Sitting of 29 April 1986

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREAT YARMOUTH OUTER HARBOUR BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to be resumed Thursday 1 May.
  ULLAPOOL HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Social Workers (Attacks)
    Ms. Harmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has about the incidence of attacks of violence against social workers by their clients.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expresses his regret that he is unable to be with us this afternoon, as he is overseas on official business.
    Detailed information about violent attacks against social workers is not collected centrally on a systematic basis, but the evidence that we have had, distressing though it certainly is, is sadly not inconsistent with the nature of a social worker's job, which inevitably brings him or her into contact with emotionally disturbed or mentally disordered clients. It must be for employing authorities to assess the level of risk to their staff and to take the necessary action.
    Ms. Harman: Is the Minister aware of the nationwide research which has been carried out at Cambridge university which shows that social workers are likely to be attacked by their clients on average once a year? In view of the recent deaths of two social workers at the hands of their clients, why are the Government taking such a complacent attitude about the matter? Will the Minister co-ordinate the actions of local authorities, which are trying to reduce the risk to their social workers and encourage and enable them to do something constructive? Will he ensure that people coming out of institutions into the community get proper back-up support so that they do not become a danger to themselves or to the social workers who care for them?
    Mr. Whitney: The Government are in no sense complacent about this very difficult issue, and we remain in close contact with the employing authorities. We will, of course, maintain such contact to discover whether further guidance can properly be given centrally. We are also in close contact with the parents of those involved in the specific case in which the hon. Lady has taken a close interest.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not true that there are recruited into the social services many odd-bods who are long-haired, unshaven and who wear political badges on their lapels, who provoke attacks upon themselves by their very attitude?
    Mr. Whitney: I am not prepard to generalise about odd-bods in the social services. I believe that social workers have a very difficult job to do, and these cases raise difficult and sensitive issues.
    Mr. Wigley: The House will be somewhat surprised that the Minister was not stronger in his condemnation of the question from the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens).
    Does the Minister accept that the risks to social workers would be considerably lessened if there was proper assessment of the needs of people leaving long-stay hospitals with mental illness or other forms of mental disorders? Does he agree that, to enable that to happen, it would be greatly advantageous if the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, now in another place, could have its commencement orders on these sections as soon as possible?
    Mr. Whitney: Many of the issues involve clinical decisions, which, of course, the Government carefully monitor, but which are not directly in our control. The House will be well aware of the Government's helpful attitude to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    One-Parent Benefit
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage take-up of one-parent benefit.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): The percentage take-up has steadily improved over recent years, and the latest available estimate shows that about 75 per cent. of those who stand to gain by claiming one-parent benefit are receiving it.
    Mr. Knox: I accept that there has been a great improvement during the last few years, but does my hon. Friend not think that the figure is still disappointing? Does he have any plans to try to improve the percentage take-up?
    Mr. Major: I share my hon. Friend's wish that the take-up should be improved. We shall continue with the brief television fillers, which have proved to be particularly successful in encouraging people to claim this benefit, as well as with the traditional advertisements, which appear in child benefit books and on leaflets and posters in a variety of places, notably surgeries, health centres, post offices, law centres and elsewhere. I hope that in this fashion we will increase the take-up.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate upon how many people do not take up the one-parent benefit, although they are entitled to it, and upon what the cost would be if they did?
    Mr. Major: I do not have the most recently available figures, but, broadly, about 100,000 families who could have claimed one-parent benefit did not take it up. According to the latest figures, the cost would have been about £18 million a year. I hope that in about three months' time we will be able to update those figures.

    Invalid Care Allowance (Married Women)
    Ms. Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will seek to extend invalid care allowance to married women; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): This matter is currently the subject of legal proceedings before the European Court, to which the Government are giving close attention.
    Ms. Richardson: Will the Minister accept that if the women, under 100,000, who do not qualify for the invalid care allowance because they are married were not there to provide informal care, the Government would have to fork out between £5 billion and £7 billion in order to provide formal residential care, and that the £85 million that it would cost to extend the benefit to married and co-habiting women is chickenfeed because of the worth of the care that these women provide? Will he recognise that women all over the country are boiling over with anger and frustration because of this anachronistic Government, who should pay up or go?
    Mr. Newton: Our most up-to-date estimate is that the cost would be £100 million rather than £85 million. I acknowledge entirely the immense value of the work of these carers and of many others who do not qualify for the invalid care allowance, whatever the law on the invalid care allowance may be. The issue, among others, alongside the legal issue, is about the best way to help such carers in the devoted work that they do.
    Mr. Ashley: Why must the Government be dragged, kicking and screaming, into making this payment? Did the Minister read the article in The Sunday Times about the woman who was overwhelmed with caring for her husband who was suffering from multiple sclerosis, and whose family was devastated? Does he appreciate that without the invalid care allowance these women suffer even more because they are confined to their home and lack all help? If the Government do not help them, they lack all hope as well.
    Mr. Newton: I have met a number of women, and others, who have been providing this kind of care, and I very much appreciate what they do. However, I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not automatically clear that a payment of £23 a week, which is what we are talking about, as distinct from the wider availability of respite care or other support services, is the best way to help such women.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Many people will be pleased to hear the Minister's remarks about those who are caring at home for relatives, but is he aware that many
    768
    Conservative Members very much hope that he will be able to see his way to extending the invalid care allowance to married women?
    Mr. Newton: I am very well aware that feelings on this matter extend to both sides of the House.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why does the Minister think that this country is brought before the European Court more often than any of the other countries in the European Community? Is he not thoroughly ashamed of that fact?
    Mr. Newton: Quite possibly—I say this in, I hope, a reasonable spirit—that is because of the number of grotesquely discriminatory pieces of legislation that we inherited from the previous Labour Government.

    Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with co-ordination between health authorities and local authorities in the proper provision of community care for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped with particular reference to financial provision.
    Mr. Whitney: Good progress is being made in many areas in the joint planning of community care, but there is room for improvement over the country as a whole. The joint finance and care in the community arrangements enable health authorities to give financial support for community care provided by local social services authorities and voluntary organisations.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the confusion and contradiction, at least in my borough, between the local health authority and the social services department of the council as to their exact responsibilities over the provision of care for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped? That has been tragically underlined in the case of a constituent who is severely mentally handicapped, who within 48 hours lost both her parents who were looking after her at home. In view of that confusion and contradiction, will my hon. Friend look into both the particular case and the general responsibilities so that it is possible unambiguously and unequivocally to assert where the responsibility lies?
    Mr. Whitney: This is undoubtedly a difficult matter. As I said in my earlier reply, the good progress is not universal. There may be room for improvement. It may well be that my hon. Friend's constituency is a case in point. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend and the House that a multi-disciplinary meeting on that tragic case will be held on 13 May. I believe that that meeting will demonstrate the good co-operation that exists across the authorities in this tragic and worrying case.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, for historical reasons, severe distortions often take place with respect to moving people from long-stay hospitals into the community? Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the anomalous position for Salford health authority and Salford city council regarding his policy on Prestwich hospital?
    Mr. Whitney: I shall look into the details. The local health authority and local authorities must work closely together against the background of support facilities, including joint finance, which the Government have provided and continue to provide.
    Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the policy of moving mentally ill and handicapped people into the community is commendable, it is expensive and shifts the burden on to the social services department and the local authority? It is essential that adequate funds are provided so that the scheme will be successful.
    Mr. Whitney: We accept that there are financial pressures. That is why we urge maximum co-operation, to go at the pace of the possible, depending on the local circumstances. That is why we have produced the funding that is now available.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that everybody, including the Government, accepts that successful community care cannot be a cheap option? How, therefore, can there be the co-ordination necessary to ensure the success of the policy when, for example, local authorities are starved of sufficient funds? They require those funds to provide the type of housing and the range of back-up facilities in the community that will enable people coming out of long-stay institutions not to be in a position where they lack sufficient community support or where they simply end up being re-admitted to the very institutions from which they moved. Will the hon. Gentleman consider other aspects of Government policy that operate against the interests of community care?
    Mr. Whitney: Local authorities must choose their own priorities. No one would pretend that that was an easy task. Priorities must be set against a background of rising expenditure in the local authority area. The hon. Gentleman should take note of the financial facilities that are being made available. For example, this year, the joint finance allocation will be about £111 million.
    Mr. Richard Page: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable concern among parents, especially elderly parents, about their children, often young adults, who are returned to the community without adequate support or back-up? Will he clarify the guidelines between the appropriate authorities so that they cannot argue and bicker among themselves, and so that they will know exactly what their individual responsibilities are?
    Mr. Whitney: There should be no question of individuals being returned to places outside the health authority scheme unless suitable and adequate arrangements have been made. That is precisely why the JCCs and the joint care planning teams are provided. They should ensure that the problems to which my hon. Friend referred are solved locally.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that a recent survey of private rest homes for the disabled and the elderly found that degradation and exploitation were the norm, not the exception? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that residents were forced to strip in front of others to wash; milk was watered down to save money; incontinent residents were left without underwear; and YTS trainees were made to dispense drugs without knowledge of dosage side-effects? Is it not utterly repugnant that the Government should be encouraging huge commercial profits to be made in this way by private rest homes at the expense of frail and vulnerable patients?
    Mr. Whitney: The Government are determined that the highest standards should be maintained in residential and nursing homes and similar accommodation, whether they are operated in the public or the private sector. That
    770
    is why we instituted the inspection systems. For example, to help local authorities, we have increased the scale of registration fees and introduced regulations under the "Home Life" publication. If the hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that badly maintained homes exist only in the private sector, I invite him to consult his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) to instruct him on the dreadful conditions found in the Nye Bevan home in Southwark.

    NHS Accommodation
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about his proposals on National Health Service accommodation.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about accommodation for National Health Service employees; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Since the new national policy was announced last July, about 200 letters have been received. In some cases concern has been expressed that staff might be evicted as a result of this policy. But, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his written answer on 25 April, no one will be required to move from his or her present accommodation without being offered a suitable alternative place to live.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite the parliamentary answer to which he referred, there is still widespread concern among NHS staff—nurses, ancillary workers and others—that they will be pressurised to leave their homes? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no one who works for the NHS will be forcibly evicted or removed from his home?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I made it clear, no one will be required as part of this policy to move from his present accommodation without being offered a suitable alternative place in which to live. I am glad that this question gives me a further opportunity to clarify the position and, I hope, to put straight the record, which some people are deliberately seeking to misrepresent.
    Mr. Canavan: As many Health Service employees in Scotland live in genuine fear of eviction, will the right hon. Gentleman extend his absolute guarantee to Health Service employees north of the border who live in such accommodation? As much of the NHS living accommodation is in an appalling state of disrepair, because Crown immunity exempts health authorities from the obligation to carry out the necessary repairs, will the right hon. Gentleman abolish Crown immunity in that respect, too, so that Health Service employees have the same rights as other tenants?
    Mr. Hayhoe: One objective of the present policy of disposing of vacant and surplus property is to produce the resources which can be ploughed back to modernise and bring existing property up to a decent standard.
    Mr. McCrindle: Because of the emotive way in which the matter is being dealt with by the Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom and, evidently, the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to restore a sense of perspective by reminding us of the

    771
    number of employees who live in property owned by the health authorities and the percentage of total employees who do so?
    Mr. Hayhoe: This residential accommodation is designed particularly for certain professional trainees—junior doctors, student nurses, and other staff—especially in inner city areas. A little more than half the junior doctors, a little under half the student nurses, and fewer than one in 10 qualified nurses live in such accommodation.
    Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real outrage would occur if the Government neglected the massive amount of property owned by the NHS which deserves to be developed for the better care of patients rather than distributed haphazardly, as at present?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is right. If we extend the matter way beyond the residential accommodation that we are discussing, it is clear that substantial resources are locked up in those properties, which could be disposed of and the resources used for the benefit of patients in general.
    Mr. Evans: Where will the NHS get the suitable accommodation from?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That will depend upon local circumstances.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: What representations has my right hon. Friend received about NHS accommodation for young arthritically disabled children at the Wrightington hospital in Lancashire, bearing in mind the importance to local people of this regional centre of excellence, which the North-West area health authority proposes to close?
    Mr. Hayhoe: May I write to my hon. Friend on this matter? Clearly the individuals whom he he has in mind are not NHS employees.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister said that no one would be evicted unless suitable alternative accommodation was offered. Is he aware that there are areas where there is no such suitable alternative accommodation? What happens if the offer is turned down? Who defines what is suitable?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That must be a matter for local judgment, but it is wholly reasonable that, as part of this policy, one should seek to make more effective use of the NHS estate. If someone is seeking unreasonably to prevent that from happening and suitable alternative accommodation is made available, he is being treated fairly.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that often, especially in rural areas where there are psychiatric hospitals well away from any conurbation, there is great difficulty in finding suitable alternative accommodation? In urban areas, where suitable accommodation may be available, because of the low salaries paid to those involved in the Health Service they cannot afford it.
    Mr. Hayhoe: More than 90 per cent. of qualified nurses do not live in such accommodation, and, as I said, the stress points are in the inner-city areas.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that up to 50,000 nurses and auxiliaries could be forced to leave their NHS homes within the next two years? Is he also aware that, contrary to the impression he has given, some health authorities have already jumped the gun and started to
    772
    evict staff, even though they are supposed to have at least a year to make alternative arrangements? How can a third-year learner nurse on £4,500 a year find another home in London, where flats are at least £50 a week, which is almost her entire take-home pay?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman has his figures wrong. I made them clear, but the sort of figures he gave are wholly inaccurate. The intention is that provision should be made for all student nurses, but just under half the student nurses occupy such accommodation.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to charge patients only the actual price of a prescription when the cost of the prescriptions is below the current prescription charge.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I have no present plans to change the arrangements for prescription charges.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister recall that in April 1979 the prescription charge was 20p and that today, updated with inflation, it should be 40p? However, Government policy means that it is now £2·20 per item? How does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister's statement that the National Health Service is safe in her hands? Even this Government should not charge people more than a prescription is worth.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The crucial aspect of the matter, which the hon. Gentleman has not acknowledged, is that about 75 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed entirely free of charge and that even 5 or 6 per cent. are dispensed under the season ticket arrangements. That leaves only about one in five prescriptions for which the full charge is payable.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Would it nevertheless be advisable to tell people who pay for their prescriptions that they can obtain them cheaper by going straight to the chemist? Would it not be better if they did not continually return to their doctors for prescriptions? It would save doctors' time and Health Service money.
    Mr. Hayhoe: When an item can be bought more cheaply without a prescription, that arrangement can be followed by the individual and the chemist concerned.

    Netley Castle Convalescent Home
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that the Netley Castle convalescent home near Southampton remains open for National Health Service patients.
    Mr. Whitney: Management of this hospital is the responsibility of the Southampton and South-West Hampshire health authority, which yesterday considered its future use. I understand the authority decided that this hospital should remain open.
    Mr. Ross: I have had to turn again to the Minister for support, as I have been campaigning for three or four months to ensure that the hospital remains open. However, I am delighted at the news announced after last night's meeting. Is he aware that my constituents, some of whom are cancer sufferers, have very much relied on that home for the past 10 or 15 years? I pay tribute to the care and attention given by the staff at the home, which is very

    773
    highly regarded in my part of the world. May I tell the Minister that I am grateful that that decision has been reached.
    Mr. Whitney: I am somewhat overwhelmed, but I welcome and agree with the hon. Gentleman's points.
    Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that that quite admirable home is in my constituency and that I have looked after it for the past 31 years? [Interruption.] Is my hon. Friend further aware that virtually all of the home's patients come not from the Southampton/south-west Hampshire area but from the Isle of Wight and the Channel Islands? We are delighted about that, but the funding arrangements vis à vis areas that send patients to that home are for from adequate. Given the squeeze on Southampton and south-west Hampshire, the pressure is on to obtain a better contribution from the districts that use the home.
    Mr. Whitney: I am very happy to endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend who, over the past 31 years, has made a powerful contribution to his constituency. This year, the allocation to the Wessex area regional health authority, which involves that whole district, has been increased by 7·7 per cent. I very much hope that the authorities concerned will be able to fulfil my hon. Friend's wishes.

    General Disability Premium
    Mrs. Ann Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in support of the Government's proposals for a general disability premium.
    Mr. Newton: Responses are not generally in a form that can sensibly be used to provide a simple breakdown of views. But the proposed simpler structure, with the associated aim of improved regular weekly income support for less well-off sick and disabled people as a whole, is welcome. However, there are reservations about some aspects and we are giving continued consideration to how they may be overcome.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that several thousand of our most severely disabled people will suffer a cut of about 60 per cent. in their standard of living because of the proposals in the Social Security Bill? All the disability organisations have expressed concern. How does the hon. Gentleman square that with the Government's claim to be targeting those in greatest need of help?
    Mr. Newton: I very much doubt the figures that the hon. Lady has given, although I know that they have been put forward. According to our latest information, about 2,500 claimants were receiving quite significant domestic assistance payments, but only to an average of £3·60, which does not correspond with the hon. Lady's information. I recognise the anxiety that exists, but we are trying to overcome it.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister accept that the Government's proposals could inflict gratuitous extra hardship on some of the most severely disabled people in this country, and could force them into the sort of subhuman existence that Granada's "World in Action" documentary so strikingly exposed last night? Is he prepared to consider an as-of-right community care addition to meet the additional requirements of disabled people? Would it not be self-defeating as well as inhumane not to do so?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that sort of community care consideration is very much in our minds in relation to the social fund. I am reasonably confident that we can find a way of meeting the right hon. Gentleman's objectives and mine.

    Family Credit Scheme
    Mr. Evansasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received in support of the Government's proposals for a family credit scheme.
    Mr. Major: Many organisations and individuals responded to the proposals in the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security". The responses were not generally in a form permitting a simple breakdown of numbers for or against specific proposals, but many supported the main objectives of family credit, including the need to improve help for low-income families with children and the need to improve work incentives.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that every women's organisation and every employer and trade union organisation representing women has protested in the strongest possible terms about this disgraceful proposal? Why do Tory Governments persist in treating women with contempt?
    Mr. Major: I cannot precisely confirm the hon. Gentleman's first observation. To say that we are treating women with contempt is a curious comment to make about a benefit that doubles the number of beneficiaries and ensures that every beneficiary gets more money than before. That is the sort of contempt most people would welcome.
    Mr. Squire: Given that the trigger mechanism for activating family credit is identical to the trigger mechanism for family income supplement, but that it is no longer paid to the caring parent, is my hon. Friend satisfied that it will lead to a reduction in family poverty?
    Mr. Major: I understand the meaning behind my hon. Friend's remarks. I must point out to him that most two-parent working families rely on one wage and accept responsibility for deciding how to use it. There is no reason why that principle should not apply when family credit is part of the income.
    Dr. Godman: What rate of take-up is anticipated for this benefit?
    Mr. Major: The take-up for family income supplement is about 50 per cent. We anticipate that family credit will have a 60 per cent. take-up. That, of course, is a matter of speculative judgment and one cannot be sure, but we are relatively confident that it will have a substantially higher take-up than family income supplement.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that Governments of various colours have recognised that this benefit ought to be paid to the woman? What made the Government decide to move away from that crucial principle?
    Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of the benefit. It forms a substantial element of help to low-income families. On that basis, it is entirely logical to illustrate its links with employment by payment in the fashion that we propose. We think that it will prove to be a popular benefit.
    Mr. McCrindle: I endorse the sentiment underlying the idea of family credit. Has my hon. Friend received any representations from small employers expressing anxiety about the additional workload that will be placed upon them?
    Mr. Major: There is considerable misunderstanding about the amount of work that will fall to employers. We intend that the Department of Health and Social Security will make the calculations for family credit and the recalculations when a new period of benefit is due. We shall shortly issue a consultation paper for employers to comment upon and we shall enter into discussions with them about the way in which the benefit will work.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister acknowledge that a more truthful answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) would have been "one"? Does he also acknowledge that about like 100,000 families who will lose their entitlement to free school meals are not likely to welcome this benefit, especially as their compensation, when offset against housing benefit, is likely to be about 44p a week?
    Mr. Major: In reply to the first part of the hon. Lady's question, I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to her hon. Friend. The hon. Lady mentioned school meals. She should bear in mind that the element of family credit that is applicable to school meals is £2·20 a week. Moreover, that is paid for 52 weeks of the year, whereas free school meals apply generally, but not inevitably, merely for 30 weeks of the year.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that giving more financial assistance to parents with older children by means of family credit is an important step towards helping those greatly in need?
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree with that observation.

    Students (Benefits)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has yet received the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee concerning the eligibility of students to claim benefits; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: We received the committee's report at the end of last month and are giving it careful consideration.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister publish the report as soon as possible? Does he agree that more and more students have been drawn into the social security net because of the inadequate level of student grants? Rather than taking from students the right to claim benefit, would it not be far more logical to put up student grants, so that students do not need to claim benefit? Does he not think that it would be grossly unfair if, as a result of these changes, students were forced down to the level of the social security safety net?
    Mr. Newton: We shall publish the Social Security Advisory Committee's report at the normal time, that is, when we are publishing the Secretary of State's response to it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that part of the proposition put to the SSAC was for an increase in the grant, countervailing some parts of the social security proposal.
    Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is approaching the report, whatever it says, with an open mind, and not with a preconceived policy objective?
    Mr. Newton: That may be implicit in the fact that we received the report towards the end of last month and are giving it careful consideration.

    Ill Health and Poverty
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of possible links between ill health and poverty.
    Mr. Whitney: It has been widely accepted for many years that there are differences in health experience between socio-economic groups. However, the causes of these differences have proved extremely difficult to establish and are certainly complex. Research in the area continues to be supported by the Medical Research Council, the Economic and the Social Research Council and by universities.
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not know much about the Minister's constituency, but I know about my own, where some of the poorest people in Britain live. I know that the chances of my constituents' children surviving birth is lower than the national average, that they will have worse health than the national average, and that they will die earlier. What will the Minister do about that?
    Mr. Whitney: I do, indeed, know about my constituency, and I know something about the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Never has so much money been spent on health care in real terms as it now is in the Manchester area.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the findings of both the Black report and the Holland report, linking poverty and ill health, show that there should be no delay in the provision of urgently needed new hospital facilities in Bolton?
    Mr. Whitney: We are continuing to provide new hospital facilities in the north-west region, which has one of the highest capital spending programmes of all the regional health authorities. Therefore, our concern is manifested by the real resources being devoted to new hospitals.
    Mr. Dobson: If the Minister acknowledges—he can scarcely do otherwise—that there are differences in health and life expectations between social classes, why are the Government not doing anything to implement the recommendations of the Black report, which clearly sets out proposals intended to reduce those differences?
    Mr. Whitney: The differences to which the hon. Gentleman refers have existed for many years and long before the Black report, which did not explain the causes. The proposals which have been implemented by the Government, for example the significant increase in expenditure on national health provision, and the expenditure on inner cities, the urban programme and such initiatives, clearly demonstrate effectively the Government's practical concern.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that while there must always be a connection between a lack of facilities, wherever they are, and health problems, there are also genuine problems which are created by overindulgence in many different ways as a result of affluence?
    Mr. Whitney: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. A great deal of good health depends on healthy living styles, which we seek to promote directly through the Government and through the activities of the Government-funded Health Education Council. I agree with my hon. Friend that the level of income is by no means the deciding factor.

    Ambulance Service (Quota Systems)
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he gives to health authorities on the use of quota systems in ambulance services.
    Mr. Whitney: Our guidance on the provision of ambulance transport is based on criteria related to medical need. I understand that the Preston health authority has introduced a quota system for non-emergency services, but that there is no question of not meeting all cases of emergency medical need.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister examine more closely the quota system which has been introduced for the whole of Lancashire? Will he stress to that authority that patients' needs are more important than cutting and saving cash? Will he make sufficient funds available to provide an adequate ambulance service for the people of Lancashire?
    Mr. Whitney: I shall reconsider the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. During the five years to 1984–85 the Government have increased ambulance provision nationally in real terms by 9·2 per cent.

    Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet made an assessment of the resource implications of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: The local authority associations were consulted on the likely cost of the Bill, if amended on the lines of the Government consultation paper issued in February. They estimated that cost as being in excess of £100 million in a full year. The associations and others are now being further consulted on the cost implications of the Bill in the form in which it received its Third Reading.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that his answer confirms the suspicions felt by me and by many of my hon. Friends that the Government do not intend to honour their commitments on this measure, which received massive support when it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)?. Are not the Government being a bit hypocritical in giving it an ostensibly warm welcome some two weeks ago, and in now saying that they cannot provide the resources for it?
    Mr. Newton: There is no basis whatever for the hon. Gentleman's allegation. The Government, in completely good faith, have made it clear throughout that there were resource implications and that those implications would have to be considered in determining the date of the commencement orders.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr Gerald Bowdenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Bowden: In view of the widespread alarm about the reports of leaks from a nuclear installation in the Soviet Union, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House and the nation that our own security checks and monitoring system will prevent such an occurrence in the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is aware that we have very high standards of safety, design, construction. operation and maintenance of nuclear plants in the United Kingdom. There is a question tabled on this subject which will be answered later today. I would just like to reassure my hon. Friend that preliminary measurements have failed to detect any increase in the level of radioactivity in this country.
    Mr. Benn: Because this is a serious accident at a Soviet nuclear power station, and because the Americans themselves have refused to build a pressurised water reactor in the United States for nine years due to anxieties about their safety, will the Prime Minister give the House an absolute assurance that there will be no decision about building a PWR at Sizewell until the full report on the American accident—[Interruption.]—has been given to the inspector and until there has been an opportunity for the House to take into account the very large number of issues raised, including leaks at Sellafield and the decision to sell British plutonium to America for its weapons programme?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is in a position to know the very high standard of safety which we exact in the construction of our nuclear plants and the very high standards of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. As I have already indicated, we are not in a position to make a full assessment, but there has been no increase in radioactivity in this country that we have been able to detect. We shall have to await the report on the inquiry into Sizewell before taking any action.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to correct the impression given by Kate Adey's report on BBC television that the stick of bombs that fell on some flats in Libya were aimed at a target approved by my right hon. Friend, when, in fact, they came from an aircraft damaged by anti-aircraft fire? The BBC showed none of the targets approved by my right hon. Friend as being used by those taking part in terrorism against this country and successfully struck in that attack.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point very effectively. As I have indicated in previous statements, the parameters which we set for permission to use those aircraft were strictly confined to targets which had demonstrably been involved in terrorist attacks elsewhere. I believe that what my hon. Friend says is correct.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the Prime Minister still hold the view that she expressed on BBC on Sunday—that there is never any possible justification for terrorism and violence?
    The Prime Minister: I do not wish to put a gloss on what I said in that interview. It was a long interview and I believe that I explained my views fully.
    Mr. Hattersley: Since, as part of that full expression of the Prime Minister's views, she said that violence and terrorism are never justified in any circumstances, will she now join us in condemning the violence and terrorism of the Contras in Nicaragua and in condemning President Reagan for providing military and financial aid to that terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I also referred to that in the interview and I neither wish to add to nor detract from what I said.
    Mr. Hattersley: It was because I heard the Prime Minister refer to that that I wanted to express the nation's contempt for her double standards in that matter and give her a second opportunity of joining with the Opposition in condemning all terrorism—terrorism in Nicaragua and Libya. Why does she not do that now?
    The Prime Minister: Because the right hon. Gentleman will also recall that I said what our policy on Nicaragua was. It was to support the Contadora process and get out all advisers from Nicaragua, including the many thousands of Cubans.
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to confirm that she supports the view of the overwhelming majority of law-abiding people in Britain that the police are doing an excellent job, often in difficult circumstances, and not the view of Sharon Atkin, the prospective Labour candidate for Nottingham, East, who tells us that they are on the rampage and out of control?
    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in believing that the police do an excellent job in Britain, completely impartially. I condemn those politicians who never hesitate to take a chance of criticising the police and the powers that enable them to carry out their task.
    Mr. Dubs: When did the Prime Minister first learn of a plot to intimidate Mr. Gerry Gable of Searchlight magazine, and when was she told that a Conservative Member of Parliament was implicated in that allegation?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any information of any kind he should give it to the police. Police matters, as he is well aware, are not for me.
    Mr. Alex Fletcher: Was not the Soviet Union's failure to give the earliest possible warning to neighbouring countries about the dangers of nuclear fallout, and to say nothing about the lack of advice to their own citizens, a most callous and irresponsible act? Will my right hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity to condemn that action of the Soviet Union, both directly and through the offices of the EEC and the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: As I say, there will be an answer to a private notice question later, but I understand that the Swedish and Finnish Governments were informed of the accident only after radioactive clouds had reached their territory. It is, of course, a duty upon an authority that belongs to the International Atomic Energy Agency to report accidents to that agency.
    Mr. Alton: What help and advice have been requested of the United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority in combating the fires that are now raging following the disaster in the Soviet Union yesterday? What transfrontier agreements exist between the Soviet Union and other countries for combating leaks of radioactive waste, and what agreements exist dealing with the disclosure of information after such leaks occur? Does the right hon. Lady not think that the disaster yesterday should cause us at least to reflect on the desirability of proceeding with the reprocessing of nuclear waste at Sellafield?
    The Prime Minister: As I said, there is a reply to a private notice question, I believe, coming up later. We have not, as far as I am aware, received any requests for help, which is perhaps not surprising in all the circumstances. We are not in a position to make an assessment, and I have already indicated my views on the British nuclear industry, which has very high standards indeed.
    Mr. Sternasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the apparently small increase in the old-age pension this July is caused by the fact that it is an interim increase, with a further amount due next April? Does she further agree that this Government's record in caring for the old-age pensioner is second to none, not least by bringing down the rate of inflation to a level that would have been declared to be both impossible and unattainable by the Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. The increase that takes place in July is an interim increase following the major increase last November, which was £2·50 for a single pensioner and £4 a week for a married couple. There will, of course, be a further increase next April. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is a great advantage to pensioners and to their savings to get down the rate of inflation. I hope that that advantage will continue. It will, for as long as we have a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Prime Minister agree that had the increase in the pension continued to be based on the increase in inflation or earnings, whichever was the greater, as was the case under the Labour Government, the average pensioner would be several pounds a week better off now?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, but a Labour Government would have been broke long before they could implement their policy. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, the pension under a Conservative Government buys more than it did after the last increase of Labour.
    Mr. Alexander: In view of the wide appreciation in the United States of my right hon. Friend's support for the

    781
    Libyan bombing, will she take the opportunity at this week's summit to ask President Reagan whether he will take further steps to curb the activities of Noraid, which promotes and subsidises terrorism in parts of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. Of course this subject will be discussed at the summit and in the margins of the summit. I should like to thank both the President and most—indeed, all—Members of the Administration for the strenuous efforts that they have made to condemn terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland and to stop any finances corning from the United States to feed that terrorism. I shall make the point again to the President, and hope that the Senate will pass the extradition treaty.
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Prime Minister if she will list official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the concern expressed following the accident at the nuclear power station in the Soviet Union obviously expresses the concern that everybody feels about such accidents? Will the Prime Minister recognise that international action is required, and will she initiate action under principle 21 of the United Nations declaration on the human environment of 1972—[Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I wish that I could have heard all the hon. Gentleman's question, but, as I indicated, there will be replies to supplementary questions on a private notice question afterwards. The record of our own nuclear industry is absolutely superb. If there are any accidents overseas of the kind that we have seen in the Soviet Union, they should be reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency, so that the lessons can be learnt universally.
    Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider how best to use her very considerable abilities
    782
    and standing in the world to persuade the USSR to abolish the use and production of chemical and biological weapons, so that the United States does not feel it necessary to develop binary weapons?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State had something to say about this yesterday. The Soviet Union possesses over 300,000 tonnes of chemical warfare agents. Like the United States, we in Britain are committed to seeking a negotiated ban, and a successful outcome to the Geneva talks would obviate the need for the United States to pursue modernisation. The fact that the Soviet Union has continued to build up its stockpile, while no United States weapons have been produced since 1969, is conclusive proof that one-sided disarmament does not work.
    Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the Prime Minister take time to reflect on, and explain to the country, what she sees as the moral difference between killing and maiming innocents by exploding bombs underneath them, and killing and maiming innocents by throwing bombs on their heads?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that one must never be prepared to use force against those who attack us with force, he is giving in to terrorism.
    Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions. As is so often the case, it took the Opposition Front Bench three attempts to make a point that a Back-Bencher would have had to make in one. Was it in order for the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to have made his third attempt in a form that was not even a question?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that a certain latitude is always given to the Front Benches.

Soviet Nuclear Accident
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the dangers to the British Isles of fallout from the accident at the Soviet nuclear plant at Chernobyl, near Kiev.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The whole House will want to join me in expressing sympathy to the people of the Soviet Union. We do not know with any certainty the precise nature of the incident, but it is clear that there may have been significant casualties.
A disturbing feature of this incident is the way in which knowledge of it has come not from the Soviet Government, but from monitoring in other countries. I would urge the Soviet Government to give a full account of what has happened and the steps that have been taken to bring the incident under control.
We for our part are monitoring, through the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the National Radiological Protection Board and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, levels of radioactivity in the United Kingdom. Present evidence suggests that there is no danger to the United Kingdom, but the situation will continue to be monitored carefully.
Dr. Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that statement. Will Her Majesty's Government make strong and immediate representations to the Government of the Soviet Union on the need for the most full and urgent disclosure of all information about the nature and the scale of this accident? Can he confirm that a graphite moderated reactor in the station, comprising four light water reactors without, apparently, any secondary containment, has been on fire for several days?
Do Her Majesty's Government have any information about the nature of the radioactive emissions that are taking place? Will Her Majesty's Government respond positively to any requests from the Soviet Union for assistance? Can the Minister confirm that there are no nuclear stations of this type and design in the United Kingdom? Will any additional monitoring in the United Kingdom be required and what liaison is taking place with other European Governments on the nature of the contamination?
Will Her Majesty's Government join other European Governments to request international inspection of the site and the consequences of the accident? Does the Secretary of State know whether there are any British citizens in the vicinity of the plant? Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am astonished that Conservative Members apparently do not regard this as a serious matter. Will the Secretary of State convey the sympathy of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friends, myself and the House to the Government and people of the Soviet Union?
Mr. Baker: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I am sure that the beginning of my statement will cover that. I speak on behalf of the whole house. There have been casualties and clearly we are concerned. On the matter of strong representations to the Soviet Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy this morning
784
asked that full details of the accident and what is happening be made available. I cannot confirm details about a continuing fire at the moment.
We have not received any request for assistance through our embassy, but I can assure the House that if we receive a request for assistance of a scientific nature and we can be helpful assistance will be made available.
I can confirm that we have no power stations of the type involved in this incident in the United Kingdom. There has been extensive monitoring in the United Kingdom by the National Radiological Protection Board in Oxford and Glasgow with gamma monitors. There is no evidence of increased radioactivity at present. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is checking deposit in the United Kingdom. It has collecting posts on the east coast and also on high rainfall areas in north Wales. Milk samples will continue to be taken this week.
All the Central Electricity Generating Board power stations have monitoring equipment and there is no indication of an increase in radioactivity. On the issue of international inspection, the Soviet Union is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and, as such, I hope that it will make information about the accident available through that body—because that is part of the principle of it. It is valuable for the world nuclear industry to know as much about it as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked about British citizens. At this stage we do not know whether any British citizens were affected, but the embassy in Moscow is making inquiries.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is it not clear that many of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would have been better addressed to the Soviet Government? Is there not a remarkable contrast between the reticence of the Soviet authorities about what is obviously an extremely serious accident and the openness of the system in western Governments, most recently exemplified by the statement of the new chairman of BNFL, Mr. Harding, which has been so warmly welcomed by environmental interests in this country?
Mr. Baker: Unfortunately, there is a striking contrast. We have to be concerned about public opinion and it is only right and proper that we should put our cards on the table and be open—as we are—on these matters. I have been speaking this morning and this afternoon to representatives of our large team of nuclear inspectors and confirming that in our nuclear policy safety is absolutely paramount. In fact, if nuclear energy is to be generated, as we believe that it should be, it must carry the conviction of the people. That can be done only by very rigorous safety standards.
Mr. David Alton: Is the Minister aware that the British Council has said that there are some 100 British students and several teachers in the Kiev region? What have the authorities in Moscow and Leningrad done to try to make contact with them to ascertain their safey? Will he also agree that it is somewhat wry for the Government to criticise the lack of information coming from the Soviet Union, regrettable though that is, when the Government have a very tight rein over the information made available from our own nuclear industry? Far too much secrecy shrouds our nuclear industry.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman does his cause no good by exaggerating. There is openness and frankness in this country in dealing with the nuclear industry. It is one of the most regulated industries we have, with a vast number of checks and balances on environmental grounds and safety in the plants. The embassy in Moscow is checking on the students. We know that there are some students in Minsk which is just 100 km to the north of the incident.
Mr. David Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, stress to the Government of the Soviet Union the importance of the complete release of all the information concerning this tragedy so that we may share the information regarding such a disaster and learn from it?
Mr. Baker: Yes, I will certainly do that. The information will be of interest to us and to the Scandinavian countries which have been more directly affected. It is important that the information is available, as we all make strong representations to the Soviet Government.
Mr. Tony Benn: Before the right hon. Gentleman is too ready with his criticism of concealment of information, which I too regret, would he accept that a major nuclear explosion at Kyshtym in the Soviet Union in 1958 was monitored by the Central Intelligence Agency which notified the Atomic Energy Authority in Britain but told the British agency not to make the information public for fear that it might cause anxiety about the use of nuclear power? There are many other examples of such concealment.
Apart from the risks of a radioactive cloud reaching Britain, which I agree is unlikely, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that, before any authority is given to proceed with the pressurised water reactor, there is a full report of the cause of the light water reactor accident at Chernobyl? Is it not time that the House had an opportunity for a debate on nuclear power as a growing number of people believe that the time has come to phase it out?
Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman's last point is not a matter for me. However, with regard to his first point, the right hon. Gentleman would be on stronger ground if the Soviet Union had told the world about the accident when it occurred rather than our learning about it from the monitoring equipment in other countries. I strongly contest the right hon. Gentleman's view that there is anything less than frankness in our dealings with the nuclear industry in Britain. I dare say that, over the coming weekend, the protests about nuclear energy will be much stronger in the West than in the Soviet Union.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the disaster illustrates the international dimension to nuclear accidents? As a result, does he think that it is now time for some international monitoring, or better still, international safety standards for nuclear reactors?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend will know that we are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency; that involves obligations of openness and a willingness to
786
allow inspection and examination of records and things of that kind. That is very important as it stresses the international nature of the nuclear industry.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the catastrophe has demonstrated again that such accidents cannot be confined to national boundaries, like other less deadly forms of pollution? Will he intercede with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to postpone the present inquiry into the Dounreay reprocessing plant until the countries which might be affected by any radioactivity from that plant have been consulted?
Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate, as I am sure he does, the very good safety record of the British nuclear energy industry. There has been no full-scale major incident in 25 years in the operation of several power stations. The highest standards of safety are used in the design and construction of British nuclear power plants.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend consult his right Friend the Home Secretary to discover the best way to deal with the hordes of CND and Greenpeace protestors who are no doubt at this moment massing outside the Soviet embassy?
Mr. Baker: As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the protests are likely to be much greater in western capitals this weekend than in Moscow.
Mr. Frank Cook: I have taken note of the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State, that the nuclear industry in Britain has been open and frank about its operations; I am reassured by that. However, in view of the difficulty experienced in obtaining information about Sellafield in the past, will he assure us that the information that is made available by the Soviet Union will be freely available in Britain? Furthermore, will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to ensure that his Department makes representations on behalf of people like my constituent Mr. Robin Denham who is currently studying at the university of Kiev and who has been exposed to grave danger as a result of the accident? Will the Secretary of State arrange for the British authorities to make arrangements for the evacuation of British subjects, should it prove to be necessary?
Mr. Baker: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. I assure him that the British embassy in Moscow is making urgent inquiries about the number of students in both Kiev and Minsk. The information that we get will be made publicly available.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many lessons to be learnt from this disaster, not least that it is immensely important for a nation to have the insurance of trained civilian personnel to deal with emergencies and to offer advice and protection from radiation to those who seek it?
Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are elaborate emergency arrangements in all civil nuclear power plants which are tested fully; and the staff are

787
trained to deal with emergencies. I emphasise again that the design of the Russian reactor—a light-water-cooled graphite moderated reactor—is unique and that there are no other stations like it in the West. I understand from the Central Electricity Generating Board that British experts have evaluated this design and rejected it as unstable.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State accept the deep concern and sympathy of those who have nuclear power stations in their constituencies for the community which has been affected by this disaster? Will he take new initiatives at the international level, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, to ensure that new safety standards worldwide are implemented? It is clear that radiological emission is no respecter of nations and state boundaries.
Mr. Baker: Yes, but that also implies that other countries have to conform to this country's standards. If there had been an accident of that kind in this country, there is no question but that we would have been open and frank about it straight away and that it would have been treated in that way. It is regrettable that that did not happen in this case.
Mr. David Madel: In view of the slow way in which the Russian Government let out this information, will Her Majesty's Government make a formal request to the Russian Government for international inspection of the disaster area?
Mr. Baker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy passed a message to the Soviet Government this morning asking for the fullest information. I am in no position to say whether or not the Soviet Government will respond to that message. Their response may be delayed, but I very much hope not. All sides of the House have made it clear that it is in everybody's interest that as much information as possible should be made available about this incident as soon as possible.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the present rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency do not provide for the earliest possible disclosure, will the Secretary of State set out to amend those rules, particularly as the Soviet Union is a participator in that agreement?
Mr. Baker: It is no good taking a unilateral position unless the other parties to the agreement are prepared also to be frank and open. The international agreement allows for international inspection of civil power stations. The CEGB was, and is, prepared to conform to that agreement, but I am afraid that that is not the case, as far as we know, in Russia.

Cornish Tin Industry
3.47 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement indicating the Government's intention regarding the future of the Cornish tin industry.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): The Government have made it clear that they are willing to consider applications for assistance towards the cost of projects which will make the mines competitive in a free tin market. An application from Geevor tin mines is already being considered. An application from the RTZ group is expected shortly. Both will be assessed as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Penhaligon: I remind the Minister of the seriousness of the situation, as these mines are in an area where average male unemployment is in excess of 25 per cent. Already this saga has been going on for six months. Furthermore, I remind the Minister that he still has the £50 million that was offered to the tin dealers. Will the Minister accept that because of the current price for tin very few mines in the world are breaking even, let alone making a profit? If, therefore, Rio Tinto Zinc could be persuaded to give the mines and the £15 million that they would incur in closure costs to a management-employee buy-out and if the employees could be persuaded to take a pay cut in lieu of some form of long-term profit sharing, would the Government be prepared to make a significant contribution towards enabling a new company to be relaunched on the market so that advantage could be taken of the rise in the price of tin when it occurs?
Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am aware of the serious position in Cornwall. With every respect to him, his question about management buy-outs by those involved in the RTZ mines was hypothetical. As I said in my original answer, we expect a proposition to be put forward by RTZ on the ground that it will make the mines viable at some future stage. Like all Governments, we need to have a test of viability foremost in our minds.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): Is my hon. Friend aware of the desperate situation facing Geevor mine—that, unless help is forthcoming this week, it is almost certain that the pumps will be switched off at the weekend and that the mine will be flooded, probably never to reopen? I make an earnest and urgent plea that, before this week is out, the Government will make assistance available to Geevor, at least to keep those pumps going while negotiations continue on the Geevor application.
Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that it is important to expedite the Geevor application. Whether we can have care and maintenance in the meantime will depend upon that.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do not the Government have a cheek to talk about a test of viability regarding the thousands of people who have lost or will lose their jobs in the tin mines in Cornwall and the southwest when the Government never applied that test of viability to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, when it was £350 million in the red, but used taxpayers' money to bail it out? The Government found £252 million to bail out the Common Market, because it had run out of funds, and more than £100 million to bail out Johnson

789
Matthey Bank, because their friends were involved. The Government talk about a test of viability. Why do they not give people a chance to earn some money instead of throwing them on the scrap heap and paying out dole money which the taxpayers have to find?
Mr. Morrison: If I recall correctly, the hon. Gentleman supported a Government during the 1970s—
Mr. Skinner: Supported a what?
Mr. Morrison: —supported a Government during the 1974–79 period that used the test of viability to close down the Ebbw Vale steelworks in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). They used the test of viability, as we must.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of the rising sense of frustration and annoyance at the delay in resolving the tin question with specific reference to the Cornish tin-producing mines? Will he assure the House that the various suggestions and applications that have been made will be dealt with immediately by his Department in the context of our county, which is already in a hard-pressed economic position?
Mr. Morrison: The simple answer to my hon. Friend is yes. If my hon. Friend were to discuss the matter with the management of Geevor and of RTZ, he would be informed that my officials have dealt with the matter as expeditiously as possible in terms of the preparation of submissions, and so on. Therefore, the simple answer is yes.
Mr. Michael Foot: I advise the hon. Gentleman to check his facts a little more carefully before he again refers to Ebbw Vale. Regarding the specific question which he is supposed to be answering today—on the Cornish tin mines—will he look back and see what a Labour Government did to put money into those mines and to keep them going thereafter? Without that money, the closures might not have taken place in the late 1970s. Many miners in Cornwall know that that is the truth, even if some of their representatives in this place do not.
Mr. Morrison: I am delighted to be reminded by the right hon. Gentleman that I should check my facts more carefully on the steel works which I mentioned. I certainly am aware of what happened under the previous Administration.
Sir Peter Emery: I remind my hon. Friend that, as long ago as Easter, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry published an interim report urging the Government to be prepared for the possibility of the action that has now come about and to be ready to take interim measures to sustain the position until final decisions can be made. Will my hon. Friend express a greater assurance which we can pass on to management and workers in Cornwall and which will allow them to continue until a final decision has been made? Surely it would be fatal to have the matter closed now, because the Government might come forward with a favourable decision in four or five weeks.
Mr. Morrison: I am aware that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry spent a considerable time looking into the matter. Its report goes into detail in many ways about the whole tin problem. I am aware also that the
790
Select Committee recommended certain proposals that the Government should adopt. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it would not be sensible to reply to the Select Committee's proposals until we have had an application from RTZ—we shall reply as soon as we can—because that would be the wrong way to proceed. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's other question.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Would it not be disgraceful if this small but important industry, which contributes many millions of pounds a year to the national economy, were allowed to die from lack of help from a Government who claim to be devoted to the free market philosophy but who have actively supported an international cartel which was set up to manipulate the market and whose activities the Select Committee found came pretty close to the borders of criminality? If Ministers are prepared, as they said they were, to put £50 million of taxpayers' money into trying to rescue the dealing end of the business, does it not make sense to accept the Select Committee's recommendation that the Government should invest at least that amount in the producing end of the business where the real wealth creation takes place?
Mr. Morrison: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my original answer. I said that my Department was looking carefully at applications to ascertain whether they passed the test of viability. That is precisely what we are doing and, I think, what the hon. Gentleman would want us to do. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we could not be looking more closely at the applications.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the problem for my hon. Friend as a Minister the fact that the test of viability depends upon predicting the world price of tin after the banks have finished unloading the tin warrants they hold as security and after the mines throughout the world have finished unloading the stock which they thought they had sold ahead but for which the contracts have gone bad? Will my hon. Friend follow the much more positive recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), and support the development work in the mines which will reduce production costs, whatever the price in five years' time? None of us can possibly foresee that price. As this crisis will drive out many marginal producers in the world, is it not sensible to take a "risk"—no one can predict the price four or five years ahead—and support employment rather than suffer unemployment?
Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that one important element is the price of tin in three, four or five years. I agree also with his proposition that, if there is to be investment in any of the mines in Cornwall, it must be aimed at reducing production costs. The judgment to be taken is based more on the former than on the latter. We shall have to take those matters into account, as will the companies concerned.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Judging from the example of Polkemmet in my constituency, once the pumps have been turned off in any mine, one might as well call it quits. May I ask a question of fact? How much tin will actually be anaesthetised by any decision to close down the mines and cut off the pumps? It may not be

791
possible to regain the tin at any time. Frankly, is this not another case of accountants in the City of London making decisions on matters for which they have little feeling?
Some of us support strongly the views of the Cornish tin miners. As one who has attended party meetings in Cornwall, I know how strongly they feel. Their factual questions have not been answered. What are the reserves of tin which will be anaesthetised? Does the Department know, or does it have no notion?
Mr. Morrison: Of course the Department knows. The amount of tin produced at the current price, which is just under £4,000 a tonne, is equal to the sum of £25 million a year. Of course the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that tin is an international commodity—
Mr. Dalyell: What are the reserves? The Minister is not answering the question.
Mr. Morrison: I have answered the question. One of the points which must be taken into account is that there is, to a great extent, over-production; that is why the price of tin has come down gradually.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Minister confirm that, in 1979, RTZ was offered money under the Labour Government scheme to develop the mine? The company turned down that offer because it was confident that it would prosper under the present Government. More important, is the Minister aware that over 1,000 members of my union and other unions are likely to be made unemployed as a result of this action? While the Minister is waiting for RTZ and the other companies to state the schemes to make the mines viable, what are the Government prepared to offer the firms to maintain jobs? That is what Cornish people want to know, and that is what my union want to know. What are the Government prepared to offer the companies to keep people in jobs?
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. The answer depends entirely on what applications are made. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, under regional grant and regional assistance, aid is not cash-limited so the answer is as long as a piece of string.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: If these mines are closed there will be dire consequences for Cornwall, the industry and the country. In view of that,
792
will the Minister explain more fully to the House what he means by viability? When considering viability, will the Minister take into account the long-term position of these mines, and the enormous cost to the public purse as well as the companies involved of closing any pits?
Mr. Morrison: I hope that it goes without saying that the long term is what we must take into account. Obviously, at this stage, there is no question of the mines being anything but unviable. Any investment will be in terms of production costs and the price of tin in three, four, or five years' time.
Mr. Dalyell: What a bloody way to run the country.
Mr. Alan Williams: Why is the Minister reluctant to show any relevant initiative when he is faced with this critical problem? Will he recognise that this is not a normal rescue case? In addition to needing the appropriate investment decision to which he has referred, there is a desperate need for interim aid to meet the crisis which has followed the collapse of the International Tin Council. The Minister has sat back for six months. He has watched the situation develop, he has done nothing and now he has been caught unawares.
Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is not just a matter of 1,300 jobs at Geevor and RTZ, but also of more than 2,000 other jobs in the Cornish community which depend on those mines? The present 3,000 jobs in Cornwall will be impossible to replace now that regional aid has ben diminished to a cosmetic sham. When the Minister eventually makes his penny-pinching calculations, will he recollect that these mines put £26 million a year into the local Cornish economy? What is at risk is not just the viability of the mines, but the viability of a sub-region.
Will the Minister reflect on the fact that, last year, the same mines saved the country £40 million in import substitution? The Minister could rescue the mines for less than the annual £80 million cost of keeping 3,000 miners and dependent workers on the dole queues for two years.
Mr. Morrison: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that no real initiatives have been taken. During the last few weeks my Department could not have done more in terms of encouraging applications, sifting them carefully and giving guidance on how best they could be put forward. That is the fact of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should go down the route of operating subsidies regardless. On reflection, that would not be the right course to pursue.

