has found cost savings of 10, 20 or 30 per cent., yet in the case of a top-heavy municipal transport undertaking we are asked to believe that it cannot even find 5 per cent.
    Why have local politicians, especially the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) bought this claptrap from the officers of the PTE? It is because in most municipal enterprises, the political masters have no commercial experience. When the politicians are told by managers who do not want to upset their own comfortable existence that they are running a lean and efficient operation and can make no savings, they do not have the ability or the will to disagree with them, even though the absurdity of the argument is staring them in the face. What do they do? They give up before they even start and resort to playing politics in the press, scaring local people, especially the elderly and the less well off, about withdrawals, first, of concessionary fares—which turned out to be nonsense—and now about necessary services.
    I am not saying that there will be no withdrawal of services in Greater Manchester. The Greater Manchester PTE has not been particularly successful in the past in matching services to demand and it may well be that services which should have been reduced in the past now will be. But there is no reason why any socially necessary routes should be cut. If they are, it is thanks to the failure of locally elected members and local management to do their job, to come up to date and to provide an efficient transport enterprise for the bus users of Greater Manchester.
    9.29 pm
    Mr. Robert Hughes: This has been a debate with two halves. Conservative Members have loyally supported the Minister although here and there an occasional apprehension of what might happen has crept through even some of their laudatory speeches. On the other hand, my hon. Friends have spoken with deep feeling about the realities of the situation, as they are advised, not by politicians, as the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) said, but by professionals with years of experience in running municipal transport. The facts have been given to us by those who know the business. An American once said to me: "You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts." The facts of the matter are quite clear.
    The Department of Transport has been one of the most prolific, if not the most prolific, in begetting of legislation. Since the Government came to power, 33 Acts of Parliament have been put on the statute book by the Department of Transport, 16 of which have a direct effect on public transport. Ministers from the Department of Transport are the perpetual stars of the television programme, "It will be all right on the night", that famous programme of goofy clips. Here we are, 33 takes later, and their performance is getting worse not better.

    261
    The Government's response to the Opposition's motion is curious because it begins, "Leave out from 'House'". But if one reads the Government's amendment one finds that they have reinstated many of the words in the original motion. They have reinstated the words:
    "which are based upon choice, freedom and fairness to improve the quality of life for the whole community and particularly for those who depend entirely upon public transport."
    In other words, the Government are wholly converted to Labout party policies and have adopted them as their own. The Emperor of Marsham street is now fully clothed. One hopes that he will now venture out into the cold real world of transport which he has created, and perhaps look at his transport legislation, repeal it and make a fresh beginning.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) spent most of his speech discussing bus passenger transport, and I want to spend a few minutes on British Rail, not least because some challenges have been made about investment figures. The Government have boasted about their investment in British Rail. The Minister said that the Government have given British Rail all the cash it wanted. Indeed, they have boasted again tonight about their investment programme.
    The Minister challenged me to find the figures to prove otherwise. I always like to respond to a challenge but when I do so I like to look at the facts. I do not want to quote facts from any Labour party handouts but from the Secretary of State himself. I am sure that he will accept the accuracy of those figures. In 1984 he replied to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about investment in British Rail, giving figures for each year since 1979 at 1983 prices—in other words, at constant prices, giving a true comparison, like for like. He said that total investment in British Rail in 1979 was £539 million; in 1980 it was £525 million; in 1981 £451 million, and in 1982 £345 million. Certainly 1983 was projected at £380 million. Where has the great increase in investment come from? Those figures show a continual decline in the four years since the Government took office. Those are the facts. They are the Secretary of State's own figures which he cannot challenge, unless he has been lying in Hansard, and, of course, he would not do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Moreover, figures in British Rail's latest corporate plan show, again at constant prices, that when the Government came to office in 1979 there was a large reduction in investment in British Rail from 1979 until 1982. It is true that investment is due to rise for the next few years, but the fact is that averaged over the period between 1979 and 1986 during this Government's period of office, average investment in British Rail has been lower than the amount invested in British Rail by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. Indeed, investment averaged out at a lower rate during the Labour Government's period. Actually, investment went up and remained relatively stable until we left office. There is the true comparison, like with like. The Secretary of State has been seeking to give misleading figures.
    From 1985–86, a bit of upturn is projected. That is supposed to peak in 1987–88, and to fall again between 1990 and 1991 to below the figure which the Labour Government achieved between 1974 and 1979.
    Far from my hon. Friend from Wigan passing me a poisoned chalice, what he has passed me, being a good rugby man, is the ball, so that I can score a try.
    262
    If we go further into these investments, what we have to look at as well, is what British Rail in 1981 projected as its investment programme after the Government announced that there was to be a 25 per cent. reduction in support for British Rail.
    The 1981 projection for 1983 was £495 million. The 1983 projection for the same year was £279 million. The 1984 projection was £525 million, as compared to £357 million. For 1985, it was supposed to be £535 million. It was reduced to £430 million. In 1986 British Rail said that it wanted £564 million, and under the 1981 projection, the 1983 projection was £406 million. In 1987 it was supposed to be £573 million. The 1983 projection was £400 million. In 1988 it projected that in 1981 it would want £565 million. In 1983, the revised projection was £350 million. In every one of these cases the projection was substantially lower than the projection in 1981.
    That is the true measure of how British Rail has had to respond to Government cuts in investment plans. We spend only 0·32 per cent. of GNP as compared with other railway countries, such as Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Holland, Switzerland and West Germany, which spend 0·76 per cent.
    If people want to look for mitigating factors, I have no doubt that Ministers would say, "Well, of course, it is all right to reduce these projections, because there would have been a reappraisal of needs. British Rail performance exceeded expectations, and there was no need for investment." I need quote only one document to show the utter fallacy of that excuse. The transport users' consultative committee for the north-east of England, published a document in February 1986 which, in the introduction by Mr. James Towler the chairman, says:
    "I derive no satisfaction in reporting a big increase (33 per cent.) in the number of complaints we received regarding British Rail services during 1985; nor in reflecting on the many examples of unimaginative timetabling, incomprehensible fares and poor information relating to trains that were often overcrowded, dirty and late."
    It gives me no satisfaction either to quote this sort of thing. The document goes on:
    "Sadly, this represents a continuing trend which has accelerated during the last three years and is a matter of great concern. It coincides with a measure of success on the part of British Rail towards meeting their objective of a 25 per cent. cut in the Passenger Service Obligation by 1987. This suggests that rail users are bearing the brunt of economies as British Rail managers strive to meet their cost reduction targets.
    My overriding concern is whether British Rail, in its eagerness to achieve financial targets agreed with central Government, can also meet its commitment to provide a reasonable service for its passengers".
    So say all of us.
    Of course, it is not only the passenger who will have to pay the price. Other people who have paid the price for British Rail are the railwaymen who have lost their jobs because of cuts in the work force. There were 182,000 employed in British Rail in 1979; that is down to 144,000. We have all heard from the Government that the object of the exercise is to slim down the work force so that British Rail can be leaner and fitter. The truth is that the patient is suffering from anorexia.
    On the bus passenger side, the Secretary of State answered not a single charge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan. The Secretary of State spoke in blissful ignorance of the facts. He cannot deny that. Sadly, many of my hon. Friends could not speak in the debate, but when they have put down questions asking for information about specific areas, the answer they have got

    263
    is, "I do not know." The Secretary of State has said that he does not know the facts, yet he has the nerve to give the House today a rosy picture of how everything will turn out.
    Hon. Members have described how difficult things will be. The Highland region of Scotland has been quoted. Only 20 per cent. of its services have been registered. The Secretary of State is in blissful ignorance not only of what is happening in the localities but also about what the Secretary of State for the Environment is doing; he has cut the money available to local authorities. They have been rate-capped. They have been savaged by local authority auditors and taken to court.
    All the professional advice we have is that services will be cut, fares will increase, and there will be more redundancies. I am told that the National Bus Company is sitting on over 7,000 redundancies, in addition to the 20,000 which have been mentioned by the Secretary of State. Enormous costs will be involved. We have been told that the Secretary of State will bale out new companies which will take over NBC subsidiaries; the Government will subsidise the redundancy payments. It is a disgrace if new companies are to be given such a start.
    The Secretary of State may have a point when he says that we cannot know what will happen. That is true, because October is some time away. All the evidence is that the position will be much worse than the Secretary of State has suggested. There is not a large number of new companies coming forward. At night, on Sundays and in the early mornings there will not be services. Where companies were operating in competition with one another to provide hourly services, the services will run within five minutes of each other at peak times, but at off-peak times there will be no buses. Where services previously operating between A and B have gone off the main road into villages to pick up passengers, that will cease; the services will run directly from A to B.
    Private bus operators have told me that they believe the competition will be so cut-throat that safety standards will be threatened. They have told me that they would rather go out of business than run on that basis. The Secretary of State has brought forward a cowboys' charter.
    In his amendment, the Secretary of State has apparently adopted Labour party policy objectives, but it is a smokescreen for his true philosophy. He expounded that philosophy with great frankness and candour, for which I pay him credit, when he went to the annual dinner of the Bus and Coach Council. Having gone through the different legislative measures, he said to bus operators, "You are now free to operate without the constraints of the social conscience." That means that the elderly, women and children are going to suffer. We know that the Secretary of State has no social conscience. That is why he will be condemned, and that is why the House should support the motion.
    9.44 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): When the Conservatives introduced choice and competition on the long-distance coach services, the Opposition proclaimed disaster, and, in the transition from the old to the new system, they endlessly prophesied crises. They were wrong, and now everybody can see that they were wrong.
    264
    There has been more investment in long-distance coaches, not less. There are more long distance services, not fewer. There are more jobs and more coaches, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) demonstrated. There are more passengers and there are lower fares. All these benefits have come from choice and from competition.
    Mr. Flannery: It is not true.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is not true. I shall write to him with the facts and figures so that he can see that what I have said to the House is absolutely accurate.
    It is extraordinary that the Opposition have learnt absolutely nothing. They are back on the same proclamations of disaster and the same prophecies of crises as we start to introduce choice and competition for local bus services.
    The background to the debate is twofold. First, there is the local election campaign and the Opposition's intended use of today as an opportunity of further misrepresentation and scandalmongering designed to frighten people into believing that they will lose bus services. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) gave a good example of that from his local newspaper.
    I should perhaps remind the House that we are in the middle of transition from the old system of monopoly to a system of choice and competition. The transition involves two separate stages. The first was the registration of the profitable commercial viable routes by 28 February, and they were published on 1 April by the traffic commissioners. What Opposition Members have been doing is pretending that that is the end of the story and that what is registered as a commercial route represents all the services that will be run. They know perfectly well that there is a second phase to transition. This is the phase when substantial sums are made available to the councils and local authorities concerned, and the joint boards, to buy in services on the socially necessary routes that have not been registered, and the people on those routes will have the certitude of a service and a contract with their county council or PTE.
    Against that background, I deplore the deliberate misrepresentations of the facts by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). Every Member in the Chamber heard him refer to west Derbyshire. I had to drag out of him the fact that the list of services that he read out with such relish, implying a huge cutback, was only of registered services. The hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself for behaving in that way. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman went on to say, "We were beginning to get it right." I suppose that that refers to the chronic decline in bus services, with more subsidies, higher fares, and fewer passengers in recent years.
    Mr. Stott: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where there has been any chronic decline in the PTE areas in the last 12 years? The chronic decline in public transport has been in the rural areas, where Conservative-controlled councils have put no money into public transport.
    Mr. Mitchell: I shall be happy to deal with that shortly, because an important point comes out of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    265
    The inefficiencies bred by the monopoly system have meant higher fares in the shire counties, and the bill has been passed on to the ratepayers in the metropolitan counties in a scandalous fashion.
    When the hon. Gentleman says, "We were beginning to get it right," I do not think anybody seeing the decline that has taken place—certainly not the 20,000 National Bus Company employees who have lost their jobs in the last decade—would say that the hon. Gentleman was beginning to get it right.
    The hon. Gentleman made a rather cheap reference to my alleged failure to answer a parliamentary question. He suggested that I had wilfully withheld information from the House. We could have given the vehicle mile figure from the fuel duty rebate statistics, but that was not the question that I was asked. I was asked for the route miles, which is quite different—
    Mr. Stott: No.
    Mr. Mitchell: There is a great deal of difference between route miles and the amount of miles run by vehicles on the routes. We do not have the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked—[Interruption.] We do not have them.
    The hon. Gentleman claimed that disaster faces the Greater Manchester council area and the PTE in tackling deregulation. Perhaps he knows—but perhaps he does not—that Mr. Hickman, the chairman of the Greater Manchester council transport committee last year told a conference that 90 per cent. of routes needed subsidy—that is, only 10 per cent. were commercial. Now, so great is the improvement in efficiency that has already been wrought by the approach of competition that 56 per cent. of routes have been registered—not 10 per cent., but 56 per cent. Truly the galvanising effect of competition is even greater than I had hoped.
    Another example is West Yorkshire, where last year 55 per cent. of routes were in need of subsidy. Now, 70 per cent. of bus mileage has been registered as commercial network. That is not conclusive, but it has meant a remarkable reduction in cost to make those routes competitive.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to investment in British Rail. He made an unintended mistake. He said that he was scoring a try, but he will have to try harder. He quoted the level of investment on the ground, but if he looks at the figures for approval for investment, which is what comes to the Government and some time later appears on the ground as actual investment, he will see a different picture from that which he described.
    The real question is how many applications for investment Ministers have turned down. It is for British Rail to propose and for Ministers to dispose. I have turned down only one application from British Rail—for electrification between Royston and Cambridge. In giving the go-ahead to the electrification of the east coast main line, we have given the go-ahead to the largest single electrification investment in British Rail for 25 years. The hon. Gentleman should take that into the score.
    The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked whether the NBC managements would have preference with buy-outs. I am glad of the opportunity to clarify the position. Where bids from employees and third parties are broadly comparable, preference will be given to employee bids. I hope that a large number of them will be successful.
    266
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the Tyne and Wear system as an integrated system that would come to an end—
    Mr. Stephen Ross: No.
    Mr. Mitchell: I may have misunderstood. I shall make the position clear.
    The integrated system on Tyne and Wear depends upon the metro and the feeder routes coming into it. If those feeder routes are not provided commercially, they can be provided by the PTE under the tendering system. Either way, the integrity of the system—that is the feeder routes and the metro—can remain intact while people want it. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is the exceedingly illiberal thought that people should not be allowed to use other services and other means of transport, even if that is what they would prefer.
    The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen to Eastleigh, and said that British Rail would need a major works in the South. I have no information to suggest that British Rail does not intend to maintain a major works at Eastleigh. I met a deputation yesterday led by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and including a large number of people from the works. I undertook to convey some very sensible points that they put to me to the management of British Rail, and a letter doing so will be on its way tomorrow.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the Settle-Carlisle line and tourism. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has recently been drawing attention to the valuable opportunities for exploiting the railway system as a means of enabling tourists to see the scenic beauty of parts of the country.
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Mitchell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that when we receive the transport users consultative committee's two reports we will consider the hardship matters to which tey draw attention, as well as the wider areas such as tourism and other matters raised in questions in the House yesterday.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) raised important matters affecting roads in that area. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—who deals with that matter to write to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend also referred to terrified elderly people who were led to believe that concessionary fares would disappear. I join him in his condemnation of the way in which the Labour party has used—in the worst sense of the word—elderly people and frightened them into believing that they would lose their concessionary fares. I believe that the Labour party will live to regret its misrepresentation, because there will be a boomerang effect. Many people who have been frightened will know that the Labour party misled them and will not forget that when they cast their votes.
    The latest scare campaign in Nottingham involves the suggestion of a huge increase in financial liabilities. In circumstances such as that an accountant is needed as chairman of the transportation committee, and I can only imagine that in Nottingham there is a turf accountant.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) referred to increases in the number of bus services causing congestion in Glasgow. Those services

    267
    are registered because operators believe that they can fill the buses, and that will mean fewer cars and less congestion.
    Finally, I refer to the central point of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. The most extraordinary feature of the debate is the Opposition motion, which refers to Labour's transport policy as being based on choice, freedom and fairness. The Labour party must be joking. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that. The fact is that the Labour party has carried out extensive market and survey research to discover what the voters want, and has found that they want choice, freedom and fairness, but which party would produce it?
    Let us consider which party's policy gives more choice. The Government's policy is for competing services, but this has often been attacked as wasteful duplication. Many leaflets were distributed showing a queue of buses and people trying to decide which one to catch. Does that or the Labour policy give the better choice? The Labour party supports local monopoly and a regulated system, with one operator on the route. Under that policy there is no choice for the operator or for the passenger. How can the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North say that that is a policy of choice?
    Let us consider fairness. Where was the fairness in a system that denied those who paid, either as passengers or ratepayers, the improvement in efficiency that competition brings? Where was the fairness in a system in which the cost falling on ratepayers in the shire counties averaged £5·20 a head? In the metropolitan counties the cost to ratepayers averaged £36·60 a head, and in South Yorkshire it was £60 a head for every man, woman and child in the county. Where was the fairness in a system that imposed so great a burden on the rates in some parts of the country that businesses were scared away, with consequent higher unemployment and an increased burden for everyone?
    Mr. Allen Adams rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 251.

    Division No. 152]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

    Anderson, Donald

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Buchan, Norman

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Caborn, Richard

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Campbell, Ian

    Barnett, Guy

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Barron, Kevin

    Canavan, Dennis

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Bell, Stuart

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Clarke, Thomas

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

    Clay, Robert

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clelland, David Gordon

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Blair, Anthony

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

    Boyes, Roland

    Corbett, Robin

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Craigen, J. M.

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Crowther, Stan

    268

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Martin, Michael

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

    Maxton, John

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

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Deakins, Eric

    Meacher, Michael

    Dixon, Donald

    Michie, William

    Dobson, Frank

    Mikardo, Ian

    Dormand, Jack

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Douglas, Dick

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Dubs, Alfred

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Nellist, David

    Eadie, Alex

    O'Brien, William

    Eastham, Ken

    O'Neill, Martin

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Ewing, Harry

    Park, George

    Faulds, Andrew

    Patchett, Terry

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Fisher, Mark

    Pendry, Tom

    Flannery, Martin

    Pike, Peter

    Forrester, John

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Foster, Derek

    Prescott, John

    Foulkes, George

    Radice, Giles

    Fraser, J. (Norwood)

    Randall, Stuart

    George, Bruce

    Raynsford, Nick

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Redmond, Martin

    Godman, Dr Norman

    Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

    Gould, Bryan

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Gourlay, Harry

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Rooker, J. W.

    Haynes, Frank

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Sheerman, Barry

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    Home Robertson, John

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

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Silkin, Rt Hon J.

    Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Stott, Roger

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Strang, Gavin

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Straw, Jack

    John, Brynmor

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Lambie, David

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Lamond, James

    Tinn, James

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Torney, Tom

    Leighton, Ronald

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Wareing, Robert

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Weetch, Ken

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    White, James

    McCartney, Hugh

    Wigley, Dafydd

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Williams, Rt Hon A.

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Winnick, David

    McKelvey, William

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    McTaggart, Robert

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Madden, Max

    Mr. Chris Smith and

    Marek, Dr John

    Mr. John McWilliam

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Benyon, William

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Alexander, Richard

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Amess, David

    Blackburn, John

    Ancram, Michael

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Arnold, Tom

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Ashby, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bottomley, Peter

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

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

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Bright, Graham

    Bellingham, Henry

    Brinton, Tim

    Bendall, Vivian

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    269

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Heddle, John

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Henderson, Barry

    Browne, John

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hickmet, Richard

    Budgen, Nick

    Hicks, Robert

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Burt, Alistair

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Butcher, John

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

    Holt, Richard

    Butterfill, John

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Howard, Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

    Carttiss, Michael

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Cash, William

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Chope, Christopher

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

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

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Conway, Derek

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Coombs, Simon

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Cope, John

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Couchman, James

    Knowles, Michael

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Knox, David

    Crouch, David

    Lang, Ian

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Latham, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Dicks, Terry

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Lilley, Peter

    Dover, Den

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

    du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Dunn, Robert

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Eggar, Tim

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Evennett, David

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Major, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Malone, Gerald

    Farr, Sir John

    Marland, Paul

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Marlow, Antony

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Mather, Carol

    Forman, Nigel

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Forth, Eric

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Franks, Cecil

    Merchant, Piers

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Freeman, Roger

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Fry, Peter

    Moate, Roger

    Galley, Roy

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Neale, Gerrard

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Neubert, Michael

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Newton, Tony

    Gow, Ian

    Norris, Steven

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Onslow, Cranley

    Greenway, Harry

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon

    Pawsey, James

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Grist, Ian

    Pollock, Alexander

    Grylls, Michael

    Porter, Barry

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Portillo, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Powley, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Hannam, John

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Raffan, Keith

    Harris, David

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Renton, Tim

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hawksley, Warren

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Hayes, J.

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Hayward, Robert

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Rost, Peter

    270

    Rowe, Andrew

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Ryder, Richard

    Trippier, David

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Trotter, Neville

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Waddington, David

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shersby, Michael

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Silvester, Fred

    Walden, George

    Sims, Roger

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Waller, Gary

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Speed, Keith

    Warren, Kenneth

    Speller, Tony

    Watson, John

    Spencer, Derek

    Watts, John

    Squire, Robin

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wheeler, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Whitfield, John

    Stern, Michael

    Whitney, Raymond

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

    Wood, Timothy

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Woodcock, Michael

    Sumberg, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Mr. Tony Durant and

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Mr. Archie Hamilton.

    Thurnham, Peter

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 17.

    Division No. 153]

    [10.12 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Alexander, Richard

    Carttiss, Michael

    Amess, David

    Cash, William

    Ancram, Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Arnold, Tom

    Chapman, Sydney

    Ashby, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Churchill, W. S.

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

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

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Colvin, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Conway, Derek

    Benyon, William

    Coombs, Simon

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Cope, John

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Couchman, James

    Blackburn, John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Crouch, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bottomley, Peter

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Dicks, Terry

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

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Dover, Den

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Dunn, Robert

    Bright, Graham

    Eggar, Tim

    Brinton, Tim

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Evennett, David

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Browne, John

    Fallon, Michael

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Farr, Sir John

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Burt, Alistair

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Butcher, John

    Forman, Nigel

    Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Butterfill, John

    Forth, Eric

    271

    Franks, Cecil

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Lilley, Peter

    Freeman, Roger

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

    Galley, Roy

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Gow, Ian

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Major, John

    Greenway, Harry

    Malone, Gerald

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon

    Marland, Paul

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Ground, Patrick

    Mather, Carol

    Grylls, Michael

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Merchant, Piers

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hannam, John

    Moate, Roger

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Harris, David

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Neubert, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Newton, Tony

    Hayes, J.

    Norris, Steven

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Hayward, Robert

    Pawsey, James

    Heddle, John

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Pollock, Alexander

    Hickmet, Richard

    Porter, Barry

    Hicks, Robert

    Portillo, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Powley, John

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Holt, Richard

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Howard, Michael

    Raffan, Keith

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

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Renton, Tim

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Hunter, Andrew

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Ryder, Richard

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Knowles, Michael

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Knox, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lang, Ian

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Latham, Michael

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shersby, Michael

    272

    Silvester, Fred

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sims, Roger

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Viggers, Peter

    Speed, Keith

    Waddington, David

    Speller, Tony

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Spencer, Derek

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Squire, Robin

    Walden, George

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Steen, Anthony

    Waller, Gary

    Stern, Michael

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

    Watson, John

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Watts, John

    Sumberg, David

    Wheeler, John

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Whitfield, John

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Yeo, Tim

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Thurnham, Peter

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trippier, David

    Mr. Tony Durant and

    Trotter, Neville

    Mr. Francis Maude.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Penhaligon, David

    Beith, A. J.

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Clay, Robert

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Godman, Dr Norman

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Hancock, Michael

    Howells, Geraint

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown.

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Question accordingly agree to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government on its radical approach to the long standing problems of public transport, its determination to obtain value for money and its introduction of policies of competition and deregulation for the benefit of the passenger which are based upon choice, freedom and fairness to improve the quality of life for the whole community and particularly for those who depend entirely upon public transport.

    BTR Sarmcol
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
    10.23 pm
    Mr. Dave Nellist: This debate arises as a result of representations that I have received from two leading black South African trade unionists who have visited Britain in recent weeks. At a press conference held in the House on 10 April, Moses Mayekiso, the Transvaal organiser of the Metal and Allied Workers' Union, and Jeremiah Zulu, the president of the Transport and General Workers' Union in South Africa, who are both members of the central executive committee of the recently formed Congress of South African Trade Unions, or COSATU, reported to me their federation's concern for the actions of the South African subsidiary of the British-owned BTR Group. Under the code of conduct by which British owned multinationals operate in South Africa they are requested, each year, to declare to the Department of Trade and Industry answers to a number of questions under the EEC code of conduct. For the period ended 30 June 1985 BTR stated under the heading "Progress made in Implementing Policy" the following:
    "At BTR Sarmcol, Howick a trade union with majority representation was responsible for collective bargaining on behalf of all waged employees and had negotiated a wage agreement and were negotiating on grievance and disciplinary procedures and a retrenchment procedure. Negotiations broke down and the agreement with the trade unions was discontinued. New negotiating machinery is currently under review."
    Those weasel words belie the fact that almost a year ago—on 30 April 1985—1,000 workers who were on a legal strike were sacked by BTR after a 10-year battle for union recognition and a two-year negotiation with the company.
    One of the major concerns of COSATU and the Metal and Allied Workers Union which represented the victimised workers is that the EEC guidelines which are supposed to protect the interests of these workers, and the Government's policy of "constructive engagement" with South African capitalism which is supposed to ameliorate the worst excesses of apartheid have acted in this case—I would argue in all others—as nothing more than smoke screens for the exploitative actions of British companies which are only too happy to reap the super-profits that come from the cheap labour system which is the essence of apartheid.
    BTR can effectively put its case through its press officers and the British press. That avenue is largely denied to workers. It has led to a series of wild claims by BTR management. In an interview in the January 1986 edition of the European Rubber Journal the chairman of the newly merged operation—BTR South Africa and Dunlop South Africa—the perhaps aptly-named Peter Fatherley made a series of allegations on how well the company was run and on its operations. The unions' response to those allegations in a leaflet appropriately headed "BTR's Fatherley Advice" picked those points to pieces.
    I shall give an example of some of those allegations as an illustration to the Minister this evening. BTR claimed that it provided a pension scheme and loans for home purchase. Perhaps that is true. But the company does not agree to requests from the workers because its policy is not to extend home loans to hourly paid employees.
    274
    I shall quote a number of cases which will illustrate the value of the pension scheme. Mr. S. Zuma a national executive member of MAWU, employed by Sarmcol for two periods which totalled more than 20 years was given, on retirement, a pension of 4·2 rand per month which represents less than £2 a month. Mr. S. Zuma has now passed away.
    Mr. Zakwe stopped work in 1982 after 25 years' service with BTR. His pension was the equivalent of £10 per month. Another worker with 22 years' service received 35 rand per month, which is less than £10 a month.
    BTR claims to provide educational grants for the children of black employees and to provide basic education for their employees. BTR's educational grants amount to the following: for primary schools grants of 120 rand, about £40 per year for 16 selected schoolchildren. That is a total of 1,800 rand, the equivalent of £600. Secondary school grant is nil and the grant for tertiary education is also nil.
    BTR claims to have set high standards in its relationship with its black employees, as it claims it has an integrated work force, with black foremen. It does not mention the fact that these racial groups cannot even share the same toilet facilities, and not a single black person is in lower middle management or above.
    Perhaps the best example of the two worlds that are inhabited by the senior management of BTR and those who comprise the bulk of its work force is given in an interview about four and a half years ago with Sir Owen Green, the managing director of BTR, in The Observer of 27 September 1981. He said:
    "Growth is the objective, profit is the measure … I don't believe British industrial companies really commit themselves to the bottom line, to profit … The education system doesn't encourage this idea. Those educated post-war have been taught, almost brainwashed, that it is socially undesirable to make much money. So they combine other objectives: that it is just as important to have good personnel policy, decent factories, to play a significant social role. They blur the issues—the key is the bottom line."
    The salary of Sir Owen Green was raised from £97,000 a year to £142,000 a year in late 1984, but the starting wage of an employee at BTR Sarmcol is 336 rand—approximately £80 a month, or £20 a week.
    For these reasons, Brother Zulu of the TGWU is visiting the House tonight. I ask the Minister when he replies to these points to bear in mind that he is not speaking directly just to the few hon. Members who are in the Chamber this evening. He is also speaking indirectly to the 500,000 organised workers in the South African trade union federation, COSATU. They have been involved in solidarity action with the BTR Sarmcol strikers, who include 90 per cent. of the workers in the Howick-Pietermaritzburg area who went on strike on 18 July 1985. There was also a two-month boycott of white businesses in the same area and in recent weeks solidarity strikes have taken place in a number of other plants in the newly merged BTR-Dunlop group. These workers will want clear answers from the Minister about whether the British Government intend to oppose the circumvention of the pious hopes that are contained in the EEC code of conduct, or whether they are prepared to condone the open flouting of what is widely regarded among the South African working class as a "bulldog with rubber teeth."
    I draw the Minister's attention in particular to the misleading nature of much of the information that is contained in BTR's own report on the code of conduct for

    275
    the 12 months to 30 June 1984. In its submission the company claims that only 95 of its 2,377 employees are paid below the university of South Africa's supplementary cost of living level. This was set at 287 rand a month in February 1984. That is approximately £25 a week. MAWU has consistently claimed that many more BTR employees are paid below the level to which the company will admit. This is borne out by a company circular entitled "Revised Wages Structure" dated 2 August 1985. It is in the union's possession and it gives details of the wage rates being paid to the strike-breaking work force that has been recruited to run the Howick plant. This document shows that, despite an increase of between 12 and 18 per cent. on basic wages, employees in grades 1 to 4, in which the overwhelming number of employees are located, are still being paid starvation wages, below the minimum requirements of the EEC code. Indeed, allowing for an annual inflation rate of 18 per cent., by the end of July of this year the basic minimum rate of BTR Sarmcol will be more than 40 per cent. below the supplementary living level requirements in the Durban area.
    This failure to provide factual information about the activities of companies such as BTR is enough to call into question the EEC code. However, my criticism goes far deeper. Since 1977 Britain has subscribed to the EEC code of conduct for companies with subsidiaries in South Africa. This code requires that these companies should submit to the Department of Trade and Industry an annual return that provides information about their attitude towards worker representation, trade unions, the pay of their black employees, their wage structures, fringe benefits and the extent of desegregation at work. The most important aspect of the code is the pay recommendations, which have become enshrined not as the minimum level but as the goal to which these companies aspire. The minimum standard of living level is the lowest sum upon which a specific size of household can live in the South African social set-up. The MLL contains 10 basic elements, such as food, clothing, rent, fuel and light. Their costs are meticulously calculated, and make fascinating reading. For example, under personal hygiene a household of six is assumed to use per month
    "3 x 100g Lifebuoy soap, toilet paper, 15 razor blades per year for Blacks and 45 for Coloured and Indian males over 18 and sanitary requisites."
    Replacement of household equipment
    "assumes that a bed, or chair will last 15 years, saucepans, kettles and fry-pans 10 years."
    Any wage below this would be a starvation wage.
    "The Supplemented Living Level makes provision for more items … the SLL is not a subsistence budget, nor is it a luxury budget. Perhaps it can best be described as an attempt at determining a modest low-level standard of living."
    Again these standards differ for different racial groups. The SLL makes some allowances for personal care, for example, toothpaste, one toothbrush per person per year, and for hair-cuts, for recreation and entertainment, contributions to pensions, unemployment, medical and burial funds. It also allows for additional expenditure on the basic items in the minimum living level. In practice, the SLL is roughly 50 per cent. greater than the MLL, and still represents a very low standard of living.
    In fact, both these figures are merely reflections of starvation levels and are not even recognised by black workers and their unions as being a realistic assessment of
    276
    the actual living needs of workers in South Africa. In addition, a number of highly questionable premises are used in drawing up the figures. For example, an inflation rate was assumed, for the period February to August 1985 of 3·6 per cent. when the actual annual rate of inflation was 16 per cent., more than twice the rate assumed. The study also established 5·5 dependants in the average-sized black family, despite the fact that the average is more like eight persons per breadwinner in the Howick area.
    This might seem like abstract statistical hair-splitting to hon. Members, but what it adds up to is that the EEC code of conduct and the university of South Africa living levels serve to whitewash a situation in which 20 per cent. of the children of BTR employees in Howick aged between two and nine suffer from malnutrition. The literally starvation wages paid by this company mean that in 1984 BTR's South African operations contributed 3 per cent. of the company's £200 million profits after tax on only 2 per cent. of its sales, while the British operations contributed 42 per cent. on 45 per cent. of sales.
    That would be a sufficiently outrageous state of affairs if it were the only misuse of the code of conduct by one single unscrupulous employer. However, it is increasingly obvious that the policy of this Government and of big business generally and the interests that they represent is to use that code to shield companies from the outrage of workers in Britain and South Africa and internationally. Only a minority of the 400 British companies, which between then own half the 2,000 foreign-owned companies in South Africa and therefore control £12 billion of foreign investment in that country, even send in reports. One of the first actions of this Government, on taking office in 1979, was to cease the practice of listing those companies which failed to comply with the guidelines for the code.
    Had it not been for some sharp eyes, the latest Department of Trade and Industry report would have claimed that the number of black employees of British-owned companies paid below the EEC levels had halved. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who is present with me this evening, has noted that the EEC report has already had to be amended by an erratum slip since it was issued three weeks ago and now shows a massive 21 per cent. increase in the number of black workers in South Africa paid below the lower datum level and a 33 per cent. increase in those paid below the upper datum level, taking the situation back to 1978 levels.
    One company alone, Pritchards Services Group, which is not unknown to at least one Tory Member, has admitted to paying 1,660 black workers less than poverty wages. That is almost double the 900 total figure disclosed three weeks ago by the Britain Government.
    There is a growing realisation among workers in British and South Africa of the manner in which the capitalist class and its political representatives use the EEC code to prop up rather than undermine apartheid. That common cause of the BTR management and the Tory Government is precisely the same common cause made between its South African subsidiary and the Botha Government, whose police have arrested over 100 striking workers in Howick and in September last year opened fire on a crowd of strikers and their families, killing one child and causing the hospitalisation of three others.
    This realisation by workers has been accompanied by an understanding that the only way to tackle companies

    277
    such as BTR, which seek to use the apartheid system as a source of ready profits, is to use their own strength as workers by building direct links between British and South African workers to expose and undermine the thousands and millions of threads that tie together the City of London and the slave labour system in South Africa.
    Through this debate I give notice to the Minister and to his friends in the British multinationals. They have had an easy ride so far, but the formation of COSATU and its clear appeal to workers internationally for support mean that in future the Minister and his friends will face the wrath of the organised working class of South Africa. Workers will not just show solidarity in single disputes such as that at BTR, but will take the campaign further. The working class movement will have a clear answer in Britain and in South Africa to people in companies that seek to enslave their class brothers and sisters in that country. Increasingly, that answer will be public ownership, nationalisation and the control and management by workers so that investments that are being used to prop up the racist regime can be turned against it.
    Internationalism is not just a moral matter facing British workers. For us, internationalism is summed up in a simple phrase: a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Trade unions in South Africa are denied the right to organise and workers are paid cheap labour poverty wages of £20 to £25 a week. That means that British firms with factories in Coventry and the midlands and elsewhere in Britain can co-operate in South Africa and play off workers in one country against workers in another.
    We in the Labour movement learned early in our history, perhaps as far back as 100 years ago, that where factories were operated up and down Britain and were owned by the same employer, the same gaffer, we could form combines to make sure that our union policies were equal to the joint policies of management. That lesson is being learned internationally, and that is why Transport and General Workers Union members at a Dunlop factory in Leicester donated in recent weeks £200 to the families of strikers in South Africa.
    The conditions of black workers in South Africa cannot be summed up in a few phrases. The polarisation caused by apartheid in South Africa has led to the richest 5 per cent. owning 88 per cent. of all personally owned wealth—double the rate in the United States of America. Whites own 98 per cent. of all farms, 93 per cent. of private property, 99 per cent. of quoted shares and 95 per cent. of unquoted shares. That is the society that the Government and the Prime Minister defend.
    Britain is South Africa's fourth largest trading partner and that is why the Prime Minister has not even taken up the suggestion of economic sanctions against that country. She has not taken up that suggestion because of the £12 billion worth of British investment in that country and not because of the excuse that she gave to me in the House, that sanctions might affect the lives of 250,000 British workers and threaten their jobs. She does not care for the 2·5 million she has put on the dole in the last seven years. What leads us to believe that she cares for another 250,000 if sanctions were to be employed?
    The Prime Minister does not care about a society where one in three black children under the age of 14 are stunted in growth because of malnutrition. In the country that pioneered heart transplants, there is only one doctor to
    278
    every 174,000 people. Some 11 million blacks are forced to live in the Bantustans, the concentration camps, the so-called homelands.
    The Congress of South African Trade Unions is a movement beginning to organise hundreds of thousands, and soon millions, of workers under its banner, and it stands on the Freedom Charter of 1955. That charter offers to the workers and peasants of South Africa the hope that the wealth that only they have created in their country can be fairly and equally divided among them and their families. This debate is about one company, the breaking of the EEC code of conduct by one management, but the surrounding facts and figures of the dispute and the growing power of the trade unions is a warning not just to P. W. Botha but to BTR, to the Minister and to all others in Britain and in South Africa who seek to prop up the hated system of apartheid.
    10.44 pm
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): By raising this subject this evening the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has given me an opportunity to stress the importance which the Government attach to full compliance by British companies and their South African subsidiaries with the EC code of conduct. It also gives me an opportunity to congratulate the majority of companies on a generally high standard of performance under the code and to thank them for their co-operation in submitting reports to my Department.
    However, the hon. Gentleman has made a number of allegations about a particular company. I shall not comment on those, either to agree with them or reject them, because it is our consistent practice not to comment on the performance of individual companies under the code. I shall elaborate on the background to this practice in a moment.
    I am naturally aware of the dispute which has arisen between BTR/Sarmcol and the Metal and Allied Workers Union. It has been accompanied at various times by incidents of violence and intimidation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join with me in condemning those who seek to pursue their disagreements by such means.
    Meanwhile, one can only have sympathy with the plight of the destitute former employees of the company. But this is something which is happening thousands of miles away in another country and ultimately the company and the union must resolve their disagreements directly.
    For those reasons, it would not be appropriate or helpful for the Government to intervene with the company. But I remain confident that they will continue actively to seek ways to resolve this dispute. I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will urge his contacts in the union to act in a similar manner. I understand that the dispute is to be considered by the industrial court. That is apparently the appropriate forum for the dispute to be considered in at this stage. I believe that it should be given every opportunity to resolve the problems between the company and the union.
    The hon. Gentleman has alleged that the company has failed to comply with the EC code of conduct, that it is in breach of the code provisions. The company's report under the code is available for public inspection and it speaks for itself. Members of the House and of the public may judge for themselves whether the hon. Gentleman's allegations against the company are justified or not.

    279
    I recognise that the code encourages companies to ensure that their workers are free to form or join a union. Under the revised code, agreed last year by the EC member states, companies are encouraged to pay particular attention to unions representing black African workers and to be prepared to sign recognition agreements with them. But that does not mean that companies are obliged to recognise unions not representative of their work force or that companies must accept all the conditions which unions may seek to impose. Free collective bargaining has to be free on both sides if it is to have any meaning.
    I mentioned that it is not our practice to comment on the performance of individual companies under the EC code. That is a long-standing practice, and there are a number of very good reasons for it. The hon. Gentleman must not expect me to depart from this, either to condemn or praise individual companies. His intention has plainly been more to condemn than to praise. In so doing he ignores the considerable contribution which British and other European subsidiaries in South Africa have made to the advancement of black Africans and to the changing opinions there in favour of fundamental, peaceful change.
    My Department produces an annual analysis and summary. The latest, covering the period July 1984 to June 1985, was placed in the Library of the House prior to the Easter recess.
    Mr. Richard Caborn: It is wrong.
    Mr. Clark: It has been corrected since. In that document, we list all the companies which have provided reports under the code to the Department, as well as those whose interests are known or believed to warrant a full report but which have declined to submit one. But we do not otherwise consider it appropriate or helpful to single out individual companies and comment on their performances. Our purpose is to give a concise, factual summary of the position emerging from the reports as a whole, drawing attention to the areas where progress has been made in terms of the response of the subsidiaries of British companies to the standards and objectives laid down in the code.
    Mr. Caborn rose—
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Member for Conventry, South-East has left me little time, and I feel in fairness to the parties to this dispute and the points that he has raised that I should progress in response to his argument as far as I can.
    The credibility of the code as a catalyst to promote better conditions and opportunities for black African employees depends heavily on the co-operation of the companies concerned. We should not encourage this if we were to set ourselves up as judge and jury and put individual companies on trial. We and our partners in the
    280
    EC are clear that the code must remain a voluntary code. We must continue to give companies every encouragement to comply with it on a voluntary basis. The Department's analysis of code returns demonstrates the success which this approach has achieved. Only three companies still decline to submit a report: 98 per cent. of all the companies whom we believe ought to submit reports did so. Our analysis also demonstrates the contribution which these companies, that is, the vast majority of them, are making towards the social and economic advancement of their black African work forces. I shall say more about this in a moment. It is significant that the business sector, both local and European companies, are in the forefront of those in South Africa calling for fundamental reform of the system and the abolition of apartheid.
    Mr. Caborn: How the Minister can actually make that statement I do not know. The report, although it was wrong in its compilation, now shows clearly a reduction of 21 per cent. paid below the lower datum line. We are back pre 1979. That is the situation on the code itself.
    Mr. Clark: I think the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. What I was drawing the attention of the House to was the high level of companies which are filing reports under the code. There are virtually no exceptions to this. Judgments and assessments about whether or not companies are in breach of code guidelines are unlikely to be simple or clear cut. In an extreme case, the Department might be involved in a risk of legal proceedings if companies sought to contest accusations against them made outside this House.
    All the information submitted to the Department about companies' performance is publicly available. Copies of all company reports are available in the Library of both Houses, as well as in the Department's Library and our diplomatic posts in South Africa, where they may be inspected by callers. It is possible for interested members of the public to judge for themselves and to study in detail the records of individual companies in complying with the code.
    The companies themselves are also asked to make their reports available. Some of the larger companies publish and distribute their reports widely, attaching considerable importance to the contribution they are making, welcoming the opportunity to publicise it, and accepting a responsibility to give a lead.
    The company mentioned by the hon. Member will doubtless take careful note of the points he has made and consider whether or how to respond. The facts about the company's performance under the code are on the record and publicly available in the company's report. Interested shareholders, customers, consumers or members of the public at large may judge for themselves and react as they consider appropriate.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

WALES
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabbit Population
  Rabbit Population
  Farm Rents
  Farm Rents
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Lancashire County Council
  Lancashire County Council
  Cheshire County Council
  Cheshire County Council
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  School Curriculum
  School Curriculum
EMPLOYMENT
  Tourism (Royal Wedding)
  Tourism (Royal Wedding)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Pre-strike Ballots
  Pre-strike Ballots
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Retirement Ages
  Retirement Ages
  Inner Cities Initiative
  Inner Cities Initiative
  Shipbuilding Communities
  Shipbuilding Communities
  Printing Industry
  Printing Industry
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Agencies
  Enterprise Agencies
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Disabled Persons (Basildon)
  Disabled Persons (Basildon)
  Industrial Relations
  Industrial Relations
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Employment Protection
  Employment Protection
  Business Conferences
  Business Conferences
  Venture Capital
  Venture Capital
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Business Counsellors (Small Firms Service)
  Business Counsellors (Small Firms Service)
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Business Starts
  Business Starts
  City Action
  City Action
  Tourist Information Centres.
  Tourist Information Centres.
  New Technologies
  New Technologies
  English Tourist Board
  English Tourist Board
  Benefit Offices (Computers)
  Benefit Offices (Computers)
  Trade Union Act 1984
  Trade Union Act 1984
  Rest Homes
  Rest Homes
  Restart Scheme
  Restart Scheme
  Trade Union Ballots
  Trade Union Ballots
  Long-Term Unemployed (MSC Places)
  Long-Term Unemployed (MSC Places)
  County Hall (Tourist Centre)
  County Hall (Tourist Centre)
  United Kingdom Advertising Expenditure
  United Kingdom Advertising Expenditure
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Deregulation
  Deregulation
  Travel-to-work Areas
  Travel-to-work Areas
  Tourism (Dispersal of Visitors)
  Tourism (Dispersal of Visitors)
  Incomes
  Incomes
  Conference Market
  Conference Market
  London Visitor and Convention Bureau
  London Visitor and Convention Bureau
  Wages (Payment)
  Wages (Payment)
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Machinery Accidents
  Machinery Accidents
  Skilled Manpower
  Skilled Manpower
  Small Firms (Payment of Bills)
  Small Firms (Payment of Bills)
ENERGY
  Sellafield (Incident)
  Sellafield (Incident)
  Energy Audits
  Energy Audits
  British Business (United States Laws)
  British Business (United States Laws)
  Nuclear Industry (Computers)
  Nuclear Industry (Computers)
  Oil Exports
  Oil Exports
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Offshore Production Licensing
  Offshore Production Licensing
SCOTLAND
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Hamilton College
  Hamilton College
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
PRIME MINISTER
  EC (Surplus Food Disposal)
  EC (Surplus Food Disposal)
  Acid Rain (Galloway)
  Acid Rain (Galloway)
  Criminal Offences
  Criminal Offences
  Ministry of Defence (MSC Programmes)
  Ministry of Defence (MSC Programmes)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  National Dock Labour Scheme
  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Computers (Procurement Policy)
  Computers (Procurement Policy)
  Dr. Kurt Waldheim
  Dr. Kurt Waldheim
  Terrorist Incidents
  Terrorist Incidents
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Dogs
  Police Dogs
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  News International Plant, Wapping
  News International Plant, Wapping
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Featherstone Prison
  Featherstone Prison
  Torture
  Torture
  Gas and Chemical Explosions
  Gas and Chemical Explosions
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Fatal Accidents Act 1982
  Fatal Accidents Act 1982
  Family Law Reform
  Family Law Reform
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Food Exports (Spain)
  Food Exports (Spain)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Exports (United States Controls)
  Exports (United States Controls)
  HOTOL Concept (Studies)
  HOTOL Concept (Studies)
  EC (Imports and Exports)
  EC (Imports and Exports)
  Biological Washing Powders (Tests)
  Biological Washing Powders (Tests)
  Steel (EC Aids)
  Steel (EC Aids)
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Local Enterprise Agencies
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  A1(M) Park Plaza Development
  A1(M) Park Plaza Development
  Municipal Incineration
  Municipal Incineration
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  EC (Environmental Assessment Directive)
  EC (Environmental Assessment Directive)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  SERPS (Statistics)
  SERPS (Statistics)
TRANSPORT
  Transport Act 1985 (Registered Services)
  Transport Act 1985 (Registered Services)
  Motorway Construction
  Motorway Construction
  Volvo 300
  Volvo 300
  British Transport Police
  British Transport Police
  National Dock Labour Scheme
  National Dock Labour Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mental Patients
  Mental Patients
  Contact Lenses
  Contact Lenses
  Benefits
  Benefits
  British Business (United States Laws)
  British Business (United States Laws)
  Committee on Safety of Medicinces
  Committee on Safety of Medicinces
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Computerisation)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Computerisation)
  Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel
  Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Ante-natal Clinics
  Ante-natal Clinics
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Rural Health Visits
  Rural Health Visits
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Private Nursing Homes, Sheffield
  Private Nursing Homes, Sheffield
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  McColl Report
  McColl Report
  Prevention of Disablement
  Prevention of Disablement
  Art and Music Therapy
  Art and Music Therapy
  Benefits
  Benefits
THE ARTS
  Roundhouse Black Arts Centre
  Roundhouse Black Arts Centre
CIVIL SERVICE
  Accountants
  Accountants
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pay Negotiations (Profit-Sharing)
  Pay Negotiations (Profit-Sharing)
  Petrol and Vehicle Excise Duty
  Petrol and Vehicle Excise Duty
  Accountants (Pay)
  Accountants (Pay)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
DEFENCE
  Small Arms Ammunition
  Small Arms Ammunition
  Signals Regiments
  Signals Regiments
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate

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.

Housing: Rented Sector Figures
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been living in rented property each year since 1979 in (a) the public sector and (b) the private sector.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, it is estimated that in Great Britain in mid-1979 there were about 16.9 million people in council housing, 800,000 in dwellings rented from housing associations and 5.5 million in private rented housing. The corresponding estimates for mid-1985 are 14.8 million, 1.0 million and 4.0 million, respectively. Estimates for the intermediate years will be published in the Official Report.
Following are the estimates referred to:

Number of people in Great Britain in households renting from

million.