Prison Officers' Dispute
4.5 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Mr. Speaker, I will with permission make a statement on the dispute with the Prison Officers Association.
The House will recall that I set out the issues in the dispute in my reply to a private notice question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 17 April. Since then I have twice met representatives of the national executive committee of the Prison Officers Association. Following my first meeting, I put to them, in writing on 22 April, a package of proposals for resolving the dispute. When I met them again yesterday, POA representatives accepted that my proposals provided a way forward. They undertook in return to consider my request that they call off industrial action in order to allow a resolution on this basis to proceed.
In the event, the POA declined yesterday to go beyond the offer of an undertaking that it would instruct its members not to take action while talks on the basis of my proposals were proceeding. In effect, that amounted to an offer to suspend, but not to call off, its industrial action. But its previous undertaking to suspend had proved ineffective, and damaging industrial action had taken place despite it. So its position yesterday represented no advance on the situation it had taken in talks last week and was not acceptable. The Government cannot conduct talks under the continuing threat of further industrial action in this vital public service.
The POA therefore broke off discussions and has announced that it is considering ways of extending its industrial action, which may include strike action. As I make this statement, it is still not clear what action the POA may take in practice.
I deeply regret this action by the national executive committee of the POA, which shows no regard for the longer-term interests of its members or, equally importantly, for the prisoners in its members' charge. The sort of industrial action that we have already seen at Gloucester prison—where prison officers yesterday took control of the prison and refused to accept the orders of their governor and where they are still refusing to return to normal working—is unacceptable. The Government will take all possible steps both to sustain the right of governors to manage their prisons and to protect prisoners and the public from the consequences of POA action. In this context, a circular will be issued tomorrow to the courts containing advice on the implications for them of the dispute. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. I shall consider any further measures which may be necessary.
I take this opportunity to make a further appeal to prison officers to look at the package of proposals I have placed before them and to judge whether it is worth throwing that away by taking further industrial action. As I have publicly acknowledged many times, prison officers do a difficult and often dangerous job. They deserve to be well paid. But the heavy burden of overtime must be lightened and there must be increased efficiency.
Progress towards formal discussions about a range of new systems designed to meet all these objectives was being made when the NEC call for industrial action went out. The agenda for talks, set out in my letter of 22 April,
794
represents a positive way forward for prison officers and, indeed, the whole prison service. I very much hope that even now, prison officers will end their action to avoid lasting damage to the prison service and to their own interests.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Two years ago the Government were insisting that industrial action was unacceptable without a ballot. Now they are insisting that industrial action is unacceptable with a ballot: a ballot with 78 per cent. voting and 81 per cent. in favour of industrial action, and a ballot held under the Government's own legislation.
Prison officers carry out a dirty and dangerous job in increasingly difficult conditions, caused by the collapse of the Government's law and order policy and the record crime wave under this Government, which has produced a huge increase in the prison population and unprecedented overcrowding, with as many inmates now as the Home Office forecast for 1993. Prisoners are often three in a cell. They may be locked in their cells for 23 hours and the workshops may be closed.
The Government are spending more money on building prisons but are seeking to save money on running them, with prison officers being left to carry the burden, especially with the extra duties that they now have in servicing the unprecedented number of prisoners on remand. The prison officers have made it clear that they fully agree that it is not their role to control manning levels, but why will the Home Secretary not agree to a proper and sensible role for them in deciding safe manning levels, particularly as the POA has offered to instruct its members to take no further action while talks are going on?
That would be the sensible way of solving these difficulties, and would be much more sensible than the ridiculous antics going on at Gloucester prison. Last night, the deputy governor arrived at the prison gate and announced that he was bringing fish and chips for the governor. Under cover of that fast food, four assistant governors rushed in to take over the prison. Will the Home Secretary repudiate such tactics, and admit that the Government have been planning for this very dispute for many months?
That is demonstrated by the 80-page document that I have with me, which was circulated months ago. It is headed:
"Confidential
Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Industrial Action In The Prison Service
Police Contingency Planning
Notes of guidance."
Among other things, the document says:
"Confidentiality is most important in relation to contingency planning. Should it become known to the POA that such planning was taking place by police it may result in the escalation of an already delicate situation."
It is a delicate situation, and the contingency planning has become known.
The Government long ago decided that, after other groups of workers whom they had chosen, the prison officers would be their next enemy. I warn the Home Secretary that with his intransigent bungling in this exceptionally delicate area he is recklessly playing with fire.
Mr. Hurd: I always hope for better from the right hon. Gentleman but I am always disappointed on occasions like this.
The neglect that the whole prison service suffers from is the neglect of previous Governments to do anything about prison building—[Interruption.] My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council started the prison building programme after years of neglect by others. By now the right hon. Gentleman should know that we have recruited 18 per cent. more prison officers since 1979 while the number of prisoners has increased by 12 per cent. Consequently, it is completely false to say that we are not staffing to match the increased prison population. We have staffed over and above the increase in prison population.
The POA and I thought that last week we were very near agreement on the POA's role in being consulted over manning levels. I wrote the POA a letter which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will study. The POA wrote back indicating that the contents were very near to what it had in mind. Industrial action then followed. The POA said that it would be willing to suspend industrial action, but it was not suspended. In those circumstances, I am sure that discussions can only fruitfully take place if the POA calls off industrial action.
I entirely disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Gloucester. Yesterday, the situation there was serious, because POA members refused to run the prison in the way that the governor directed. Later, as a result of the governing grades' ingenuity, a number of governing grades were able to enter the prison. The situation is now under control. However, if they had followed the right hon. Gentleman's advice, the situation in Gloucester prison would be out of control.
Of course there are contingency plans. If we had reached this position and it had appeared to the House and the right hon. Gentleman that there were no contingency plans, he would have been the first to jump up and down in excited indignation, wanting to know why we had not foreseen this possibility. But as I said at the end of my statement, I believe that we were close to agreement last week. I also believe that we are close to an understanding now. However, I hope that the POA will understand that it is not possible for any of us to get on with the agenda that we are anxious to discuss while the threat and reality of industrial action hangs over us.
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I concur with my right hon. Friend in his general line, and deplore the militant action that has taken place. But will he bear in mind that—as he will know from correspondence that he has had with me—prison officers in Gloucester have been under considerable pressure? That pressure is the result, among other things, of the presence of a special unit in the prison and of at least one prisoner who is suffering from AIDS. Those prison officers have a long history of fine service and non-militancy, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when discussions resume. Will he give an undertaking to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the citizens of Gloucester if things get out of hand?
Mr. Hurd: Yes indeed. I do not believe that there is any threat to the security of Gloucester prison, thanks to the timely action that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) criticised. What my
796
right hon. Friend has said about the role of prison officers is true, not only in relation to Gloucester but elsewhere. However, in view of some of the things that have been said, I should make it clear that no one has been dismissed as a result of these activities. If the POA staff agree to work normally under management's instructions, they will be reinstated.
Mr. Stephen Ross: As I have three prisons in my constituency and two of them are high security prisons, may I support the call for saner counsels to prevail? Is it not a fact that on Sunday, at least, prison officers at Leicester went back to work at the POA's request? Is the Secretary of State aware of the niggling things that have been introduced into the prison service, particularly in Albany, that payments due to prison officers have been withheld, niggling restrictions have been imposed, and the number of prison officers on night duty, in particular, has fallen to a dangerously low level? Surely it would be possible to renew negotiations with a postponement of industrial action, even though that action has been voted for by a very large majority of the POA. That would be better than calling for absolute abandonment, which is totally unrealistic.
Mr. Hurd: Yesterday I was holding discussions with representatives of the POA. In theory, action was suspended, but in fact action of particularly damaging and disruptive kind was under way at Gloucester, Swansea and Northallerton. One cannot allow such a situation to continue. With his knowledge of these affairs, the hon. Gentleman will understand that we have been recruiting prison officers at a substantially faster rate than the rise in the number of prisoners. However, we are not using them correctly.
There are all sorts of rigidities and inflexible practices which, if we could discuss them constructively with the POA, would be resolved. We could say goodbye to a good many of them, and that would increase the resources available for other purposes within the prison service. That is what I want to get on with, but I cannot do so in the sort of circumstances that obtained yesterday, when in theory action was suspended but in practice it was raging.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, as a Leicester Member of Parliament, I did not agree with the industrial action taken by some of Leicester's prison officers? However, they are under some strain because of the secure wing. May I have my right hon. Friend's confirmation that there will be no surrender, that the courts will not be deterred from passing custodial sentences, and that everything possible will be done to ensure not only that there are custodial sentences but that there is a proper ballot by all prison officers before any further strike action is taken?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will know that there was a ballot that empowers the national executive to take industrial action but does not compel it to do so. I agree with my hon. Friend and hope the executive will decide in the interests of its members and of the prison service not to use that mandate. My hon. Friend will wish to look carefully at the circular to the courts. I hope he will agree that it does not run counter to the principles he talked about.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I accept that the problem of running the prisons has been with us

797
for a long time. It goes back to the Administration in which I was Home Secretary, but also goes back beyond that, to previous Home Secretaries. An approach in narrow party political terms, suggesting that it is all the fault of the Labour Government, will get the Home Secretary nowhere. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary can answer for himself and he does not have to respond. I realise that this is a difficult subject. What was this agreement of a mere few days ago from which all would have been well? Would it not help public discussion to see who was wrong and who was right if the Home Secretary told us what the agreement was?
Mr. Hurd: I responded temperately to the attack by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who said it was all our fault. I had hoped that such an attack might not be made on this occasion but it was made. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will absolve me from too much intemperateness in my reply to his right hon. Friend.
My letter of 22 April has already been made fairly well known and is in the Library. That is the letter to the general secretary of the POA in which I set out the understanding upon which we were close to agreement on the role of the POA in being consulted and in discussing manning levels. I went on to discuss the pay claim, which should be about to be negotiated with the Treasury. Obviously, such negotiations cannot take place in present circumstances. I also discussed tax compensation on housing allowances and the whole matter of working practices, which I have already discussed. That is the agenda that I want to get on with and, given his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will understand the importance of that.
Mr. David Crouch: There is a prison in my constituency and I have been meeting prison officers for the last 20 years. I have a high regard for the officers and for the service that they provide, both to the public and to the prisoners. However, I wholly condemn their approach in taking industrial action, just as I wholly condemn the attitude of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who exacerbated the problem by what he said. Can we do something to assist this somewhat silent, forgotten and hidden service? The prison service is somewhat hidden when compared with the police. The officers do not have a parliamentary spokesman and sometimes think that they are somewhat forgotten. I hope that my right hon. Friend can assure them that taking industrial action is not the way to be remembered or noticed.
Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The prison service has suffered from under-discussion—if there is such a term. It would be a good thing if the House, the political parties and the public in general outside the specialist groups, took a greater interest in the state of the prisons and in what we are doing to remedy the conditions that we find.
Mr. Chris Smith: Is it not entirely understandable that officers at Pentonville prison in my constituency are anxious and angry about the conditions under which they have to perform their duties? That prison was built for 600 and is now housing 1,000 prisoners. Three workshops are being closed down and, because of under-staffing, wings are left for hours at a time
798
without being patrolled. Those are the problems. What action does the Home Secretary intend to take to tackle those basic issues that lie at the heart of this dispute?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman describes the scandal of overcrowding. If he had carried out his research correctly he would know where to attribute the blame for that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the knotty part of the problem is the high level of overtime. It averages 16 hours a week per officer and makes up for 30 per cent. of average earnings. By any standard, that is too much. We want to discuss with the POA the proper balance between staffing hours and increased manpower and overtime. As the hon. Gentleman will see from the figures that I have given, an increase in manpower is coming through. Out of such discussions could come a new deal that would get rid of some of the present rigid and restrictive practices and add substantially to the prospects for the prison service as a whole.
Mr. John Hannam: I deplore the action taken by the Prison Officers Association but I should like to pay tribute to the prison officers in Exeter prison. It is a remand prison and conditions there have deteriorated over the years. There is severe overcrowding and a shortage of staff. Will my right hon. Friend look again at a subject that worries prison officers—the policy of enforced early retirement? That was imposed in recent years and is a source of great anxiety to prison staff.
Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly look at that, although my hon. Friend will know the reason for it. I agree with my hon. Friend that the rise in the remand population is disturbing. He will know about the efforts that we are making, for example through trials on time limits, to encourage the processes of law to work faster so that there are fewer people on remand.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I was recently given an answer to a question about Featherstone prison which was wholly misleading. It was about the overcrowding there and the pressure on officers. It is that kind of false information from management to Ministers that causes Ministers to get into the mess that they are in now. I shall be grateful for an early alteration to the answer that I was given.
It is better for Ministers and others who visit prisons such as Winson Green to do so in the early hours of the morning, at slopping out time, instead of at midday. If they did that they would see the real effects of overcrowding and understand why the prison officers have explained that they cannot any more do random searches of the cells. We have reached a ludicrous state of affairs and it is aggravated by people being sent to prison for less than seven days. It is inexplicable that this kind of thing can go on, because it puts unnecessary pressure on already overcrowded prisons.
Mr. Hurd: It is important for Ministers to visit prisons. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I try to do that and my noble Friend who deals with the prison service also visits the prisons. I reject the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the advice and information that we receive from a highly competent prison management. Of course, he is right about slopping out. That sort of thing is a scandal and has its roots in Victorian times. The arrangements made by the Victorians were perfectly acceptable by the standards of that day, but they are not acceptable now. It takes a long

799
time and a lot of money to put that right, but he will know that we are building 16 new prisons and proposing to refurbish 100 more. A large part of that work will deal with sanitation. We are getting on with the work and the prison officers are well aware of that.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Many people will be surprised to find that it is possible for prison officers lawfully to engage in industrial action or to go on strike. Can my right hon. Friend think of anything more vital to the internal security of the country than the prison service? Should we not consider instituting a no-strike agreement in any settlement of this dispute that may be obtained?
Mr. Hurd: I have a lot of sympathy for my hon. Friend's view. He is not the only person to whom this thought will have occurred. We need to give consideration to the matter.
Mr. Greville Janner: Any enforcement on prison officers of a no-strike agreement would be deeply resented and would remove from them one of the freedoms to which they are entitled. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that they have an extremely rough job that is greatly aggravated by wicked overcrowding? If he does recognise that, will he answer two questions? First, will he tell the House something about the circular that will go out to the courts tomorrow, and not leave it to the press to find out about it so that the House cannot question it? Does the circular include provisions for alternatives to imprisonment for people sent to prison for debt? Secondly, has he plans to deal with overcrowding in Leicester prison, which was built for 200 prisoners and is holding 400? It is staffed by people trying to do a good job in the most difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances.
Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly write to the hon. and learned Gentleman about the plans for Leicester prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) talked specifically about a no-strike agreement, and, indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman used the same phrase. It is not a question of imposing, but of considering an agreement. That is what my hon. Friend suggested, and that is what I said required consideration.
The circular letter will refer to the fact that if industrial action is taken—I hope it will not be taken—the business of the courts will inevitably be disrupted. The letter will seek the understanding of magistrates courts, and will suggest ways of reducing the burden on the police; for example magistrates courts may be able to adjourn some cases or to grant bail immediately in others. We shall draw attention to difficulties and ask the courts to bear them in mind, while making it plain that we are not seeking to interfere in judicial decisions. As I understand it, that follows closely what was done on a previous occasion. The full text of the letter will be put in the Library.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is it not important that the POA and its membership recognise that however much sympathy they may have from the public now—the public recognises the difficulties of their job—it will soon be lost if there is a disaster caused by disruption, especially when the public knows that talks are available to them?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. The public has sympathy for the job which prison officers do. I should like to see more publicity for what they do and the problems that they face. That is entirely understandable. The public also knows that prison officers are not badly paid, in recognition of the difficulties of their job, and that we are willing and anxious to consult them about the future of the prison service.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Recognising that the resumption of talks is essential if this grave position is not to deteriorate still further, will the Home Secretary say what his present conditions are for the resumption of talks? Is he waiting for the NEC of the POA to extend the effectiveness of its call for the suspension of industrial action, or is he looking to the NEC to take a different line?
Mr. Hurd: I want the NEC to call off the industrial action. In that way we can get on with the real job of discussing real matters.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does not the Home Secretary's circular come to the nub of the problem? If, as the Home Secretary says, the circular will explain to the courts the problems of overcrowding in the event of a strike by prison officers, and will recommend a number of options to be exercised by the courts and the police in the event of a strike, why on earth cannot those same options be operated when there is no strike and no industrial action? Could they not go a long way towards preventing the position that the Home Secretary has brought the prison service to?
Mr. Hurd: Obviously they can. The hon. Gentleman is right. The granting of bail and the timing of cases are at the discretion of the courts. The hon. Gentleman will know that recently I have several times gone out of my way to urge the courts to consider tough and practical alternatives to custody for relatively minor offences. Indeed, I have to some extent stuck out my neck on that point. It is also right in these circumstances, where we may be under a serious threat of industrial action, that in striking the balance in each case, the courts should have regard to the position. That is the purpose of the circular.
Mr. John Ryman: May I draw two specific points to the Home Secretary's attention? The first relates to prison officers' pay. Is not the crux of the problem that the basic rates of pay are so bad that officers are forced to engage in what are sometimes considered to be excessive overtime duties, such as accompanying prisoners to court, because without overtime their wages are unreasonably low? Is not the answer to raise the basic pay so that officers are not forced to rely on overtime? One may disagree as to whether they are working excessive overtime, but that is the motive behind it.
Secondly, does not the Home Secretary's circular, undoubtedly couched in moderate and temperate language, interfere with the judicial process? The judiciary is well aware of its powers of sentencing other than a sentence of immediate imprisonment. Surely it is not for the Home Secretary but for the Lord Chancellor to guide the courts on sentencing policy?
Mr. Hurd: I would not dream of issuing even a modest circular of this sort without the approval of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. It specifically does not seek to interfere in judicial decisions. The hon.

801
Gentleman is entitled to his view about what decent rates of pay are, and there is obviously room for argument and negotiation on that. It is an irony that negotiations precisely on that point were about to begin between the POA and the Treasury, which has responsibility for such negotiations. Obviously, such negotiations cannot take place while industrial action is under way or threatened.

Political Parties (Income and Expenditure)
4.35 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a limit on the amount of money which may be spent by or on behalf of a political party during the period of a general election campaign: to require companies to establish a political fund from which all political donations shall be made; to provide for a ballot of shareholders and employees before a political fund is established; and to ensure an entitlement for each shareholder to an additional dividend from the company in lieu of any donations to which such shareholder has objected.
For more than 70 years it has not been possible for unions to donate money for political purposes without balloting their membership about whether a political fund should be established. There was never any controversy about that, and unions never complained that a political fund was required by law. However, the Government were not satisfied with the position, so legislation was introduced to require unions to ballot their members every 10 years if they wish to retain a political fund. The first such ballot had to take place by the end of March this year.
The legislation was, understandably, clearly seen as a rather crude and clumsy attempt by the Conservative party to undermine financial support for its main opponents. In the event, every union with a political fund secured a massive majority for a "Yes" vote. Indeed, two unions which did not have political funds won majorities to establish them. Who knows, other such unions may secure such a majority.
If it is right for unions to have to establish a political fund to contribute to a party, why should not the same apply to companies? Why the glaring difference in law? Today, I am seeking leave to introduce a Bill—an extremely modest measure— to ensure that companies must ballot shareholders, and employees with more than 12 months service—that is only fair—on whether a political fund should be established. Under the measure it would be illegal to donate to a political cause without such a fund. In this matter the law should apply to companies and unions alike.
It is also right and proper that in any such arrangement provision should be made for shareholders who do not want to contribute to a political fund to be compensated by some extra shareholding, in the same way as during the past 70 years trade unionists who did not want to donate for political purposes could contract out. I am merely seeking the same provisions for companies as apply to trade unions.
The Economist of 22 June 1985 commented:
"In practice, the directors of a company now arbitrarily decide how much to give to a party—usually the Conservative party or one of its front organisations. Their decision is simply noted in the directors' report, which is usually passed on the nod at the company's annual meeting."
In the same article The Economist said that, unlike the Labour party, the Tories, Liberals and SDP do not publish a full set of financial accounts. As we all know, the truth is that the whole area of Conservative party finance is rather murky. It is understandable that there are some Conservatives, such as Mr. Eric Chalker, who believe and have campaigned that the Conservative party should publish full accounts. I also note that Mr. Chalker is keen on democratic accountability in the Conservative party, and on the chairman being elected.

803
A recent MORI poll on public attitudes to political donations found that 51 per cent. of those asked felt that companies should not be allowed to make political donations and only 35 per cent. were in favour. In the same poll, 82 per cent. believed that companies making donations should first consult their shareholders. So public opinion on this particular issue is very clear. I see no reason for discrepancy between trade unions and companies which make contributions in the political sphere.
Since this Government took office seven years ago—I do not want to be personal, but I think that this information should come out—64 industrialists have been awarded knighthoods. Of these, 69 per cent. are directors of companies which have given £4·5 million to the Tory party since 1979.
Mr. Tony Banks: It is a fiddle.
Mr. Winnick: Of the 11 industrialists who have gone higher, who have been given peerages, six are directors of companies which are among the top 10 financial donors to the Tory cause.
Mr. Tony Banks: Come back, Lloyd George.
Mr. Winnick: These companies give money either directly to the Tory party or to front organisations like British United Industrialists. I am not sure on occasion which has more front organisations, the Conservative party or the Communist party.
In turn the Government favour their friends and financial backers, as in the Finance Bill, which is to be debated today, and in previous Budgets. There is a clear need for reform as quickly as possible.
The next reform that I seek in this very modest measure is to ensure a limit on expenditure by political parties during a general election campaign. We all know that there is a limit on expenditure on behalf of parliamentary candidates. There is no controversy about that. It is right and proper that no very rich candidate is able to secure election by buying votes. If it is correct for there to be quite a tight limit on expenditure by candidates, why should there not be a limit nationally for political parties? Why should a political party be able to spend as much as it likes? Here again there is a clear discrepancy between the national and local scene. In the last election the Tories had some £15 million to £20 million to spend. It may well be that they decided not to spend the lot, but they could have done so, and they could have spent much more. My party had as its maximum some £2·5 million. So we need to ensure that this reform is effected.
804
If I am asked what should be the ceiling on political party spending during a general election campaign, being a generous-minded sort of person I would say that, at present-day prices, it should be around £5 million. This amount could always be updated just as the amount of money that can be spent on behalf of a candidate is periodically updated to take account of inflation.
I do not know whether my Bill is to be opposed. If there are Conservative Members who oppose in any way what I have put forward, I hope that they will have the guts to oppose it today. That is far better than to get the Whips to oppose me and to shout "Object" one Friday afternoon.
If the Conservative party believes that my proposal is wrong, why does it not oppose me and vote against it today? If I am to be defeated in a Tory-dominated House of Commons, so be it, but if I am to be given leave, it is only right that the Cabinet should find time for me to process my Bill. I see no reason why, at the Cabinet meeting, say, on Thursday, this item should not be top of the agenda, or why the chairman of the Conservative party and perhaps the Leader of the House should not ensure that, having been informed that this Bill has been passed without opposition, I have sufficient Government time to make progress and to ensure that my proposals become law before the next general election.
That is only right and fair, so I shall assume that if there is no opposition today the Cabinet will decide along the lines that I have suggested.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. David Winnick: It is clearly the unanimous wish of the House of Commons to support the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that only strengthens what I have said about being given Government time to progress the Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Robert Sheldon.

Political Parties (Income and Expenditure)
  POLITICAL PARTIES (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE)
  Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a limit on the amount of money which may be spent by or on behalf of a political party during the period of a general election campaign; to require companies to establish a political fund from which all political donations shall be made; to provide for a ballot of shareholders and employees before a political fund is established; and to ensure an entitlement for each shareholder to an additional divident from the company in lieu of any donations to which such shareholder has objected; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 June and to be printed. [Bill 147.]
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant document: Fourth Report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 313 of Session 1985–86.]
  4.45 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Finance Bill embodies the legislative implications of my right hon. Friend's Budget six weeks ago. That Budget was set in the context of an unprecedented drop in the oil price, which meant the prospective loss of half our oil tax revenues from the North sea. But the underlying strength of the United Kingdom economy, and particularly the healthy growth of profits, mean that non-oil tax revenues are buoyant. So my right hon. Friend was still able, within the context of a prudent and cautious Budget, to propose a further net reduction in the burden of taxation of almost £1 billion, while at the same time announcing a modest reduction in the planned public sector borrowing requirement for 1986–87 to £7 billion.
  Against the background of the fall in oil revenue, the imaginative proposals in this very positive Budget have come as a pleasant surprise to many who had perhaps underestimated the underlying strength of the economy and overestimated the degree to which, so it was thought, we remained an oil-based economy. Both perceptions have now changed, not least internationally.
  The Budget has also received an encouraging initial response which has been maintained ever since. It was welcomed by representatives of business, large and small. To quote a survey of business opinion by Binder Hamlyn:
  "Businessmen are by and large happy with Nigel Lawson's Budget last week. The result is seen as good for their companies, with positive effect on macro-economic indicators, too."
  The moves to spread share ownership further were welcomed by the stock exchange and the Wider Share Ownership Council; the moves on charities were given a unanimous welcome by all those involved in charitable work and the arts. The Secretary-General of the Arts Council saw the move as
  "an important and much-needed supplement to basic government funding."
  The Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts was reported as seeing a direct benefit of £7 million a year—with the potential to go much higher. The president of the Union of Independent Companies described the scrapping of capital transfer tax on lifetime gifts as
  "the most significant shot in the arm for the unquoted independent company sector for 50 years".
  The fact that the Chancellor did not need to increase duties on drink raised the spirits of the Scotch Whisky Association and the brewers.
  But the positive reaction was not confined to those with a direct interest in the Budget. The prudent yet imaginative course that the Chancellor was able to steer has meant that interest rates have fallen—base rates have come down 2 per cent. since Budget day. That, in turn, has allowed major building societies and banks to lower their interest rates, by 1·75 to 2 per cent., with an extra reduction of 0·5
  806
  per cent. for many of those with endowment mortgages. This will be of direct help to the eight million home owners with a mortgage loan. That, in turn, has contributed to the prospect of a rapid fall in inflation. Even before the mortgage reductions, inflation had fallen from 5·1 per cent. in February to 4·2 per cent. in March.
  So the prospect now is for low inflation combined with sustained growth. That was acknowledged by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in its report on the Budget, which was published with its usual impressive speed last Friday. Today is not the time to discuss the Committee's report in detail, as it makes no comment on the tax changes in the Budget, which is what today's debate is about, but concentrates on the conduct of monetary policy, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor discussed comprehensively in a speech to the Lombard Association on 16 April. The Government will respond to the Committee's recommendations in due course.
  In this year's Bill, the most important change, in terms of its impact on the majority of taxpayers, is the reduction in the basic rate of income tax to 29 per cent. in clause 15.
  The Government's objective has been, and remains, to reduce the burden of income tax for people at all levels of income. In 1979 my right hon. and learned Friend the then Chancellor cut the basic rate from 33 per cent. to 30 per cent., helping the vast majority of taxpayers, and reduced the higher rates to a much more realistic level, improving incentives for those in the higher income brackets. I note that the Labour party has already declared its intention of restoring—indeed, even worsening—the position of those people. To raise the £3·6 billion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) from this group would mean not only increasing the severity of capital taxation and reintroducing investment income surcharge at the indexed equivalent of their 1978–79 levels, but imposing a 70 per cent. tax rate on all taxable incomes above £18,600—hardly the way to retain incentives in the economy and encourage enterprise and risk-taking. I firmly predict that if the Labour party ever returned to power, that commitment, like so many of its others, would be a job destroyer.
  Up to 1985–86 there was no further change in the basic rate, while the main personal allowances were progressively increased in real terms by a fifth over their 1978–79 levels, taking 1·4 million people out of the income tax net altogether compared with an indexed 1978–79 tax regime.
  This year, as my right hon. Friend explained in his Budget, as I did during the course of the Budget debates, we decided that it was right to concentrate tax cuts on the 95 per cent. of all taxpayers for whom the basic rate of tax is their marginal rate, both to reduce their tax burden and to improve their incentives. It was for that reason, against the background of the substantial real increase in allowances under the Government, that my right hon. Friend this year announced a cut of 1p in the basic rate. That cut also improves incentives for unincorporated businesses, 90 per cent. of which pay tax only at the basic rate, and we have mirrored it with a reduction to 29 per cent. in the small business corporation tax rate.
  The reduction of 1 per cent., which is all that could be prudently afforded this year, is in itself relatively modest. But, as my right hon. Friend explained, that 1 per cent.

  807
  reduction is a further step towards achieving our long term objective of reducing the basic rate to no more than 25 per cent.
  I have already dwelt at some length during the Budget debate itself on the case for this cut in basic rate this year as against concentrating resources entirely on thresholds, so I shall not dwell on those arguments again today. But let me add one further point. The case for reducing the basic rate this year is reinforced when one looks at our international competitors. The United Kingdom's income tax thresholds, which, as I have said, we have increased substantially in real terms since 1979, are around the middle of the range compared with other major developed countries. Indeed, as a proportion of average earnings, our thresholds are significantly higher than those in the United States, Canada and West Germany. However, they are still below the levels of certain other countries, notably France.
  It is on the starting rate of tax that we are really out of line. In the United States and Japan the starting rate is 15 per cent., or less. In France, West Germany and Italy the percentage rates are no higher than the mid-20s. Our starting rate of 29 per cent. is still the highest of the seven major industrial countries, and that is a further reason for acting on the basic rate this year.
  But the Government remain committed also, to raising the level at which people start to pay tax. The Green Paper on personal tax reform shows how we could increase thresholds in a way which is more cost-effective and recognises the changes in a family's needs over its life cycle.
  This year, not only have we reduced the basic rate, but the main personal allowances will still be indexed under the provisions of section 24 of the Finance Act 1980, so there is no need for this to be provided for in this year's Bill. As the House knows, the higher rate thresholds are all increased by £1,000—less than the amount needed to index fully the thresholds for the 45 per cent. and above higher rates. The effect is to reduce the gains from the basic rate cut for those on higher incomes, so that the 60 per cent. taxpayer, for instance, gets broadly the same as under statutory indexation without a basic rate cut.
  The overall effect of the income tax changes this year is not at all inconsiderable. The cumulative effect of successive Conservative Government Budgets is very considerable indeed. Income tax liabilities in 1986–87 will be about £8 billion lower than if the rates and allowances which we inherited from the Labour Government in 1979, indexed to 1986–87 levels, were in force. That is the true mark of the difference between us so far. As for this year's changes, one has to take into account not the tax changes alone, but the beneficial effects which have flowed from the interest rate changes since the Budget itself and which a prudent Budget helped to encourage.
  For a married man on average earnings, with a typical outstanding mortgage of £15,000, the Budget income tax changes, combined with a 1·75 per cent. cut in mortgage rates since the Budget, can mean a total gain of £5·80 a week. That is a significant figure, and I repeat the message that I gave in the Budget debate: that employers and employees should take heed of this boost to real take-home pay—a boost which does not damage the competitiveness of British goods—and take it very much into account in their pay negotiations.
  Mr. John Townend: Did the Treasury take that into account when it recently made an offer of 6 per cent., which I would have thought is rather high in view of the estimated level of inflation?
  Mr. MacGregor: That was obviously one of the factors that was taken into account, but I remind my hon. Friend that the negotiations that he is talking about in relation to Civil Service pay relate to the pay year for which most settlements have already been decided. Therefore, it is significantly below the settlement for the same year for the local authority manual workers, the full amount that the teachers are getting in that pay year and the private sector generally. I am talking here particularly about the pay settlements that are to come.
  A number of other major points arise from the Bill which I should briefly draw to the attention of the House, and I deal just with clauses 2 and 3. The House will recall that, despite the dramatic fall in oil prices and the consequent loss of tax revenue, my right hon. Friend introduced a Budget which was tax-neutral for the motorist, to the surprise and delight of everyone but the Opposition. The increase in road fuel duties over revalorisation was, of course, offset by the standstill on vehicle excise duty for cars and most other vehicles, so the burden of duty on the motorist was not increased in real terms.
  When announcing that move, my right hon. Friend said that there was no need for the pump price of petrol to go up at all. The Opposition no doubt felt that they had to try to get some political mileage out of the motorists' package, so they attempted to pour heavy scorn on my right hon. Friend's judgment on that point. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said:
  "I can't understand why Mr. Lawson said he believed they wouldn't pass it on, they are a monopoly, they rig their prices. The idea that they might say Mr. Lawson would like us not to pass the price on so we won't is frankly ludicrous."
  In a television programme in which I took part the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that my right hon. Friend was
  "silly and foolish to imagine that they"—
  the oil companies—
  "wouldn't add this tax to the price to the consumer."
  The Opposition, led by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), demanded the immediate imposition of a windfall tax on oil company profits to force them to make the move.
  Once again, competition, rather than Government interference, has had its effect and proved my right hon. Friend to be totally correct. His judgment, as against that of the Opposition, has been wholly vindicated. There is a marked variation in prices, because competition is working, and in some garages prices are now below 160p a gallon.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In some areas.
  Mr. MacGregor: But what is clear is that petrol prices have not only absorbed the increase in road fuel duties; they have actually come down since the Budget.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept that in many parts of the country there has been very little movement in petrol prices? It was to those parts of the country that we were addressing ourselves. What is he going to do about those areas? Does he intend to do nothing about them?
  Mr. MacGregor: I believe that it was across the country as a whole to which the Opposition were addressing themselves when they talked about petrol prices. In most parts of the country petrol prices, as the AA confirms, are now well below the levels at which they were during the Budget. What is more, within individual parts there is wide variation. Therefore, taking the generality, what I say is right and my right hon. Friend has been proved to be correct.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Chief Secretary tell us whether he thinks the reduction in petrol prices reflects the reduction in oil prices before and since the Budget? Does he not understand that had there not been the imposition of this tax, there would have been a further movement downwards to reflect the reduction in oil prices?
  Mr. MacGregor: That is extraordinarily different from what the right hon. Gentleman was saying at the time of the Budget, so he has admitted that my right hon. Friend's judgment was right. In tax terms there has been no real increase for the motorist at all as a result of the Budget. Therefore, the drop in petrol prices—which is, of course, because of the fall in oil prices before and after the Budget—has been properly reflected. What the right hon. Gentleman was trying to get over was that somehow or other petrol prices would go up in real terms as a result of the Budget changes. That has been proved to be totally wrong.
  I wish next to draw the House's attention to clauses 26 to 30 of the Bill, which contain the provisions for my right hon. Friend's proposals to extend the scope for charitable giving. Our aim is to stimulate giving by both companies and individuals. Non-close companies will now be able to gain tax relief for single gifts to charities up to a limit of 3 per cent. of ordinary dividend payments, and individuals will be able to take advantage of the abolition of the higher rate limit on convenanted donations and the new payroll giving scheme which will operate from next April.
  These provisions have been warmly received by charities. For instance, the Institute of Charity Fund-Raising Mangers has said:
  "This is the most exciting and imaginative Budget for charities there has ever been."
  The Charities Aid Foundation described them as
  "more radical and far-reaching than we could have hoped for."
  I am sure that the House will share those sentiments.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Can my right hon. Friend offer some comfort that the Government will look at the provisions of clause 29, which makes a perfectly reasonable effort to curb abuse of the private foundations? There is a widespread view that the numbers written into the clause have gone too far and may damage some very important charitable bodies.
  Mr. MacGregor: I know that my right hon. Friend shares our intent in the proposals in clause 29, to which he drew attention. These are aimed at misuse of the tax reliefs for charities, which it was felt were justified anyway, but especially now, I think, in the light of the substantial extensions of tax relief. They are not intended to apply to the ordinary charities that do not misuse them. They apply only to a restricted class of private indirect charities, not to charities which spend at least 90 per cent. of receipts on genuine charitable activities. I am aware of the concern of genuine charities, and I know that
  810
  representations are being made. I believe that we shall have a full discussion of these points in Committee. I take note of my right hon. Friend's point.
  Mr. John Butterfill: I notice that my right hon. Friend did not refer to clause 31. I hope that he will take credit for that clause, which will make an important contribution to curbing some of the abuses that we are all anxious to curb.
  Mr. MacGregor: I did not refer to it because I do not think that I can refer to all the clauses in what turns out to be, yet again, a rather large Finance Bill. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point, and I am glad that he has made it.
  I turn briefly, to corporation tax. There are no major changes to business tax this year, which sees the completion of the reforms begun in 1984. These reforms were aimed to reduce the distortions imposed by the tax system—notably the bias in favour of capital and against jobs—to improve efficiency and encourage enterprise. We see no case for changing this structure, and believe business welcomes the stability and certainty which our approach provides. The United Kingdom's corporation tax rate is now, at 35 per cent., the lowest of any major industrial country, and the reduction in the basic rate of income tax has enabled us to reduce also the small company's rate of corporation tax to 29 per cent. When one bears in mind that at the time this Government took over from the previous Labour Government the small business rate was 42 per cent., one sees the significant reduction in the small business corporation tax to 29 per cent.
  Chapter II of part II of the Bill does, however, include two detailed business tax measures—first, to bring the mines and oil wells allowances regime broadly into line with the new structure of capital allowances. Secondly, the Bill would allow a full measure of depreciation for tax purposes for short-life agricultural building and works by providing the option of making balancing adjustments on their disposal.
  I deal next with the provisions in the Bill on stamp duty, two of which I wish to refer to particularly. As the House will recognise, it is not possible to consult fully ahead of the Budget on tax changes. First, the new tax proposed in the Budget on the creation of certificates representing the deposit of shares, such as American depositary receipts, or ADRs, has led to a good deal of misunderstanding of the Government's intentions. Let me correct that misunderstanding.
  We do not want to discourage American investment in British shares. We recognise, as many of the British companies concerned have told us, that it can have advantages for them. It can make it easier for them to raise money and to expand sales in the United States. We have had extensive consultations with the companies and we understand their views about that.
  Our concern is only to protect the tax revenue. Stamp duty on shares, even at the new 0·5 per cent. rate, should bring in £600 million during the current year, and we cannot allow that large sum to be put at risk by investors turning to the purchase of depositary certificates, which trade free of stamp, instead of the underlying shares. There is the possibility, especially after the big bang, of more use of ADRs by British investors, although I recognise that ADRs have some disadvantages for them.

  811
  The solution we have sought is to tax these depositary certificates—and similar arrangements—at a rate which will, broadly speaking, eliminate the incentive to use them for tax avoidance. This means that the tax on the creation of the certificate must broadly recompense for the loss of stamp duty on subsequent sales and purchases. From the point of view of the investor, he will be getting a transferable "season ticket." He pays more now, but subsequent transfers are free of duty.
  We have re-examined the rate of the tax against this criterion and in the light of the representations we have received. We have decided that the revenue should be sufficiently safeguarded if the tax on conversion of shares into ADR and similar forms were put at 1·5 per cent.—three times what the duty on registered shares will be after the big bang. This is the multiple that has applied for some years to issues of shares into bearer form, and ADRs themselves are effectively bearer certificates. The tax on all bearer shares from the big bang will also therefore be set at the level—1·5 per cent.
  The rate of 1·5 per cent. on conversion of shares into ADRs will apply from 19 March. This rate, we judge should be sufficient to safeguard the revenue without adding unreasonably to the financing cost of United Kingdom companies overseas. It compares with the rate of 1 per cent. that applied before the Budget. I must, however, give due notice that if after big bang it looks as if ADRs are being used as a means of avoiding stamp duty by United Kingdom residents, we would have to reconsider the rate of tax.
  I now turn to loan stocks. The Budget proposed that most of these should bear stamp duty at the rate of 0·5 per cent.
  Since the Budget there has been a sharp fall in long-term interest rates, and there are signs that the sterling corporate bond market is reviving.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how much the Revenue will lose as a result of ADRs moving from 5 per cent. to 1·5 per cent.?
  Mr. MacGregor: One has obviously to make estimates, but I shall come to that in a moment, if I may.
  There is also some evidence that the withdrawal of exemption from stamp duty is diverting some borrowers in issuing bearer and Euro-sterling stock.
  In the light of this, we have decided that it would be right to restore exemption for those categories of loan stock that were previously exempt. Registered convertibles will, however, continue to be taxed like equities, as they were before the Budget. We shall make proposals accordingly in Committee. If they are agreed, the exemption for ordinary loan stock would be restored one month later.
  Details of these changes will be given in a parliamentary written answer and Inland Revenue press release later today. The estimated yield from stamp duty, as forecast at the time of the Budget, remains unchanged. Any reduction in revenue arising from the changes that I have just announced should be offset by the higher yield we now expect from the application of stamp duty to takeovers.
  The adjustments that I have just announced to our proposals for stamp duty will help maintain the range of
  812
  options available to companies in financing investment. They will also help maintain the depth and breadth of London's financial markets, and London's role as a major financial centre. I am glad also to be able to announce now a proposal that, though not part of the Finance Bill, should help further in both respects.
  We have decided to remove the constraint imposed by the Banking Act which prevents companies from financing themselves by issuing sterling commercial paper—that is, by issuing sterling debt securities of less than one year maturity. The establishment of a sterling commercial paper market should provide a useful alternative for companies to bank borrowing and also extend the range of sterling markets available in London to investors. Further details are being provided in a written reply published in today's Official Report.
  I should mention two further measures that the Government will have to introduce at a later stage. The first will set out provisions to withhold tax at source from payments made to non-resident entertainers and sportsmen, announced in the Budget. The second will give effect to the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in written answers, on 26 February at columns 564–5 and on 27 March at column 549, to make changes to the structure of the ITV levy.
  I move on now to the enterprise and small business package in the Budget. Some of the measures—for example, in relation to the loan guarantee scheme—do not require legislative action in the Finance Bill itself, but the business expansion scheme does. The scheme has proved a great success, attracting more than £100 million a year from subscribers.
  The Peat Marwick report, published on Budget day, found that, on the basis of a survey of 1983–84 investments, 70 per cent. of the money invested would not have been raised by companies in the form of equity and almost half would not have been raised at all. Two thirds of the total BES finance raised in that year was invested in companies less than five years old—those which typically have greatest difficulty in raising finance through other methods. The BES has been particularly helpful to firms wanting to raise relatively small amounts of capital. More than half of the companies in the survey raised no more than £50,000.
  That survey, and much anecdotal evidence of the benefits of BES since, have justified the introduction of the scheme and shown that, broadly speaking, it is achieving its objectives. Clause 38 provides for the indefinite extension of the scheme and for improvements to ensure that capital is not diverted to low-risk investment in companies with high asset backing—in other words, that it is targeted on the original objectives. This scheme is enhanced with the provision of capital gains tax exemption for the first sale of new BES shares.
  These proposals have also been widely welcomed by the CBI, by the Union of Independent Companies and by other representative bodies. I was glad to see that the right hon. Member for Islwyn, in response to the Budget, was moved to say:
  "we sincerely welcome some aspects of the Budget. I think, for example, of the provisions relating to the business expansion scheme both in its continuation and its exclusions, which appear to be sensible and helpful."—[Official Report, 18 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 185.]