Mid-Year

Local authorities and New Towns

Housing Associations

Private owners

1979

16·9

0·8

5·5

1980

16·8

0·8

5·2

1981

16·6

0·8

4·9

1982

16·1

0·9

4·7

1983

15·5

0·9

4·5

1984

15·1

1·0

4·2

1985

14·8

1·0

4·0

Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that figures published by responsible housing organisations and authorities show that over the five years there has been a total loss between the private and public sectors of over 820,000 housing units for letting? Does that not indicate a very large falldown on the Government's responsibility in one of the areas of greatest need?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not agree that the decline in the figures in the rented sector indicate a fall in the Government's responsibility. I believe that it reflects the success, in part, of our campaign to allow people to own their own homes, as they wish to do.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware, in regard to the figures that both he and I have given, that the number of families requiring sheltered accommodation or wheelchair accommodation has increased over the last 12 months by 31,000 to a total now of 250,000? May I ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to deal with this very high area of priority?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are encouraging the public sector to concentrate on those who cannot afford to own their own home, including special groups such as the elderly and the disabled on low incomes, to whom the noble Lord has referred, and to give particular attention to the needs of the homeless.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people in our country think that there would be great benefit to the whole community if the sector of rented property in private hands was substantially increased? Therefore, I would ask my noble friend to consider further relaxation of the over-stringent legislation now covering that sector.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government hope to introduce major legislation to encourage the supply of more homes for renting in the private sector, but not during the lifetime of this Parliament. We believe that there is a very important role for the private rented sector to play in meeting housing need and that we must try to create the conditions in which landlords will be prepared to invest in accommodation for letting.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House why it is that the shortage in rented accommodation cannot be made good by the release of those funds which have been accumulated by local authorities from the sale of council houses?
Lord Elton: My Lords, those funds are in fact available for expenditure, but not in one slice. The noble Lord will recall that we have already had over this Table exchanges in which I have tried to explain that the prescribed proportion allows for 50 per cent. of these funds to be expended over three years and the remainder in subsequent years.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, is my noble friend able to say—though I doubt whether he will be able to do so without express notice—what proportion of the private rented figures, as given in answer to the noble Lord opposite, are covered by the rent restrictions Acts, and what view the Government take of any improvement in regard to their operation?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot without notice give the proportion my noble friend asks for, but my attitude to the Acts has been made clear in my earlier answer to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, has the Minister any figures for Scotland? I ask this in view of the fact that we shall shortly be dealing with the Committee stage of a Bill in respect of housing associations in Scotland and the Scottish Federation of Housing Assocations is very much concerned about the loss of rented accommodation in an area—this particularly applies to the community associations—where it is very much required.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the figures in the Answer I gave were aggregated in the way that the Question was aggregated. I cannot give separate figures for Scotland, but I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to accept that an increase in rented property in the private sector would of course be a good thing? But will he bear in mind what happened the last time a Conservative Government provided so-called freedoms for the great property owners who develop private rented property? Within a year literally hundreds of thousands of British families were reduced to the ignoble and degrading status of being almost refugees in their own land.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot say that I recognise anything in our recent history as corresponding to what the noble Lord has described, but I would say that the freedom which we think is of greatest value is the freedom of people to live where they want and to own their own property if they wish. We believe in a free and fair society, as noble Lords opposite claim to do, and I believe that we are delivering it.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, does what the noble Lord the Minister has said mean that it is the Conservative Party's intention to introduce legislation making it possible for private landlords to increase rent, but that prudently it does not intend to do that this side of a general election?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked his question with a particular gloss from a particular stance. We agree that the private sector has, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, pointed out, a valuable role to play. That must be an economic role and the tenant must have the security of legislation.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne there are 12,000 people on the waiting list, which is higher than at any time since the immediate post-war years, and that that area has the highest unemployment in Britain? There is therefore little hope of most of them ever owning their own houses. Do the Government accept any responsibility for that state of affairs?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government are plainly responsible for the regulation of public housing by statute and by the regulations laid down by the Treasury, which I have sought to explain to your Lordships. The question I am asked is whether that is directed towards a fair distribution. I believe that it is.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, if the Government's housing policy is so good why are waiting lists all over the country, and in particular in inner city areas, growing at a fantastic rate? Why are thousands and thousands of people literally homeless? The number of people sleeping rough in our inner city areas is on the increase. Why is bed and breakfast accommodation absolutely chock-a-block or unobtainable? That which is obtainable costs fantastic prices. In the borough that I know best, the lowest rent is £75 a week for any accommodation that can be found. Who can afford that? How about all the other problems? Will the noble Lord the Minister boast about them?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a large number of questions. The general answer to the noble Lord's inquiry is that the level of public expenditure has had to be restrained, but nevertheless is broadly the same in cash terms as it was in 1979.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that an increase in rented accommodation would materially improve the mobility of labour? In other words, it is no good searching for a job elsewhere if one has the millstone of a mortgage round one's neck.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the availability of accommodation is, of course, a factor in the mobility of labour. The noble Lord will be aware of the large number of vacancies that there are round the country, which is something that we also wish to improve.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many empty houses there were in the GLC when that organisation died? Are the successor authorities, the local authorities, now picking up those empty properties and turning them into lettable properties and, therefore, employing them more usefully?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend is right to suggest that those figures are large, but they go rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, in his ante-penultimate answer the noble Lord the Minister was good enough to give the comparative figures for 1979 in cash terms. Can he now add the real terms?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure that my arithmetic is equal to judging what is at this stage ante-penultimacy or the comparative ratio of figures, but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Uganda-UK Relations
2.47 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will define their relations with the new regime in Uganda headed by President Yoweri Museveni.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, there are many ties of friendship between the United Kingdom and Uganda. We wish Uganda well under its new government after so many years of suffering. We particularly welcome President Museveni's commitment to a stable and united Uganda with full respect for human rights. Following the visit to Uganda on 12th February by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mrs. Chalker, we are discussing with the Government of Uganda UK assistance in support of these aims and the task of rebuilding the economy.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for that constructive reply, which I think will be widely welcomed in Uganda. Nevertheless, does she agree that Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Uganda has been severely criticised in the past because of their failure fully to recognise and adequately to condemn the widespread killings and other violations of human rights which took place under the Amin and Obote regimes? Does she accept, therefore, that the time has now come for an entirely fresh start in Anglo-Ugandan relations—a new look—bearing in mind the fact that many Ugandans still hold us in high esteem?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, that we have made known to successive Ugandan governments our concern about human rights. I do not think that we can accept his statement on that. We welcome President Museveni's commitment to improve Uganda's human rights record and the action that he has so far taken to punish those found responsible for violations. I hope that the Answer I have given to the noble Viscount's original Question will make clear the Government's commitment and policy towards the new government in Uganda.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I welcome the general approach that the noble Baroness has outlined. Does she agree with me that the primary need in Uganda at present in order to secure stability is the reconstruction of the Civil Service and the police force? Will she be good enough to say what assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving in that direction, and will she say a word about the British training force? How many British soldiers are left in that force now?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has raised. All police training ceased in July 1985, but the overseas police adviser visited Uganda last month to report on the need for further training and we are studying his recommendations. With regard to military aid, there are no Ugandans receiving military training in the United Kingdom at present but the future of the British military advisory training team is still under consideration. We have had discussions with the new Government about its future.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, put about the Civil Service? Many reports suggest that the most urgent need is to reconstruct and remotivate the Civil Service. Is there anything we can do to help towards that?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I entirely take the pont that the noble Lord raised. We are in our future aid programme looking at a number of issues. On the point about the Civil Service, I think it right that I should write to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and I shall copy the letter to the noble Lord, Lord McNair. But we are certainly helping with the education system. We have this year planned to spend £7·5 million and the poor security in Uganda obliged us to suspend much of our aid programme up to the time of the coup in 1985.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that Uganda is a beautiful country in which it has been particularly difficult to know which winners to back? Since the days of King Freddie I think we have had five consecutive losers. Maybe we should consult Colonel Gaddafi; that would perhaps give us at least one identified negative.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that Uganda is a beautiful country, although I have not visited it. It has had a series of unhappy governments, with a lot of suffering for its people. We hope that things are now improved.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the demand in third world countries for the services of British based so-called security companies? Is she further aware of one company which at the end of the Obote regime was training pilots to fly low level helicopters that were ultimately used against the Museveni forces? Will she kindly say what control or influence the Government have over such private organisations which may be giving service to repressive regimes?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Viscount will understand, if it is a private company it will be an arrangement between the company itself and the government of another country. That is not to say that our Government may not approve of its activities. That may well be the case. But the arrangements would be a matter for the two parties. I do not know what specifically the noble Viscount has in mind but that, generally speaking, would be our view.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there will be general support for her original Answer to the noble Viscount? Does she agree that the first actions of President Museveni, particularly in putting aside the ostentation of previous regimes, give good hope that the Museveni regime will lead Uganda back to prosperity and peace?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad just for once to be able to agree with the noble Lord. It is still early to say what the policies of the new government will be, but there is no doubt that President Museveni has made an encouraging start and has included representatives of most of the major political and ethnic groups in his administration. He has also stressed the need for unity and reconciliation.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that no country in the Commonwealth has suffered more grievously than Uganda and that none more deeply deserves our enlightened concern?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think we all understand the terrible sufferings of the people of Uganda. We must all hope that the current government are successful, particularly in dealing with the question of human rights.

Yemen-UK Relations
2.55 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will define their relations with the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen in the light of the uprising of 13th January.
Baroness Young: My Lords, following the uprising of 13th January, staff of Her Majesty's Embassy in the People's Republic of Yemen were temporarily withdrawn in the international evacuation of 18th January. By the end of last month, we concluded that the situation in Aden had returned to normal and reopened our Embassy on 29th March under a Charge D'Affaires. Her Majesty's Ambassador, Mr. Marshall, is expected to return later this month when some of the damage to our buildings will have been repaired. Our aid programme is being resumed in full. A number of British commercial firms have also resumed their operations in the country.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, for that helpful reply. Is she aware that many South Yemenis would like to develop closer ties with Great Britain, and that many still admire the legacy of our colonial era as I discovered when I visited the country last summer? Is she further aware that the Yemenis would certainly welcome any further extension of our aid programme, which is still comparatively modest, particularly the provision of English language teachers for the university?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad to hear of the positive views of the noble Viscount about our relations with the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. On the particular point about our aid programme, I am aware of the importance of the two key English language teachers at Aden University. The programme was suspended at the time of the uprising; but the noble Viscount will be glad to know that steps were taken to resume it once our embassy reopened at the end of March.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I once again welcome the encouraging statement made by the noble Baroness about this unhappy country? Would she be good enough to say precisely how many British nationals live there now? Also, may one assume that their security is reasonably assured?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot without notice give the noble Lord the answer to his question on British nationals. But now that our Ambassador is returning, our aid programme is being established again and business is starting up we see no reason why British people should not visit the Yemen.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether she has any information about the many exiles from the days of South Arabia, who, if they are still alive, are in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere; and
1076
whether in our relations with the new government we should urge for a degree of reconciliation with supporters of the pre-independence regime?
Baroness Young: My Lords, once again, I cannot without notice give precise details about exiles. But what I can say is that the new government have made it clear that although they will maintain the alliance with the Soviet Union they will continue with the policy of the previous Ali Nasser government in fostering better relations with the West and at the same time fostering better relations with the neighbouring Arab countries. I hope that this may well be the kind of positive information that the noble Lord is seeking on this point.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that our net exports to the Yemen, excluding any question of aid to them, have amounted over the past four years to something between £50 million and £75 million per annum? Will she do her very best to ensure that our commercial relationships with the Yemen are maintained, notwithstanding any indications which would perhaps be adverse concerning our recent complicity in the Libyan retaliation?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. We are interested in trade with the Yemen; and, as I indicated in my original Answer, British commercial firms have resumed their operations in the country. On the other point that the noble Lord raised, I can confirm that we have received no indication that the PDRY authorities intend to take steps against the United Kingdom in connection with events in Libya.

Forestry: International Support Measures
3 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: 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 accept the conclusions of the international forestry conference held recently in Paris under the presidency of President Mitterrand and whether the Overseas Development Administration will support the "Tree 2000" campaign concerning afforestation in desert lands of certain developing countries.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have accepted the conference's solemn appeal and resolutions. We agree that continuing destruction of forests leading to the spread of deserts in the drier African countries is a most serious problem. We also share the widespread concern about air pollution and damage to European forests. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development sent a message of encouragement for the launching of the "Tree 2000" appeal on 9th April, and wished it every success.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging reply and declare an interest as president of the Men of the Trees, which is promoting this campaign. May I ask whether

1077
she thinks that the ODA would be in a position to make a financial contribution to the campaign and also whether the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) may not also have a role to play in reclaiming the deserts?
Baroness Young: My Lords, a cash donation is not envisaged, but my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development would be ready to consider proposals from the Men of the Trees organisation, which is mounting the appeal, for support of specific projects under the joint funding scheme (sometimes known as a pound-for-pound scheme) which is the ODA's source of support for development projects put forward by many NGOs such as Oxfam and Christian Aid. We welcome the support of the FAO for the "Tree 2000" campaign and the other FAO activities which help to preserve and develop vitally important forest resources in developing countries.
Lord Oram: My Lords, we must all recognise the many competing claims on the all too limited resources of the Overseas Development Administration, but has not the noble Earl called attention to one of the most urgent problems in developing countries? For instance, do not peasants in many parts of Africa face a great dearth of wood fuel for cooking? Is not the problem of soil erosion closely connected with the rapid deforestation that is going on in many parts of the world? With these problems in mind, will not the Overseas Development Administration put more capital resources into this rather than just the pound-for-pound support of a voluntary agency?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I was answering specifically the question raised by my noble friend Lord Bessborough, but I entirely take the point of the noble Lord. Indeed, we are providing substantial amounts of aid in different countries for forestry. We are doing so in Ghana and in the Sudan, and in India we put £15 million into a social forestry project. We also give high priority to the training of technical staff. As well as direct bilateral aid, the Community is providing some 30 million ecus under the European Development Fund 4 and 5. As the noble Lord will be aware, Britain's contribution to that is 18 per cent.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Europe is deficient in wood and sufficient in food? The areas being cleared to grow food would be much better used for forestry. Can we not swap food that we can grow in Europe for the trees which we are short of but which they can grow?

Business
3.3 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the expulsion of Libyan nationals.

Isle of Wight Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Land Registration Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. Having said that, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The length of the Long Title attracted a certain amount of amusement from your Lordships on the introduction and I shared in the laughter that followed. However, the Bill neatly and succintly gives effect to all that is promised in the Long Title.
The first three parts of the Bill give effect to three separate Law Commission Reports, Nos. 132, 137 and 138 of the English series, the last of which includes No. 91 of the Scottish series. Each deals with a distinct area of family law. The fourth part deals with miscellaneous matters. In essence, therefore, this is purely and simply a law reform Bill.
Part I provides a scheme for the enforcement of custody orders within the United Kingdom in order thereby to combat the growing and serious social problem of child abduction with which we dealt in the last Session in its international application. The Government are concerned to solve this problem and the Bill is further proof of such a resolve. Part I of the Bill replaces with a uniform set of rules the present multiplicity of jurisdictional bases under which the courts determine custody.
During the last two parliamentary Sessions the Child Abduction Act 1984 and the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 have reached the statute book. The 1984 Act dealt with the criminal aspects of child abduction. The 1985 Act, which it is planned to bring into force this summer, will enable the United Kingdom to ratify The Hague and the European Conventions and provide a civil remedy for parents whose children have been abducted abroad. Part I of the Bill complements the two earlier Acts by dealing with abducting within the United Kingdom and its several jurisdictions. It will carry out the recommendations of the two Law Commissions—The English and the Scottish—contained in their report entitled Custody of Children—Jurisdiction and Enforcement within the United Kingdom

1079
Part I proposes to achieve this in two stages. The first stage provides a uniform set of jurisdictional rules under which the courts will determine custody disputes. The second provides a procedural method whereby a custody order may be recognised and enforced throughout the United Kingdom. The Bill does not change the test for custody. As your Lordships will know, that test has been in force for quite a long time and is uniform throughout the United Kingdom. That test determines custody by having regard to the welfare of the child as the first consideration. No one, I think, would now question the validity of that test.
Part I of the Bill will ensure that custody orders made in one part of the United Kingdom upon this test will automatically be enforced in the others. No longer will it be necessary for a parent whose child has been abducted from one part of the United Kingdom to recommence custody proceedings in the part of the United Kingdom to which the child has been taken. The threat that the second court will make an order different from the first is thus removed. Part I provides a simple enforcement procedure to ensure that the child is returned to the person rightly having custody. That part will also ensure that custody disputes will be determined in the place with which the child has the closest connection.
Before I turn to deal with the detailed provisions, I have one general point to make. In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, the courts have jurisdiction to make custody orders in respect of children up to the age of 18. That distinction is preserved in the jurisdictional rules contained in Chapters II, III and IV of Part I of the Bill. But Chapter V, which deals with recognition, registration and enforcement, only permits enforcement throughout the United Kingdom when the child is under 16. The Law Commissions took the view that 16 should be the age adopted for the purposes of Chapter V. It was thought that it would be unsatisfactory to require a Scottish court to recognise and enforce custody orders made in the other parts of the United Kingdom relating to persons over 16 when the Scottish court could not itself make such an order. Thus, the Scots have once more achieved a Bannockburn and not suffered another Flodden.
Clause 1 defines "custody order". For the purposes of this part of the Bill it includes any orders made in proceedings commenced after that part comes into force that falls within the terms of subsection (1). However, for the purposes of Chapter V, Clause 32 widens the definition to include those orders made before the commencement of Part I that are still in force and that would have fallen within the definition of the earlier clause had they been made after commencement. The widened definition is necessary to ensure that those orders that fall within the enlarged definition of Clause 32 can be recognised, registered and enforced under Chapter V in the same way as orders falling within the narrower definition of Clause 1.
As I have already mentioned, Chapters II and IV inclusive replace the present multiplicity of jurisdictional rules with a uniform set of rules under which the courts can determine custody. The complexity of the
1080
present rules may best be illustrated by reference to the Guardianship of Minors Acts 1971 and 1973 in England and Wales. Under those Acts, the High Court has jurisdiction where the child is a British subject or is resident or physically present in England or Wales. A county court has jurisdiction if the respondent or applicant or child resides within its area, but if a respondent resides in Scotland or Northern Ireland the county court loses the jurisdiction unless the originating process can be served on the respondent in England and Wales.
Similar rules to those applicable to the county courts apply to the magistrates' courts. In addition, courts in the other parts of the United Kingdom may have jurisdiction to determine the question of custody of a child at the same time as the court is determining the application of the Guardianship Act in England and Wales. That labyrinth of jurisdictional rules does nothing to benefit the interests of the child or the other parties to the dispute.
Chapters II to IV of Part I therefore replace them by providing that throughout the United Kingdom jurisdiction will be founded, first, on the jurisdiction in divorce, nullity and judicial separation proceedings; next, on the habitual residence of the child; thirdly, on the basis that a court should act because in an emergency a child needs to be protected; and, lastly, on the physical presence of the child. Thus the scheme contained in those chapters accords primacy to the divorce jurisdiction. Therefore, the court that dissolves the marriage of the parents will determine the question of custody in preference to a court that could assume jurisdiction on one of the other bases. The scheme also provides that a court having jurisdiction may decline to determine the question of custody if that court considers it more appropriate for another court to determine the issue.
The new rules should almost eliminate the possibility that courts situated in more than one part of the United Kingdom should have concurrent jurisdiction to make custody orders, and they should ensure that the judicial forum with which the child has the closest long-term connection will determine that question.
Chapter V provides the procedural means whereby a custody order may be recognised, registered and enforced throughout the United Kingdom. It is those provisions that will assist the prevention of child abduction, and obviate the need for fresh custody proceedings to be commenced for the return of the child in that part of the United Kingdom to which that child has been taken. Clause 25 provides that a United Kingdom custody order made in respect of a child under the age of 16 will be recognised throughout the United Kingdom. Clause 26 relates solely to Scotland.
Clause 27 provides the procedure for the registration in the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or in the Court of Session in Scotland, of a custody order made in another part of the United Kingdom. By virtue of Clause 29, a registered custody order will be enforceable by the registering court as if it were its own order, made in accordance with its own procedure. That court will be able to give interim directions, or stay, or, to use the Scottish expression, sist the enforcement proceedings where appropriate.

1081
Chapter VI contains provisions to assist the courts throughout the United Kingdom in enforcing custody orders. They will not only ensure that an abducted child is returned to the person rightfully entitled, but should also act as a deterrent to all who contemplate abduction. Clause 33 gives the courts power to order a person to disclose information about a child's whereabouts. Clauses 34 and 37 respectively give the courts power to order the recovery of a child and the surrender of passports.
Finally, on Part I, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 43, which will enable Part I to be extended by Order in Council to the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, or any colony. Any extension of the scheme set out in Part I to those territories will be another means to combat child abduction.
I now come to Part II of the Bill. As I have said, each part deals with a different aspect of family law. Part II gives effect with modifications to the recommendations of the two Law Commissions contained in their report entitled Recognition of Foreign Nullity Decrees and Related Matters. The Law Commissions proposed that the recognition of foreign nullity decisions should be assimilated to the grounds of recognition of divorces and legal separations now contained in the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971. Many of your Lordships may wonder why the recognition of nullity decrees was not dealt with in the 1971 Act. The reason was as follows.
That Act gave effect to the 1970 Hague Convention on the recognition of divorces and legal separations. At that time, it was hoped that a further Hague Convention would deal with the recognition of foreign nullity decrees. Unfortunately, that convention has not materialised. The Law Commissions have therefore turned to that area because, as they say in their report, the law is in an imperfect state. The rules for recognition are uncertain and complex. The assimilation of the rules for recognition of nullity decrees to those for the recognition of divorces and legal separations is therefore provided for in Part II of the Bill.
The effect will be a re-enactment of the provisions of the 1971 Act but with a number of modifications. Clause 44, which follows the recommendations of the Law Commissions, provides that all decrees of divorce, nullity or judicial separation granted by a court of civil jurisdiction in the British Isles will be accorded automatic recognition in every other part. The recognition of overseas divorces, annulments and legal separations is governed by Clauses 45 to 50, and in dealing with those clauses I fear that I cannot avoid a certain degree of technicality.
A key expression in the 1971 Act is the phrase "judicial or other proceedings". That is borrowed from the English text of Article 1 of the Hague Convention, and in the following 15 years of case law the phrase has come to include, in addition to judicial proceedings as we know them, quasi-judicial proceedings and other proceedings involving some agency, lay or religious, of the relevant state. In the 1971 Act, divorces and legal separations obtained by means of judicial or other proceedings are contrasted
1082
with divorces or legal separations obtained in other informal ways but which, under Section 6 of the 1971 Act, are in some circumstances nevertheless recognised in the United Kingdom.
In Part II of the Bill, the word "proceedings" is defined by Clause 54(1) as meaning judicial or other proceedings, and the same sharp distinction is drawn between the recognition of overseas divorces, annulments or legal separations obtained by means of proceedings and those obtained otherwise than by means of proceedings. But, as I shall now show, the consequences flowing from this distinction are not precisely the same as in the 1971 Act, or as recommended by the two Law Commissions.
Clause 46(1) provides that foreign decrees obtained by proceedings will be recognised if they are effective under the law of the country in which they were obtained, provided that either party was, at the date of the commencement of proceedings, habitually resident in, or domiciled in, or a national of that country. This follows the recommendations of the Law Commissions.
But Clause 46(2) adopts a more restrictive approach than that recommended by the Law Commissions in relation to overseas decrees granted otherwise than by proceedings. Such divorces include, for example, the bare Moslem talaq, and certain Hindu and Japanese consent divorces. Many African and Asian countries also have such divorces. The Law Commissions recommended that such informal divorces should be recognised on the same basis as those divorces obtained by judicial or other proceedings. We cannot accept this wide recommendation. There are public policy elements here. Such divorces are informal, arbitrary and usually unilateral. More importantly, there is often no available proof that what is alleged to have taken place has taken place at all. In addition, these divorces are almost exclusively obtained by men and therefore discriminate against women. Finally, particularly where the wife is resident abroad, such divorces provide little or no financial protection for the wife and family.
However, as I have said, Section 6 of the 1971 Act already provides grounds for the recognition of these divorces and it would be wrong not to continue to accord recognition on a similar basis. Clause 46(2), therefore, provides for a more restricted recognition of such decrees. One of the aims of this is to give greater protection to wives resident in the United Kingdom whose husbands have obtained an informal divorce abroad. It would be wrong to deny a wife living here recourse to the protection of our own courts.
A divorce obtained otherwise than by way of judicial or other proceedings will be recognised if it is effective in the country in which it was obtained and if at the date on which the divorce was obtained each party was domiciled in that country. Such a divorce will also be recognised if only one party was domiciled in the country in which it was obtained and the divorce is recognised under the domiciliary law of the other party. No divorce will be recognised if at least one of the two parties was habitually resident in the United Kingdom for at least one year before the divorce was obtained.