  813
  I am delighted that he has become converted to the encouragement of risk-taking and of venture capital investment through the tax system.
  We have made a further important move to boost enterprise. We have had repeated representations from those who work hard to build up family businesses and family farms, and then, as they expand, face a potentially crippling capital transfer tax charge. That is no way to encourage enterprise and initiative. That is the main reason why we propose to abolish CTT on lifetime gifts to individuals. Part V sets out our proposals, which include detailed provisions to protect the continued charge on transfers on death. It is significant that 74 per cent. of the business men surveyed by Binder Hamlyn immediately after the Budget felt that the change would help here.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: They were not going to say no. Grow up, man.
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any conception of what it is to build up a small business, to expand, and then find, all over the place—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have built up a small business.
  Mr. MacGregor: In that case, the hon. Gentleman has no conception of what most others in the business world say about the impact of capital transfer tax. It is significant that some of the fastest expanding small businesses regarded this as one of the most significant moves that could be taken in the Budget. It is also significant for family farms. We shall be introducing additional inheritance tax provisions at a later date, first, to ensure that regular premium payments made after Budget day under an insurance policy taken out before then are taken out of the gifts with reservation regime, and, secondly, to deal with the consequences for the heritage of the shift to inheritance tax.
  Mr. Robert McCrindle: Why does there appear to be some retrospective effect in this year's Budget? Any individual who effected a tax mitigation scheme on the morning of or up to 3.30 pm on Budget day is being caught in a retrospective way and in a fashion that I cannot recall having been introduced in a Budget before.
  Mr. MacGregor: I know the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I am sure that he will recognise that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor must have a point at which tax changes are introduced, and they are normally when the Budget is introduced.
  Mr. McCrindle: I apologise for pressing the point further. That would be understandable, but my hon. Friend will recall that the Budget was introduced at 3.30 pm on 18 March. I am referring to legitimate arrangements, effected before that time on that day, which are being eliminated. That introduces an element of retrospective legislation.
  Mr. MacGregor: There is a difference between such changes in the law and when the Chancellor announces genuine retrospective legislation. This matter can be looked at when we come to the detailed points in Committee.
  The final strand in our enterprise package is to encourage people to put their money into business. We
  814
  have already made exceptional progress with our target of broadening share ownership. New figures from a poll carried out by National Opinion Polls reveal that the proportion of individual shareholders in the population has doubled since 1979, from 7 per cent. to roughly 14 per cent. With all the statistical qualifications that anyone might wish to make, there is no doubt that that shows that this is a solid and most encouraging advance. Interestingly, over half of all shareholders are now from socio-economic groups C, D and E. The revolution in attitudes towards individual investment has begun.
  We are determined to build on this success. A key element will be the new personal equity plan. As the House knows, the Bill provides the outline of the scheme. Our intention is to allow tax-free build-up of investments of up to £200 a month in shares over a minimum period. The details will be set out in regulations, after consultation with interested parties.
  Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend talked about research into the socio-economic groups that has been done through National Opinion Polls. Does he agree that some people in those groups who may not know much about investment would be better protected by being allowed to invest in investment trust shares, thereby gaining a wider spread? Will investment trusts be included under the Bill's proposals?
  Mr. MacGregor: Again, this is a matter on which we have been receiving representations and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take them into account in the consultations. The consultations will enable us to tailor the scheme to meet the requirements of potential investors and plan managers, and thus ensure that it can be taken up as widely as possible. That is our intention. This scheme will give the private investor a substantial incentive to take a direct stake in British business, and it will also help to counterbalance the considerable fiscal advantages already enjoyed by institutional investors.
  Finally, there is one area of remaining concern in the economy which, although not in the Bill, the House might expect me to mention—employment. Last Thursday, in the House, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal suggested that it could appropriately be discussed today. Of course, the latest unemployment figures were disappointing. However, perhaps that obscured the encouraging announcement of a fact that emerged at the same time of the success of the economy in creating net new jobs—almost 1 million since June 1983. Continued employment growth can be expected as output grows this year and next, and it will be faster still if pay increases more in line with productivity.
  The Budget has supplemented what was already an ambitious and wide-ranging Government programme of specfic employment measures. By 1988–89 we shall be spending nearly £3 billion on employment measures, plus the youth training scheme. I shall not discuss them in detail today as we did that in the Budget debate. However, I must repeat that those are substantial sums.
  We are often urged to spend more by Opposition Members and recently by the Select Committee on Employment, which put forward proposals aimed, so it claimed, at creating 750,000 extra jobs. The Government have considered the proposals in that report. On the Committee's own assumption it would be necessary to look for 1·25 million extra jobs to support the 750,000 the

  815
  scheme was designed to create. That could be done only at substantial extra cost. The Department of Employment estimated that the net cost would be £4 billion on top of what we are already spending.
  The report was short on prescriptions on how to finance that. If it were financed by reducing expenditure elsewhere, the net effect on jobs would be much smaller. Indeed, it could be negative because it would be replacing more cost-effective employment measures. If it were financed by higher taxation, incentives would be damaged and that would lead to job losses. If it were financed by higher borrowing, the likely result would be higher inflation and interest rates and higher costs to industry. So the job creation programme on that scale would end up destroying jobs in the private sector. Temporary jobs would be bought at the expense of permanent jobs in the rest of the economy.
  Those who wish to see a major expansion of employment measures also ignore the practical constraints. It is not clear that there is scope for a major expansion of places on the community programme or similar schemes. There are limits to the number of cost-effective schemes that can be developed. There are limits to the extent which health and social services could absorb unskilled labour. There are limits on the number of sponsors we could attract.
  In contrast to the Select Committee, the Government's aim is based on providing direct practical help to the long-term unemployed who need it most. The restart programme will mean that everyone unemployed for a year or more will be contacted and offered an interview at a local jobcentre. They will then be offered a range of ways towards finding work.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I know that conventionally we have a wide-ranging debate on Second Reading, but the Minister is going very wide of the matter before the House. He has invited the House to debate employment measures rather than the Finance Bill.
  Mr. MacGregor: I felt it necessary to make a brief reference to those matters because the Lord Privy Seal suggested that they might be raised in the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will be responsible for the scope of the debate within the rules of the House.
  Mr. MacGregor: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall move straight back to the position on the economy as a whole.
  These specific measures, which we have introduced in the Budget, although I agree not in the Finance Bill, should be seen against the background of the Government's overall economic policy. That strategy is designed to encourage enterprise and efficiency. Low inflation and lower taxes are vital to secure the growth that will produce more jobs. That strategy has produced nearly 1 million new jobs over the past three years. I accept that that is not enough to absorb fully the major increase in people coming on to the labour market, but it is a better record than the rest of our European partners combined.
  816
  That strategy would be severely undermined if we were to depart from implementing realistic, practical and cost-effective employment measures. A wholesale boost, at substantial additional public expenditure cost, would create a few temporary jobs, but at the price of putting brakes on economic growth and the accelerator on inflation. That is why I believe that the policies being implemented in the Bill are right.
  Mr. Peter Rees: There is one area of the economy to which my right hon. Friend has not directed his attention, although there are few measures in the Financial Bill, and that is the production of oil in the North sea. I readily declare an interest as the director of an oil company. My right hon. Friend and the House will be aware that as the price of oil climbed, so the petroleum revenue tax was restructured in various degrees to ensure a proper take for the Government. As the price of oil has declined sharply to the point that it may discourage exploration and development in the North sea, would my right hon. Friend perhaps concede that there might be a case for a further and fresh look at the structure of PRT, especially advance PRT?
  Mr. MacGregor: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend takes the closest possible interest in these and all other tax matters. As he knows, the present oil taxation system is durable and flexible and is highly sensitive to movements in oil prices. The Government are not convinced that any change is needed. However, we have made it clear that we shall continue to watch the situation closely and keep in contact with the industry.
  I was concluding by saying that, given the financial constraints which limited my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's room for manoeuvre this year, the Finance Bill contains an impressive range of measures of tax relief and tax reform, which will reduce the burden of tax within a sound overall economic strategy. Those measures have been well received by business, those involved in fund raising and those who want to see more people own shares. The fall in interest rates since the Budget has demonstrated the markets' belief and confidence in the course the Chancellor has charted in the year ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: On Budget day my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the Budget of 1986 would be remembered for two characteristics. The first was its irrelevance to the real problem facing this country, and the second was its divisiveness—the help it provided for the rich and its neglect of the least well off. Those two characteristics are reinforced and reproduced in the Finance Bill.
  The Chancellor prudently pretends that items such as the niggardly increase in pensions and child benefit are none of his business. He deals with the other part of my right hon. Friend's criticisms by saying that the way in which the British economy has survived the fall in oil prices is a testimony to the fact that his management of the economy has been wise and prudent. He used the word "unscathed" from the fall in oil prices. He used it in the House on 18 March and to the Economic Club of New York on 11 April.
  The Chief Secretary, who a moment ago led the cheers, was notably less ambitious, less buoyant and less bullish

  817
  about the claims he made over the way in which we have survived the reduction in the price of oil. That is not surprising, because since the Chancellor made his grandiloquent claims we have had the April balance of payments figures. Those figures are unique in their depressing quality. They show the folly of the Chancellor's boast that we could pass the reduction in oil prices without cost, and the folly of the policy which the Chancellor sought to justify. It is surprising, even allowing for the rules which from time to time constrain the Chief Secretary, that he did not deal with the principal criticism made of the Budget's application to the economy, the omissions which are, therefore, to be seen in the Finance Bill and the fact that nothing the Finance Bill does deals with the central issue of economic decline, which is that we are too dependent on oil and too vulnerable to changes in oil prices.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman must have been elsewhere when the balance of payments figures were produced last week. They denoted the facts of the economy once the oil price is not there to boost and reinforce our neglected, declining and deteriorating manufacturing industry. The Budget and the Finance Bill do very little to deal with those fundamental problems which we tried to draw to the Chancellor's attention six weeks ago. The Chief Secretary takes refuge in the one piece of good news—at which I rejoice and about which I wish to express my pleasure—which is the reduction in the base rate and the fall in mortgage rates which followed.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Not yet. I will tell the hon. Gentleman when.
  The Chief Secretary told us the good news about the reduction in the base rate. I said during the Budget debate, and I repeat it today, that he obtained a cheer from Conservative Back-Bench Members because they are delighted that an intolerable interest rate has been reduced to an insupportable interest rate. We are still enduring and being burdened by the highest rate of interest in the OECD. The six-month Euro rate is as follows: in Denmark, 4·5 per cent.; in the United States, 6·75 per cent.; in France, 7·5 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom, 10 per cent. Those are the notional figures. If the figures for real interest are compared and calculated, the British interest rate is 2 per cent. higher than the average of our OECD competitors. The fact that there is rejoicing among Conservative Members that the figure should now be only 2 per cent. above the average rate shows how easily they are satisfied. It also shows that the excuses that we have heard for seven years about interest rates have worn thin and disappeared.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. John Butterfill rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall let the hon. Gentlemen know when I am ready to give way.
  Originally, we were told that interest rates would be brought down below those of our competitors because the Government would cut public expenditure. That did not work. We were told that our interest rates were high because of the rates in competitor countries, but now they
  818
  are higher than those rates. Sooner or later, the Government will get round to the idea that interest rates are too high because of the follies and failures of Government policy, and not least because the Government are keeping up the interest rate so that they can help to maintain sterling at an artificially high rate as an alternative to a monetary policy.
  Mr. Budgen: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said that high oil prices were to the advantage of manufacturing industry. Will he explain that passage of his speech?
  Mr. Hattersley: I explained that in my Budget speech, but I shall repeat it now. A reduction in oil prices would be to the benefit of an economy in which manufacturing industry was strong and ready to expand. I said that, thanks to the folly of the Government in allowing the collapse of manufacturing industry, we could not take advantage of a reduction in raw material costs which some of our more successful competitors will enjoy. Last week's balance of payments figures underline the wisdom of the Opposition's insistence that to rely on oil revenues as the Government have done is a disaster for Britain.
  It is also a disaster for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it allows him to pin another medal on his chest. He can add the largest visible balance of payments deficit ever to the highest level of unemployment ever, to the highest real interest rates ever and to the lowest value of sterling ever, which he has contrived to ricochet up to a height which is so great that it penalises our manufacturing industry and cripples our exports. Yet the Chancellor remains incapable of even imagining that he might be wrong. He does not even acknowledge, far less attempt to resolve, the two great crises to which the Finance Bill should have directed the nation's attention. Those are the crises of unemployment and poverty. Instead of facing those issues direct, with each Finance Bill the Chancellor takes refuge in irrelevancies. This year, the chief irrelevancy was built around and hidden behind the slogan "people's capitalism". The diversion was intended to deflect attention from the Government's failures of personal equity plans in clause 37 and schedule 8.
  I hope that when the Financial Secretary replies this evening he will have the grace to concede that personal equity plans help the small investor almost not at all. The small investor already benefits from the £6,300 threshold on capital gains tax.
  Mr. John Maples indicated assent.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am delighted to receive endorsement from at least one Conservative Member.
  The PEP provides little or no incentive for new share ownership. It offers a further tax privilege to existing share owners, many of whom are already very rich and most of whom will convert their existing holdings into PEP. Those two facts typify the Chancellor's record. It is a gimmick intended to obscure the Budget trivialities, and as well as providing a couple of days' headlines, it puts money in the pockets of the better-off.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will have the grace to concede that the Chancellor's schemes have several other built-in disincentives for the small and new shareholder. The investment must be made through authorised PEP managers, who will charge a fee and who have been open in saying—at least the City in general has been saying—that they are not prepared for them,

  819
  do not welcome them, cannot cope with them and do not want to manage the small investor's resolution. What is more, unit trusts will be excluded. Although PEP will help existing shareholders with a new form of tax exemption, the Chancellor's claim during the Budget debate that it will bring about a dramatic extension of share ownership in Britain is typically and patently the grandiloquent nonsense that we have heard from him from time to time.
  Mr. Roger Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman criticises personal equity plans. Would he propose a more generous scheme for wider share ownership?
  Mr. Hattersley: I was about to comment on exactly that point. To show the hon. Gentleman that he did not prompt me into that assertion, I shall read from my notes. I wish to make it clear that I support genuine extensions of share ownership schemes which enable and encourage employees to acquire stakes in their companies. The schemes that I want would carry voting rights proper to share ownership, and would be available to all company employees; they would not simply be another executive and top management bonus payment. The schemes I want would be made available in practice as well as in theory, because many of them will be financed by the share option schemes about which the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) asked the Chief Secretary but obtained no reply. The funding of those schemes would allow real workers to make small and gradual investments. If the hon. Gentleman who asked the question has doubts about our intentions, let me assure him that we shall seek to amend clauses 21 and 25 in Committee to enable such an extension in genuine employee share ownership to be promulgated, propagated and encouraged.
  The Committee will also discuss the proposal for tax relief on contributions to charities, which are obtained in clauses 26 to 31. They are in part the result of the Chancellor's desperate search for a sympathetic headline—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Those Conservative Members who are moaning probably do not recall the pressure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put upon the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to provide some tax relief for the Band Aid initiatives, and their hard-hearted replies to our pleas. Only when a body of public opinion built up saying that the Government should be more helpful to charities did the Government decide that that was the popular thing to do.
  I shall make the Opposition's view absolutely clear. We applaud the proposal to help genuine charities, but the description of charities is wholly inappropriate to some of the institutions which presently enjoy that legal status. I would like to help Oxfam and Save the Children Fund, but tax exemptions for Eton and Harrow are especially offensive at a time when public education is being starved of cash. The next Labour Government will certainly maintain the exemptions for charities, but a new definition of charities will be provided which will concentrate the help on those institutions which genuinely deserve it.
  We will also reintroduce capital transfer tax. That tax is virtually abolished under clauses 70 to 86 except when it is applied as an inheritance tax. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must know, inheritance tax is now voluntary or an additional punishment for sudden death.
  820
  Anyone can avoid inheritance tax by following two rules. The first is to appoint a competent accountant and the second is not to die unexpectedly.
  It is impossible—I was going to say difficult, but impossible is not too strong a word to use—to imagine a more arbitrary way of calculating the incidence of a tax; in practice that tax turns out to be another of the Chancellor's concessions to the rich and, often, the very rich. Already, the first £70,000 of estate duty is exempted from tax liability.
  Before I discuss the subject which is clearly central to the Budget and the Bill, and the one on which the Chief Secretary naturally concentrated most of his speech—the subject of income tax—I would like to ask the Chief Secretary a question about a subject which I am astonished that he failed to mention. I wish to ask the Chief Secretary about the pension fund surplus. When the Financial Secretary replies, will he tell us why the Government have chosen 5 per cent. as the level of surplus at which the pension funds must arrange one of the three alternatives which the Government require—a contributions holiday, an increase in benefit, or a refund?
  I understand, applaud and support the principle of discouraging excessive surpluses, but the figure of 5 per cent. is clearly arbitrary. It is the view of virtually every authority other than the Government—the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Actuaries and the National Association of Pension Funds—that 5 per cent. is too low and that 10 per cent. is a more likely figure. The Financial Secretary should tell us why the 5 per cent. level was hit upon when, in the view of all the authorities that I have referred to, there are considerable risks to the prospects for pension funds in these uncertain and fluctuating times.
  The Chief Secretary said, and the Opposition agree, that the principal features of the Budget were the changes made in direct taxation—the £1 billion resulting from the penny off the standard rate of income tax. Before I offer my opinions on that, I want to remind the House of the pattern of tax changes which has occurred during the lifetime of the Government.
  We all know that the gross annual tax bill has increased in real terms by almost £29 billion. The overall figures of increased taxes imposed by the Government, who had been elected twice to cut the tax bill, and the pattern of tax increases and their incidence upon the population was revealed in a parliamentary answer in Hansard on 27 March. The written reply on 27 March contained a calculation of income tax, national insurance contributions and child benefits as they apply to various groups within the population.
  The figures show that individuals and families on half or two thirds average earnings now pay a larger proportion of their earnings in income tax than they did in 1979. All those who receive half or two thirds of average earnings are paying more, and in some cases dramatically more, of their income in taxes than they did seven years ago.
  I am sure that the Chancellor's silent PPS would cry out, with the expertise that he must have achieved through his occasional calls at the Treasury, that they are paying more because their real earnings have increased. The lucky earners who are earning five or 10 times the national average are paying less because their real earnings have increased. The people earning 10 times the national average are paying 15 per cent. less of their earnings in tax than they paid when the Government were elected in 1979.

  821
  That confirms the simple phrase which must be engraved on the Government's heart and which is already understood outside the House, that the increase in taxes imposed by the Government has fallen on the poor and the middle-income groups rather than the rich and has produced the position which the Opposition prophesied. There has been a redistribution of income by taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.
  Mr. Maples: While the right hon. Gentleman is discussing the structure of income tax, and as he told us in a previous debate on these matters that he would plan to raise almost £3·5 billion from the so-called better-off, does he agree that the figure given by the Chief Secretary would involve an average tax rate of 70 per cent. on all income in excess of £18,500? If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with that, what higher rate tax structure does he think would be necessary?
  Mr. Hattersley: I have said time after time that the arbitrary and risible way in which the Chief Secretary deals with these matters, fools no one. The Chief Secretary plucks one tax out of the air. At one moment he decides upon 41 per cent. VAT and then he chooses 80 per cent. for income tax.
  There are many ways in which the favoured 5 per cent. of the population have enjoyed tax privileges and concessions under this Government. Some of the taxes removed by the Government, like the unearned income surcharge, must be reimposed. However, the real assault on the privileges of the very rich does not concern their marginal rates but should affect their allowances. Most of the money should be raised from that area. That naturally and inevitably leads me to my next point. I understand why Conservative Members complain about, resent and say that they will resist the increases in taxes for the very rich. I hope that they will also understand—
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I will not give way now.
  I hope that Conservative Members will understand that the tax cuts which they have boasted about are not discrete options. The income which the Treasury has forgone as a result of tax cuts for the favoured income groups, could have been used for other purposes. To choose to cut taxes for one group is to choose to increase taxes or reduce benefits for another.
  In relation to that equation and balance, I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury several questions which I do not mean to be rhetorical and for which I require answers. How can he justify the balance that the Government have struck between their provision of benefits and welfare and their cuts in taxes for the very rich? How can they justify abandoning the unearned income surcharge when the pension is so low that old people die from the cold in winter? How can they justify abandoning the highest tax band when the long-term unemployed who are now so numerous—there are more now than the total of unemployment when the Government came to office—lose full unemployment benefit after a year? How can the Government justify abolishing capital gains tax when child benefit this year has increased by only 10p?
  These are all compensatory factors—one cut in one area accommodates a failure to improve welfare and
  822
  benefits in another. The Financial Secretary and the Government, over the next few years, will have to demonstrate why their priorities lie, as they do, with the rich and why they hardly ever lie with the groups who in a civilised society ought to receive most assistance. The Chancellor and the Government have chosen to do very little about poverty and absolutely nothing about unemployment.
  If the Chief Secretary contests that assertion, may I put to him again a question that I asked during the Budget debate but which nobody answered. The Chief Secretary seemed to be about to answer that question today, but in the end he shied away from it. Why was the £1 billion that the Chancellor said that he had at his disposal used to reduce the standard rate of income tax by 1p? The Chief Secretary said, "We did it because we had not done it before." That is an answer from "Alice in Wonderland". "We do it, because we do it, because we do it," said Tweedledum to Tweedledee. Why did he choose this option when other clearly preferable options were available to him? Why, particularly in the light of the Government's record, was the £1 billion not used directly to tackle unemployment?
  I add a note about the Government's employment record, since the Chief Secretary chose rashly to boast about the number of jobs that have been created by this Government. I think he said, "We have created more jobs than the rest of the EEC, put together." That boast is substantiated only by this country having adopted a practice that has not been adopted in the rest of the European Economic Community: the practice of counting part-time jobs as though they were full-time jobs. What is undoubtedly true, according to honest statistics that are genuinely comparable between Britain and the rest of the EEC, is that now 1 million fewer people are employed in Great Britain than were employed in 1979 and that we have lost more jobs than the rest of the European Economic Community put together.
  Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question about a main part of the Budget, the reduction in the basic rate of income tax. I gave several reasons for that reduction in my speech today and also during the Budget debate. If the right hon. Gentleman is so critical, why has he said that he will not oppose the reduction of 1 p in income tax?
  Mr. Hattersley: I repeat gladly what I said in the Budget debate. The Opposition believe that the economy needs that boost. However, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary had five possible ways in which to provide that boost. The question that I am asking, and which the Chief Secretary persists in not answering, is why, of the five possible ways, through which I propose to take the House, did he choose the one that helped unemployment and the poor least but helped the rich most?
  I propose to remind the Chief Secretary of those five alternative ways. This afternoon he said virtually nothing about unemployment. People would not have believed it had they been warned in advance that during a 40-minute Second Reading speech on the Finance Bill, only two or three minutes would be devoted to unemployment. If the Chief Secretary had wanted by fiscal means, which is what this debate is about, by tax stimulus, which is also what this debate is about, and by methods that are legitimate to a Finance Bill, and therefore would have been within the

  823
  rules of order, to concentrate upon reducing unemployment, he could have used his £1 billion upon public sector capital investment and maintenance.
  That would have been a quick, cheap and certain way to create jobs. It would have minimised the adverse effects on inflation and the balance of payments. It would have helped to meet the desperate need for new and improved houses, renovated hospitals and the replacement of decaying schools. All of that could have been done by using the £1 billion for that purpose, but still we have not received an answer as to why the Chief Secretary made the choice that he did.
  If the Government and the Chief Secretary were remotely concerned about the low paid and the least well off, they could have used the £1 billion to increase child benefit and to concentrate help upon those areas where it is most needed. If the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor had found the compulsion to cut income tax to be overwhelming, because they had to do something to attempt to fulfil the promises that they have so flagrantly and blatantly broken since 1979, why did they choose the standard rate of income tax that helps the rich the most and the lowest paid the least? Why did they not introduce a reduced rate band? Why was there not an increase in the threshold?
  The Government have attempted to answer none of those questions. Therefore I put it again to the Chief Secretary: of the five ways of spending the £1 billion that were canvassed before the Budget, why did he choose the one that helps the lowest paid the least and the unemployed not at all, but that delights the 1922 Committee?
  Last year the Chancellor called his Budget a Budget for jobs. When measured against the Chancellor's criterion, it was a catastrophic failure. Unemployment has risen by 100,000 since the Chancellor gave that title to his Budget. This year we have had a Budget for the Tory party. That, too, will fail in its objective because the Government's unpopularity has increased since the Budget announcements.
  The manipulation that was supposed to do so much for flagging morale on the Government Back Benches and for declining status in the opinion polls has failed for two reasons. First, the general public have higher standards than the Government realise. The voters, if not the Tory party, are concerned about the Health Service, the education system, pensions and, above all, the unemployed. They have contempt for a Government who ask the prosperous members of society to forget or to neglect their least well-off neighbours and simply to rejoice in their own 1p in the pound tax cuts.
  The general public, if not the Tory party, also realises that we all have a direct vested interest in financing housing—where again there will soon be a shortage of 1 million dwellings—in financing the additional cost of adequate law andd order and in financing an improved road system and rail network.
  The British public is a great deal less gullible than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet believe. It knows that the Government's tax policy has virtually nothing to do with the needs of the economy, the unemployment crisis, the collapse of manufacturing industry and the increasing number of families who are living below the established poverty line but that it has everything to do with the Government's disarray and the
  824
  Tory party's disintegration. The Government's economic horizon stretches no further than the next general election. They will lose it, because the British people are a great deal more moral, practical and decent than the Chancellor will ever understand.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to take part in the debate. Mr. Speaker has asked me to say that he wishes preference to be given to those hon. Members who unsuccessfully sought to take part in the Budget debate. The whole House will appreciate brief speeches from Privy Councillors and other hon. Members.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. David Howell: First, may I raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a point of order. It arises out of your earlier comments about what is in order in this debate. Will you confirm that it will be in order for us to discuss the contents of the Fourth Report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the Budget that is on the Order Paper for discussion today? It touches upon subjects that go slightly wider than the contents of the Finance Bill, although they are directly relevant to the conext in which the Finance Bill is cast.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will allow that, but it is important to bear in mind that earlier I chided the Chief Secretary for, as I put it, seeming to invite the House to discuss specific employment matters. That would be stretching a little too much the limits of the debate.
  Mr. Howell: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The House will not wish to be detained for too long by the featherweight comments that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which seem to be curiously unrelated to the economic issues, the economic changes and the remarkable successes that are beginning to develop in the economy, especially the apparently virtuous spiral of downward inflation and interest rates and the rising investment and confidence in the British economy.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that this Budget was ingenious and full of a number of extremely lively and important proposals. I should like to comment on a few of them before turning to some broader points about the Finance Bill.
  I welcome enormously the heavy emphasis that has been placed on wider ownership and what has been called popular capitalism. This is a vital thrust and a major part of miniaturising capitalism in line with the fragmentation and miniaturising of the labour market and the industrial structure. I greatly welcome that emphasis. As to the proposal for personal equity plans, this is very interesting, but I believe that more work on this scheme will be needed. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told us that regulations will be introduced.
  The present difficulty is perfectly straightforward. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, it may be right for the small investor who puts money into individual shares not to go near the tax inspector, but the manager of an investment must approach the company concerned or the Revenue to claim back the tax on the dividend. He will incur a cost. He will have to charge that cost—he cannot live on air—and that will fall on the PEP

  825
  investor. The charge may be as large as any tax saving that the PEP investor makes from putting his money in a PEP scheme.
  If the PEP scheme is confined to individual share investments, I am not that sure that it will run. It will be necessary to consider arrangements through which personal equity plans can be married up with perhaps a new PEP trust so that the cost of claiming tax on all the dividends from the companies that pay dividends on the shares in which investments have been made can be handled in volume and minimised. If that is not done, I do not believe that the scheme will be enormously attractive to the small investor with a capital gains tax exemption of about £6,000.
  If it is intended to drive forward the spread of ownership, which has moved a long way already—my right hon. Friends have that intention very much in mind— some modifications to the scheme may have to be produced. The Government should have taken their courage in both hands and gone for a tax-free entry saving scheme—something like the French Loi Monory scheme—which would allow millions of workers to put part of their salary into investments and shares and claim back all the tax. The inducement of a tax-free investment is powerful.
  It will be argued that such a scheme will be costly. If my right hon. and hon. Friends had looked at the scheme which was introduced by Lord Vinson and Mr. Philip Chapell of the Centre for Policy Studies, they would have seen a proposal on the same lines as Loi Monory. In theory, the cost would have been about £1 billion a year. In dynamic terms, it would have been considerably less.
  If pressed, I am not sure whether I would have said to my hon. Friends that, although I would be the first to urge that we go for the 25 per cent. tax rate, which I think we will achieve before the end of this Parliament—that was the figure that we had in mind long before 1979—this year there may be a case for diverting the funds into a dramatic push on the wider ownership and personal savings side of such schemes. I am slightly sorry that the Government have not shown enthusiasm for going down that route. I hope that they will, that the PEP scheme will be the first toe in the water and that we will now consider more dramatic tax-free schemes.
  The revenue calculations behind the Finance Bill and the Budget are based on the assumption that the oil price will be about $15 a barrel in 1986–87. That is optimistic. The price is already $12 a barrel, and it is highly likely that it will fall further. There are no underlying reasons why it should not go lower, as long as the Saudis maintain their output at present levels, as they have every intention of doing, and as long as demand stays low, which I think is likely because there has been a fundamental change in the world's need and thirst for oil.
  Many energy experts reassuringly say, "Do not worry. The price of oil will go up and that will make the Budget arithmetic straight. It will also take the heat off the coal industry, the oil industry, and so on." One should regard those predictions with some caution. There may be another oil shock before 1992, although perhaps the expectation will avoid the very thing that people fear. In the meantime, oil prices could remain at low levels for several years.
  If the average oil price is $10 or $11 a barrel in 1986–87, we will have to revise our expectations for next year. If, in 1987–88, the price runs at $10 or even lower, which is not impossible, my right hon. Friends will have
  826
  to ask themselves how their long-postponed, but very important, strategy for cutting personal taxes—I remain convinced that that is the best way to create jobs, because the experience of every nation has been that low taxes and low unemployment go together—will be sustained if the Government have to suffer a further cut in oil revenues.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an interesting speech to the Lombard Association. It was, as it were, part of the Budget speech which he felt should be made elsewhere, not in the Budget speech. The report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service commented on that.
  My right hon. Friend said, rather quaintly, that the fall in oil prices was the result of a return to prudent monetary policies and that that had been responsible for the oil price collapse. With respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not think that is the position. First, it is highly questionable whether we have returned to prudent monetary policies. Secondly, I believe that the fall in the consumption of oil has occurred because the demand for oil has become detached from the process of output growth in the Western economies.
  Sheikh Yamani, whom I greatly respect, is incorrect when he forecasts that, after a while, the West will return to gas-guzzlers and oil heating on a massive scale, that there will be a general switch-around and that demand will rise as supply falls. The truth is that the world has gone off oil. The Budget calculations and the Finance Bill have to be cast on the assumption that oil revenues are not only substantially lower now than they were last November, when there was much heady talk about tax cuts worth £3·5 billion, but are lower than they were expected to be a few weeks ago, and will remain lower. The arithmetic will have to be recast on that basis.
  It is not just a matter of losing tax revenues. New downside problems emerge and those are directly relevant to the tax regime and the Finance Bill. We have seen the first signs of alarm and concern over the future of the coal industry which, as far as its planners are concerned, is in a state of total paralysis. If the price of oil were to remain at $15 a barrel—let alone the present price or the price to which it will fall shortly—there would have to be a total revision of all the coal industry's plans, which would make everything about which Arthur Scargill went to war look like peanuts. Those are the serious industrial realities behind the falling oil price.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees), who is a leading authority on oil industry taxation, both inside and outside Government, reminded us that the oil industry was looking at an entirely different landscape. There have been reports that a major loss of jobs is in prospect in Scotland as a result of the collapse of the demand for offshore equipment. It has been mentioned that 6,000 jobs are at risk. If the recoverable reserves in the North sea are to be reduced substantially, as is estimated now, as a result of the price of oil settling down at about $10 a barrel, it will re-jig the role that the North sea programme has played in the British economy. That may be inevitable.
  It is possible that it will give Britain an opportunity to adjust to being a more normal industrial consumer economy than has been the case in recent years. The reality that my right hon. Friends will want to face, and which they must face, is that the changes in the energy economy, which I have described, will involve a further substantial loss of jobs, whereas the changes in the non-energy

  827
  economy, which can take on board lower-cost energy and expand with new technology, will probably not involve many new jobs. Jobless growth is a worldwide phenomenon. I do not see that Britain will be free of it. We must look ahead. Further moves of a direct kind to assist the problem concerning jobs will have to be contemplated by my right hon. Friends. I am sure that they have some plans.
  Tax cuts are the best way of getting new jobs, but there is probably now no escaping some more direct measures of the type I hoped would appear in the Budget and the Finance Bill. I was interested to see the suggestions from the Department of the Environment and departments of housing that the time was approaching when some local authority capital receipts could be released. An article in the Financial Times suggested that the Government were considering that measure. That would be a sensible move.
  I have a partial liking for some of the measures to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) referred when visiting some inner-city areas which are derelict and miserable. The association that some people make between inner-city infrastructure investment and unemployment is cruelly misleading. Not many jobs will be turned on in that way. But the association which needs to be made between grim surroundings and investment is much more valid. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley tells my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that the time has come not for massive handouts of public funds but for a type of seedcorn—a pump-priming operation whereby small amounts of public money bring large amounts of private investment on their back. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider that course as they monitor the development of their Budget strategy once the Finance Bill is passed.
  I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to refer to monetary policy because the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service looked at it in some detail and because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an extremely interesting speech on monetary affairs outside the House in what was an annex, as it were, to the Budget speech. I have already mentioned the speech he made to the Lombard Association. He clearly signified that we were saying goodbye to technical scientific monetarism. I am glad to be associated with that goodbye—I was going to say "au revoir", but I hope that it is a permanent goodbye.
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear, as has the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service with its usual lucidity, under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) with his usual lucidity, that our policy is to use short-term interest rates and the firm exchange rate to act as the main curbs on inflation. It is even questionable whether they will be operated through the mechanism of money supply to curb inflation.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his speech to the Lombard Association said that sterling M3 had gone on an indefinite furlough. It is no longer considered to be a suitable measure. My right hon. Friend referred to its changed velocity, and so on. He also made it clear that the MO position had been reasserted. But it has been reasserted not as a governor of the rate of inflation—something to be influenced which will, in turn, influence
  828
  inflation—but as an indicator, similar to a dial on a clock. If the dial points too high, short-term interest rates, presumably, will be used directly to curb inflation by curbing credit and other deflationary factors. In short, our policy is to use short-term interest rates and the exchange rate.
  What is our exchange rate policy? I am sure that my right hon. Friends will want to address themselves to the difficulty that arises. The impression outside the House is that our exchange rate policy is in mid-air. We are in the European monetary system as a country member but are not involved in the exchange rate mechanism. Will we become involved in it, or will we not? There seems to be some contradictions.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been extremely firm and clear about where we are going with respect to exchange rates. In his speech to the Lombard Association he said:
  "in the right circumstances membership of a formal or fixed exchange rate system can itself provide a very effective framework for monetary policy".
  He said:
  "over the medium term maintaining a fixed exchange rate against countries who share our resolve to reduce inflation is a pretty robust way of keeping domestic monetary policy on the rails".
  My right hon. Friend continued:
  "I see no role for an exchange rate target outside a formal exchange rate system … And that, for the UK, means outside the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS".
  He said:
  "it clearly makes sense … to limit wild swings in the exchange rate, particularly against our European competitors".
  In spirit and in intention we seem to have moved into the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS and, if so, we have an exchange rate policy. That needs confirmation.
  Having made those comments on short-term interest rates and the exchange rate, which seem to be the main two engines of our policy, I must say, a little perversely, that it probably does not matter much whether the policies are being modified. I suspect that the real issue is rapidly ceasing to be inflation and is becoming deflation. I was interested to see this morning in The Times that Mr. Timothy Congdon had changed his tune remarkably and was questioning whether Governments had gone on too long wringing their hands about inflation when, perhaps, the wind had changed. Inflation in Germany is 0·1 per cent. Inflation in Japan is negative and prices are falling. Since 1 January, commodity futures prices in the Western world have fallen 10 per cent. and, since 1979, non-oil raw material prices have fallen by well over 20 per cent. in real terms, according to the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin.
  With prices falling in on all sides, the problem will be how to keep world economies going. I doubt that domestic monetary policy will play much of a role. Nor, as Mr. Congdon apparently thinks, will it be much more than pulling a piece of string to urge more and more interest rate disarmament in the hope that somehow it will keep the economies going. The reality is that probably nothing can be done. If anything can be done, it must be on an international level, not by individual Governments. I imagine that that matter will be discussed at the end of the week in Tokyo among all the talk of global medium-term financial strategies and objective indicators.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Howell: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall come to the end of my remarks, because I have delayed the House too long.
  I do not know whether the Tokyo conference will have the slightest effect on the scene. I suspect that Ministers are beginning to stand around at these international gatherings saying, "After all, boys, we are all Keynesians." That seems to be the new mood. I suspect that the reality will be more modest. The outcome will simply be that the Japanese need to become more globally minded in using their colossal surplus and buy more Mexican bonds, or whatever will help the balance of the world economy, and that the United States will cut its vast deficit. If those two measures are achieved, I believe that there will be more world stability and a better background against which we can proceed with interesting tax reforms in the Budget. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware of these rocks ahead as they steer their way through the Bill.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I shall refer to some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), especially oil prices and monetarism.
  One of the pleasures of speaking on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is that one does not necessarily have to join the chain gang on the Finance Bill Committee. I suppose that some of us have either been granted parole or even full remission of sentence.
  I should like to refer to an omission from the Bill. One of the pleasures of being a Back Bencher is that one does not have to agree with everything said by one's party. [Interruption.] That will not give much pleasure to the Government. I am concerned, as I am sure is the Chancellor, about the way in which mortgage interest relief is getting out of hand. Two years ago, the cost of mortgage interest relief was £2·15 billion and, in 1984–85, two years later, it was £3·5 billion—a 60 per cent. rise. That is bad enough because, clearly, it will continue. It distorts the housing market and directly adds to the cost of housing, but there are further problems.
  There is an increasing sophistication among borrowers. The Government have done much to forment that, with advantage, and I am not against that. That sophistication means that there will be a greater leakage of money, ostensibly for the purpose of housing, going into other areas. Many people have a second holiday on the basis of an extension to an outhouse. Such leaks will continue and the cost of mortgage relief will increase again and again. What are the effects of these expensive subsidies to expensive houses? At one end, it encourages over-housing and at the other end taxpayers living in rotting, decaying and cheap accommodation are subsidising the relief. These opposing positions are getting further and further apart and it is a matter of concern.
  The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) raised the important subject of the price of oil and the consequence of the fall in price. That ties in with the fourth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. Once again we are extremely grateful to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and his Committee for producing the report. In paragraph 41 of the report refers to
  "the nature and the lack of a satisfactory explanation by the Government of its response to the oil revenue."
  830
  The report calls it a "disappointing response", and I agree with that.
  The high price of any commodity benefits the producer against the purchaser. However, the total world purchasing power remains the same. It is the distribution which varies. The benefit to countries which import oil is exactly balanced by the disadvantage to those which export oil. The transitional effects are difficult and cause problems. If there is a sudden rise in the price, time is needed for the market to settle down. The OPEC increases in 1974–75 could have been absorbed if those price increases had taken place over a longer period. An oil price shock causes imbalances.
  We should have used our oil revenue to increase our growth and investment instead of waiting for the price to fall. If Britain had no oil, our domestic costs would benefit from the lower oil prices. France, Germany and Japan have benefited greatly from the fall in price. Our exports would benefit if our major customers were oil importers and they would suffer if our major customers were oil exporters. We are in a different position because we have oil which we export. At one time our domestic costs benefited in the same way as the non-oil producing countries are benefiting now.
  Britain could have reaped the benefits of the profits from North sea oil revenue if we had used it to assist industry. The non-oil industrial countries were unable to do that and Britain had a commercial advantage which we have never used. In a competitive world, it is the oil importer countries, our industrial competitors, that now have the advantage. We have forgone that prime advantage as the rich rewards of North sea oil have been used as an excuse for a high pound, with its debilitating effect on our industry and employment figures. The right hon. Member for Guildford was correct when he said that the oil price would have a consequence on the coal industry.
  Britain's advantage lay in talking sensibly with the OPEC countries. A rational sensible oil price should have concerned Britain. It was not of interest to Germany, Japan or France. We forgot our personal involvement in a matter which should have had high priority.
  The PSBR is held to be the right one because so much will be obtained from the sale of publicly owned assets. The exchange of a public monopoly for a private monopoly causes us grave disquiet. There are laws in Britain which enable the courts to take action in a way which the Government may not find thoroughly acceptable. However, there is a short history of regulation for the private monopolies. British Telecom regards itself as not having a public interest with regard to 999 calls but that was held to be of public interest before privatisation.
  These new super-monopolies require special controls which we do not have and which we are not even thinking of providing. We have only to look at the United States to see the way in which its corporations can circumvent the tight controls. I compare that with our thin, undernourished quangos fighting it out in the jungle with some of the largest industrial corporations. We have discarded ministerial supervision but the replacement is quite inadequate and the public will suffer. The Government should bear in mind that tax cuts would come from the sale of public companies which will then lack adequate supervision as private companies.
  One of the most important measures in the Finance Bill concerns the capital transfer tax. It is serious because it

  831
  illustrates the philosophy of the Government. The Government claim to be radical, but nobody can conceive of returning to something less than the old death duties as a consequence of radical government. What is given is assistance to the idle heirs of those who have been responsible for Britain's misfortunes. I can understand the notion of rewarding those who create wealth. One can give financial inducements to those who create wealth and such inducements have not been considered by the Government. One can make out a case for rewarding the creators of wealth, although I would dispute it.
  The emasculation of the capital transfer tax by the 10-year rule and the less onerous death duty provisions have made it a voluntary tax. It is a shameful proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has replaced a useful tax with a voluntary contribution paid only by the miser, the procrastinator or the negligent.
  The principles of the capital transfer tax were sensible and equitable. The enjoyment of capital which an individual creates is the right of that individual. However, the enjoyment of capital by virtue of birth has long been regarded as eminently suitable for taxation—a tax which ought to be high and enforceable. That was the basis of death duties long before Socialist Governments involved themselves in these matters. The approach was to make the loopholes smaller. That was undertaken by Labour Governments but has not been undertaken by Conservative Governments, and the result has been a division between the two sides of the House as to how far capital wealth ought to be taxed.
  We are all agreed that income tax should be paid, and it should be progressive. We argue about the amount but not the principle. However, with regard to capital transfer tax and a tax on wealth, we argue about the principle. That is a great pity. There is no question but that wealth should be taxed. But we are now back to the old optional tax in an even worse form than before.
  I do not know what is the Government's policy towards mergers. There are even many Conservative Members who, like me, had hoped that there would be some form of taxation that would have some effect. However, I do not know how far that is practicable. In the rising stock market, those who have exchanged the long view for immediate profits can see their share prices sharply improve, and can use them as the base for a takeover which may make no industrial sense and which any Government should be concerned with. The Government seem to say that we should forget the industrial logic and concentrate on the one aspect of competition between companies. But the trouble with limiting takeovers to mergers that do not reduce competition is that it encourages the growth of conglomerates.
  I thought that the one lesson that we had learnt in all our years of industrial policy and of changes of view was that no firm has such managerial wisdom and expertise that it can rejuvenate and advance any industry that it turns to. I know that many captains of industry are confident of their prowess and that of their managers, and think that there is no firm where they cannot improve the structure or organisation. But we should have a healthy scepticism of such individuals or companies. At a time of a booming stock market, it is wise to call a halt to the fever of mergers and to calm down those frantic companies by introducing a long period of delay and reflection.
  Mr. Maples: I think that the extent of recent takeovers and mergers concerns us all. However, the threat of a takeover is just about the only weapon to be held over the head of an inefficient manager of a large public company. If it was removed, assets would be even more inefficiently managed.
  Mr. Sheldon: I think that that is true when activity on the stock market is fairly quiescent. However, when the stock market booms, a company that has fashionable shares can make a takeover bid for those companies that are not quite so fashionable. During the period of stability the system works reasonably, but during the period of instability it does not. We are in a period of instability, and it is difficult to justify those mergers. In five years' time, I am not sure how many of them will be vindicated.
  The Treasury and Civil Service Committee has once again done us a very good service in drawing our attention to the issue of the money supply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was insultingly dismissive in his Budget speech about his changes backwards and forwards over the question of money supply. It is useful to turn to the first statement of that medium-term financial strategy. I have a copy of the relevant Budget report, which I treasure as there are not many of them around.
  When the concept of the money supply was introduced, there were great hopes and expectations. It was to be the foundations of all prosperity for ever and ever. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote the words that I am about to quote even though, at the time, he was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  He wrote:
  "The Government's objectives in the medium term are to bring down the rate of inflation and to create conditions for sustainable growth, output and employment. To reduce inflation it will progressively reduce the growth of the money stock and will pursue the policies necessary to achieve that aim."
  There is then the wonderful table, with sterling M3 scheduled to reduce from 11 per cent. in 1981, 10 per cent. in 1982, 9 per cent. in 1983 and between 4 and 8 per cent. in 1983–84. The Treasury was so certain about it that it allowed VAT to be increased to 15 per cent. It thought that there would be no effect on inflation because the money supply would do it all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a shambles of a speech. He has many ways of estimating the money supply, yet that concept is no longer in use. The last thing that I would advise someone who wanted to know what the Chancellor proposed to do would be to look at the money supply.
  The right hon. Member for Guildford was right. There is an interaction between the exchange rate and the interest rate. If the exchange rate seems to be doing badly, up go interest rates. If the exchange rate is doing reasonably well in the Chancellor's eyes, interest rates can fall. The exchange rate is the prime determinant, just as it has been in Britain for the past 20 or 30 years. That little affair with monetarism lasted a few short years and then passed like a thief in the night. We now see the exchange rate mechanism working.
  The right hon. Member for Guildford wanted Britain to join the exchange rate mechanism. I am not so sure about that. In the European monetary system we have, in effect, a deutschmark zone. We should not fool ourselves; that is what it is. Thus we either go into a deutschmark zone, or we have the deutschmark and sterling. Having two important currencies in the same zone is not the same as having one dominant currency. That is one problem.