1083
Finally, Clause 51, which lists all the grounds on which a court has a discretion to refuse recognition, includes in subsection (3) the discretion to refuse to recognise one of these informal divorces where there is no official certificate that it is effective under the relevant law. There is also a public policy ground, which can be found in subsection (3).
I have dealt at some length with Clauses 44, 46 and 51. For the rest it may suffice to say that the other clauses in this part serve to amplify the policy I have described.
Part III carries out the recommendations of the English Law Commission contained in its report Declarations in Family Matters. This part extends only to England and Wales. At present declarations as to status can be made either under Section 45 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The Law Commission considered that Section 45 contained outdated complexities and felt that there was an uncertainty between the relationship between the statutory and discretionary powers to grant declaratory relief. The Law Commissions recommended,
"that a new legislative code, based on consistent principles, should replace the existing hotchpotch of statutory and discretionary relief".
Part III contains this new code. Clauses 55, 56 and 57 provide, respectively, power to grant declaratory relief in matters of matrimonial status, legitimacy and legitimation and adoption. These clauses also lay down jurisdictional rules as to who should be able to apply. Procedural safeguards such as the intervention of the Attorney-General in declaratory proceedings and the form of the declaration are provided for in Clauses 58 to 60.
Clause 61 abolishes the right to petition for jactitation of marriage, as some noble Lords will know. This procedure takes the form of a petition which claims a declaration that the parties are not in fact married, coupled with an injunction restraining the respondent from falsely claiming that he or she is married to the applicant. Several such proceedings in the past have been brought from within your Lordships' House. Prior to Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753, which first made a formal ceremony of marriage compulsory in England and Wales, thus forbidding clandestine unions by hedge-priests, and others, this remedy was important. The informality of marriages before 1753 gave rise to much doubt or dispute as to whether or not a marriage had taken place. The requirement of a formal ceremony of marriage after 1753 saw a rapid decline in the use of this remedy. The last known petition for jactitation of marriage was as recently as 1977; but it is a remedy which we believe can now be consigned to history.
Clause 62 repeals the Greek Marriages Act 1884 which was designed to validate 36 marriages celebrated in England between 1836 and 1837 between members of the Greek Orthodox Church. For all practical purposes I believe this Act is now spent and may be safely repealed.
Finally, I turn to Part IV of the Bill which is aptly described as "Miscellaneous and General". Clause 64 enlarges the rule-making powers of the Matrimonial
1084
Causes Rule Committee. A greater degree of flexibility, in particular the ability to distinguish between different cases and different circumstances, will in future be possible. Clauses 65 to 67 amend the enactments dealing with international child abduction in ways, mainly technical, which will nevertheless make them more effective.
Alas, I am only too conscious of the length of my explanation. The diversity and complexity of the provisions of the Bill made this unavoidable if I were to explain it fairly. In conclusion, all I would say is that, for the variety of reasons I have outlined above, this Bill is an important law reform measure which I commend to your Lordships. I hope that it will prove quite uncontroversial. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking us so felicitously through this important family law reform Bill. It deals largely with the unhappy questions that arise when a father and mother divorce each other and there then follows the great fight over custody.
I remember one occasion when it fell to me as Attorney-General to exercise the duty of calling for the intervention of the Queen's Proctor—we have now done away with that, thank goodness!—and the note I had included a statement by the husband who said, "My wife and I would have been divorced a long time ago but for the children—she won't have them and I won't have them."
However, that is a rare event and the normal consequence, alas, of the breakdown of marriage is a terrible fight over custody of the children where civilised arrangements and relationships have broken down. These circumstances have given rise to what the press have come to call "tug of love" cases; where there is this terrible battle as to who is to have custody. I am not aware that love is a predominant feature of the operation. There is a terrible attempt at in-fighting, calling in the assistance of the courts in the process. This useful measure of law reform at any rate limits the opportunities for mischief and moves towards the importance of a civilised settlement of disputes.
As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, the Bill is largely a product of the Law Commissions. It is an admirable illustration of the debt which the public at large and Parliament and the Government in particular owe for the work of the Law Commissions and the high quality of that work.
With one significant and unhappy exception to which I shall come shortly—namely, Clause 64—this Bill follows the text and recommendations of the Law Commissions. That fact is, as the report of the Law Commission concerning one part of the Bill states:
"A dispute over custody may jeopardise the child's welfare and happiness and the emotional distress may drive the parents or others concerned to have recourse to unlawful remedies",
and it gives rise to attempts, by going from one jurisdiction to another, to get a better answer from the courts.
In an extreme case—and the noble and learned Lord has indicated some of these cases—the child may be

1085
taken from the jurisdiction of the court which has made an order for its custody to another jurisdiction, where another court may take a different view of the facts of the case and make an inconsistent order. It produces nothing but a shambles and great unhappiness. As the law stands at the moment sometimes these custody problems are aggravated by lack of co-operation between the courts which have different jurisdictions. The attempt in this Bill to rationalise the position is one which we heartily accept and with which we agree.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, Parliament legislated in the Child Abduction Act 1984 on some features of this problem in its international aspects, and the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 was part of the same package of an attempted solution to this unhappy problem.
I agree that Part I of the Bill dealing with child custody completes a valuable package of law reform measures which are badly needed to solve this difficult and often heartless problem of abduction by estranged parents, not only outside the United Kingdom but, in view of the conflict of jurisdictions which already exist within the United Kingdom as well. It is right that we should put the welfare of the children themselves at the forefront of our consideration as we are doing in this Bill. This is a time when care and concern about children have come to the forefront of our affairs and thinking more than ever before. I think that there is a greater awareness and recognition of the cruelties that children are suffering in our society. We hope that awareness will be reflected in the attitudes of parents toward their own responsibility for their children.
In regard to the Bill itself, the main point, which I think has been raised by the Law Society in particular, relates to the jurisdiction of the court to make custody orders and the difficulties which it is felt could arise by applying the test of the habitual residence of the child. It is quite true that this term is used in other legislation. It is not defined in the Bill and the Law Society recommends—and if I may say so I think that there is a good deal to be said for it—that a test for habitual residence for, say, a year ought to suffice and ought to make it easier for the courts to operate these provisions.
So far as concerns Part III of the Bill, which relates to declarations of status, I agree that the High Court and the county court should have concurrent jurisdiction to make declarations as to marital status. It is clearly desirable that in this field there should be maximum flexibility to ensure that cases are dealt with at the level which is most appropriate.
I come now to the provision in the Bill which has given rise to a great deal of legitimate anxiety and indeed opposition, and that is Clause 64. Clause 64 seeks to do two things: first, to empower the Matrimonial Causes Rules Committee to amend or repeal any statutory provision relating to matrimonial practice and procedure; secondly, to make it legal—for the first time so far as I am aware—in matrimonial cases to remunerate legal aid work on a wholly different basis from private work. Those who have raised this matter—and many of those concerned have written to me—fear that the probable or indeed inevitable
1086
consequence will be that what is proposed will lead to an inferior service for the legally aided client. As to the first object, there is a provision in the Bill to empower rules of court made by a rule-making committee—in this case the Matrimonial Causes Rules Committee—to:
"amend or repeal any statutory provision relating to the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court or county courts so far as may be necessary in consequence of provision made by the rules"
It is startling that a rule-making committee should have power to amend or repeal statutory provisions in what may prove to be a highly important field.
It is right—and no doubt the noble and learned Lord will draw the attention of the House to this fact—that a similar power as contained in subsection (1)(a) is contained in the Supreme Court Act 1981. If I may say so, the fact that such a precedent exists does not make it any better. My submission is that amendments to statutory provisions which could be of very great importance to the citizen should be the prerogative of Parliament and not of any rule-making committee, however distinguished, anonymous or well-know n its membership may be.
For instance, it is suggested by those who have experience in these matters that to grant that committee the proposed power would enable it to abolish the decree absolute in divorce and to provide for all matrimonial cases to be heard by divorce registrars. There is no limit placed on the terms of the power. My submission is that the whole constitutionality of that proposal, at the lowest is highly dubious.
When we examine the second part of Clause 64, we find a provision that will have potentially far-reaching implications for legal aid. It would empower the Matrimonial Causes Rules Committee to discriminate against legal aid work so far as concerns the costs of proceedings. It has been and indeed still is a fundamental principle of the Legal Aid Act 1974 that the fact that a party is legally aided shall not affect the relationship with his solicitor or his barrister. Legally aided parties have always been entitled to receive the same service as those who pay, and in consequence the remuneration of barristers and solicitors in civil legal aid cases has always been assessed on a basis which applies also to private clients.
The present basis for the assessment of legal aid costs is paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 of the Legal Aid Act 1974 which provides that:
"costs shall be taxed for the purposes of this Schedule according to the ordinary rules applicable on a taxation as between solicitor and client where the costs are to be paid out of a common fund in which the client and others are interested".
The aim of Clause 64 in its second part is to enable fixed rates to be prescribed for legal aid work while leaving taxing officers to determine fair rates for private work. An aim is to reduce the cost of legal aid and payment for legally aided work. But the fear of those who deal with these matters, who are not by any means solely concerned with their own benefit, is that the inevitable result will be a reduction in the standards of service for legally aided persons. For that reason we feel that this clause, which is not in any sense part of the responsibility or recommendation of the Law Commission—that was not what it had to

1087
deal with—is an unattractive addition and intrusion into what is otherwise an admirable Bill.
At present, taxing masters and registrars fix fair remuneration for the payment of lawyers' fees in the light of local conditions and the circumstances of the case. Good work is rewarded; bad work is penalised. The system has worked pretty well since legal aid was introduced. However, fixed rates, which are now proposed in this field, by which mechanical assessments of hours worked will replace qualitative assessment of the work done, will reduce, we fear, the quality of the service provided and will discourage efficiency.
For those reasons we hope that further reflection will lead the noble and learned Lord and the Government to abandon Clause 64 of the Bill, which is at the moment the only black mark upon what is otherwise an admirable piece of law reform.

Libyan Nationals: Expulsion
3.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question on a decision to expel a number of Libyan nationals being given in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Twenty-one Libyan nationals have today been served with notices of intention to deport on the ground that their deportation is conducive to the public good in the interests of national security. I took this decision in the light of the latest information about the active involvement of those concerned in organising Libyan student activity in support of the Gaddafi regime in the United Kingdom. I have authorised their detention while arrangements for their deportation are made.
"The House will understand that, in a matter affecting national security, it would not be right for me to disclose further details of the information available to me on which I took the decision to initiate deportation action. I shall not hesitate to use my powers under the Immigration Act to deport other Libyan nationals if evidence is received of their involvement in activities which might endanger security."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the reply to a Private Notice Question asked in another place, may I make the position of those who sit on these Benches abundantly clear? Whatever one's views may be about the action taken by the United States Government and by our own Government a few days ago, we on these Benches feel that there should be complete unity in behaving with such discretion as will safeguard, so far as we possibly can, British interests and British personnel wherever they may be. That includes, obviously, the security of citizens in this country. If, therefore, there is a genuine action taken in regard to that
1088
security, those sitting on these Benches have no doubt about their wish to support the Government.
Having said that, I am perfectly sure that the Government will realise that there are questions being asked in nearly every civilised country (apart from those that do not deserve that description) as to whether or not this Government acted in good faith in regard to their fear of terrorist activity and the responsibility of the Libyan Government for that activity. Her Majesty's Opposition, in this House and in another place, have said that they have no doubt of the complicity in terrorism of Gaddafi and the Libyan Government. But questions are being asked. It is not sufficient, if I may respectfully say so, for Her Majesty's Government merely to make an announcement at this stage of the expulsion of 21 Libyans and then give the usual sentence that it might be appropriate in other circumstances that further details, because of security reasons cannot be given.
What an extraordinary date to choose for this expulsion, it might be asked by those not friendly to this country. If these people were a danger to the security of this country, why was that not known and why was action not taken long ago? Why, by coincidence, does it take place a couple of days after the British Government try—when I use the word "try" I do not use it cheaply—to justify their action in collaboration with the American Government? Why were these people not detected in regard to their security risk more than 48 hours ago? Many have asked, in this House and elsewhere, why we were training pilots for Libya in view of the fact that it was known that the training could obviously be a risk in regard to terrorist activity. Why are we not told, and can we now be told, how many of the 21 are pilots from Libya being trained in this country? What is to happen about the others?
Finally, what is the position of 250 Libyan trainees now with British Airways? Are they a security risk? How many of them are included in the 21? I respectfully say that the Government will have to be a little more forthcoming in regard to the information for which I have ventured to ask for the sake of good public relations here and abroad.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I have no allegations of bad faith to make against the Government this afternoon. I welcome the information that has been given and also that these steps have been taken, perhaps somewhat belatedly. It is the belatedness of the matter that causes me a little anxiety. I should like to give one example. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can inform us whether among those to be deported there is a man by the name of Adel Masoud, who, according to the press—the press may or may not be right—was boasting last month that he was a member of a revolutionary squad in this country who was prepared to become part of a suicide attack. If that is right, it looks as though action of this sort might properly have been taken rather more quickly than it has been.
The only other observation I would make is that it is highly probable that among the Libyan students in this country there are those who will potentially support terrorist activities. It will no doubt also be borne in mind that it is not impossible, particularly

1089
among a student body, that there may be some who are potential opponents of Colonel Gaddafi. I am sure that the Government will recognise the great importance of distinguishing carefully between the two, in order that we should do nothing that might discourage those who may in due course become part of an opposition movement.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for expressing the view that he hopes for complete unity in safeguarding British interests and British personnel wherever they may be.
With regard to the question asked by both noble Lords about why no decision had been taken before to deport these Libyans, I have to say that I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said. Of course student or other activity conducted, for example, by the trainee engineers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, in support of a foreign government need not itself harm national security. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary judged that, following the threats of last week, in this particular case it did.
It is all very well and understandable that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should ask for more information to be made available about why more information cannot be given. I can only say to him that the decision to deport was taken on the ground that deportation was conducive to the public good and in the interests of national security, in the light of information about the active involvement of those concerned in Libyan student activity in the United Kingdom in the way that I described when I made the Statement. It would not be appropriate to disclose further details of the information on which the decision was reached.
The noble Lord asked in particular how many of the pilots were included in this number. I can tell him that one has been included. None of the Libyan trainee engineers is included in it, but I can tell the noble Lord that steps have been taken to make sure that these people—and I include both pilots and engineers in this—can do no harm. There are some legal and practical complications to further action but the departments concerned are reviewing urgently any steps that may be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked about one particular person, Adel Masoud Saad. That is apparently his last name. I can confirm to the noble Lord that, yes he is included among the 21.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied on the question of the pilots, only one of whom he has just said, is included in this recent order? Is he satisfied that it is safe in the present situation to have young Libyans flying aircraft in fairly close proximity to London Airport? Is he satisfied that the precaution which his noble friend mentioned yesterday—of not allowing them to fly solo—can be a sure guarantee against any kamikaze-style effort by one of these young men to produce a collision with civil aircraft going into Heathrow?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said, this is something which has been looked at by departments concerned, including my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. As my noble friend says, the pilots are not flying solo. So far as can possibly be ascertained in the light of the examination which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is conducting, there are no grounds to believe that there is any danger.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister reasonably satisfied that the safety of British citizens in Libya is assured? Following expulsion of these Libyan residents in this country, has he any further guidance to give to British citizens in Libya?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course one is aware of the sensitivities of those British subjects who are in Libya. I have no further advice to give them other than the advice which has been given over the course of the past few days.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us approximately how many Libyans there are in this country?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes—if I can find the relevant piece of paper. About 7,000 are subject to immigration control, and of them about 1,800 are students.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, it is really desirable that we should train Libyan pilots at all? Can we have a view on that? One's first reaction is that it might become a great nuisance to have a lot of trained Libyan pilots.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course I understand the views of those who suggest that it may be contrary to various interests for them to be trained here. Nevertheless, the number of Libyans who are over here who, as was suggested earlier, may be perfectly honourable citizens and are able to make best use of the kind of training which this country can offer, should not necessarily affect our right to train them. Individuals who behave in the way that these persons may have done will of course be well aware of the risks that they are running if they behave in that way.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that we on this side of the House are not asking the Government for the reasons they came to this conclusion and decision to expel the Libyans, but why it took them so long to reach it? Are they aware that the French Government expelled a number of Libyans several weeks ago now? Why did it take the American exercises against Libya before the Government came to any conclusion?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that these matters are looked at very carefully. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, student activity in support of a foreign government need not in itself harm national security. I went on to say that my right honourable friend judged that, following the threats of last week, in this case it did. I

1091
do not think that that means, as the noble Lord is suggesting, that sufficient timely action was not taken.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the extremely vital point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, before what appears to be the almost solo and rash decision to accede to President Reagan's request were not all these matters examined? Were not all these matters taken into account? It might have been very difficult, and one can understand the situation about our nationals in Libya. But was not the aspect mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, taken into account and thoroughly examined as to whether these events could have happened and still may happen? This action that has been taken probably should have been taken before the agreement was reached with President Reagan.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government of course consider all possibilities.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if my question goes too wide of the Answer to the Private Notice Question, I am sure the noble Lord will tell me. However, I wonder whether the Government have any comment to make on the circumstance in which the Common Market is now exporting to Libya meat and butter at a fraction of the prices at which they are available in this country? If this circumstance is true, is it not strange that we should be deporting Libyan nationals and at the same time exporting to Libya material which will enable them to divert resources to the terrorist activity in which they have been engaged for too many years? Is this not an example of the curious attitude of the EC towards the Libyan problem?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that I can be drawn on that point by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I hear what he says. But, with respect, it goes rather wider than the Question that was asked.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that with 7,500 Libyans in this country it seems a little perplexing that only 21 are thought to be in any way a risk to this country's security? Will he examine this with care? Will he be as forthcoming on information as is conceivably possible? We have had an example in the past week where, in the absence of instant information from American or British sources, Colonel Gaddafi has made all the running, produced all the photographs and all the propaganda for the free and non-free world. We saw an example last night in pictures of anti-personnel bombs which were said to come from F-111s. F-111s leaving this country never had any anti-personnel bombs. This was a pure invention. And many other stories are circulating. We must be forthcoming if we are to fill the vacuum of interest which the media expressed.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in answer to the last part of my noble friend's question, of course I understand his concern that we should be as forthcoming as possible, but on issues such as this, which touch closely on matters of national security, of which I am sure my noble friend will be well aware, it would not be proper to go any further than I have already.
1092
As regards the comparison between the 21 Libyans who will be deported and the other 7,000-odd in this country, I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend would not hesitate to make further use of his powers of deportation as necessary. However, we believe that those being deported are the main organisers of the sort of activity to which I referred.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, is there not a danger that we are arriving at a state of paranoia over the Libyans and laying the blame for every single act of terrorism at the Libyan door? Other people commit acts of terrorism. From the way we are going at the moment is there not a very grave danger that when they commit them those acts will be attributed to Libya exclusively? I think there is a grave danger.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly that is an issue to which the Government are alive.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
4.1 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Meston: My Lords, perhaps I may now return your Lordships to consideration of the Family Law Bill. I should like to join in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his detailed introduction to this Bill, which is indeed a complex but important measure. Part I of the Bill is most welcome. It introduces overdue reform in the area of recognition and enforcement of child custody and related orders within the national jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. It is the unadulterated product of a Law Commission report and indeed complements recent legislation in relation to child abduction.
In dealing with the practical problems which arise in this area of the law one is often faced with the question: what weight should be given to the fact that there are other proceedings concerning the child in question in another jurisdiction? Hitherto the courts in Scotland and in England have almost invariably expressed respect for child custody and other orders made in the other jurisdiction, but sometimes that respect is a little guarded, and even if an English court gives effect to a Scottish order, as it will usually do, it is not without feeling the need to reconsider the matter in varying degrees of depth.
Reconsideration of the welfare of a child is not always a bad thing in the interests of the child, but the reality is that it is usually the result of a desire by one or other of the parties to the litigation, out of a sense of grievance, to have a second bite at the same cherry. It is undesirable that the same issues relating to the same child should be ventilated within two courts applying the same criteria in the same manner.
Perhaps I may briefly give your Lordships an example in the form of a case in which I was involved. The parents of a girl aged six separated; the mother and child went to Scotland, the father remained in London. Two years later the father went to the Scottish courts, applied for custody, and after a full two-day hearing in front of a senior judge of the Court

1093
of Session custody was granted to the mother. The father of course was allowed access to the child, but at the end of the very first period of access allowed by the judge to the father back in England he decided to hang on to the child. Therefore, the mother had to come to England and make the child a ward of the English court.
There were further hearings and an appeal to the Court of Appeal, at the end of which the child was restored to the mother, as the Scottish judge had ordered some two months before. That was a classic example of unnecessary duplication of litigation and more than duplication of the expense and anguish to all involved. Had this Bill been enacted, that would not have occurred. Part I of this Bill rests on the very sound proposition that the best interests of the child usually require there to be simply one set of proceedings to decide what is best for that child.
However, this Bill works not only by giving rules for recognition of custody orders, but by providing a mechanism for deciding which jurisdiction has priority, and a mechanism for enforcement. It is not all negative and deterrent. There are positive benefits which I can perceive in that it will instill confidence in both the courts and the custodial parent in allowing access out of the immediate jurisdiction of the court.
One of the awkward questions which one's clients have the habit of asking is: what happens if he does not return the child at the end of the access period? Now one can say what can happen. The mechanism of this Bill, if enacted, will allow a custody or access order to be registered in another jurisdiction and, if necessary, swiftly implemented.
Part II of the Bill introduces reforms recommended by the Law Commission in another area, with certain modifications. As the explanatory note says:
"a more restricted approach than that recommended by the Law Commissions is adopted in relation to the recognition of overseas divorces granted otherwise than by judicial or other proceedings".
Most practising lawyers, if they are honest (which, of course, by definition they always are) do not find it at all easy to deal with cases in which the validity and effect of foreign divorces fall to be considered. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated, the Law Reports are stuffed full of cases involving consideration of talaq and gets, and other procedures. This is a problem which is on the increase, partly of course because of the increase of our immigrant population, but also now because financial relief is available in the English courts, and I think the Scottish courts, to those who were divorced abroad. This is peculiarly an area of the law in which trying to remove one lot of problems thrown up by one set of recognition rules can easily create another set of problems. It is very difficult to get the right mixture of simplicity, certainty and fairness.
In a Second Reading debate I shall not dwell on technicalities, but two points occur to me on Part II of the Bill. I can best illustrate this by an example. As I understand it, under the present law if, for example, two Israelis domiciled in Israel obtained a get in France, our courts would recognise the divorce irrespective of whether the French courts would recognise it. Under this Bill we would not recognise it even if the French courts were to recognise that
1094
procedure. That would seem to me to be unjust and indeed to store up further complications affecting the capacity of the individuals to remarry. Why should our courts not recognise something which the court of common domicile of the parties concerned would recognise?
One of the modifications to the Law Commission's recommendation finds its way into Clause 51 of the Bill. That clause provides a discretion to refuse recognition on certain bases. One of the grounds on which recognition can be refused is the absence of official documentation. This is a new requirement and, frankly, one questions the necessity for it. Now that the husband—and it is usually a husband, as the noble and learned Lord has said—cannot cheat a wife of access to the English courts for financial relief, there is perhaps less reason to be restrictive in recognition of talaq divorces and other similar forms of divorce. One can only surmise that the real reason for a requirement of the official documentation is to make the job of officials, and in particular immigration officials, easier. There was no need for documentation before. Expert evidence in appropriate cases usually sufficed, and this requirement may well cause hardship to those who come from countries where there is simply no mechanism for producing such documentation.
If one looks at what is required, one sees that it is not a document saying that a person is divorced; it is a document certifying that the divorce is recognised as valid under the law of that country. Even in sophisticated legal systems such a document may not be easy to obtain. It may often involve the parties having to go to the court of the other country to obtain appropriate certification of validity. This is compounded by the fact that the requirement is subject to discretion in the use of the words "may be refused". It will be difficult to advise the individuals concerned and it may be difficult for the officials for whose benefit presumably this requirement was introduced.
Part III of the Bill is also welcome. It introduces into an area of hotch-potch, as the noble and learned Lord said, a measure of rationalisation, although we must bid a nostalgic farewell in passing to jactitation of marriage, which we shall have to learn to live without, and the Greek Marriages Act.
Last, but not least, there is Part IV and Clause 64. We must guard against looking for hidden menace in an enabling provision tucked away towards the end of an essentially uncontroversial Bill. I also guard against subjecting your Lordships to a grumble about lawyers' fees, as to which I must declare an interest as someone who primarily earns his living from legally aided family law work. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is right. There is considerable concern for those who practise in this area of the law.
Since 1949, lawyers who have been prepared to deal with legal aid litigation have been entitled by statute to fair remuneration as taxed, and that means as assessed by an independent taxing officer. It is meant to be fair remuneration. We sometimes beg to differ. It is certainly not generous remuneration and in High Court cases it is 90 per cent. of fair remuneration by reason of some legislative quirk lost in the depth of history. The underlying purpose of the change in the law proposed by Clause 64 is, as I understand it, to

1095
enable rules to be made to standardise fees in order to reduce the scope for discretion in allotting fees to the legal profession.
The concern of the legal profession is that these changes are not likely to have been introduced to increase our fees, and the question is asked: if they have not been introduced to decrease our fees, what is the point? The legal profession takes the view—and we are the people who deal with this work—that the range of work is so varied that standardisation of fees is inappropriate. This is an area of the law where there are seldom easy answers. Both in financial and in children's matters there is a vast range of discretionary factors to be taken into account by the courts and by the lawyers in advising the litigants. The work has an immediacy and an importance which sometimes perhaps are absent in other forms of work. Efficient and careful preparation is vital in everything.
This is not an area of concern simply to the individual lawyers. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, it is a matter of public interest. The risk is that there will be created a two-tier profession: those who will and those who will not take legal aid work. That gulf already is beginning to appear and it will widen. The best lawyers, by whom I mean the most successful, should feel able to take legal aid work and, conversely, the legally aided public should not feel that they have to go to lawyers that they perceive as second best. To create this gulf is to limit the choice of the public.
If I may give a practical example of what may go wrong by way of illustration, a man of modest means goes as a paying client to a solicitor; his funds run out and he is eligible for legal aid. But the solicitor says "I am afraid that I won't take legal aid work". What does the client do? He has either to soldier on with the solicitor of his first choice as a paying client although he is eligible for legal aid or to find another solicitor who has to duplicate much of the work that has already been done at public expense, with the result that there will be considerable delay and detriment to both parties to the litigation.
I can only repeat that the system of independent assessment of legal aid fees has existed for approaching 40 years. It has existed under primary legislation and it should not be swept away by regulations under subordinate legislation. I ask the Government to note our concern. With those reservations, this Bill is most welcome.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to correct one thing that he said. It is this. He is wrong in thinking that the legal aid regulations have gone on for 40 years. They are constrained by rules of 1979 which I cannot change. What has happened since is that registrars and others who have had to work the system have had to do it without the limits of discretion, because the 1979 levels are wholly out of date. If Clause 64, with whatever disadvantages or advantages it may have, goes through, as I hope it will, the discretion element in the taxing master will remain.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, from these Back Benches I pay tribute at the outset to the work of the Law Commission and congratulate the Government on a thoroughly useful and excellent Bill. I also make one point of criticism which of course relates to Clause 64. This has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as an unattractive addition, an intrusion, a blot and a black mark, and, with respect, I go along with that.
The way that I look at the clause is as a suspect appendix, which is ripe for excision, to an otherwise excellent Bill. Removal of this clause would in no way affect the principle of the Bill or its intent. Clause 64(2) overtly proposes provision for a disparity of treatment between legal aid cases and private work, and this to be entrusted to a rule-making authority.
Three questions to my mind arise. The first is this. Is this disparity to include matters of practice and procedure under Clause 64(1)(a) or is it only related to the introduction of fixed rates or scales for legal aid work under Clause 64(1)(b)? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, pointed out, there is no expressed limit; no clear provision.
The second question is this. If fixed rates and scales are to be introduced, what machinery will be established to ensure that the expectations of reasonable remuneration are fulfilled? These would be in place of the existing case-by-case assessment by local taxing masters and registrars. This is a matter of concern to the Bristol Law Society (founded in 1770), which has written at length on the subject. As a member of the western circuit, I respectfully draw the matter to the attention of the House.
The third question and the last is this. If the fundamental principles of legal aid are to be abrogated—that legal aid shall not affect the relationship of the client, the solicitor and the barrister or the quality of the service—is it at all expedient that this should be left to a rule-making authority? Is it not, notwithstanding precedent, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, a matter which lies on the face of it within the prerogative of Parliament?
On the last occasion when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was moving subsidiary legislation concerned with legal aid I supported him. I supported him in the belief that, notwithstanding all other considerations, the quality of the service would be maintained and available for all, irrespective of legal aid or private work. I said so and I believed what I said. My concern today is that when I said that I had not seen Clause 64. I was not aware of its existence. Now I am genuinely concerned that Clause 64 could detrimentally affect the quality of legal aid work and matrimonial and family proceedings. I seek a measure of assurance.
I agree that the degree of quality required in cases concerned only with the issue of dissolution of marriage, whether contested or not, is virtually non-existent. Indeed, an uncontested divorce has all but become a matter of consent, subject to formal approval by the court. But such cases where there is only that issue are extremely rare. The general rule is that there is this question of the ancillary provisions for financial relief in which highly complex issues of

1097
revenue law and property questions arise. Here a high standard of specialist expertise is requisite, irrespective of whether the case is legally aided. Indeed, one might say that the smaller the means one's client has, the more important it is to him that this complex issue of financial provision should be properly and fairly resolved.
Then there is the question of the welfare and the custody of the children. Again, there are questions of financial provision and of expertise. Perhaps the most important aspect of the dissolution of marriage is the interests of the children. Surely in this area it would be unacceptable to have a disparate quality as between those who have private representation and those who have legal aid. Not only could it be said to be unacceptable, but to an old fashioned practitioner like myself it could appear abhorrent.
The replacement of the existing case-by-case assessment by taxing officers and registrars, who know their job, by a sort of civil servant, who I think is called a "determining officer", who applies fixed rates and scales and who does not know his job, has occasioned much trouble in relation to criminal legal aid. In the old days for criminal legal aid on the western circuit—I think it was the same everywhere—the clerk of arraigns did a case-by-case assessment. He knew his job. It was always fair, and there was never any trouble. It is the new system which has come in where the determining officers assess by scales that has caused all this trouble. This is the system which Clause 64 seeks to authorise and introduce in place of the existing system which certainly in the opinion of the Bristol Law Society works satisfactorily.
In conclusion, the question is, if Clause 64 is to stand—and it has no logical connection with the Bill as a whole—what machinery is proposed to ensure that the fixed scales, the rates, that are to be introduced by this rule-making authority are adequate so as to prevent any deterioration in the quality of this important professional service? If the rates drop below what is reasonable, so will the quality. I do not believe that that would be generally acceptable to your Lordships' House. On this I also seek a word of assurance, if it is possible for him to give it, from my noble and learned friend when he winds up.
In particular, I wonder whether one can take comfort from the words in the Explanatory Memorandum:
"The Bill is not expected to have any financial effects".
If the Bill is not expected to have any financial effects, if the object of Clause 64 is not, so to speak, to reduce the legal aid expenditure, then it would be easy to give some measure of insurance so that the supervisory machinery would be such to ensure that fair remuneration is paid under the proposed new system so that the quality of the service shall not deteriorate.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in dealing with a Bill which relates to family law, the House (and it should appeal to it very much) is dealing with matters that now affect, unfortunately, a growing number of homes, families and people in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt, as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, made very clear in his speech, that
1098
there will be agreement from these Benches with the main policies that flow from this Bill; those policies in turn flowing from three very useful reports of the Law Commission.
Compliments have already been paid to the Law Commission. The commission does not require it from me, but I should say how much we appreciate the growing custom at the end of these useful reports to prepare draft Bills (that I observe have been copied very faithfully in parts of the Bill we are considering today) and to add to that benevolence explanatory notes of its own Bill which is most useful to those who are trying to study the legislation now before the House.
So I turn now, if I may, to a minuscule point, and I emphasise how minuscule it is only when dealing with the explanatory notes and only to tidy up, if that be necessary and I am not wrong. In the Bill before us I noticed that the Explanatory Memorandum on page v under Part II and in thefirst paragraph, there appear to be some words omitted which do not make sense to me, although that may be a sign of my own deficiency in intellect. The last sentence appears not to be in the slightest degree clear, and I believe that the sentence starting "Moreover" and continuing a few lines later with "provides" has some words omitted. I point that out only, as I say, so that a correction can be made if I happen to be right.
As has been said, when we deal, as we deal in Part I, with the question of a child custody and clearing up the various vagaries that exist now both in jurisdiction and enforcement, this Bill fulfils a very useful purpose. I wonder how many members of the lay public would realise that custody orders at the present moment made in one part of the United Kingdom are not necessarily enforceable in another part; so that at present you can actually have custody orders in regard to the same child in different United Kingdom courts at precisely the same time. Such a system cannot be in the interests of children or parents, and it is obvious that in clearing up the question of jurisdiction and enforceability, the Bill, in conformity with the recommendations of the Law Commission, is fulfilling a most useful service.
In his opening speech, which all of us welcomed so much, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this context referred to Clauses 25 to 32 and explained why it was that in regard to mutual enforceability within United Kingdom courts, if I can put it that way, the age limit of the children was 16 and not 18. He further explained that our own courts can make custody orders up to the age of 18. The Scots courts cannot: they go up to only 16. With that reasonableness for which he is always known, the noble and learned Lord said, thinking back on English and Scottish history, that victory has to be yielded to the Scots courts because it would possibly be difficult for them to be asked to enforce orders of our courts, the Welsh courts or the Northern Ireland courts, where in fact there was jurisdiction to make orders up to the age of 18.
I pose the question: why is it difficult for a court to do that? They will have to enforce orders of foreign courts under our previous legislation where those courts have a different kind of jurisdiction and rules that are different from those that we practise. If there

1099
is any difficulty, is it too much—I ask this of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—that for once England, Wales and Northern Ireland ask the Scottish law authorities, "Don't you think on reflection that it can be useful at times to be able to have custody orders up to the age of 18? What harm will it do you if you raise the age of 16 to 18 in order that we have some uniformity and so that there can be that amount of unification of our laws across the Borders?"
Having posed that question, I pay tribute to what is now in Chapter VI of the Bill, where there are such useful provisions to assist the courts throughout the United Kingdom to order the disclosure of a child's whereabouts, to order a child's recovery when the child is not given up in accordance with a custody order, and—the most practical and useful provision—for the surrender of a passport where that has been issued to the child or where there are particulars of that child on the passport and in the case where there is a prohibition in regard to the child leaving the United Kingdom, or part of it, without a court order.
I pass now, if I may, in this humble winding-up speech, to Part II of the Bill. Part II, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says, gave effect to the Law Commission report on the recognition of foreign nullity decrees and related matters. One might have thought that was a very abstruse subject which had no practical application at all; and possibly to courts and parents in regard to their family affairs it may not have a great application. But it does have a very useful application, as was very sensibly pointed out in the Notes on Clauses, which I have had the privilege of receiving and for which I thank the noble and learned Lord's department, in that these provisions relating to nullity and the recognition of foreign nullity decrees are of the utmost importance to people like immigration officers, inspectors of taxes (for very obvious reasons), to trustees and, I suppose, to people who deal with the administration of welfare provisions in our various offices that handle those matters.
Therefore it is not just an abstruse matter that we are looking at. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, when we start dealing with matrimonial proceedings which are not the subject of judicial process, we are dealing now with matters of great importance to a number of our citizens in our multiracial community. Talaq was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. I appreciate very much the reasons he gave for not following the recommendation of the Law Commission in this respect. I can well see that on public policy grounds the unilateral nature, as the noble and learned Lord put it, of these talaq divorces (largely, if not exclusively, open to the husband), the lack of proof, the difficulties about lack of financial provision, and so on, all made the Government feel that it was not a recommendation they would want to follow in allowing these decrees (if one can call them that) to be recognised and followed by our courts.
However, I should like to know from the noble and learned Lord, if he could help me, whether there has been any protest at all from the Moslem community in this country, which is of course quite a sizeable one,
1100
what the nature of their submissions is and whether they feel quite content with the provisions of this Bill in that context.
I turn now to Part III of this Bill. That relates to declarations in family matters. It follows closely the recommendations in the appropriate Law Commission report. I only add this. Some humorous remarks have been made, justifiably, about the suit of jactitation of marriage. I readily say to the noble and learned Lord that that is not something that solicitors practising legal aid have often to consider, and that applies even to those who do not have to look after legal aid cases. It is absolutely right that that suit, which is so anomalous, should be abolished. It arises when you are embarrassed by somebody declaring that you are married to them and, conversely, that he or she is married to you. A person goes to the court and asks for a declaration that that embarrassment should cease and that the court should declare that no such marriage exists and that there should be an injunction restraining the other party from saying that the marriage exists.
If that be a slanderous or libellous matter, there are remedies available in the civil law, and as has been said, I think rightly, it can equally be extremely damaging to say wrongly that one is the child of somebody or the brother or sister of somebody. In those circumstances there is no remedy such as jactitaction available. As with the Greek Marriages Act, about which comment has been made, I think that the time is right for the abolition of such remedies.
I conclude with a question about Clause 64. I shall not repeat the points that have already been made so lucidly by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Campbell of Alloway. I should hate the House and the public to gain the impression that when considering and opposing the clause we are dealing with a profession which only has in mind rewards of a material nature as the way in which it is guided in its professional conduct. The legal profession, of which I am proud to be a member, has an outstanding record of public service in this country, whether it is with regard to legal aid centres, legal aid, free advice centres or whatever. I hope that the profession will continue to have that reputation, but there is a principle at stake. I shall not quote again examples of firms which are closing their legal aid departments, though it happens to be true, because they cannot afford to keep them, not because they want to do so. They are closing them for no other reason; they cannot afford to keep them.
I shall say merely that the principle was sacrosanct. The noble and learned Lord, if he will forgive me for saying so, was caught by that principle. The principle was sacroscanct that the same treatment should be accorded to people who sought legal aid as that accorded to those who could afford to go privately to their lawyers. There was to be a right of choice. There was to be a right of fair remuneration for those who served a legally aided client. In an attempt to alter that, which I am sure was an attempt made in good faith, the noble and learned Lord found that it was not possible to go against that principle unless something was put into an Act of Parliament and Clause 64 resulted.

1101
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—we can look at the wording of the clause hereafter—to give this simple assurance: does that clause enable that principle to be broken? Is it the firm intention that a taxing master or registrar, having looked at the work done and the nature of it, will be able to award precisely the same costs as that registrar or taxing master would have been able to do when taxing on solicitor and own client or on a common fund basis when dealing with a solicitor who was looking after a private client? I ask for that firm assurance and then we shall know where we stand in Committee.
Having said all that, perhaps I may say, as my noble and learned friend said, that this is a good Bill. It has, however, a couple of clauses that must be looked at carefully and which may have to be amended.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken from your Lordships' Benches on this Bill. I should like to add my compliments to both Law Commissions upon the reports from which the Bill has sprung. Anyone, whether he be solicitor, advocate or barrister, who has had to deal in this realm of law realises the problems that can arise—first, with regard to the custody of children, which is dealt with in Part I, and, secondly, with regard to the recognition of divorce and the like in Part II, and the necessity, as the commissions recognised, of trying to clarify and simplify the law in those realms.
The Bill also goes into realms with which I am bound to say I am unfamiliar, but from all that has been said I take it that there, too, the Bill has attracted a widespread and general welcome.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships over-long in replying, since the welcome has been so general, apart from commenting on one or two points. I shall take, as it were, the minuscule point that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised at the outset. I assure him that he is absolutely right. His eagle eye has detected a flaw in the Explanatory Memorandum which will be put right when the Bill is reprinted.
The next point with which I wish to deal is one which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, with regard to Part I and the reference there to the habitual residence test. That of course was something at which the two Law Commissions looked. They dealt with it in paragraphs 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17 of the Law Commission report No. 138 and the Scottish Law Commission report No. 91. Their recommendations are in paragraph 4.18 of the report.
The view that the Law Commissions took was that it would be appropriate not to have a definition within the statute. They observed that the term was one which had been used in other statutes and had not given rise to difficulty. Furthermore, in paragraph 4.15, they note:
"Habitual residence, moreover, is a criterion of jurisdiction which is likely to be recognised abroad. It has been used widely in international conventions",
including of course the two conventions that formed the basis of the Act which passed through Parliament last year. I suggest that there is always a danger in having too much by way of definition of a phrase such
1102
as "habitual residence", and that it is best to leave the courts, by using a flexible and common-sense approach, to reach a conclusion. Otherwise, there may well arise the very anomalies which it is desired, certainly in this and in other parts of the Bill, to do away with.
The next matter to which I turn is a point that was raised with regard to child custody by the noble lord, Lord Mishcon. Perhaps as a Scotsman I have to be cautious in what I say about our system. The matter was again thoroughly dealt with by both Law Commissions, and in particular they dealt with it in paragraph 1.22 of the same report. Perhaps I may usefully read out what appears in part of that paragraph, because it is important. It is dealing with the point, after they have indicated that the jurisdictions of the courts in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland would continue in so far as custody orders were concerned in respect of persons under the age of 18, while the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts would in general remain limited to those under 16.
They said this:
"As regards the recognition and enforcement of custody orders"—
that is important; they are not intending to deal with the ability and capacity of the courts themselves to make orders—
"the two international Conventions to which we have referred above are confined in their application to children under the age of 16."
Of course, those are the two conventions which are now to be found in our law and in each, as noble Lords will be aware, it is made plain that once a child has reached the age of 16 the provision in the Act does not apply.
The paragraph continues:
"The consultation paper, on the other hand, defined the term 'child' to mean any person under the age of 18, and its provisional proposals were framed accordingly. The choice of any particular age for the purpose of our recommendations on recognition and enforcement is not an easy one. We are, however, influenced by the fact that a person over 16 has a mind of his own which cannot easily be ignored by his parents or by the court. Moreover, it would not be satisfactory to require a Scottish court to recognise and enforce orders relating to persons over 16 made in England or Northern Ireland when the Scottish court could not itself make such an order. There would also be advantages in adopting throughout the United Kingdom the same age limit as that specified in the international Conventions"—
that is, 16.
"We therefore recommend that our proposals on the recognition and enforcement of custody orders should be confined in their application to persons under the age of 16."
I turned to Appendix C in the same report and I observed that while the working paper went out with provisional suggestions about the age of 18, there were obviously considered by the Law Commissions very carefully a number of comments from fairly formidable figures and organisations north of the Border. I have no doubt that with all the comments in mind they reached a proper conclusion. I do not think I should like to suggest that they should now depart from that. It would have consequences, as the noble Lord will appreciate, for the jurisdiction of the courts north of the Border.
I now turn from Part I to Part II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised certain points in relation to Part II; in particular, the issue of informal divorces. I think my noble and learned friend the Lord

1103
Chancellor made quite clear the reasons why it was thought proper, so far as informal divorces were concerned, to bring in certain restrictions. As he said, these divorces give insufficient weight to the importance of the change of status; there are problems as to the proof of the change of status; the divorces are discriminatory against women; they offer them very little protection and are liable to abuse; and those are the reasons which motivated the Government in departing from the recommendations of the Law Commissions.
I should also say, as the noble Lord pointed out, that the courts have jurisdiction to make financial provision orders in respect of foreign divorces, but the use of this jurisdiction would be difficult to invoke for a woman who had been divorced by an informal divorce, because of the problems of proof that these extra-judicial divorces present to the courts. However, I think it is right to remind the noble Lord that, so far as Clause 51(3) is concerned, there is no requirement for an official document, but where there is uncertainty as to whether the parties are truly divorced, either in fact or in law, it is right to give the courts this power—it is simply a power—to decline recognition if these parties cannot provide an appropriate certificate. Accordingly, that seems, I suggest, to be a proper way in which to proceed in such circumstances.
On this part of the Bill, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised two points: first, so far as actions of nullity were concerned; and, secondly, on the issue of the attitude of the Moslem community. I entirely endorse what he said on the propriety of the Law Commissions dealing with the issue of the recognition of foreign nullity divorces.
It appears, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor indicated, that there has been consideration in earlier Hague conferences of the question of attempting to draft a convention, but it now appears that the matter is probably never likely to be subject to such an agreed convention. There are many reasons for it and they are to be found in such matters as the differences in the social and religious philosophies of participating states, differences in jurisdictional criteria and differences in conflicts theory and substantive law. It is only fair to say that there is another matter—a more practical one, so far as the international community is concerned—that the number of nullity decrees is small in every participating state and the conference itself, in 1970, did not consider it a sufficiently serious problem to warrant inclusion in a convention.
In regard to the attitude of the Moslem community, I am advised that no representations have been received from the Moslem community. In passing, I would just note that it appears that neither of the Law Commissions received any representations on their consultation paper either.
That takes me to the last matter, which certainly exercised most, if not all, of your Lordships, and that is Clause 64. I tread here with a certain degree of trepidation as I am aware of what is the next business in this House and that I am dealing with a matter of legal aid in England. It is right that I should at least make clear, if that is required in view of what my noble
1104
and learned friend has said, the reasons for this clause. It is a direct result of the Government's commitment to there being appropriate controls over the level of fees payable for legal aid work and in particular for legally aided matrimonial work which this year will account for some £78 million of the legal aid budget.
In the course of our debate this afternoon, just after the noble Lord, Lord Meston, sat down, my noble and learned friend pointed out that matrimonial costs are currently governed by the matrimonial causes costs rules of 1979. These contain rates which, as he pointed out, have not been reviewed since their introduction. Therefore registrars are being asked to work within a framework that has with the passage of time become unsuitable for the purpose for which it was introduced.
The proposed matrimonial costs rules will not fetter the taxing officers. They will still be able to exercise a discretion on the taxation of privately funded cases and they will be able to exceed the prescribed rates in legally aided cases where the circumstances so demand. The proposed rules are the result of lengthy and detailed discussions with both branches of the legal profession which commenced as long ago as April 1984. These discussions were carried out on the basis that in order to be effective the new rules would need to prescribe rates for legal aid work. Neither the Government nor the professions wished to prescribe rates for privately funded work. As a consequence of this it was decided that the new rules would need to differentiate between the two types of work, and the levels of the rates to be prescribed for legal aid work were settled last autumn.
The powers of the matrimonial causes rule committee do not allow it to make the necessary distinction between types of work, and interim arrangements differing slightly from those originally discussed with the profession were proposed until the powers of the rule committee were widened. I understand that the Law Society was unhappy about the introduction of interim arrangements and suggested that it might be better to await the introduction of provisions that would enable the rule committee to make rules in the form originally discussed. It is for that reason that the powers have been extended for the rule committee; otherwise it would be acting ultra vires.
The Government are committed to there being appropriate controls over legal aid expenditure and officials have carried out extensive discussions with the legal profession in order that these controls should be both effective and equitable. Concern was expressed in particular about the power to amend or to repeal any statutory provision relating to the practice and procedure of the—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord proceeds to that matter, I wonder whether he will forgive me if I point out that the Law Society certainly—others will speak for the Bar—is most unhappy about the suggestions in this clause in regard to charges. Will he please make clear one thing if he can? Is it intended that for the work done which is legally aided work and the work done by solicitors for private clients, the taxing masters and registrars will be enabled to assess the costs on precisely the same basis; or will different principles apply? Will this mean that the legally aided solicitor will get less?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I was hoping at least to respond before I sit down to the matters which the noble Lord has raised. Perhaps I may leave that over. I have not omitted it. Whether what I say will be thought by the noble Lord to be a response is a matter for him, but I assure him that I have not forgotten it.
The proposal in Clause 64 that the committee should be enabled to amend or repeal certain statutory provisions is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, pointed out, one which is precedented. It is intended as a power that will be used where a desirable change in the practice of the procedure of the courts is otherwise prevented by earlier statute provision. I should point out that it will be exercised by a rule committee, which is a body made up of members of the judiciary, practising barristers and solicitors and which will of course be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
I point out again that Clause 64 is an enabling provision. It ensures that the rule committee's powers are sufficiently wide. Before the "changes"—I use the word in inverted commas—which have formed the basis of certain apprehensions could be made, there would inevitably and necessarily be further consultations and further opportunity for the profession to make representations both to my noble and learned friend and to the rule committee. Indeed, I understand that lengthy discussions have taken place with the Law Society and the Bar. These will continue on the form and substance of the proposed rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me for certain assurances. The first was in relation to the principle of equal treatment. At present the taxation of legal aid bills is already different inasmuch as many of the bills would, if not for legal aid, be taxed on the more generous solicitor and own client basis. The Government have no present wish to introduce greater controls over privately funded work. With regard to publicly funded work, different considerations must be relevant.
The second assurance was in regard to the level of fees. What is proposed is the introduction of standard rates across the country based on a survey which was discussed with the profession. There is no intention to reduce the levels of remuneration found in that survey. Annual reviews of the prescribed rates will be conducted.
It may be that the noble Lord may not regard those as being the assurances for which he asked, but I think I am entitled to make this point. Contrary to something that the noble Lord said—that there was already evidence to suggest that the number of solicitors undertaking legal aid work has declined—the figures available up to the present time would not suggest that that was the case. In the first years in which the figures were collected—that is, 1981–82—some 9,460 firms of solicitors received payments from public funds. In the last year for which figures are available that number had risen steadily to more than 11,000. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has had no complaint from members of the public about the difficulty of obtaining legal representation in legally aided cases.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord again and I promise that it is the last time. Has he read an article in the Observer of 6th April headed:
"Legal aid system close to collapse"?
If he has not read it, will he be good enough to do so?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I hesitate to say that I do not read the Observer. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having brought that article to my attention. I shall bring that article and the headline, which may not be entirely in accordance with what is in the body of the article, to the notice of my noble and learned friend.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble and learned Lord has already read it, my Lords.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, knowing my noble and learned friend's wide catholicity of Sunday reading, I am sure that he will have read that article.
Lord Mishcon: Indeed, my Lords, he has already described it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Monosyllabically, my Lords!
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, as I said, my noble friend Lord Campbell also made certain points about Clause 64. In what I have said I have attempted to answer both the points that he raised and those raised by other noble Lords. My noble and learned friend will keep very much in mind the criticisms that have been made about the proposals and the fears that have been expressed. I suggest that they are not merited, but they are matters that are perhaps best discussed in Committee. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have given a general welcome to what I suggest is a most useful measure of law reform. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
5.11 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I have it in command from her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [The Scottish Legal Aid Board]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("and shall consult with organisations representative of such interests before making appointments").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is yet another attempt to give the appearance of independence to the board. It has been generally recognised that some consultation is essential. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that such consultation is taking place at the moment and that the Secretary of State is initiating consultations. I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who said that it was inconceivable that such consultation should not take place.
My purpose in tabling this amendment and Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which go together, is to ensure that the necessity for such consultation is available to be seen by anybody who cares to read the eventual Act. The fact of consultation would therefore be made more public. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I have been thinking a little about this matter. When it first came before your Lordships I took what may be described as a technical draftsman's point of view; namely, that such a provision was not necessary and it was not usual to make it. In so far as I have thought about the matter, I have concluded that if there are anxieties one should allay them by inserting such a provision in the Bill. Why not? I am disposed to support the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has spoken to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 along with Amendment No. 1. Perhaps I should make clear my attitude to Amendment No. 1 first of all, because it appears in a part of the Bill that does not, I suggest, make it easy to add the words that are proposed in Amendment No. 1.
Clause 1 (4) merely sets out the experience that the Secretary of State will look for in appointing persons to be members of the board. Subsection (5), which is the subject of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, is slightly different. It would be difficult to suggest the organisations that would have to be consulted if Amendment No. 1 were passed. For instance, in such areas as business and finance what organisations are to be looked at? In any case, in that area formal consultation may not be the best way of finding suitable candidates.
At Report stage I indicated that my right honourable and learned friend had already invited a number of bodies to suggest people for possible membership. It seems reasonable that in general he should be able to choose the bodies that he wishes to consult when he is considering the initial appointments to the board and also subsequent appointments, which may not, of course, all be made simultaneously. I believe I have made clear that in so far as subsection (5) is concerned, there was a specialty, because it is aimed at indicating the bodies from which membership of the board should be drawn.
I would be perfectly prepared to accept the principle of the amendments, since they reflect what would be the procedure adopted by the Secretary of State. It is only right to say that I have reservations about the wording of Amendment No. 3 in its reference to the Council of the Law Society. I suggest that the words "Council of should be deleted, because the words "Law Society" appear elsewhere.
1108
Unfortunately, it is not possible to table a manuscript amendment to that effect. However, I shall recommend to my right honourable and learned friend that the necessary amendment both to follow the wording in Amendment No. 2 and that as revised so far as Amendment No. 3 is concerned should be brought forward in another place. That may seem preferable to accepting one amendment and not the other at this stage in the passage of the Bill. If the noble Lord is prepared to accept that arrangement, I shall ask him not to press any of his three amendments.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I shall accept the noble and learned Lord's remarks in regard to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, but I am disappointed that he does not consider it possible at least to consider Amendment No. 1 in theory and the question of where it could be more conveniently made. However, in the confident hope that somebody in another place will read this debate, perhaps it is unnecessary to press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Expenses out of the Fund]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("those proceedings were instituted by the legally assisted person, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was overtaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when he proposed a much more radical amendment at Report stage to take out the whole of Clause 19(3)(b). The amendment that I propose is merely intended to give the first instance court the power, if severe hardship would be suffered by the unassisted party, to make an award of expenses.
At present, the court only has power if the proceedings were instituted by the legally aided person. There are many cases where a person who is just over the legal aid limit is forced to sue, perhaps to recover a debt, a house or something of that nature, and thereafter some spurious defence is put forward under legal aid. The unassisted litigant succeeds but cannot recover his costs because he started the proceedings, even if he suffered severe hardship. It is a relatively small but, for the people concerned, very important defect and it is one that could be put right. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I have considered this point again in the light of comments made by noble Lords at Report stage. I said then that difficult and hard cases will always arise where one party to the proceedings is legally assisted and the other is not. I must adhere to my original point. There is a continuing need to make the best possible use of the resources available for legal aid and Clause 19(3)(6), which merely restates the existing law as it is on both sides of the Border, makes a proper distinction in allowing the possibilty of a successful non-assisted defender obtaining his expenses from the fund but not an unassisted pursuer; who, in any case, is in a sense in command of the action and may decide at any stage not to take it any further.