  833
  Another problem is that we are likely to go in at far too high a rate. I believe that that is a serious point, although the Government may not see it as such.
  The right hon. Member for Guildford also pointed out that the immediate danger was not inflation but deflation. That danger is serious. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the wind of change. We have spent too much time giving inflation super-priority. Nobody would doubt that there was a need to reduce inflation, but a change must now come. The danger is that it may come too late. We have suffered greatly from the Government's monetarist policies, and it is time that the agony was ended.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Grylls: The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is a much respected Member of Parliament. Although I might have been tempted to agree with some of his comments on competition policy, I was rather less tempted to agree with his remarks on capital transfer tax. Nearly 2 million people run their own independent small businesses, and they may react adversely to his sideswipe at people's idle heirs and at his comment that they were a good reason for having an effective and tough capital transfer tax.
  I believe that the change made represents a central and long-term part of the Budget, which will encourage independent businesses. If it is impossible to pass on a business intact to the next generation of owners or managers, that unit of competition will go. Moreover, why should we encourage people to start firms if they must be sold on their death or retirement? I warmly congratulate the Government on abolishing capital transfer tax, to all intents and purposes, on lifetime gifts.
  I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and found it sad that he seemed to have learnt or understood nothing about independent businesses. Most, if not all, do not reach their optimum size in one generation. They need to be passed from one generation to another, and to grow at every stage. Thus it is vital that our tax policy should facilitate that.
  The passing on of productive assets from one generation to the next is crucial if a free enterprise system is to work effectively, and it is in this area that two thirds of new jobs are currently being produced. I hope that in a purely party political sense people in independent businesses will pay careful attention to what the Opposition have said about their determination, if they are ever entrusted with power again, to reintroduce a swingeing capital transfer tax. I hope that will be noted by everyone.
  I want to move away from that subject and speak about a matter that was debated nearly a year ago, that of unitary tax. The House will remember that we had a major debate on that last year. The issue is of great importance not only to the United Kingdom but to the United States and to our main trading partners. The House will remember the debate on Report stage of last year's Finance Bill. It is important that as we debate this year's Finance Bill we should recall that debate. Perhaps during the summer the House will want to encourage the Government to take further retaliatory action to keep up the pressure on the United States Administration.
  Last year the House unanimously passed a new clause which is now section 54 of the Finance Act 1985. That gives the Government power by order to withdraw payments of tax credits attached to certain dividends
  834
  received by companies with a presence in a unitary tax state such as California. I know that many of my hon. Friends carefully follow this issue in the United States and there is no doubt that the passing last year of the retaliatory provision was a milestone that has inspired action in Washington.
  On 8 November 1985 President Reagan issued a presidential statement in which he said that his Administration would introduce legislation to abolish unitary tax on a worldwide reporting basis. Secondly, he said that he would enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom to try to amend the United Kingdom-United States tax treaty and try to ensure that when court cases occurred in the United States US interests were represented. In response to the American Administration's initiative our Government also issued a statement. They welcomed the Administration's proposed action and announced that the Government intended to enter into negotiations also to amend the United Kingdom-United States tax convention.
  In recognition of the statement issued by President Reagan, our Government announced that they would forbear from initiating retaliatory action under section 54 of the Finance Act 1985 on the strict understanding that the United States legislation—this is an important point for the House to recall—will be passed into law and will take effect by 31 December 1986.
  The United States Administration introduced their legislation into Congress last December but, alas, I have to say that it received what at best can only be described as lukewarm Congressional support. Indeed, the legislation did not have as many sponsors as many of us hoped it would have. I understand there was to be a subcommittee hearing in the Senate on 16 May but that intiitial hearing has been cancelled. We are now at the end of April and no further action has been taken in terms of a Bill being heard by the two key Congressional Committees, the Finance Committee in the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives. Little progress seems to have been made on the treaty route. The House may want to press the US Administration today and on every other occasion we can to give much more vigorous support to legislation in Congress than they have to date. I hope the Government will pay attention to that comment.
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I support what the hon. Gentleman says. Many of us on this side of the House would support the Government if they took that sort of action.
  Mr. Grylls: I am grateful for that comment. It is helpful to know that the House is united on this issue. Hon. Members may not be united on many issues but we are united on this one. It is worth mentioning that the early-day motion on the Order Paper on the subject has the support of 240 right hon. and hon. Members from all parties. I hope that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the opportunity at next week's economic summit to tell President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Baker yet again that this House is frustrated at the lack of progress on this issue in the United States, despite all the promises that we continue to receive.
  All-party support is important. In that context, I am grateful to the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)

  835
  for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary who has given untiring support to this issue even though he has many other things to deal with. It is crucial that the Government continue to give that tough support. It is essential to pay tribute to those British companies that have major investments in the United States and that have launched a campaign to fight this issue. That is vital. Although to an extent it is self-interest, there is nothing wrong with that. Those companies are determined to see an end to this damaging tax.
  When he is winding up, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will encourage all hon. Members and British industry which holds United States investments if he confirms that the Government's deadline for action in the United States is still 31 December 1986. If it is not passed into legislation in the United States by that date, perhaps he will confirm that the Government will return to section 54 of the Finance Act 1985 and the retaliatory clause and do something to bring tougher pressure on the United States Administration.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and reiterate the point that he speaks for hon. Members of all parties in expressing the frustration that we have felt for many years about unitary taxation. I hope that people in Congress especially but also in the United States Administration will take note of the fact that the whole House is united in its frustration.
  Our central criticism of the Budget and of the Finance Bill was that the strategy which the Government embarked upon amounted to giving away by a reduction in taxation some £1 billion while spending only some £100 million on efforts to create jobs. That is quite the wrong strategy, and it was for that reason that I and my hon. Friends voted against the cut in income tax from 30p to 29p. We did that because we had the courage of our convictions and followed the strategy that we outlined in our own Budget proposals. That strongly contradicts the strategy that the Government have embarked upon.
  It is deplorable that the Labour party did not have the courage of its convictions. Despite the protestations by Labour Members in this debate that they disagree with the Government strategy, they did not follow their voices by their votes and vote against the strategy when they had an opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Let me defend the members of the Opposition Front Bench. There was, of course, the factor that a tax cut increases demand in the economy and that is of value. Iain Macleod used to say that one does not turn away Father Christmas because he is not giving exactly what is wanted.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman. He gives as inadequate an explanation of the lack of courage on the Labour Benches as his own Front Bench spokesmen have done. We criticise not the Labour party for wanting to expand the economy, but the method by which the Government have chosen to give away the money. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that money could have been spent as his right hon. Friends and
  836
  we have been advocating for many years—for example, on expanding the economy through spending on infrastructure and housing.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley rose—
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: I do not want to pursue this point throughout my speech, but that is where the money should have gone, which is why we opposed the Budget's central strategy. The Labour party was not prepared to do that because it wants to have it all ways. It was not prepared to be consistent in its strategy.
  The Chief Secretary painted, just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Government spokesmen have done, a rosy view of the economy's performance. He provided a posse of selected statistics to demonstrate the success which, we are told, the Government's policies are achieving. Not surprisingly, the statistics which have been chosen are based on the economy's recovery from the depths of the recession in 1981.
  We hear little these days about what happened to the British economy and British industry between 1979, when the Government came to office, and 1981. Obviously the reason for that is that during that period large sections of our industry were decimated and unemployment increased dramatically. It is like a person who wilfully and pigheadedly risks his health, and, having suffered from the inevitable consequences, expects congratulations on his recovery from his self-inflicted injury.
  If one considers the record of the past seven years, not merely the period since 1981, one sees that employment—we have heard a great deal about the number of jobs that have been created recently—is still 1 million below what it was when the Government came to office in 1979. Indeed, that decrease is greater than that of the European Community as a whole. Output is only 7 per cent. above the 1979 level, manufacturing output is still 6 per cent. below the 1979 level, and manufacturing investment is more than 20 per cent. below the 1979 level. That is not a record to crow about. The empty or demolished factories and the 3·5 million unemployed are testimony to that record.
  The Chancellor boasts that recently we have moved from the bottom to the top of the European growth league. However, if allowance is made for the effects of the miners' dispute, the 1985 rate of growth was 2·5 per cent. and only just ahead of Germany and Italy, and in the second half of 1985 the United Kingdom, with 2·1 per cent. growth, dropped well below France, Italy and West Germany. During that period West German growth was at 6·3 per cent. Therefore, the real record is dreadful. The most recent figures show a distinct slowing down in the United Kingdom economy, with manufacturing output stagnant during the past nine months and industrial production slowing down.
  The Chancellor claims that we have survived unscathed the halving of the oil price. We heard a great deal about that at the time of the Budget. I wonder whether the Government have studied the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin which points out that real national disposable income will be adversely effected by the impact of falling oil prices on the terms of trade. The Bank's analysis shows that the direct consequence of the recent fall in price is to reduce net disposable income by 1 per cent., since real net oil exports account for 2·75 per cent. of gross domestic

  837
  product. According to the Bank of England, that accounts for a direct loss to the balance of payments of up to £3 billion a year, at probable 1986 levels of production.
  The bank suggests that that could be offset within four years by a 9 per cent. fall in the effective exchange rate. But it adds the crucial qualification that the improvement on the non-oil current account will follow from the beneficial effects of improved competitiveness, which depends on there being no offset to the effects of exchange rate depreciation from higher wage settlements. If rising unit labour costs continue to erode competitiveness, the effect on the balance of payments will be even worse than the £2·5 billion, £1·5 billion and £500 million predicted for 1986, 1987 and 1988 respectively by the Bank's simulations.
  Thus, to grasp the opportunity presented by lower oil prices depends on conserving the competitive advantage conferred by lower exchange rate. In that context, it is crucial that wage bargainers recognise that foreign competitors also gain from lower oil prices, which have fallen even further in foreign currencies, and will reduce their pay settlements in line with their falling, if not vanishing, inflation rates.
  The Chancellor is clearly prepared to stoke up a consumer boom with real disposable incomes rising by 5 per cent. and consumer spending by 4 per cent. this year. This year demand will be largely fuelled by consumer spending rather than by investment and export. Unit labour costs rose by 5·75 per cent. last year—much faster than those of our competitors. Their unit labour costs rose hardly at all or are falling. It is clear that the Chancellor must seek a bigger decrease in pay settlements than 1 per cent., which is the most that he can expect as bargainers adjust their expectations to falling inflation.
  As commodity prices fall and work their way through the economy, wage pressure will start to increase inflation. Much of the credit which the Government have claimed for low rates of inflation and of interest should be put at the door of Sheikh Yamani for his action and of the lower commodity prices throughout the world. The Chancellor will hope to hold the rate of inflation to about 3 per cent. next summer with lower nationalised industry prices and indexation.
  The Secretary of State for Employment, after announcing the appalling unemployment figures last month, shared in the general euphoria that Ministers have been expressing by stating that employment had risen by nearly 1 million since 1983. However, the number of full-time equivalent jobs rose by only 16,000 between March 1983 and September 1985. The Secretary of State's figures depend crucially on estimates of the increase in the self-employed—a rise of 440,000 during that period. Growth is welcome, but it depends crucially on that estimate.
  Even the growth in the employed labour force to which the Government point is lower than in the previous year. During the next three years we must create an additional 113,000 jobs nationally each year merely to keep pace with the rise in the labour force. On present Government policies, there seems little prospect of our being able to do that and to reduce unemployment levels.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the increase in the labour force. Will he confirm that during the 10 years from 1976 to 1986 the increase in the labour force has been about 2 million
  838
  people, and that that, rather than the economic policies about which he is complaining, is the major contributor to the present levels of unemployment?
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: No, because those people represent an opportunity, not a burden. For every mouth there is a pair of hands. These people can work; they can produce wealth if they have the opportunity. This is why some countries have expanded their population because they want the growth that will come from that. But because of the barmy economic policies that the Government have pursued over this period, we have not had the growth in demand and the growth in opportunities for those people to create the wealth that we would all like to see. The unemployed are not sharing in the consumer boom which the Government are generating, and the Government remain passive and supine in the face of mass unemployment.
  The 1p cut in the basic rate of tax will create at most some 30,000 jobs over three years, compared with at least 80,000 through a cut of 10 per cent. in employers' National Insurance contributions, which we advocated. The Government always select the measures which are least effective in creating jobs and which benefit most the relatively better off. It is a macabre achievement of this Government that the direct revenue costs, through benefits and lost direct tax revenue, of the extra unemployment since 1979 amount to £50 billion, almost completely swallowing up the £52 billion that the Exchequer has received in North sea oil revenues during that period. It will be this Government's epitaph that they squandered Britain's golden decade on paying for mass unemployment.
  Despite the oil price fall, British industry is still paying a substantial cost in higher interest rates which remain very high and are much higher than is justified by inflation differential with our main competitors. Clearly the Government fear a loss of confidence and a too precipitate fall in the exchange rate. As Roger Bootle, the Lloyds merchant bank economist, has pointed out, the currency markets demand a confidence premium on United Kingdom interest rates to compensate for fears of currency depreciation in the future. As oil price risks should have diminished, the main reason for this must be lack of confidence in the underlying soundness of the economy, or fear of the possibility—and this may be coming in to their reckoning, I suppose—of a Labour Government.
  European monetary system entry, openly advocated by the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary, would in our view help to give more stable and possibly lower interest rates, but there is the danger that the Government might enter at an over-valued and unsustainable rate in order to maintain an anti-inflation discipline. Our view, strongly expressed on a number of occasions over the past months, is that we have had opportunities to go in at a rate chat could have been negotiated. The chairman of the Bundesbank has made it clear that he believes that we should negotiate a lower rate in relation to the deutschmark, that we should go into the exchange rate mechanism in order to bring about that stability and indeed to do the things that, as the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) pointed out from the Chancellor's Lombard speech, are possible if we go into the exchange rate mechanism.
  I want to say a few words about the share ownership proposals in the Finance Bill because we on the alliance

  839
  Benches have a long-standing interest in this matter. The personal equity plan, which unfortunately has only the barest ground rules for its establishment in the Finance Bill, has turned out to be a pretty emaciated mouse. The cost of tax relief for the scheme in 1987–88 is estimated at only £25 million, which will do very little to encourage the spread of shareholding. The incentives for individuals are minute. This point has been recognised by Conservative Members as well as by Opposition Members. Those most helped by the scheme will be the better-off taxpayers and those on the higher rates who are already utilising their £6,300 capital gains tax exemption and who will be able to build up a tax-free fund.
  The apparent exclusion of investment trusts and certainly of unit trusts from the scheme means that on a relatively small amount it would be hard to achieve the kind of spread of risk which would make the scheme attractive to small shareholders. Those who do not benefit already from the CGT exemption will only benefit from the tax refund on reinvested dividends. Although the objection to including unit trusts is that they do not represent direct shareholding, the PEP scheme is unlikely to appeal to the small saver without them. The Chancellor's proposals are quite inadequate to achieve a wider spread of share ownership.
  In addition, the Chancellor spoke in the Budget of the need to give profit sharing a greater role in total remuneration. He said that it might make sense to offer some temporary measure of tax relief to the employees concerned to help to get profit-sharing agreements of the right kind off the ground. He promised a consultative document. We welcome that and look forward to receiving such a document; we shall certainly be very happy to respond to it. We are pleased that the Government are adopting that approach, because the greater the consensus on this issue across industry and across this House, the better for all.
  The Chancellor could have used some of the £1·2 billion that he has given away in the basic rate cut to give new encouragement to direct share ownership. The findings of the NOP poll which the Chief Secretary mentioned on share ownership are, if I can be fairly modest in my language, somewhat surprising. Some people have been rather dubious about them. They considerably exceed the stock exchange's estimates: 2·5 million shareholders as opposed to 6 million projected by NOP. That is a very dramatic difference. We want evidence beyond that of the NOP poll to show that 6 million is the true figure, because it is certainly not borne out by much evidence, both subjective and other, that is available.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the wider distribution of shares would be greatly encouraged if the Chancellor, instead of virtually abolishing capital transfer tax in this Bill, had remodelled it in such a way as to encourage wealthy people to make a multitude of relatively small gifts of shares to large numbers of people rather than passing on their inheritance to only one or two members of the family?
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: Yes. I hope that we can pursue that point in Committee because it is something that we would like to see. There are other things which we would
  840
  like to see and which we feel would extend share ownership much more broadly than the Government's measures will.
  Whichever of those figures is correct, the fact is that it is well short of the proportion of the population with building society accounts or with bank savings or deposit accounts. Instead of going down the PEP route, the Chancellor should have gone down the route recommended by the stock exchange and provided a modified version of the Loi Monory scheme, a tax incentive-based scheme that has been very successful in France. A tax incentive of £500 in an additional personal allowance, used to buy shares in a qualifying fund, would cost the Treasury about £300 million if 2 million people benefited from the tax concessions. Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) moved a new clause along these lines, and we shall be returning to this issue in Committee.
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is clearly in favour of wider share ownership; we all know that. I wonder whether he was in favour of the greatest contribution made to wider share ownership, the privatisation of the past three or four years? How does his party vote on that issue?
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: We could support quite a number of the privatisation proposals. The National Freight Corporation has been one of the most successful operations carried out and we have consistently supported it. But the methods by which the Government have privatised some public monopolies and turned them into private monopolies, dominating the market and not giving the consumer real choice or providing real competition, has led us to oppose the most recent privatisation measures.
  I do not want to be diverted down this road, but if the Government were prepared to break up the British Gas Corporation into at least four parts and have separate area boards all as private companies, and provide some element of competition where it does not exist under the present proposals, we might support such a move. But all we have is a massive monopoly, with no competition and no consumer choice, being foisted on the public. That is not the way to obtain wider share ownership.
  Wider share ownership could be achieved if the Chancellor had also given more direct help to employee share ownership. If he really wants to tackle the adversarial climate which has characterised industrial relations and collective bargaining in Britain for so many decades, he can help to achieve that by giving employees a much more direct stake in the future of their company by giving income tax relief to profit sharing and share ownership schemes or relief from corporation tax in order to encourage them.
  Thirdly, if the Chancellor is serious about influencing the current pay round, as opposed to trying to steal our clothes in the consultative document, he should have proposed a payroll incentive of reduced national insurance contributions for companies which concluded longer term pay settlements in line with the expected lower rates of inflation or with productivity improvements. Employees could receive benefits in the form of increased share ownership if they were prepared to negotiate such settlements and could be given substantial tax concessions if they retained their stake in the enterprise.
  A reduction of employees' national insurance contributions would help to cut labour costs and to keep

  841
  firms competitive. We hope that the Government will look again at the PEP and other schemes and be tempted by some of the pressure from their own Members, as well as that to which they are responding from these Benches, as the general election approaches. Nothing concentrates the minds of politicians more than votes. Clearly that is the case with not only the by-elections but the general election approaching. I hope that that will encourage the Government to look more seriously at some of those schemes for really encouraging more people to take a direct stake in their companies and in shares in other companies. We shall want to see something much more effective than the PEP scheme if that is to come about.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Terence Higgins: The House will have listened with interest to the frank confession of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that the alliance voted against the Chancellor's proposed reduction in income tax. I am sure that we can look forward with equal expectation in the forthcoming by-elections to that being a major plank in the platform of the alliance candidates.
  Mr. Budgen: A very high moral stance.
  Mr. Higgins: The Second Reading debate of the Finance Bill is typically a mixture of specific comment on individual proposals on the one hand and commentary on the broad macro-economic consequences of all the measures in the Finance Bill on the other hand. I wish on this occasion to follow that tradition and to begin with the good news in the Budget.
  One of the disadvantages of the Budget ritual is that on Budget day and the day afterwards the media is full of publicity for what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is proposing, but the individual proposals are soon forgotten and the Finance Bill does not receive the same sort of publicity. That is unfortunate. Often, local press and radio do not spell out the specific proposals so that those in the constituencies who are affected by my right hon. Friend's proposals are not fully aware of them and so unable to take advantage of them.
  In that context it is important that the specific proposals should receive coverage at a local as well as a national level and I want to single out charities for attention, to which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary rightly drew attention in his opening remarks. The role of the voluntary sector in our economic affairs is important. It should not be treated as a substitute for Government activity in those areas where the Government can do the job best. For example, I hope that we shall continue to see substantial increases in public expenditure in some areas of the National Health Service.
  None the less, the voluntary area is important and deserves to be encouraged. I am glad that the reliefs on some aspects of value added tax have been introduced and, in particular, the two specific proposals on charities which were mentioned—the facility for individuals to make charitable donations with tax relief in individual company schemes and for companies to contribute a sum equal to 3 per cent. of their dividend payments, again with tax relief, to individual charities. That can be important in areas such as my own of West Sussex where companies can, to a considerable extent, make donations to local charities and, in turn, have an important impact on the
  842
  community's welfare. That having been said, I share the doubts expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) on clause 29, and I hope that that will receive considerable attention in Committee.
  On the macro-economic side, the policy which the Finance Bill implements again brings good news, certainly in the unique combination of reduced inflation and the record rate of sustained economic growth such as we are experiencing. But there are some presentational problems because one of the difficulties of reducing inflation, as we have, from something over 25 per cent. to about 5 per cent., and, I hope in the coming year, to still less, is that we put that forward as a reduction in the cost of living but many of our constituents do not believe that that is the reality. The way in which the cost of living index, or indeed the pensioners' cost of living index, is calculated is not generally understood and that means that people do not believe what is said about inflation.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his Treasury colleagues will go to some lengths to stress the fact that the cost of living index covers an enormous basket of individual items and is calculated on the basis of individual surveys, which take place every month. When inflation was going up at 25 per cent., big increases in particular items, such as electricity and gas, were submerged, so people were not worried about the cost of living figures. With figures for the overall cost of living down in the 5 per cent. range or lower, a sudden large increase in the price of, say, gas, electricity or rates, casts some doubts on the credibility of the Government's claims. It is important that we should spell out that point.
  Another important point came out in the evidence taken by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee from the Governor of the Bank of England, many of whose remarks were extremely helpful. The House will recall that the original intention of the medium-term financial strategy was to alter expectations on pay. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was so brave as to produce the original medium-term financial strategy document, which was very much concerned with expectations, in particular on pay claims. The Governor in his evidence on page 67 in answer to question 366 in relation to expectation affecting pay settlements said:
  "I think there is a sound barrier at around 5 per cent. where a lot of people feel it is not too bad: 'Surely we can have an increase of that sort of level.'"
  He went on to say that he thought that the point about expectations was now greatly diminished and that, perhaps, is again an important effect of falling inflation.
  None the less, the rate of economic growth has been combined with the reduction in inflation and even the TUC, from whom we took evidence, seemed to say that it would be content, if not absolutely delighted, with the 4 per cent. rate of growth. When one looks at the economic forecast one sees that we are on the way to that, but anything much faster than that forecast in the Treasury Red Book might create some real problems in the resurgence of inflation. Let me say a word or two about that.
  In particular, I hope that the Select Committee's report, about which several hon. Members have made kind remarks, brings out the way in which policy has changed in relation to the attitude of my right hon. Friend and the Treasury. We have seen a steady progression away from dogmatism in regard to monetarism towards almost complete pragmatism. Indeed, one of the problems that we

  843
  face at present is the extent to which economic policy has now become opaque. It is very important that we in the House should seek to analyse the difficulties.
  In particular, we have moved very much towards what can best be described as an interest exchange rate policy, and I want to say something about that. In his answers to questions 319 and 320, the Governor of the Bank of England agreed that the rate of interest in other countries with which we are competing is something like half the present rate of interest in the United Kingdom. I therefore think it is important to ask why it is that interest rates are as high as they are.
  If one looks at the situation from a domestic point of view first, I think that it is worrying. The Governor of the Bank of England, again in a rather graphic phrase—it is remarkable how well the metaphor stood up—described the overhanging glacier of liquidity in the economy which is continuing in its frozen state only because of the very high level of real interest rates. If real interest rates begin to decline, the problem is that that glacier will begin to thaw, which could have disastrous consequences in regard to the resurgence of inflation.
  Despite the good performance to which I referred earlier, I personally have considerable concern about whether we shall succeed in maintaining the downward pressure on inflation that we should all like to see, even though it is done against a background of very different trends in commodity prices from those experienced in the early 1970s.
  The other reason why from a domestic point of view we have high interest rates is that which the Chancellor himself spelt out. It is because our unit labour costs are rising faster than those in competitor countries. We had some difficulty in the Committee understanding precisely how this mechanism was supposed to operate, although at the end of the day I think there was a slight suspicion that interest rates were high for a rather old-fashioned traditional reason—that, if unit labour costs were rising too fast, then one put up interest rates to exert downward pressure on companies faced with inflation wage settlements. The Chancellor did not seem to go as far as admitting explicitly that that was the problem.
  As to the underlying considerations, the way in which it is assumed that the velocity of circulation of currency—however one likes to define the currency—will continue its recent trend is also worrying. This may be a dangerous assumption. It is possible that we could foresee other factors that would alter that situation. If so, the frozen glacier of liquidity again might create serious problems.
  Turning to examine why interest rates internationally are high, I think that it is once more the combination of interest rates and exchange rates. There is cause for concern because the danger is that the high interest rates deter investment. On the other hand, if the real interest rates begin to fall, we may find that all those who meanwhile put the liquidity into interest-bearing assets suddenly decide that the thing to do now is to go out and spend the liquidity because the attraction of those interest-bearing assets has declined in real terms. All this is worrying.
  Mr. Butterfill: My right hon. Friend expressed concern about investment. Does he not agree that there has
  844
  been a very satisfactory growth of domestic investment—up 8 per cent. last year—and inward investment from overseas, which is remarkable in the circumstances?
  Mr. Higgins: On the second point, I welcome both inward investment and investment overseas by the United Kingdom. I have always been mystified by the way that the Labour party is opposed to its going in either direction.
  As to the prospects for investment, my hon. Friend must look at the Red Book, and he will see that much of the increased investment has been due to tax changes introduced in a previous Budget in regard to investment allowances and corporation tax. The investment figure for the end of the period covered by the Red Book is not, I think, a very happy one.
  I deal now with the main point that I wish to make in regard to the external situation where clearly interest rates are being affected by exchange rates. We have to look at the difference between the dollar exchange rate and the relationship of the sterling exchange rate to exchange rates elsewhere, in particular in Europe. To the broad extent that it is true that we buy in dollars and sell in deutschmarks, we can welcome the change in differential rates in the last year, which is quite remarkable. Because policy has become so opaque—and M3 that used to be the cornerstone of the whole thing was first discarded completely and then reintroduced for only one year, and it is a very strange thing to have a strategy that lasts only one year—and given that that change has taken place, it seems increasingly to be a policy that turns on the exchange rate.
  I think we are in some danger of getting the worst of both worlds. Some people have said recently that the way in which one can best deal with the problem is in effect to pretend that we have joined the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS without actually doing so, thereby getting the best of both worlds. I think there is some danger that we will get the worst of both worlds. Unless the band, range or target for the exchange rate is made explicit, there is considerable uncertainty about what the policy really is. The Chancellor has been reluctant to spell out any such range, indeed, to the extent of constantly repeating that he has no such range in mind.
  It seems to me that the arguments for the EMS, the exchange rate mechanism and our joining it have improved in the last six to nine months simply because the relationship with the deutschmark is now much more favourable than it was. I think there is a widespread view, not least in the City, that if we were to join, which would be a clear commitment to stay within that range, there would be a considerable flow of funds into the country, in particular from Germany, because people would think that the uncertainty had been removed and the interest rate differential was still very large. If we had that inflow of funds, in my view it is possible that we would find that we could reduce our interest rates by 1 per cent., 1·5 per cent. or even 2 per cent., thereby narrowing the differential significantly to the great advantage of those who wish to invest in industry.
  While there are still doubts, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned, with regard to the problem of there being a bi-polar system if we joined, since sterling and the deutschmark would be the dominant currencies, I am increasingly of the view that, if we were to join, there would be some advantage. I am not convinced by some of the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the