1109
It is of course the case that the restriction is not only in any event applied to the expenses of first instance proceedings and not to the expenses of any subsequent appeal. Conversely, I entirely accept that where the board has supported a pursuer whose case is repelled by the court and the defence has caused severe financial hardship to the defender, the court should have more power in such cases to order the successful party's expenses to be met out of the fund.
The clause as it stands reflects a policy which has been adopted by successive governments over the years. I regret that I cannot accept the amendment put forward by the noble Lord.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend how exactly he interprets the meaning of paragraph (c)? Paragraph (c) states:
"in any case, the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable in all the circumstances that the award should be paid out of public funds."
How far does my noble and learned friend carry that statement? It sounds to me as if the court has a perfectly free hand to make a decision from which there is no appeal. He says that it is right and just that awards should be made. That seems to cover any situation, whether it is for the pursuer or defender, when the court thinks that legal aid is reasonable and just.
I must also ask whether, in paragraph (b) where the unassisted party suffers severe financial hardship, that means inevitably that he could have received legal aid if he applied for it. That seems to me to be a definition which precisely falls into legal aid. Can my noble and learned friend clarify those two points?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to my noble friend. Clause 19(3)(c) is of course qualified by what appears in Clause 19(3):
"An order under this section"
which is defined earlier. As regards paragraph (c), that has to be one of three circumstances which can exist before a court has the power to make an order under the clause. Certainly taking paragraph (c) alone the court is entitled to have regard to all the circumstances in the event that it is empowered under the clause to make an order in the first place. Of course, the words "just and equitable" are the very kind of words which I think the court commonly uses when describing the exercise of its discretion. I hope that explanation satisfies my noble friend.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it is clear that under Clause 19(3) an order can be made only after paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are all qualified. Therefore, the court cannot make an order of expenses in particular unless the conditions in Clause 19(3)(b) are met. It seems to me entirely unjust that the situation exists, but I do not intend to take the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Scope and nature of criminal legal aid]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 30, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the Board").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled on Report by the noble Earls, Lord Selkirk and Lord Perth. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said he would consider it and I have tabled the amendment more or less to discover the nature of his consideration, because no amendment has been tabled by the Government side. It is obviously appropriate that the Secretary of State should make regulations of the type defined in Clause 21(2) only after consultation with the board. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, one would hope that in view of the noble and learned Lord's attitude towards Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 he would think it logical and consistent to accept this amendment, unless I have missed a point.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I think I made clear on Report that I would consider what had been said in particular by my noble friend Lord Selkirk on this matter. It is only right to say at this stage that I have invited my right honourable friend to consider whether, and if so how far, there should be provision on the face of the Bill for statutory consultations on regulations.
There are certain problems which have to be looked at. For example, there are certain areas as eligibility limits which are considered on a Great Britain basis where consultation with the board might not be thought to be appropriate. Indeed, there may be cases where one is bringing regulations forward where there have been regulations south of the Border and where the time factor may preclude full consultation. Accordingly, there are difficulties about providing within this clause for consultation with the board in the form suggested. I assure the House that i have brought the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend, as I undertook to do on Report.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I must say that I find my noble and learned friend's answer very unsatisfactory. I should like to explain why. My noble and learned friend pointed out that it is integral to the Bill that the board be independent. That is to some extent a small step in the Bill to show that it is independent. Without this there is no indication whatever that the board is independent. I should like therefore to ask this question. Let us suppose that the board disagrees with the regulation, is it entitled publicly to say so? If it is not entitled publicly to say so, it is not independent. It is the poodle of the Secretary of State.
Almost every noble Lord who has so far spoken in this House has had the utmost difficulty in accepting my noble and learned friend's word that this is an independent board. If it is not independent—and I must say I cannot see any marked sign of independence—what does it mean? I have to say that the reluctance of the Government to accept any amendments, however reasonable, indicates that the department wishes to have complete control over legal aid.

1111
That is a very big element in the administration of justice and I am bound to say that it is a very dangerous one. The administration of justice is not a matter for the department, it is a matter of an entirely different character. I have found nothing more sinister than my noble and learned friend's reference to such things as the Highland and Islands Board or East Kilbride. These are totally different. They are administrative matters, but the administration of justice is a totally different matter, and it is in this field that the department is seeking to gain substantial control.
I am very disappointed by what my noble and learned friend has said. It is in his interest to make it much clearer that this board is independent. If he does not do this, I am afraid that in Scotland the board will not be regarded as being other than the Secretary of State. That is not what he wants, but I am very sorry to say that that is how it will appear to most people in Scotland.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I share with my noble friend Lord Selkirk his disappointment that things are as they are at present. I have just been looking up what took place on Report and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, said that they had included a clause which would enable the board to have specific power to give advice to the Secretary of State. He went on to say that obviously this advice can include advice on the content of the regulations—not that it will. I am afraid that I have a rather nasty and suspicious mind about this situation in which they can include it but will not necessarily. What is the good of something which just says that we can include it but does not undertake to do it? It is all very well for the Lord Advocate to have said, "I can give an undertaking here and now that my honourable friend will consult the board". We all know that what may be given as a undertaking in this House on behalf of the present Secretary of State has no sort of standing in law.
I do not understand why the Lord Advocate cannot give us something to which on Report he was sympathetic and which really is of first importance if the board is to be worth while. I need hardly repeat what I said at an earlier stage; namely, if I were asked—I am not a legal man—to join this board and knew that I was, to use the words of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, potentially just a poodle, I would not join. This is really a matter of great importance and I hope that we can have a more definite indication of the Government being ready to include this amendment, or something similar to it.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I must say that I share the concern of all of those who have spoken in favour of this amendment about the Lord Advocate's refusal to accept it, or his resistance to it. At the same time, in the light of the somewhat extreme statement which the noble Earl made about the department, I understand his anxiety. We all have anxieties. The departments of the Scottish Office have always had a part to play in the administration of justice. The Scottish courts administration was set up by the then government in 1971 with the object of making the administration of justice more effective and more efficient.
1112
In other words, all I am saying is that while I support the amendment and hope the Lord Advocate will accept it, I do not think we should run away with ideas about sinister intrusions into not the administration of justice but the doing of justice. There is a difference, which I hope your Lordships will appreciate. I mention that merely to indicate that, while I support the amendment, my approach to the matter is somewhat different from that of the noble Earl, though I can understand his anxiety.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, matters have been raised with regard to the undertaking which I gave on Report. I had thought I had made it clear that at that stage we were dealing with only an amendment to a particular regulation-making power. There are others within the context of the Bill. I thought I had made it clear that I had a certain degree of sympathy with the views which were being expressed and that is why I have made quite clear, as I did today, that I have invited my right honourable friend to consider this very matter.
All I have been saying today quite simply is that it is not always possible to have this phrase attached to every piece of regulation-making power because there are certain regulations which affect areas for which the board would have no responsibility. I assure the noble Lords to whom I gave the undertaking on Report that I am not in any sense departing from it: I am merely indicating that we are dealing with a particular amendment for a particular regulation-making power. As I said earlier, the matter extends far beyond this.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, this amendment relates only to regulations made under Section 21(2), which states:
"prescribe by reference to such considerations as appear to him to be appropriate any class or stage of proceedings in connection with which criminal legal aid shall or, as the case may be, shall not be made available."
It seems to me that this cannot be the type of situation where United Kingdom considerations, such as the financial limits for legal aid, come into play at all. It is a matter, if I understand the subsection aright, primarily concerned with details of what type of, and stages of, criminal proceedings should have criminal legal aid and what types should have legal aid by way of representation.
It seemed to me that this was something that perhaps the Secretary of State would have had advice on from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as to the advantages of such an amendment. However, in the light of his undertaking, I do not think it would be appropriate to divide the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Legal aid in summary proceedings]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 16, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations made under this section shall prescribe a method of appeal against the refusal of criminal legal aid.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the right of appeal against a refusal of criminal legal aid. Prior to this Bill coming into force,

1113
legal aid in summary criminal cases was granted by the sheriff and there was no appeal. It was granted in public court, so to speak, or by a public official. The new set-up is not clear, but it is to be granted by the board, which must mean that it is granted by some delegated authority of the board who will inevitably be regarded by the litigant—by the applicant for legal aid—as anonymous and may, in fact, be more than one person.
It would be appropriate that there should be a method of appeal against a refusal of criminal legal aid. There is such a right of appeal in the English provision. This is a difference from the amendment I proposed earlier, in that I suggested then that the board should provide a method of appeal, and I am grateful for the suggestion from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that this should be done by regulation. I am sorry to add another regulation-making power into the Act, but it would be appropriate that there should be such a power.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I explained at both Committee stage and on Report that there is indeed no right of appeal or indeed of review in criminal cases at present so far as legal aid is concerned.
We are not convinced that there is any justification for introducing one at this stage so far as concerns summary criminal procedure, though of course this amendment goes further and extends to a refusal of criminal legal aid without, I think, reference to either. I suggest that there is no case for a right of appeal in solemn cases where the court is charged with the duty of granting or refusing an application upon a test of hardship, and I do not think that there are any arguments presented for one.
In regard to summary criminal cases, these will be dealt with. I suggest, and indeed I have argued, that the board can reasonably evolve a policy and guidelines for the determination of applications within the statutory criteria which are to be introduced into the Bill in another place and without such a review procedure. Our assessment is that in any case the introduction of a review procedure—and I use the word "review" advisedly, because it would inevitably mean that the applicant would be entitled to have his application considered of new—could lead to unacceptable delays in court business. Indeed, the noble Lord sitting opposite has not dealt today with a point which was made on Report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, about the time limit—so far as custody is concerned, 40 days—in summary criminal cases.
The Government are satisfied that the board will be able to achieve a much greater degree of consistency in the treatment of applications, which of course is one of the main reasons for changing the present arrangements. For those reasons, I am bound to say to your Lordships that the Government are not satisfied that there is any good reason for allowing this regulation-making power, even without the addition of any reference to consultation.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, on several occasions I have spoken on the theme of an appeal against refusal of legal aid. I do not want to repeat what
1114
I have already said to your Lordships at earlier stages. I quite accept that maybe the result of this measure will be greater consistency, but that is not necessarily good if the greater consistency is 100 per cent. refusal, for example. That is greater consistency. It will be necessary to see the effect. However, I do not wish to divide the House on this matter and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
(".—(1) In all cases in which the High Court of Justiciary authorises a new prosecution of a person under the provisions of section 255 or 452B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and such a prosecution is instituted against him that person shall be entitled to criminal legal aid in terms of this Act.
(2) Such a person as is maintained in subsection (1) above who wishes to receive criminal legal aid shall apply to the court in which such a prosecution is instituted, and the court shall grant his application forthwith without regard to his resources to his resources or to any other criteria.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which was raised at an earlier stage and I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accepted the principle but not the drafting of it; or he was willing to consider the principle. It is a completely separate type of case where the High Court orders a new trial of a person whose first trial has gone wrong for what can only be the fault of the proceedings rather than the fault of the party. In such a case it will be entirely appropriate that the person should have legal aid if he is to be tried a second time for what is virtually the same offence, especially if he did not have legal aid before.
During a previous discussion on this amendment it was suggested that perhaps it could be added to another clause rather than standing as a separate clause. For what my views are worth, I have looked at the other, earlier criminal legal aid clauses and I cannot see one into which it can be fitted very happily. In the hope of eliciting some response from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as to what are the Government's proposals in relation to this matter, I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I take it that it is not intended that the person concerned in this unfortunate situation should be entitled to legal aid in the event of his having come into a fortune in the meantime, or perhaps having won a large premium bond prize or having done something as undignified as winning the football pools. I take it that there would have to be a proviso to cover that sort of situation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, when we discussed this matter last week I said that the Government were giving careful consideration to the suggestion that legal aid should be automatically available, at least in certain circumstances, in relation to new prosecutions which are authorised by the High Court. I explained then that we wished to consider not unsympathetically the need for automatic legal aid, whether generally or in particular circumstances. In any event, we thought that the drafting was defective.
One of the matters for consideration, of course, is

1115
the very point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has raised today. When we last discussed this matter on Report, I made clear that probably it would not be possible to reach a conclusion before the Bill left your Lordships' House. A conclusion has not yet been reached but I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Morton, that we are considering this very carefully. In view of what I have said, I hope that he may be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, surely we shall not deny someone justice and commonsense action on the basis of his possibly having won a football pool? It is really quite ridiculous. What are the chances of that happening? It is not one of my customary weekend indulgences to fill in football pools—
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me—
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I have not sat down, as a matter of fact. If the noble and learned Lord wishes me to sit down, I shall be glad to do so.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I was going to say that. I just thought that I ought to reassure the noble Lord that my suggestion was meant to be a relatively light-hearted one. At the same time, it has a point from the Treasury point of view. I did not mean my remark to be terribly serious and raise a great moral issue which would rouse the noble Lord's Scottish blood.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord does not want his speeches to receive a reply or to be referred to, he should not be so foolish as to make what he thinks is a foolish point on a very serious matter.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I did not actually do that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it was not I who mentioned football pools or the likelihood of winning the football pools; it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. The same applies to the other point that he has made about a wife or someone coming into a fortune. The likelihood is so exceptional that we cannot deny justice to everybody else on that score.
What harm would there be if the man were granted legal aid? We thought it was a great advance when the right to order a new trial was given. There is no point in ordering a new trial for a man if he is then going to be denied the help of legal aid and probably will employ the very same people who already know the case. I do not know why there is any hesitation on the part of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I have yet to hear in this House that the noble and learned Lord has made up his mind and will accept an amendment. It is the test of a good Minister that he should recognise common sense and justice. The noble and learned Lord is the Lord Advocate and it is up to him. He should not constantly put off these matters in order to have more discussion with his people in the
1116
Crown Office and with the Secretary of State. We look for a little more than that.
I remember that when we introduced this right to have a new trial we thought it was a great advance, but if one is going to deny a man help in that new trial that right is virtually being taken away. We should make it perfectly plain that he will have that help in respect of legal aid.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, this situation can only arise when someone has been acquitted at the first trial and the court decides that something has gone wrong in the procedure and that he has to be tried a second time. Even if one is dealing with someone who could perhaps afford to be tried twice, it is so unusual and unreal that it is appropriate that there should be automatic legal aid. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, pointed out at an earlier stage, the situation only arises because the court system has gone wrong somewhere. However, in the light of the Lord Advocate's assurances on behalf of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Solicitors and counsel]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 22 line 34, leave out subsection (8).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient for us to consider Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together. The point at issue arose during the Report stage when we attempted to obtain clarification from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as to what was contemplated and intended by subsections (8) and (9) of Clause 31. Subsection (8) reads:
"The Board may arrange that, in such circumstances as it may specify, a solicitor shall be available for the purposes of providing legal aid or advice and assistance".
As with so much of the Bill, new rules will no doubt in due course indicate what circumstances might be specified or what procedure might be brought about to clarify so much that is dark in the Bill for lack of particularity. As it stands, it is not clear what is contemplated. The words of the Bill are:
"The Board may arrange that, in such circumstances as it may specify, a solicitor shall be available for the purposes of providing legal aid or advice and assistance".
I understood that what was contemplated, though I am not sure that this resolved the difficulty, was procedure in the event of contempt of court proceedings taking place. I notice that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate shakes his head. It was nevertheless suggested in the earlier discussions. However, it may be that what is contemplated is that Clause 31(8) will be used to allow the board to continue the duty solicitor arrangements. If that is the purpose, why is that not stated instead of the position being left as indeterminate as it is?
Subsection (9) reads:
"Where a solicitor is available as is mentioned in subsection (8) above, the Secretary of State may by regulations made under this section, provide that—
(a) subsection (1) above shall not apply".
Subsection (1) is an important subsection saying that a person to whom legal aid or advice and assistance is

1117
made available may select the solicitor to advise or act for him or, if the case requires counsel, his counsel, and that he shall be entitled to make the selection himself. That is an important basic provision but one that is to be departed from in the circumstances set out in subsection (9).
While the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate gave no undertaking in our previous discussions, he said that he would bring the uncertainties to the attention of those who are particularly concerned to see that the words fully express the intention of the Bill. I was therefore a little disappointed that nothing appeared by way of amendment or addition, or even substraction, to clarify the position. We are storing up troubles for ourselves and sustaining the unnecessary anxiety that presently exists by reason of the words of subsections (8) and (9), which seem to take freedom of choice away from the aided litigant whose circumstances are put entirely at the discretion of the board,
"in such circumstances as it may specify".
I hope therefore that it is still not too late—it is getting near the eleventh hour—for something to be done by way of clarification of what is intended. In the meantime, the best that we are able to suggest is to leave out the obscurity altogether by leaving out the subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I have explained, I believe, in some detail the primary purpose of these two subsections. I accept that subsection (8) is a power given to the board to arrange,
"that, in such circumstances as it may specify, a solicitor shall be available for the purposes of providing legal aid or advice and assistance".
I have already indicated that the primary purpose is to allow the board to continue the Scottish version of the duty solicitor arrangements. Those cut out, of course, the right to seek advice from another solicitor for that limited purpose.
It is perhaps right to say that consideration shows that there may be other circumstances where it is desirable to set up comparable arrangements, for example, in relation to certain mental health appeals. I mentioned on Report, I believe, and certainly I did so in Committee, that sheriffs were not anxious to have any general residual powers to award legal aid or advice and assistance and that the specific cases where they continue to have powers to award legal aid are set out in the Bill. In compliance with the sheriffs' views, there is nothing in the Bill that corresponds to Section 2(4) of the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972 which enables them to appoint a solicitor present in the court to assist a party in proceedings.
As is indicated in the 1984–85 report of the Legal Aid Central Committee that has yet to be published, this power is presently used for appeals against detention under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act and it may be that arrangements under Clause 31 could appropriately take its place. I do not say that this will be done as it is a matter on which the board, when appointed, may well have views, but I was asked to give other examples of possible use of the powers.
1118
As I promised, I have drawn the attention of my colleagues to the points made on Report. I shall similarly draw their attention to the further points made by the noble and learned Lord today. But it is considered that these two subsections provide the board with a valuable addition to its functions and, in particular, enable it to continue the duty solicitor scheme and, it may well be, introduce it in the kind of area that I have outlined to the noble and learned Lord today. I hope that in these circumstances the noble and learned Lord may be prepared not to press the amendment. I have, as I say, indicated that we are considering these matters. There are obviously difficulties in being too specific, for the reasons that I have already given.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I do not intend to seek the views of the House on the matter, but I am still wondering whether the profession and, indeed, the public, might not be better informed as to what is contemplated. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord was saying, the broad power given to the board to extend the availability of legal aid and assistance in various conditions may be superficially attractive. But one is a little anxious about the general provision of duty solicitors in place of the operation of legal aid and advice of the ordinary kind. I take it that it is not intended as a substitute for legal aid and advice in the ordinary case.
I wonder when the board will be able to specify, by either deed or announcement, the circumstances where the availability of the duty solicitor can be extended to various other fields. Do we have to wait until experience will show that and hope for the best? I suppose that that is the best I can hope for in the circumstances. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can add anything to what he has said. But, if not, I am grateful to him for having at any rate applied his sympathetic mind to this. We look to the board to fulfil—I shall not call them promises—these indications of the availability of the duty solicitor in a scheme which is not immediately contemplated, with a proviso that it shall not deny the right to ordinary legal aid and assistance in the proper case. In those circumstances I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
6 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
The Government are satisfied that the principle changes provided for in this Bill, as it leaves your Lordships' House, including the transfer of responsibility to the Scottish Legal Aid Board, will lead to a very significant improvement in the administration of legal aid in Scotland. The Legal Aid Central Committee has broadly accepted the case for the board, the consumer interests in general support the rationalisation for which provision is made in the Bill, and most of those who responded in Scotland to consultation accepted the arguments for change.

1119
Many of the arguments that we have heard for the status quo or for the importation of features of the system in England and Wales have been based on recommendations made up to 40 year ago. There have been major changes in the intervening period both in the scale of provision and in the need for more effective supervision of the arrangements, and a more realistic approach is required. Omnia mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
In our deliberations it has been suggested that there have been no criticisms of the apparent administration of legal aid. It is true that some improvements have been made in recent years through the increased use of information technology, through the rationalisation of the local committee secretariat and through the strengthening of some aspects of financial management. However, my right honourable friend considers that there is considerable scope and urgent need for further improvement in these and other areas. Independent lay members on the Legal Aid Central Committee who were appointed to represent the interests of the general public both as client and as taxpayer have for some years been making criticisms of the existing arrangements. These criticisms comprehend the split of responsibility between the Legal Aid Central Committee—which of course is established under the legal aid scheme—which is responsible for the operational administration and the Legal Aid Committee, a committee of the Law Society, which has responsibility for policy, staffing and related questions. This has led to a disjointed approach to securing improvements and to tackling problems. Another criticism has been that no one body has expressed responsibility for reviewing the operation of the legal aid schemes in any systematic way and for securing necessary changes in the light of such a review and of the changing circumstances.
As is made clear in the Legal Aid Central Committee report for 1984–85, which has just been submitted to my right honourable friend, the information which is available and which is presented about the operation of legal aid does not allow for the performance of the legal aid system to be considered, compared and pertinently commented upon by the Legal Aid Central Committee or others interested. These criticisms reflect a view which has been expressed to government that the Law Society has perhaps taken too narrow a view of its responsibilities and has displayed a certain reluctance to change with the times and to make best use of appropriate management and other systems, including those relevant to public sector administration and accounting.
While some reservations have been expressed in the course of our deliberations about the need for the establishment of the board, I would suggest that no convincing arguments have been advanced against the principle of establishing an independent body to administer legal aid in Scotland. Indeed, as I understood the views expressed by the Front Bench opposite, that principle was not disputed. I hope that in the course of our debates we have effectively disposed of the canard that bodies appointed by the Secretary of State are not and cannot be independent. As I have indicated, consultation on membership has already begun. I have, of course, indicated that the Bill
1120
will in another place be amended so as to make that consultation process appear on the face of it in regard to the two particular bodies referred to in it.
One of the fears expressed in the course of earlier consultation was that the Secretary of State would in some way interfere with the judgment of the board in the handling of individual applications for legal aid. That was never the intention. But the independence of the board in this most important area is underlined by the provision that the Secretary of State cannot give guidance on the way in which the board deals with applications for legal aid.
Comments were also made about the powers available to the Secretary of State to make regulations under the Bill. Many will of course repeat the existing regulations, with the necessary changes to take account of the establishment of the board and other developments. Regulation-making powers have been extended mainly in areas which are at present covered by schemes not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I have made clear the matter that I have taken to my colleagues—the points that have been made, in particular by my noble friend Lord Selkirk and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, about consultation.
I acknowledge that the changes in the arrangements for the provision of legal aid and advice and assistance in summary criminal cases have attracted what I might term a somewhat mixed reception. But there is, I surmise, general agreement that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory. There are too many inconsistencies in the reward and refusal of legal aid in such cases. Administration by a single body should serve to achieve much greater consistency.
Fears have been expressed that the changes will result in delays in court business, but we are confident that arrangements can be made which will enable applications to be dealt with expeditiously.
The Bill already provides for automatic legal aid in the most urgent cases. The precise effect of the changes in terms of whether criminal legal aid will be more or less readily available is extremely hard to gauge in view of the limited and unsatisfactory nature of the information about the present arrangements. It is, however, certain that a much clearer, and I hope a much fairer, picture will emerge after the transfer of responsibility.
I can understand an apprehension of the unknown, and equally I am aware of the dangers of advancing the proposition omne ignotum pro magnifico est. However, there can be no doubt that the time is more than ripe for a change in the administration of legal aid in Scotland and I am sure that all concerned will help to make it a success.
In writing to my honourable friend the Minister responsible for home affairs, health and social work last month the president of the Law Society of Scotland gave assurances of the society's continued wholehearted co-operation in the reform of legal aid. My honourable friend, like myself, very much welcomes this assurance and I am confident that others concerned will take a similar view.
We have had some useful exchanges during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House and further changes will be made in another place. I should like to thank all noble Lords for the clear presentation

1121
of their views, even though I may not have always agreed with them. I particularly wish to say how welcome have been contributions from noble and learned Lords and noble Lords who, while certainly disclaiming knowledge of Scots procedures, have, from their knowledge of practice south of the Border, brought a different slant to the debate.
Finally, I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Selkirk, to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wilson of Langside and Lord Wheatley, and to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for their contributions to what have been extremely worthwhile debates on this Bill which have led to changes for the better in the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I regret that I cannot be as complimentary about this Bill as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. On this side of the House we certainly accept that it is proper that legal aid in Scotland should be run by a board which is independent and which is more representative of non-legal interests than of legal interests. However, there I fear we differ.
I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate make a complimentary remark about the responses to the consultation paper. As far as I am aware, that is the first time that anyone on the Government side has paid attention to any of the responses to the consultation paper. The consultation paper, which preceded the Bill, was responded to by the legal bodies, the consumers' council, the Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties. They all held the unanimous view that the arrangements for the independence of the board were inadequate and that the board would not be sufficiently independent.
That was simply ignored by the Government and it remains ignored. It remains the weakness of this Bill. The board will be seen as not being independent; it will be seen as an emanation of St. Andrew's House unless and until bodies like the Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Scottish Consumers' Council and others, possibly including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, have an open right of nomination.
There was an obvious opportunity in the rest of the Bill to amend the considerable number of separate legal provisions either by regulation or by Acts. However, unfortunately, what has happened is a regurgitation of the previous legislation, with far too much power to make regulation and far too little thought to simplifying and making clear. It is a great pity that the management study which has just started was not allowed to complete its work before this Bill was presented to the House. It might have been a much better Bill had there been a six months' wait. However, in the hope that in another place it may be improved, I wish the Bill that much well.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, it is almost 40 years since the legal aid scheme in Scotland was introduced in the civil law area, and it is over 21 years
1122
since it was introduced in relation to the criminal law. Over these last weeks we have been debating how we should approach the next stage. It is only natural that over those 40 years problems have arisen. As I think I indicated on Second Reading, I did not think that this Bill was the best designed measure to deal with the problems. However, time will no doubt tell us—at least those of us who live long enough.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was absolutely right when he said that the time was ripe for change. Some of us have thought that it was over-ripe. From my experience, the principal problems arose in the area of the criminal law, and from time to time during our debates there have been references to abuse, particularly in the area of the criminal law scheme. As I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—and I hope that I do not misinterpret him—he has tended to discount these problems and to suggest that there was little evidence for them. My experience, sitting during the first year of the working of the criminal legal aid scheme in what was the busiest criminal court in the country, was that there was a good deal of abuse. I am just as proud of my profession as is the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who expressed such pride and who I am sorry to say is not present. However, this should not blind us to the fact, that like all other groups, we have what for convenience I refer to again as the black sheep. There was significant evidence of abuse of the scheme. That was a view shared by most of my colleagues who sat on that bench.
The point I want to make now is that the effect of that abuse was not just something that frightened the Treasury men. We could probably have got over that without much difficulty. There were three main effects of the abuse of the scheme in Scotland. The first was that it has a devastating effect on the moral of the procurator fiscal service. There was no doubt about that. It started during the first or second year of the working of the scheme and continued until we reached a stage which was referred to by one of the colleagues of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in the Scottish Office the other day when he said that we were paying the lawyers who were defending a minority of criminals more than we were paying those whom we employed to prosecute the lot. This had a devasting effect.
The Government of which I was a member took steps—I shall not go into them—to try to remedy and correct the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, may remember the exchanges that we had. He was responsible for the scheme, and I had an interest in it. However, there is no doubt that that effect on the moral of the procurator fiscal service has continued to this day. Procurator fiscals in Scotland are key men in the administration of justice, and if morale is bad it does not promote efficiency. That was the first effect of the abuse.
The second effect of the abuse was that it had something of a computing effect on the profession as a whole, for the simple reason that the fees at the outset had been fixed too high. They were fixed before the general election when the Government were about to change. At the time my impression was that no one had ever looked at this.

1123
The third devastating, and perhaps the most serious, effect of the abuse—which did not apply throughout the country, but there were centres where it was worse and it applied only to the few—was that in the efforts of the black sheep to maximise their fees there was no doubt that the working of the criminal courts was disrupted. We are moving into a new stage and I wish the new board good luck in dealing with these problems among many others which may be more or less important.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like in a few words to congratulate my noble and learned friend on the courtesy with which he stood up to bombardment from every part of the House. I have come to admire him greatly for his knowledge and the understanding which he has shown in many of these things. I confess that I have been very brave in taking part in this at all, because the last time I appeared at the Bar there was no legal aid at all so that I have no practical experience of this whatever. But I am very conscious of the great financial problem which legal aid presents to governments. It is a problem which will not be solved by this Bill entirely and there will be other Bills, I am sure, to deal with it. I do not know the answer but I do not believe that it is a simple answer. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for saying that one or two of these things are being taken elsewhere.
I must add one thing. I am disturbed at the way in which departments are now going over to regulation. Regulations cannot be dealt with satisfactorily in this House. Maybe we should have an examination by the Procedure Committee to see how we can deal with them. We can put amendments into any Bill we like. It is not easy but it can be done, whereas we cannot change a regulation and if we throw out a regulation we then have a row with the other place.
That makes it too difficult. It makes these regulations something of a formality and I think that the House should rightly criticise departments which in many cases do not know precisely what they want to say and therefore put in a regulation. It is to some extent a reflection on a department to have to put a great many regulations into a Bill. I should like to have that recognised. I thank my noble and learned friend for what I think is the splendid determination with which he has borne this Bill right through the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Corneal Tissue Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Patents, Designs and Marks Bill [H.L.]
6.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That this Report be now received, to leave out all the words after ("be") and insert ("not received until after the expiration of the normal interval of 14 days from the end of the Committee stage").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper today. On several previous occasions on these matters I have declared an interest as an adviser to a drug manufacturing company and, as we shall be dealing with these matters at some length this evening, perhaps I should again put that on the record, although, as I say, it is already there. One of the joys of belonging to your Lordships' House—and I regret having to detain Members this evening to explore this procedural matter—particularly to those whose long apprenticeship was served in the more unruly Lower Chamber, is the high standards of courtesy, of consideration and of consultation that apply throughout your Lordships' House. This applies not just in the Chamber, where it is visible to everyone, but also in the dealings between the usual channels, as they are called, and in the dealings which the usual channels (which, in effect, means the Government Chief Whip's Office) have with individual Members of your Lordships' House.
There is a very high standard of courtesy and consultation in these matters and I regret to draw attention to ways in which those high standards, in my view, have not been maintained. They are important not just because of the reputation of this Chamber, but because we are a part-time Chamber, too, and many of us have other things to do and have to earn our living; and that is taken fully into account. I may say also that in a long history in both Chambers, a history now of more than 30 years, I have never before had to make such a complaint in either Chamber.
I want to detail briefly the departures from these normal courtesies which I think have occurred in the case of this Bill. The first one is perhaps not important but it is symptomatic and therefore I should at least mention it. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, knows, we agreed in the course of the normal consultations that take place on these matters that the Committee stage of this Bill could conveniently be taken on 25th March. Because of some muddle in the Government Chief Whip's Office—about which I make no complaint, for we all get into muddles at one time or another—it was found that that date could not be adhered to because the Government had forgotten a Scottish order that had to be put through this Chamber before Easter.
But, as the Committee stage of this Bill had to be postponed, in all those circumstances the usual channels asked the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and myself which dates would be impossible for us after Easter. I gave 14th April as the only date which was impossible for me. Imagine our surprise when we returned after Easter to find that this Committee stage was set down for 14th April. The Government have a full right to do so but, in accordance with the traditions

1125
of this House, it should have been done at least with information provided and not just put on the Order Paper. Certainly, it was done without consultation, and I suspect that we would all agree that to have had consultation about it would have been the more courteous way to proceed. There was, therefore, an offence to me, not particularly important but, as I say, symptomatic.
I now come to the Committee stage itself. At the Committee stage, I raised a very important issue concerning the pharmaceutical industry. It is an issue which had been raised in 1977, in 1979, in 1982 with the Government and in 1984 with the Government. Promises, promises were made to do something about the issue, but now when a patents Bill comes before your Lordships' House, a Bill which could be extended to deal with it, we are told, no, it is impossible to do so.
At issue is a part of the present legislation which is putting in jeopardy something like £150 million or £200 million of sales of pharmaceuticals and at the moment is costing in legal costs in the courts something like at least £3 million a year. It depends on the fight between the companies and the "pirates"—the copiers of drugs; and some call them parasites—who get legality to copy drugs under a system called "licences of right".
When I raised this issue at Committee stage, the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, who throughout has been courteous to a degree which is in contrast to the other things that I am complaining about, immediately announced that the Government acceded to the request of the industry that this part of the parent Patents Act should be repealed. He said that the industry had proved its case on this matter and that the Government were convinced that they should repeal. He said, "As soon as possible, but not now". He could not see it being brought within the ambit of this Bill.
We went away from the Committee stage when I had said I must consider what the Government had said in the light of the debate and we naturally needed some time to consult the industry. That was what was at issue. This is a big industry and it is not easy to contact everybody in a few days and of course we also needed to consult the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about this difficulty. This is the first time that we have been able to legislate about it for some years. There has not been a Patents Bill since 1977.
6.30 p.m.
What then happened was that, again without consultation and without information provided, the Government gave six days between Committee and Report stage. Anyone reading the proceedings at Committee stage would realise the need to consult the industry and the noble Lord the Minister. It would have been in the best traditions of this House to ask us whether we could consult within that compressed period of time. No such consultations were offered and no information was offered either.
I know that the reply of the usual channels on this issue is that the Companion to Standing Orders prescribes 14 days between Committee and Report stage in the case of reasonably long and controversial Bills. The answer will be that this is not a long and
1126
controversial Bill; but this is a long and controversial issue. This matter was fully explored and a concession was offered by the Government at Committee stage. There was need for time on that long and difficult issue alone to try to reach agreement with the Government about what to do at Report stage and whether we could persuade them that the amendment that the Minister had promised to repeal the provision could be incorporated in the Bill. The shortness of the Bill (I say this with frankness) does not absolve the usual channels from keeping to the custom to consult in this House about such matters. Anyone who relies simply on the Companion to Standing Orders is missing the point of my complaint. Courtesy is one thing; we do not always need the letter of Standing Orders or the Companion to tell us how to behave and to circumscribe us.
In the event, we managed to cobble together hurried meetings yesterday with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He was as courteous as he could possibly be. But as a result of that he has had to consider the matter in precipitate haste, I have had no opportunity to go back to the industry on the matter and we are now reaching Report stage with a totally unsatisfactory situation in which the industry is left at a disadvantage because there has not been time to consult it on a most important matter.
What can be the possible explanation for this chapter of unhappy events? I suggest there are three possible explanations, none of which is very attractive. The first is that the Government do not consider this industry important enough to merit these consultations. I hope that that is not true. I know the Government are making a lot of enemies at present, but they do not need me to suggest that they should not be going out of their way to make more enemies than necessary. I hope that we shall have an assurance that they regard this industry and this issue as important and regret that there was no time left for proper consultation.
I suppose that the second possible explanation for the way that this matter has been handled is that the Chief Whip was determined to railroad the Bill through, giving me as little time as possible for the consultations in order to choke me off and to prevent me from moving further amendments at Report stage. I hope again that I am wrong, because that would be a most discourteous way to behave.
The third possible explanation is that this represents a general hardening of attitude in the Chief Whip's Office and in the usual channels and that these things will not be as courteous, as informative and as subject to consultation as they have been in the past. That is probably the most likely reason of all. In the end I guess it is a mixture of all three.
I have to raise this issue tonight not because I feel particularly offended—although I do—but because it is important to place it on record that at least one Member of your Lordships' House believes that our high standards have not been maintained on this occasion, and in the hope that by raising it today I may receive assurances that it will not happen again, or at least every effort will be made to avoid it happening again. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That this Report be now received, to leave out all the words after ("be") and insert ("not received until after the expiration of the normal interval of 14 days from the end of the Committee stage").—(Lord Northfield.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I listened to my noble friend with considerable interest and, I confess, in dismay to some degree. He has raised the question of the usual channels and the normal standards that he understands obtain in the conduct of business in your Lordships' House. That being the case, and he being also a Member in this House of the party to which I have the honour to belong, he could have made representations to the Opposition Chief Whip with a view to having the matter sorted out, if it were possible to sort it out, through the usual channels as he has indicated.
My noble friend, who has been good enough to disclose his interests in the matter, sought to raise in Committee what is not a complicated issue at all. It arises essentially from the legitimate discontent of a large section of the pharmaceutical industry, to which he referred, with the provisions of the 1977 Act, which permitted licences of right in certain circumstances for a period of four years out of the 20 years to which the rights were then extended. This was a transitional matter. The large pharmaceutical companies, which said that they were adversely affected by this, did not like this transitional measure relating to the four years and legitimately (I make no complaint about this) have objected to it actively ever since and are still objecting.
My noble friend suggests that the matter he raised is complicated. As I said, it is not complicated at all. It concerns a conflict of interests within an industry in which the originators of these magnificent discoveries do not wish to be lumbered with a four-year period during which their inventions and discoveries can be licensed to others under a compulsory licensing system; a licensing system which, incidentally, to some degree they have circumvented by the use of their subsidiaries to license some of their products for licence fees, which could then be used as a precedent in negotiations with these other generic medicine manufacturers. I have no particular interest in one or the other. I have nothing to say against the large pharmaceutical companies or against the smaller generic companies. These are issues which ought to be discussed within their proper framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when he discussed this issue in the House before, indicated that he thought the Bill was not the proper vehicle for airing this matter. It was not a suitable measure in which the Government, if they wished, could have incorporated the relief for which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is asking. But at the same time he said that a comprehensive Bill was going to be brought forward in October and that a White Paper would be published concerning intellectual property and innovation, to which he referred.
We for our part on this side, including my noble friend for the moment, were quite content to leave it at that because the noble Lord indicated (if your Lordships will refer to the Official Report) that the matter ought to be considered in the light of the White
1128
Paper and that at some later stage—the noble Lord may not have said October specifically, but I gather that it was later on—a comprehensive measure would be brought in. For my purposes, I am prepared to leave it at that. I would much prefer, if the whole law is going to be amended, to have the particular amendment to which the noble Lord refers discussed within that context.
My noble friend raised a point of some interest when he referred to the minimum time intervals referred to in the Companion to the Standing Orders. It is quite true, as the noble Lord himself indicated, that there ought to be 14 days between the end of the Committee stage and the start of the Report stage in respect of all Bills of considerable length and complexity. I do not think this Bill is of considerable length and complexity, but I would not wish the Government to be able to take advantage of the quite obvious gap in the Companion to the Standing Orders and, following the course of action of the Government at this stage, unduly to shorten the period of time between Committee and Report stages to a period that is quite unacceptable, because there is no particular time or day limit laid down here in respect of Bills which are not of considerable length and complexity.
I sincerely hope that the noble Lord or his colleagues, when they come to introduce Bills of another kind, will not cite this particular instance as giving them licence in future to depart from what has come to be thought of as the norm. But, having said that, as I say, I do not think that a Bill of this type, which is a very short Bill, the amendments to which are quite uncomplicated in nature, really ought to have given rise to a formal complaint about discourtesy in this House or discourtesy to the House. Had it been a public Bill of some complexity, perhaps different observations might have been made, but I do not think this particular Bill ought to give rise to such an occasion.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I rise to respond on behalf of my noble friend the Chief Whip, who because of matters of state is not able to be in your Lordships' House. I do hope that no noble Lord will see in his absence any discourtesy whatsoever.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is in fact going to do this evening and I must assume that he is going to deal with the amendments in his name on the Marshalled List. I gather that is the case and so I will resist answering specifically some of the points which will undoubtedly emerge during the course of our debate on those amendments later this evening. But at the risk of being accused of being pedantic, I think I ought just to correct one or two things which have been said in the course of our discussions on this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in quoting the Companion to the Standing Orders, referred to Bills of a long and controversial nature. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, read the passage. The Companion to the Standing Orders says:
"on all Bills of considerable length and complexity",
whereas in fact this Bill is neither long nor really complex, although it is technical. The noble Lord,

1129
Lord Bruce of Donington, during the debate we had on the 14th April, said that the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, had raised then on the Question whether the Schedule should be agreed to introduced perhaps controversial elements. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said that he wanted to look at the matter.
That was on the understanding that a Bill of limited scope and without controversy should proceed in the manner in which this one has done. The arrangments are of course entirely for the managers of the House's business—that is, the Chief Whips of the principal parties. I suggest that it is not for my noble friend the Chief Whip, or indeed for any of my noble friends on the Front Bench to seek the views of Members on other Benches. It is for their own Chief Whips' officers to do that. At the end of the day it can only be the Chief Whips of the parties who agree to a certain procedure being adopted—one which, incidentally, the Standing Orders permit. That is what has happened in this case.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that I had no difficulty in giving consideration between yesterday and this evening to the one and only matter on which I gave an undertaking to consider. It was attached to but did not form the substance of his amendment; so I have felt able to deal with my part of that discussion. However, I should like to thank him very much for his kind remarks. I think I should quote, to make sure that nobody misunderstands what was said on the 14th April, from col. 484 of your Lordships' Hansard:
"Let me tell the Committee how we see the position at present. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said last autumn to representatives of the industry that he would consider a repeal if they could demonstrate that there had been a significant erosion in the useful patent life since the existing legislation was passed in 1977. The Government are satisfied that the industry has demonstrated this. We are therefore prepared to introduce legislation having this effect."
That is just a little different from what has been said. I did not say we would introduce legislation on the 1st October, if the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will forgive me. What I said was this. I again quote from lower down the same column:
"We announced that we intend to implement the legislation providing for service marks registration on 1st October this year. That is contingent on the passage of this Bill. Undue delay could therefore prejudice that date being met."
The only thing I said with regard to a comprehensive Bill was that there was to be on the 16th April the publication of a White Paper on intellectual property and innovation which would give rise to changes in patent law, and that when we introduced legislation to give effect to that White Paper we would then be in a position to undertake the wider legislation in regard to licences of right. I have repeated, and did on that occasion, that this is not the Bill to do it. This Bill is essentially concerned with trade marks, service marks and the computerisation of the Patent Office registers. It would be wrong in this Bill to anticipate any aspects of the more comprehensive Bill which we shall introduce as soon as parliamentary time permits.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am just a little puzzled. I want to understand what the noble Lord is
1130
saying. I am not criticising him. I am not sure of the point he is making. He said explicitly in column 485:
"The Government consider that this"—
that is, the Bill to be introduced in the next Session or whenever it is—
"would be a suitable vehicle and are prepared to include in it provisions to repeal the provisions relating to licences of right for 1949 Act patents".—[Official Report, 14/4/85; col 485.]
I am not sure whether he is departing from that, I shall be grateful if he will tell us.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am repeating the first thing that I said: that we would introduce legislation having that effect. Columns 484 and 485 must be read together. I do not think that there is any disagreement between any of us on that matter. We have given an undertaking to legislate on the licences of right issues at the earliest opportunity. We see that within the context of the forthcoming implementation by legislation of the White Paper. That should leave this Bill without the controversy, great length and complexity that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, cause. I ask your Lordships to consider the Report of this Bill and reject the amendment to that Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, my name was mentioned en passant, as it were, by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. It was mentioned in the context of the absence of courtesy and high standards. I should like to say that I have put down many amendments to this Bill and at all stages I have had the greatest courtesy and help from all the officials with whom the noble Lord the Minister has been associated.
Of course difficulties arise in fixing dates. As a practitioner at the Bar for most of my adult life I have been used to being messed about with regard to the fixing of dates. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, who probably has some experience of that is smiling sweetly at that observation. I am used to being pushed around as to dates. I do not like it, but if necessary I will make my protests.
However, I have some sympathy with the idea of postponing actions and dates and having as long a delay as reasonably possible. I should have liked to support the last part of the amendment proposed so excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield—that there should have been another delay of 14 days from the end of the Committee stage to the start of the Report stage.
The issues involved in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, are substantial. It is incumbent upon the Government to come to a decision publicly on the issues as soon as possible.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I wish to reply briefly to three points. I shall then ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my amendment, having aired my complaint. My noble friend on the Front Bench said that this is not a matter of complexity. I am afraid that it is, because the problem is not in the event of the repeal of the disliked subsection of the 1977 Act but in how the industry lives between now and then.

1131
The Government have said that they want to get rid of that provision, but the industry must go on living with it for what might be a year or 18 months. Goodness knows whether that will be the finality. All the claims for licences of right will go on and substantial—I have mentioned the figure of £3 million—legal costs are likely to be incurred resisting that in the next 12 to 18 months.
The complexity of the matter arises from the transitional provisions—how we get from now until eventual repeal.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I hear the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, saying "yes". That is the complexity for which we wanted time to negotiate, discuss and refer back to the industry. That is a substantial sum and it is a substantial industry incurring it. In my view it would have been courteous to give us enough time, having heard the noble Lord's views on the matters, to go back to the industry and hear its views about what further representations might be made today. I have not had that opportunity.
That brings me to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who said that he had no difficulty in seeing me yesterday. I am glad that he did not. I am grateful to him, but I have had no time to go back to the industry. I only received his decision half an hour ago. I have no answers. I have had no opportunity to seek the industry's views on what he has put to me in private and to return with that view checked with the industry that is making the representations about what is to happen in the next 18 months. That is what I am complaining about.
It is all very well for Ministers to say that they can do things. They might sometimes reflect on the difficulties outsiders have in doing things as quickly when a whole industry is at stake.
My final point is simple. It is that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who was kind enough to support at least half of what I said, said that he was used to having dates knocked around. I am not complaining about that—not at all; nor am I complaining about the way that the Public Bill Office has helped him and me. We have marvellous service from our staff. What I am complaining about—and I repeat it—is the absence of the courtesy of at least informing us and consulting us about what was being done. That is what went adrift in the Chief Whip's office in this case. It is what I hope will not go adrift on future occasions.
We have no rights in these matters. We have only customary courtesy. As I said earlier, I believe that in this case that customary courtesy of informing us about the inconvenience that we might have to suffer because of dates, changes or whatever, was not forthcoming. I was not informed or consulted. I was left to find out and to go to protest.
I believe that the debate has served a worthwhile purpose. I think that it will lead to this not happening again. With my noble friend on the Front Bench I hope that it will at least have the effect of ensuring that attempts to railroad through business about which someone feels passionately and on which he has
1132
something to say and has to consult will not be made again. The Government should not have carte blanche to do that. Having aired the matter I am satisfied, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Report received.
7 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(" Provision for medicinal products.
.—(1) In paragraph 4(2)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Patents Act 1977, there shall be inserted at the beginning the words "Except in relation to medicinal products".
(2) In section 130(1) (interpretation) of that Act there shall be inserted the words" "medicinal product" has the meaning assigned to it by section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968".
(3) This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order, made by statutory instrument, appoint and such order may contain such transitional provisions as may be specified in the order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that it is for convenience—and it certainly seems sensible—to discuss together new clause numbered 1, new clause numbered 2 and Amendment No. 12. So I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and I shall speak to the others. Inevitably, we have covered a little of the ground in the exchanges on my previous amendment, and I shall not go through the full case for the repeal of licences of right which I set out, however briefly, at Committee stage. Nevertheless, it is important just to get on the record the difficulty of the industry.
As I said at Committee stage, these licences of right are licences which cannot be resisted in the last four years of any patents filed between 1967 and 1978. It means that the copyists—I am afraid that the industry calls them parasites—are able to get a licence without any prospect of resistance from the owners of the patents for those four years. As I have explained, the companies involved feel particularly concerned about this for two further reasons. First, the 1977 Act removed the right of patent owners to apply for extension of patents on the grounds of inadequate remuneration. That would have been one way to help patent holders to live, to see returns on their patents and to finance all the research. But that right was removed by the 1977 Act. Previously too the licences of right were voluntary ones and were subject to negotiation. Now that they are mandatory—if I may use that word—no one can resist them. They are obligatory on the holder of the patent. So the holder is now in double jeopardy.
But there is a second reason why this is also very difficult, which I did not mention at Committee stage. The problem for the pharmaceutical industry is that its effective patent life is now down to about eight years. Parliament has legislated to make patents last for 16 years, but in the pharmaceutical industry—and it applies almost wholly to the pharmaceutical industry—once you have registered a new chemical entity for patent, you have many years of testing for safety in the interests of the public, about which the industry does not complain. But figures have proved, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, acknowledged at Committee stage, that patent life generally has now been eroded to an enormous extent. The estimate is that the effective patent life now for pharmaceuticals has been reduced from 16 to eight years.
Your Lordships will understand that if you then happen to have a patent which was registered between those magical dates of 1967 and 1978 it is a matter of concern when that effective life of eight years is reduced by four years of obligatory licences of right giving, in effect, only a four-year life for patent. That is the main concern of the industry at this stage in trying to get a return for the huge R & D expenditure that it has incurred. So those are the points about licences of right: the industry is in difficulty, the patent life is eroded and the voluntary nature of the licences of right and the other possibilities of remuneration have been removed.
Then, as I said at Committee stage, this issue was never debated or spelled out in either House when it was pushed through in 1977. I have here the pages from Hansard which show that these provisions slipped through without anybody spotting them. They were moved and agreed without anybody spotting their significance at the time. On top of that, they had the further disadvantage, which if we had all been alive to what was happening we would also have pointed out, there were no guidelines at all as to the remuneration to the patentee for those licences of right. We are now in a legal minefield—quagmire is a better word—because the comptroller-general of patents has nothing to guide him in issuing these licences of right and in providing for compensation to the patent holder. It was something which slipped through both Houses without our noticing and there were no proper guidelines to make it work effectively and with knowledge of the rules.
Lastly, as I pointed out then, this is not a system that applies in any other of our competitor countries. No other country has these licences of right. So we now reach the situation where this industry is at grave disadvantage and the 12 main drugs, which are now at risk as a result, amount to a value between £150 million and £200 million of sales which the copyists can effectively ask to be able to use.
The problem therefore arises of how we exist between now and the promised repeal—I am afraid I must stick to that; the noble Lord used the word "repeal" in col. 485 of Hansard—in what may be a year or even 18 months' time. Here we have something which the Government feel is wrong, something on which the noble Lord accepts the industry's case. However, we cannot, apparently, find in our discussions any way of relieving the industry from the burden—which will continue for a year or 18 months—of erosion of that patent life by these licences of right, and the burden of all the legal costs that are being incurred in order to try to find guidelines made through the courts in the absence of guidelines in the statute. The position is now that one drug has been referred—I suppose as a test case—to the European Court with the further costs that will be incurred there. We end up with patent protection in this country weaker than in any other country of Europe, and indeed of the free world, and it is time that we did something about it.
What can we do to try to ease the position in the next 18 months? This is why I wanted time—proper time, if I may say so bluntly—to consult the industry. There are three, or perhaps four, possibilities. The first
1134
is repeal which is in Amendment No. 1, and I do not accept that we could not adapt this Bill to implement that repeal now. This is always a matter that is being put off until tomorrow and one wonders when it will be actually reached. This is a Bill about patents and I see no problem. But I fully understand that the Government, having made up their minds, will use their majority here to defeat any outright repeal today, for reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has spelt out.
I therefore come to my second new clause which I submit is an alternative. It might even carry the support of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington because it postpones the debate about this matter. It gives the Government the power to suspend such licences of right until the substantive legislation comes along to repeal them altogether. Every suspension would be subject to debate and annulment, on a prayer for annulment brought before the House. That is a second possibility which I advance as my alternative.
The third possibility is one which I have explored with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He has told me that he does not think it will work and therefore I shall deal with it only briefly. Section 123 of the 1977 Act gives the Secretary of State powers to give guidelines to the comptroller. The noble Lord says—and I accept his view; at least I shall not challenge it—that these are not the kind of guidelines for which that provision of the 1977 Act was framed and that to provide guidelines to nullify some of the effects of the legislation between now and final repeal is beyond the power of Section 123. I accept what he says. I know that there is legal advice the other way.
I come now to my fourth point. I hope that even today the noble Lord will be able to say something about this. There is one other way of helping the industry and I should have liked time between Committee and Report stage to explore that fully with it. I refer to the possibility that the Government can announce today that the repeal legislation will cover any patents endorsed for licences of right from today's date. Having given notice that they intend to repeal, the Government could say today, "And in that repeal, having given adequate notice, we shall cover any patents endorsed from today onwards for licences of right". I do not need to spell out the precedents for that. It is regularly done in legislation when governments have reached a decision but are not quite ready to put it into statutory form. But at least that final, fall-back position would give comfort to the industry, perhaps relieve some of the legal costs and stop some of the applications for licences of right until the repeal can take place.
It is with that framework of suggested alternatives that I move the first amendment today. I hope that I have at least made the case that there is a problem. My noble friend Lord Bruce did not think that this was complex. It is hideously complex and I hope that in the complexity of this situation the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, will be able to offer some comfort to this important industry. The noble Lord has acknowledged that privately to me. It exports one-third of its production. It is probably one of the best performers in exports. It has a high reputation in this country for its

1135
research and development and for investment in that research and development.
There is no need to make this industry into an enemy. I hope very much that the noble Lord can give me some comfort on the possible options, two on the Marshalled List and the third which I have raised with him, as an announcement that he might be able to make to cushion the effect of the delay between now and final repeal. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, it is in a spirit of humility and nostalgia that I rise to say a few words, particularly as I see the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, sitting on the Government Benches. I was concerned with him in the Patents Act 1977 for days and months—it seemed years—when he was on the Opposition Benches. I also make a confession. It is now more than a month since I put down an amendment in effect to abolish licences of right in relation to medicinal patents. It was not presented in such an elegant way as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has presented his amendments. The noble Lord has presented his case for the industry frankly and fairly. It is a serious matter and it is causing the industry a great deal of trouble.
7.15 p.m.
My confession is this. I initiated the action to put down an amendment to abolish licences of right when I met with some pharmaceutical product companies. I thought that it was a good point on which at least to raise a marker. I was prepared to make a speech (which I made when the Patents Act 1977 was being considered by your Lordships) to the effect that licences of right provisions would be damaging. I looked up that speech. It was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, by all the other Conservatives and by members of the Liberal Party such as the late Lord Byers, as showing a difficulty for the industry which would result in heavy costs, much litigation, the loss of jobs and, above all, discouragement to the industry in relation to research.
However, it was Easter-time and I could not discover the whereabouts of the noble Lord. The other channels put down this matter for discussion on a date when I could not come. They kindly altered the date for me and on that date I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, could not arrive. This is where I made an error for which I now apologise. I unilaterally withdrew the amendment without further discussion. But I had been told also by a colleague in the other place that licences of right were to be abolished by the Government, that discussions were going on with Ministers to that effect and that a Bill would be coming up fairly soon. In those circumstances I feel that I was right to save the time of the House by withdrawing the amendment.
But having said all that, I should like to say this in support of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. He has extracted from the Government the assurance that they have now decided to abolish licences of right in regard to pharmaceutical patents. If I am wrong about that I shall be corrected. But if it is true that the Government have come to the conclusion that the licences of right clauses should be abolished, it is their public duty, if I may presume to say so, to bring in a
1136
Bill to that effect so that the whole matter can be adequately discussed in both Houses. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, pointed out so forcibly, that there is uncertainty at the present time as to whether the decision of the Government in private will be put forward, and if it is put forward whether it will be passed into legislation. I do not want to detain the House any longer at this late hour but I feel that the Government should bring forward legislation to embody the assurances we have been given that licences of right are to be abolished, so that that can be discussed in both Houses.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for the way in which he has put forward his points. Perhaps I may make it quite clear to your Lordships that we regard the pharmaceutical industry as one of our major industries. The noble Lord is quite correct. The industry exports about one-third of its manufactured products and earns for this country between £1·6 billion and £1·7 billion each year. It is not an industry that should be trifled with; nor would I wish to trifle with it over this matter because, broadly speaking, we agree with the noble Lord in his summary of the position.
The noble Lord said that I had agreed with him about the money issues that he raised. I may have misunderstood him; I certainly acknowledge the erosion of the useful patent life. I heard what he had to say about the amount of money that this was costing the industry. However, one must accept that there are two sides to be considered. Whatever anybody may think of what, if I may use my term, I call copyists rather than parasites, they have made preparations in good faith, and within the law, to seek licences and to exploit the inventions. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who said that here we have a conflict of interests and that those interests also must be given consideration.
I turn to one or two of the specific points that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, raised. He spoke first of the 1977 Act. I remind the House that when the Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House, it did not contain provisions to extend the term of 1949 Act patents, which would therefore have continued to run for 16 years. In fact, it was during the Committee stage in another place that there was a lengthy debate on the subject of whether the patents ought to be extended. At the conclusion of that debate, there was agreement that patents with five or more years to run should have a 20-year term; the quid pro quo being that during the extra four years, the patent would be endorsed "licence of right".
It was therefore something of a compromise solution. It was part of a package that had been agreed with the Standing Advisory Committee on Patents. I remind your Lordships that a similar course obtained in 1919, when the patent life was increased from 14 years to 16 years.
The Government are in no doubt that the implications of the measure were fully understood at that time. It is only the run-out, if I may use that term, starting in 1983 that brought home to roost the effect of that which has set up the need for repeal, abolition or whatever one may call it. I again say that we have

1137
given an undertaking to do just that thing at the appropriate time—which we see as being done in the Bill that will deal with intellectual property rights as set out in the White Paper published on 16th April.
The noble Lord asked why, having accepted the case for a change, the Government will not take this opportunity to make it. I say to him that the present Bill does not provide the opportunity for a major and controversial change in patent law. The proper place for that is, as I have indicated, in the wider piece of legislation that we anticipate. The present Bill is short, it is narrow in scope, and, until this matter was raised, it was non-controversial.
Acceptance of either of the noble Lord's amendments would make the Bill controversial. It would lay the Bill open to the tabling of other contentious amendments, all of which would add to the time needed for debate and might possibly—I put it no higher—cause the Bill to sink without trace. In that event, the advantage that the industry wants for 1st October this year would be lost.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, asks why we cannot merely suspend the operation of provisions. The amendment is not without merit as a proposal. Indeed, at the appropriate time its flexibility might well commend it. The Government do not rule out the legislation they have undertaken to produce being along such lines, but I say again that it would cause this Bill to be controversial and give rise to the other difficulties that I have mentioned.
The noble Lord suggested also that the amendment is not controversial because it postpones any controversy until the statutory instruments are laid before Parliament. With respect to the noble Lord, that is a little disingenuous. I might call the amendment a foot-in-the-door approach; just as it would be supported by all those who favour a change in the law, it would be opposed by those who resist change. They would not defer opposition and wait for the statutory instruments. In other words, this amendment is as controversial as the other.
The noble Lord made a small point about Section 123 of the 1977 Act. He will know, because we have discussed this matter, but I believe he would like it on the record, that our view is that there is no power either under Section 123 of the 1977 Act or otherwise to make such rules as the noble Lord envisages. The rules authorised by Section 123 are those governing procedure; for example, the periods allowed for parties to a dispute to file arguments or produce evidence. For the rules to indicate how the comptroller is to make his decision would be an unlawful fetter on the exercise of his discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, then raised his fourth point about announcing a date. He asked me to give a commitment that the legislation will be as from a certain, particular date. That would be wrong in principle. There are of course precedents for legislation to be retrospective to the date of announcement but most of the instances of which my officials have been able to advise me are measures that affected the relationship between the Government on the one hand and the public on the other. I suggest that it is a different matter where the change would alter the balance between two groups of private parties. Before
1138
we did that, we should have to consult. It will be necessary to do that, particularly on the question of the transitional arrangements, because any other announcement would prejudge that issue. We must decide what should be done about existing licences, about existing applications for licences and about patents already endorsed as licences of right. Any announcement that I might make today would, I believe, prejudge the answers. What I can say in that context is that we will set in hand at the earliest possible time within this year those consultative procedures, but they will not be dealt with in a short time, because there are a number of people who wish to give us their views.
Finally, I say to the noble Lord in that context that if I went further it would be unfair to applicants now, because any announcement of a patent becoming endorsed in the future would by its very nature leave the endorsement retrospectively removed. That would be unfair to those who have in good faith already applied for a licence and made preparations.
I believe that I have answered fairly fully every point that the noble Lord has mentioned. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I believe he had some little amusement at seeing here my noble friend Lord Lyell, who reminded me earlier that he had dealt with this matter all those years ago.
Let me say to the noble Lord that we have given an undertaking to deal with the matter that is the subject of his amendment. I reiterate that we will do so at the first available opportunity. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel sufficiently agreeable to withdraw this block of amendments.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I intervene briefly to say that those who advise me—principally the Business Equipment Trade Association—are very keen that this Bill should go through unchanged as quickly as possible. My noble friend the Minister said that the amendments now before us would have the danger of perhaps turning the Bill into a contentious one. Not only would they not be in accord with what I have just advanced as the view of many people, but also they might endanger the Bill itself. That would be most unfortunate and I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will be convinced by my noble friend the Minister and will not wish to press the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the kind way he has dealt with the propositions I have put this evening. Frankly, I do not accept his point that the Bill would sink without trace if it were broadened. Governments have control of the other place. I do not know of any government Bill that has sunk in this way for lack of time. It is one of those arguments disingenuously (if I may return the compliment) trotted out by the noble Lord when it is convenient, and forgotten in between. All governments try this tactic of saying, "Do not rock the boat or you may lose the Bill." What a lot of nonsense that is!
I remember the occasion when I was putting through legislation on deer and trying to amend the Scottish legislation. All the time it was said, "Do not

1139
move amendments. You may lose the Bill." We moved amendments. We took no notice. The Bill became law in the ordinary way. This is tried by every government to railroad policies through, whatever they are. Therefore, I do not accept that. Equally, I realise that the Government could marshal their majority to enforce that if I press the matter.
I have only two other comments to make. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that my proposal for suspension in the new clause in Amendment No. 2 may be one way of going ahead. That was a bit of amateur drafting on my part, with the help of the Public Bill Office, but it seems to me that this is a fruitful proposal to consider and the debate has been worthwhile even if only to establish that. I am also grateful for what the noble Lord said about starting the consultations needed for a move towards repeal, or whatever it is that he actually promised.
As regards establishing a date, I do not accept what he said. I believe that it is morally wrong for a government to say, "We believe this industry is suffering an injustice. We must put it right but that may be some considerable time ahead and we have no means at our disposal to protect it meanwhile from the mischief in the original legislation." That is a pretty poor point to make to Parliament. Every government, having made up their mind about an issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, has a duty to protect those people they are trying to help as soon as possible rather than let them go on suffering injustice for what may be a very long time. It is a very poor reply and it will be noted by the industry.
Industry has not had a very happy relationship with this Government. It has been kicked pretty badly over the price regulation scheme, the blacklisting of pharmaceuticals, transfer pricing, parallel imports, and the many other things which have been imposed on industry in recent months. It will not be very happy that when something can be done expeditiously the Government say, "No. We are sorry, but you must go on being bled by these pirates for another 18 months or so until we can get the legislation through." As I have said, it is a poor reply.
I can only say that the only pleasurable part of the evening for me was when the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Lyell, recalled the 1977 exchanges. That was fun, because I was in the lovely position at that time, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will remember, of moving the elimination of compulsory licensing against my own party and carrying it with the help of the then Conservative Opposition, now the Government. That was, in my view, constructive. We had a good day and we rejoiced at doing something for industry. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can go home today and say that he has had a good day for industry. I believe that he could have done much more; and industry will note that he could have done so.
I have no chance of pressing these matters successfully against the payroll vote and all the ranks that will be mustered against me. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1 and I shall not move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("7 and 8") and insert ("and 7 to 9").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on one effected during the Committee proceedings. Clause 4(4)(c) lists those paragraphs of Schedule 2 which concern trade marks or service marks and provides that they shall extend to the Isle of Man, with scope for modifications. A new paragraph, paragraph 9, was added in Committee and the present amendment includes that paragraph in the list to which I have just referred. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Service marks etc.]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 10, line 9, at end insert—
(" (m) in the Trade Marks Act 1938, section 38 and Schedule 2 (Sheffield marks);")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 10. The object of both these amendments is to press upon the Government the desirability, in the interests of the economy associated with Sheffield trade marks, that the Sheffield mark shall be considered to be a service mark within the context of this Bill.
I tabled a similar amendment in Committee, but as a result of a misconception in regard to how amendments should be taken a misunderstanding occurred between myself and the Minister for which I was partly to blame. I had no knowledge until entering the Chamber as to how it was intended that the amendments should be linked together. The noble Lord the Minister was good enough, however, to deal with much of the substance of the reason that the Sheffield mark should not be considered to be a service mark.
The Minister was reading from a brief and therefore there is nothing offensive to him in what I am saying. The observations he made in Committee as to why Sheffield should not be a service mark leads me to say that there has been a total misunderstanding of the industrial position in relation to Sheffield marks and even a total misunderstanding of the very basic nature of service marks. I think it is fair to say that in this part of his brief the Minister was dealing with the basic issues of whether Sheffield should be a service mark. He said:
"This really does not make any sense at all, since the provisions refer to metal goods and to goods made of metal. The present position is, therefore, that no clear provision is made for Sheffield service marks."
The provisions he was talking about are the registration of the word "Sheffield" in regard to a very wide collection of goods.
The Minister went on to say:
"Normally there are two ways in which one might deal with the matter. Either a form of wording could be found which created a service mark equivalent to Sheffield trade marks, or else these provisions could be specifically omitted from the 1938 Act in its application to service marks. The Government decided on the latter course for two reasons: firstly, it is our view that there is really no service mark analogy to a Sheffield mark, which is by its nature for

1141
goods; secondly, the Government have decided to implement the recommendation of the Mathys Report that the Sheffield Register should be discontinued".—[Official Report, 14/4/86; col. 491.]
I was informed only this morning by the patent and trade marks adviser to the Cutlers Company that there are large numbers of industrial areas where Sheffield would be justified in being registered as a service mark. I am told that the Sheffield mark is registered as a trade mark in Schedule 4 of the 1938 Act for a number of classes of goods, Classes 6, 7, 8 and 14, together with 20 and 21. One of those classes relates to silverplated goods. It is the practice to silverplate for cutlery and other purposes.
It would be possible for a firm, if Sheffield is not a service mark, to plate goods and refer to them as Sheffield. There is nothing to stop a firm using the word "Sheffield" for goods even if it is not adequately registered for a service arrangement. I am told, for instance, that the goods for which the Sheffield mark is registered cover cutters, scythes, guillotines and shears. It would, therefore, be possible in Sheffield and elsewhere for somebody to start a servicing agency for shears and say that it was a Sheffield company for sharpening these tools. There are many hand tools and cutting edges for which the Sheffield mark is registered, but if a company decided to start up a service agency to arrange for the servicing of hand tools and cutting edges, it would not be possible for the Cutlers Company, which owns the Sheffield trade mark, to stop that.
I was told this morning that it is quite common for companies to be set up for the purpose merely of refurbishing vices, vices used in the carpentry trade particularly. There is a company in Sheffield that has a trademark also registered as a service mark merely for dealing with that kind of equipment. Therefore, it is totally without reality for the Government to say that Sheffield should not qualify under this Bill as a service mark.
One of the reasons that the noble Lord gave for not acceding to an amendment before was, as I read it, that a report of some 10 years or so ago, the Mathys Committee, said that the Cutlers Company should be deprived of its age-long practice of dealing with applications for registration of Sheffield marks and that it should revert to the Patent Office. That was said by the Mathys Committee after it took evidence.
I disagree with the idea of depriving the Cutlers Company of this function, but, nevertheless, that is for the future. The change of the position of the Cutlers Company is for the future, and at the present time it would be a disaster, I am told, if Sheffield could not be registered as a service mark. It would lead to firms which are servicing goods and which are associated with goods for which the mark Sheffield is registered riding on the good will of the famous Sheffield mark, and it may lead to spurious imports, so I am advised. Firms in this country are running a servicing agency in relation to the goods for which Sheffield marks are registered. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am quite sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for explaining his amendment so
1142
clearly. I fear that there may well be some misunderstanding between us, because it seems to me that there is a suggestion that the trade mark "Sheffield" itself is under threat, and this is just not so. This trade mark is not a Sheffield mark. It is an ordinary certification trade mark. It is quite unaffected by the Bill, or indeed, by the Government's intentions with regard to the Sheffield register.
It has been suggested also that repeal of the provisions relating to the Sheffield register will somehow inhibit action by the Cutlers Company to prevent misuse of the name "Sheffield". This is misconceived for a number of reasons. First, the name "Sheffield" will continue to be a registered trade mark, and it can indeed be registered as a service mark as the Bill stands. In that regard, therefore, the amendment is not needed.
Secondly, the present provisions do not allow the Cutlers Company to influence the decison as to whether a mark should be put on the register. Thirdly, the possibility of filing an application with the Cutlers Company is only an option. Lastly, I suggest to the noble Lord that a person carrying on business outside the Sheffield area who sought to register a mark, including a reference to Sheffield—and that I imagine is the kind of thing that the company would wish to prevent—would not even be eligible to file with the company.
I do not think the noble Lord's fears are well grounded. I hope that he will give careful consideration to what I have said. If we are not fully understanding each other, we shall have time between the end of this stage tonight and the next stage when, if necessary, we can have a longer and more detailed discussion. I feel that this would probably be the wish of your Lordships' House this evening.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that most of his remarks are irrelevant, except for two passages, and I took down the exact words he said. He said "Sheffield can be registered as a service mark in spite of this Bill". I accept that. He then said that my fears are not well grounded; that a Sheffield mark cannot be used as a service mark in the context of this Bill. I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow, but in the circumstances of his fair reply, I shall withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I may have to bring it up again at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 32, at end insert—
("2A. In subsection (1) of section 19 of the Trade Marks Act 1938 (registration) after the word "registered", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words ", subject to section 39A(2) below,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. May I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that what appears on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 11 is not quite correct? Will your Lordships please delete the words "column 3", so that Amendment No. 11 reads, "Page 5, line 18, at end insert"? Then the amendment is set down. This would make proper sense because this

1143
passage is a new line and is not attached to that which goes before.
In moving this series of amendments, I should remind the House that they have all been tabled in fulfilment of an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, during the Committee stage. At that time I said that if the amendment, which stood at No. 12 in the Marshalled List at the Committee stage, was withdrawn the Government would bring forward their own agreed amendment having the same intended effect.
I do not know whether your Lordships will feel that we have done better than that but if quantity is anything to go by we certainly have, because we have tabled six amendments which together have that effect. I think the noble Lord will agree that he was acquainted with these. I understand that he is content. I hope that he will so signify and I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and to his advisers for bringing this matter to a conclusion. I hope that I am not being rather vulgar when I say that I can record another winner in this matter: my amendment was only in one line. But this is an important series of amendments because it relates to the difficulties which arise with the convention applicants as against the ordinary applicant in regard to damages for infringement. It is an important amendment and of great use to the industry. I am indebted to Mr. Ball, the president, and Mr. Tatham, the vice-president, of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents for drawing it to my attention. I accept these amendments as being, I hope, more or less as I indicated at the earlier stage and I wish them well.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that my noble friend beside me has reminded me that in giving an explanation as to why I wanted to change what was on the Marshalled List in relation to Amendment No. 11, I said "Page 5". Of course I should have said that the amendment should read: "Page 15, line 18 at end insert—".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 9:
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("the Trade Marks Act 1938") and insert ("that Act").
Page 10, line 44, after ("country") insert ("and that date shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the date of registration").
Page 10, line 44, leave out ("but nothing") and insert—
("(2A) Nothing").
Page 10, line 46, leave out from ("the") to end of line 47 and insert ("date of the application for registration under this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 15, line 18, at end insert—

("1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 22

Trade Marks Act 1938

In section 19(1), the proviso.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

Commission on Disposals of Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
7.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commission on Disposals of Land (Northern Ireland) Order, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on 19th February this year, be approved.
The purpose of the order that we have before us this evening is simple, and I hope your Lordships will agree that it is straightforward. It will bring to an end the current practice in Northern Ireland whereby on the grant of a lease or letting of land the landlord may oblige his tenant to pay for his (the landlord's) agent's professional services. This practice, which I understand is not normal on this side of the water, grew up in Northern Ireland after the war when land was scarce and it was then a landlord's market. In so far as sales of land, as opposed to leases and lettings, are concerned, a similar practice prevailed whereby the purchaser paid the vendor's agent's professional fees. That happened until the Commission on Sales of Land Act (Northern Ireland) was passed in 1972, which put an end to this practice. But leases and lettings of land were not included in that Act.
In 1983 the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a Motion calling upon the Government to introduce legislation to put an end to the current practice, which was described by the Assembly as "inequitable". Those of your Lordships who appreciate the workings of the Assembly will think that that is a singularly mild comment. Indeed, your Lordships may agree that it is inequitable that a tenant should be obliged to pay for the professional services of an agent who has been acting for the landlord and as such has been acting possibly quite against the tenant's interests. The current practice is totally at variance with the normal business principle that he who engages an agent to act for him should pay for that agent's services.
The Government replied to the Motion of the Assembly by issuing a consultation paper on the subject. The reaction to that paper was overwhelmingly in favour of prompt legislative action which has led to the order which is before your Lordships' House this evening.
Perhaps I may turn your Lordships' attention briefly to the provisions of the order. Your Lordships will see that Article 3 is the substantive provision. In my own parlance I put it that this is the article which bites. This article renders void stipulations whereby the person taking the land is obliged to pay the commission due to an agent acting for the person disposing of the land. All dealings in land are covered, including sales, leases and lettings in conacre. In addition, rent reviews and

1145
rent renewals are covered by Article 3(4), so that, for example, a landlord may no longer charge his tenant for the professional services of an agent employed by him to negotiate an increased rent under a rent review clause. The provisions of the order will apply only to agreements made after the commencement of the legislation. I stress to your Lordships that there is no element of retrospection.
The contents of the order which is before us this evening have been widely welcomed by the Assembly and indeed by the vast majority of those who commented during the period of consultation. There has been but one substantive change since the order was published: the commencement period has been reduced from six to four months. Your Lordships will see that element in the little paragraph classified "Title and commencement", paragraph 1. This has been done so that if your Lordships approve the order this evening, it will be operative in time for the student letting season, which I understand is at its peak in July and August each year, and student tenants may have the advantage of the provisions of the order.
In conclusion, perhaps I may just say to your Lordships that the order is the first piece of government legislation to spring from a Motion of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think it is worth putting on record that this is an example of how the Assembly, when of course it is working properly, can bring about changes in the law for the benefit of the enormous public in Northern Ireland. With that brief explanation, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as the Minister has explained, this simple draft order can be traced back to the initiative that was taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1983 when it unanimously resolved to seek legislation to remedy the mischief which the Minister has described to the House. Those who were subsequently consulted gave their wholehearted support to legislation. Therefore, the draft order represents the end result of the discussions in the Assembly in 1983. We are particularly glad that the Government have amended Article 1(2) because the draft order, as it was originally framed, was based on the order coming into effect six months from the date on which it was made, and this was the subject of a great deal of criticism from the student population.
I believe that the Government have effectively met that criticism by enacting that it will come into effect within four months. That means that it should be in effect before the new academic year commences in September next.
So with those few comments we give the order our full support because it will remedy a mischief which has been widespread in Northern Ireland since the end of the Second World War.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in this matter, I am, as it were, the statutory Member for the purposes of welcoming the order. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on the fair and clear way in which he presented it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his observations on what we have sought to achieve by this order. The noble Lord picked up the point that we have altered Article 1(2) to try to accommodate the student population. Indeed, this was something of an education to me because I was not aware that the students started working for the academic year in July, preferably just after the week-end of 12th July. Instantly, they get down to work for the next weekend. This is a lesson that I have learnt as a result of the deliberations in your Lordships' House.
I reiterate my admiration for the students. Clearly, we hope that this order will achieve what is desired by the student population of Northern Ireland and, also, I am sure, by the landladies and other people who accommodate them. I am grateful for the attention paid by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, whose noble friend Lord Hampton warned me that he would be unable to be in his place, although he had, I understand, no major points to make on the order. Indeed, he was in accord with it.
In expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I am taken back some nine years to a time when we were discussing elements of the previous business in respect of which the noble Lord shows that he has lost none of his touch. I recall some of the warnings issued at that time. I shall not weary your Lordships further. I am grateful for the attention that has been shown towards Northern Ireland legislation this evening. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.

  MAGISTRATES' SENTENCING GUIDE
  MAGISTRATES' SENTENCING GUIDE
  PRISONERS: SENTENCE REMISSION
  PRISONERS: SENTENCE REMISSION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON HEALTH CARE
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PRIVATE EXPENDITURE ON HEALTH CARE
  LLOYD'S: 1981–82 INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT
  LLOYD'S: 1981–82 INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT
  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS: OPINION POLL
  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS: OPINION POLL
  SECURE UNITS: EXPENDITURE 1976–85
  SECURE UNITS: EXPENDITURE 1976–85