  845
  Prime Minister to the effect that it was a good thing that we did not join some time ago. The fact that it is not worth buying something at a high price does not mean that it is not worth buying something at a much lower price. I think that the exchange rate relativities have improved considerably in recent months.
  I wish to give a word of caution on some wider issues. This time last year we discussed at length the dangers of a hard landing for the dollar, in the sense that a sudden collapse of the dollar might mean that interests rates would have to be raised which would cause a major recession in the world with the attendant problems for debtor countries, and so on. I am still worried about that, despite the change that has taken place in the dollar exchange rate over the past year.
  More particularly, I am worried about the continued budget deficit in the United States, and about the fact that no real progress has been made in reducing it so that the Federal Reserve bank is still inclined to keep interest rates high to fund it. In turn, that produces a high exchange rate for the dollar, which produces a balance of payments problem. That is still overhanging the situation, and the overall effect is difficult for those debtor countries that are adversely affected, despite the fall in the oil price. There is still a real danger of default, which I hope that the Baker initiatives will do something to help.
  Finally, I am worried by the effect of the banking system, particularly in the United States, on agriculture. In that context, many people in the United States who went into farming, perhaps not long ago, and borrowed money, now find themselves, in the light of changed circumstances, with assets worth less than the money that they borrowed. They are voting with their feet and are leaving everything standing.
  The oil price, the international debt, the agricultural situation, the dangers to the United States banking system, and in turn, the repercussions that it will have on us, give considerable cause for concern. That will be exacerbated if a trade war develops between the EEC and the system of American agricultural support. That is a real danger that should be given close attention by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and in particular those in the Treasury.
  Having said all that, the Budget, as the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service reports is broadly on the right lines, given the economic situation, although I have considerable concern as to the future stability of the system. By and large, I welcome the Bill, which has many specific proposals that are likely to be beneficial not only in my constituency, but across the country.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Cocks: This is the first time that I have had the temerity to trespass into a debate on the Finance Bill. Although I am a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the House will know that all that is required in that job is a vestigial knowledge of arithmetic. Perhaps the House will be lenient with this first offering.
  The Government have made a great deal of the help that is given to charities. It is a pity that their generosity did not extend to other sectors, and make changes that would not have meant much more expense. The first is VAT on headstones for internments and other parts of the necessary funeral expenses, such as flowers and refreshments. The
  846
  second is the imposition of VAT on sanitary wear for women—something that has always nonplussed me. It is anomalous, because it is a physiological toss of the coin as to which sex we are, so it is wrong to penalise women. Both those sectors need to be changed.
  One of the main features of the Budget for my constituency is the swingeing increase in the tax on cigarettes. I understand the pressures put on the Chancellor to impose an increase, but even if those who are out to destroy the tobacco industry eventually do so, the Chancellor, or whoever is Chancellor in future, must not think that that is the end of the story. There are signs already that the same people, or similarly motivated people, are preparing to launch a heavy attack on the alcohol industry. We are already beginning to get calls for a swingeing increase in duties on alcohol, to minimise the risk of cirrhosis of the liver and other alcohol-related diseases. While there is no increase in alcohol duties on the same scale as on cigarettes, the Government should beware of the pressure that will build up—pressure that may be misjudged.
  There is a side effect to what the Government have done that may be of interest, and perhaps the Government will give some consideration to this. I have been contacted by a number of tobacconist-newsagents in my constituency. Following the Budget they had a letter from their proprietor, Kiosks, saying that, because of the size of the increase in the duty on cigarettes, their contracts would be renegotiated to reduce the commission on which they work. The letter says:
  "it must be clearly understood that the Company makes no profit whatsoever from this additional duty levied by the Chancellor and under the circumstances it simply cannot absorb the commission element."
  A number of petitions against the increase in the tax have been collected by tobacconists, but those collecting the signatures had little thought that their own livelihood would be eroded by the company that owns the chain. Perhaps the Government will give some thought to that. I have written to the company about this. That was over a fortnight ago. I have not yet had the courtesy of a reply, so I feel that I am entitled to raise the matter.
  A similar squeeze is being put on the landlords of pubs in Bristol. Courage, the brewer, is seeking to take a bigger share of fruit machine profits. The point about the example is that the Government say that they wish to help small business men. However, the larger companies can get away with much, but the small people who work for them suffer. I ask the Government to show more imagination.
  For example, one small measure—adjustments to the luncheon voucher scheme—would help small firms that do not have large subsidised canteens. That scheme was introduced over 40 years ago. The Government recognised the worth of the scheme, and the 3s. a day tax allowance was brought into force. At that time, one could buy a decent feed, particularly in the British Restaurants, for 3s. The equivalent, 15p, which is still the allowance, certainly will not. I think that the tax allowance should be increased so that small business men can give their employees the same benefits as those enjoyed by people who work for large firms, or those who eat in directors' dining rooms.
  The Chief Secretary has already mentioned the levy on goods produced by the entertainment industry and sold abroad. Here we detect the clammy hand of the Treasury at work. Only two days ago. I received a letter from the

  847
  new chairman of HTV, Mr. G. E. McWatters, informing me that the company had been granted the Queen's award for export achievement. He went on:
  "It seems somewhat sad that the Treasury has recently seen fit to penalise these export activities by a change in the levy arrangements. We do provide a lot of employment in the West Country and hope to expand still further."
  That company is being penalised for exporting.
  The Budget seems to be more geared to the 27 million in work than to the 4 million out of work, and it does not tackle the basic problems of the economy. During the debate on the Gracious Speech on 12 November I spoke about the erosion of the British manufacturing base over a long period of time and under successive Governments.
  I should like to deal with the Government's over-reliance on income from invisible earnings. Yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) spoke about the decline of British shipping and the Merchant Navy. In a similar debate a few weeks ago the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said that our invisible earnings had declined by £2,000 million a year because of the decline of the British merchant shipping fleet.
  We rely on tourism. The recently circulated magazine of the British Tourist Authority said that last year 3 million Americans came to this country and spent about £1,600 million. This year there has already been a drop in the number of Americans booking visits here because of the change in the dollar-sterling rate and, much more recently, because of the situation between the United States and Libya. It is worth reminding ourselves that millions of Americans came here during the war not as tourists, but to work with us to throw back the tide of Fascism which lapped across Europe. I am pleased to add that to my remarks. I hope that the present feelings in this country about the United States are temporary and are not shared by many of my constituents.
  The two areas of invisible earnings are subject to variables which are so liable to change that the Government should not rely on them. They should concentrate much more on building up the British manufacturing base. The long-term decline in our share of world markets has been categorised. The Confederation of British Industry recently produced figures showing that there was a drop of 16 per cent. in the early 1960s, to less than 8 per cent. now. Each percentage drop in our share of world markets represents about 250,000 jobs. If we take with that the growth of import penetration, where each percentage point represents about 75,000 jobs, I think we have an explanation for the tremendous increase in unemployment in recent years.
  During the course of my remarks on 12 November, I said that we should concentrate more on a "Buy British" campaign. I gave an example of somebody buying a Metro or a Maestro with 95 per cent. British content as opposed to a foreign car, saving the Exchequer about £1,000 in benefit payments, because it represents two months work for one British worker. Recently, when the Government announced the placing of an order with Cammell Laird they said that the order represented 2,000 jobs over two years. If buying British is analysed in that way, it should be much easier to persuade people to buy British in order to preserve and create British jobs.
  848
  We must use our reservoir of equipment, labour and skills to develop a robust manufacturing base and free ourselves from over-reliance on invisible earnings, which are subject to external variables beyond our control. We should give up blaming the work force. We should overhaul our management techniques, learn from other people and become much more competitive.
  The Budget does not measure up to the job required. It is not sufficiently drastic. It does not give us the national catharsis that we require. It really only tinkers with the problem. The situation should be taken by the scruff of the neck. It has been done before. It was done in the post-war period by the 1945 Clement Attlee Government. Millions of people were demobilised from the forces without any large scale unemployment. The economy was changed from a war-time to a peace-time footing without disruption. Although our major utilities had been run on a care and maintenance basis, the country was put back on its feet in a remarkably short period. That is the effort of which the British people are capable. That is the sort of effort that we need, but it is not the sort of effort that the Finance Bill will encourage.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Nigel Forman: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member from Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) especially when he takes the House into the interesting byways of tombstones and tobacco. As somebody who is actively engaged in the campaign against smoking, I believe their there may be some small connection between those two items. But let that pass.
  I intend to do something rather unusual in this debate. I shall try to address the burden of my remarks to the Bill. I realise that it is common for the debate to range widely, and I do not criticise that. However, I believe that it is important that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench should hear at least some views on the substance of the Bill as well as a general tour d'horizon of the economy, national or global. I take it as read that a number of satisfactory points about the economy have been well made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and I shall not repeat them.
  I wish to devote the brunt of my remarks to three aspects of the Bill in which I am especially interested and which I think are especially valuable. Clause 15 sets out the income tax rates and main reliefs. that is obviously a welcome part of the Bill in the sense that any cut in the standard rate is a good thing. It is also welcome because it should be seen in the context of a broader move towards a standard rate of perhaps 25p in the pound by the end of this Parliament.
  Even if we reach that state of nirvana, which will be difficult to achieve because of the cost, I believe that the more important strategic objective for income tax is to achieve a gentler tax gradient from an entry point of, say, 25p in the pound to a maximum rate of 50p in the pound, instead of the present disincentive pattern of income tax. As the House will know, one enters at 29 per cent. and there is then an incredible 11 per cent. leap to 40 per cent., then 45 per cent., 50 per cent., 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. That means that millions of income taxpayers are faced with the equivalent of an income tax cliff which, coupled with the impact of national insurance contributions on employees, is clearly having harmful

  849
  effects. If one wants to adduce arguments about the disincentive effects of taxation, one need look no further than that unfortunate profile in our income tax system.
  I have made a few inquiries about the cost to the Treasury and the Exchequer of seeking to ameliorate or overcome some of the problems I have identified. I remind the House that on latest estimates it would cost about £1,800 million in income tax yield forgone to abolish all the higher rates of income tax. That would be equivalent to getting rid of only about 5 per cent. of total income tax receipts. I am not saying that should be the policy, but I am putting those facts on record simply to remind hon. Members that we have higher rates of tax, even as they stand now, largely for political, social and redistributive purposes, not really for revenue-raising purposes to any serious extent.
  If one wants an even more significant figure, it would cost about £7,000 million in a full year to change from the present profile of income tax—the cliff to which I referred—to a gentler and more sensible gradient which is what I and many of my hon. Friends would prefer. The reason is that so much of this cost comes from the standard rate band which, as the House knows, is where the bulk of the revenue is raised. Therefore, if one were to make the transition which I am advocating, it would be sensible to phase it in over several years. The argument that this is completely beyond the pale no longer stands up when one regards it as a project to be conducted over, say, three years. A sum of £7,000 million taken in three stages over three years does not seem excessive.
  Furthermore, the argument that it is administratively too complex to move into a new six-band structure does not hold up because we already have a six-band structure. The only thing wrong with it is that its shape is wrong. By the time those changes were feasible, they would be contemporaneous with the introduction of computers into the Inland Revenue. I would like that change to be made.
  I hope that the Whip present will note that it would be a good idea to have a further separate debate on personal tax reform in which the House could discuss all these issues.
  Clauses 21 to 25 make improved provision for employee shareholdings. I welcome this latest instalment of the general move which the Government have made in that direction, which was already evident in the Finance Acts of 1978, 1980 and 1984. Now is the time for the Government to go much further with larger tax incentives to give what the Chancellor describes as a bigger kick-start to an excellent development that has been in motion under Governments of both parties.
  It has become imperative to take a more radial approach to this area for several reasons. First, wider employee share ownership in all its forms leads to improved corporate performance and there is plenty of evidence from the National Freight Consortium, from the John Lewis Partnership and from the United States to support my contention. Secondly, the schemes can encourage a more sensible attitude towards pay at a time when unit labour costs are still one of the major problems of the economy and are increasing far too fast for the national good.
  In that connection, there is a close correlation between the ideas which are being supported in these clauses and the slightly more speculative ideas of Professor Weitzmann on revenue sharing, which the Chancellor intends to discuss in the National Economic Development
  850
  Council and elsewhere. I wish him well with that consultation process. I hope that it leads to early legislation in the next Session.
  The third reason why this is such a good direction of policy is that it is manifestly popular with employees and, therefore, encourages more positive attitudes, which will help to overcome the age-old problems of "them and us", which have been so well identified in a recent Stockton lecture by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. It is encouraging to see that tax-exempt, all-employee share schemes have increased from a mere 30 in 1979 to more than 1,000 today. I hope that development will be encouraged further.
  Finally, the schemes are an excellent development because wider and deeper employee ownership has external benefits for the nation as well as some small risks for the employees, since they must put many of their eggs in one basket. In view of the extra risk for the employees concerned, there is a strong case in natural justice for more generous tax incentives. That strengthens the argument for what the Government are trying to do in these clauses. These tax incentives need not be built permanently into our fiscal system. They could be time-limited for the companies and individuals involved. But once the habits of wider share ownership become established, the process will grow naturally and spontaneously for the benefit of the entire economy.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor should heed the warning set out recently in a leader in The Times that his welcome experiment with the personal equity plan should not be allowed to divert our attention, or indeed available resources, from the need to go further to encourage employee share ownership. There is always a danger of the idea of employee share ownership being seen as a perk for senior management and not much more, so I agree with the Wider Share Ownership Council that tax relief for executive share schemes should be conditional on the company's running a scheme for all its employees. That is the right approach to overcome the possibility of "them and us" problems rearing their head again.
  I am very much in favour of clauses 26 to 31 providing an attractive package of encouragement for charities and charitable donations. That was an excellent part of the Budget because it recognised in a way which everyone will appreciate the range of good work done by charities and voluntary organisations. In the longer term, it is also important because if the Chancellor is thinking, however gently, of moving away from the holy grail of fiscal neutrality, which in our tax system seems almost impossible, it opens greater opportunities for donations to higher education. I was struck recently by a letter that was sent to me and, I suspect, to other hon. Members who may sit on the Finance Bill Committee, from Birkbeck college in the university of London stating:
  "There is a precedent for tax relief: membership of professional and learned societies already qualifies. Our suggestion is, therefore, that fees and other costs incurred as a consequence of part-time study should be tax-deductible."
  Bearing in mind the Government's strategy on adult training and retraining and on the need to invest in human capital, which is what further and higher education is about, that is a point—albeit a small one—worthy of my right hon. Friend's consideration. If we could supplement a healthy volume of public support for higher education by tapping some of the private support which

  851
  could be released by such fiscal mechanisms, we should do a service not only to the individuals concerned but to the country.
  This has been a prudent Budget, which has produced a sound Finance Bill. It contains some interesting and imaginative components which bode well for the future, provided that they are followed through and not regarded as a one-off exercise. In two areas especially, the Finance Bill should be seen as part of a much longer-term policy. The first is personal tax reform, which we must approach in terms that involve more than playing around with personal tax allowances, important though they are. Personal tax reform should be considered much more widely. We do not get more than one chance in a generation to reform such matters.
  The second area is the encouragement of worker capitalism, with much greater extension of the interest and involvement of employees in their firms, which must be to their benefit and, much more importantly in the long run, to the benefit of the economy.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Sean Hughes: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described the Finance Bill as irrelevant. Those of us who represent constituencies blighted by unemployment will bear testimony to that description. I shall address my few remarks to the glaring omission in the Budget and the subsequent Finance Bill of anything which might begin to tackle the massive unemployment problems.
  We should judge the Finance Bill in the context of almost seven years of Conservative Government. They have introduced eight Budgets and eight Finance Bills. In view of their 1979 election slogan "Labour isn't working", we have the right to judge the Finance Bill in the light of promises and performance.
  I remind the House what the promises were. In June 1979, we had the Government's first Budget. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer declared:
  "The Budget is designed to give the British people a greater opportunity than they have had for years to win a higher standard of living—for their country and for their families."—[Official Report, 12 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 263.]
  Twelve months later unemployment had risen to 1,375,600. Still, we must give new Governments a chance. Historically, every Chancellor has found the economy in far worse a state than he believed before the election. So the Government, so concerned with unemployment before they took office, had to be given time to prove they meant what they had promised.
  In his second Budget on 26 March 1980, the then Chancellor declared that the strategy of the Government was
  "the best foundation for higher growth, fuller employment and a return to rising living standards."— [Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1451.]
  Twelve months later unemployment had risen to 2,333,500.
  Perhaps it was to be third time lucky. In his Budget introduced on 10 March 1981, the then Chancellor stated that the Budget would
  "help redress the balance of the economy in favour of business and industry."—[Official Report, 10 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 783.]
  852
  Most of us thought that that would mean jobs. However, 12 months later unemployment had risen to more than 2,800,000.
  By the time of the fourth Budget on 9 March 1982, we had all become a little sceptical about Budget claims. However, the then Chancellor made a promise early in his Budget statement that it would be
  "a budget for industry—and so a Budget for jobs."
  Raising himself to unaccustomed heights of oratory, he concluded that the Budget anticipated
  "a better prospect of employment opportunities for those who look only for the chance to work."—[Official Report, 9 March 1982; Vol. 19, c. 727–57.]
  Twelve months later, unemployment had passed the 3 million mark.
  The fifth Budget, introduced on 15 March 1983 turned out to be full of election promise. In what was to be his last Budget statement, the then Chancellor concluded that it was
  "a Budget for the family, a Budget for enterprise and, most of all, a Budget for Britain's continuing recovery."— [Official Report, 15 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 157.]
  Twelve months after that the unemployment figures would have reached more than 3,333,000 had the Government not removed unemployed men between the ages of 60 and 64 from the unemployment figures.
  The present Chancellor of the Exchequer continued the delusion of recovery in the Government's sixth Budget on 13 March 1984. He claimed that there was an economic recovery
  "whose underlying strength is now beyond dispute".—[Official Report, 13 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 286.]
  Twelve months later, even after fiddling the figures, unemployment had still reached 3,267,000.
  In the Government's seventh Budget, in 1985, the Chancellor intoned:
  "There can be no disputing the strength and durability of the economic upsurge."—[Official Report, 19 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 784.]
  Scaling new heights of lunacy, the Chancellor declared that the Budget was "a Budget for jobs". Twelve months later, the by now notoriously fiddled unemployment figure had reached 3,323,800.
  What then are we to make of the Chancellor's remark in the Government's eighth Budget last month? He said that it was a Budget which was
  "a safeguard for the present and a springboard for the future."—[Official Report, 18 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 184.]
  Which chapter of the Finance Bill, which clause, which of its 200 pages, gives any reason to believe that the optimism is justified this time and that the Government mean what they say?
  The Finance Bill is perhaps the most important legislation to be considered by Parliament. It must not be allowed to ignore the single most important problem which the economy faces—the problem of massive unemployment. I am not one of those who believe, or indeed would want, the Government to interfere in every aspect of our lives. I do not argue that Governments can be the sole regulator of economic forces. However, I firmly believe that the Government set the tone, and create the atmosphere. The Finance Bill we are discussing tonight certainly does that.
  The Finance Bill sets the atmosphere and the tone, for example, with the reduction of stamp duty on share transactions. The Chancellor took great pride in the fact that next year, an adult will be able to invest up to £200 a month in shares. But what relevance does that have to

  853
  someone living on £30·45 a week -unemployment pay, £29·50 a week supplementary benefit, or £38·30 a week old age pension? People on those incomes have as much chance of investing £200 a month as the England cricket team has of scoring 200 runs in the West Indies. The irrelevance which takes most beating is the provision to abolish entirely the tax on lifetime gifts to individuals. That really set things alight in my constituency.
  As I listened to the Chancellor outlining the proposals about lifetime gifts, and the subsequent comments today, I was reminded of the reaction to William Harcourt's death duties when they failed to produce the revenue which had been anticipated. People, it was said, were not dying up to expectations.
  The unemployed are wondering whether they figure at all in the Government's expectations. As I listened to the Chancellor and to his hon. Friends, I was confirmed in the belief that he and I occupy different worlds. How else could he justify such an appallingly irrelevant Finance Bill? I would like to tell the House of the reality of my world. In my constituency last month 10,292 people were registered as unemployed and there were 167 vacancies at the jobcentre. There were 707 18-year-olds or younger who had never worked since leaving school and three vacancies at the careers office. The insensitivity of the Government Front Bench is no more than we have come to expect. They flaunt their insensitivity; they do not try to hide it; they glory in it. Like the Edwardian publication The Queen, they proclaim:
  "It is the fashion today to talk of social duty and the right to live, but nobody has the courage to say that we belong to different worlds."
  The Government certainly have the courage to say that, and that forms the very basis of their policy. That is why the Budget and the Finance Bill are so irrelevant to our real problems.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: With all the talk of reshuffles, and as a person of modest ambition, I naturally turned my mind recently to the problem of how to get on in the Tory party, and I have taken advice from where it was available. One piece of advice that I received was that one should acquire a nodding acquaintance with the works of the late Mr. Disraeli. Having delved into Mr. Disraeli's novels on the Young England and on the theme of Two Nations, I must admit that I find those novels more entertaining than the exercises in fiction on the same theme by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
  When reading the novel "Sybil", I encountered a character who reminded me very much of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Appropriately enough, that character was called Mr. Kremlin, who was "distinguished for his ignorance as he had only one idea and that was wrong." The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has one idea, which is that the cure for all our ills is higher Government spending. Although the right hon. Gentleman tries to wriggle out and deny the fact, we all know that the Labour party's plans for increased spending, which were costed and appeared in the Official Report on 3 March, amount to £24 billion.
  When the right hon. Gentleman is asked how that cost would be financed, like a fish landed on the ground out of water, he flaps, gasps and puffs out his gills, but he cannot come up with a convincing riposte or explanation. He fails
  854
  to explain how the Labour party would encourage investment by taxing at penal rates. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is following the illogicality of the previous Labour Government, who, at a time of rising unemployment, attempted to reduce it by putting a tax on jobs. Of course, the Government have abolished that in the course of the past eight years. That was one of the features of the Government's financial policy to which the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) did not feel it necessary to allude.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also failed to explain how he would encourage enterprise and attract managerial ability through the Labour party's proposal for the confiscation of earnings. It was clear from his speech that, if the country has the misfortune to return a Labour Government at the next election, we will be back once again to a 98 per cent. marginal rate of income tax.
  The right hon. Gentleman defined the rich as the top 5 per cent. of earners and the right hon. Gentleman's proposals would cover everyone with a taxable income of £16,000 or more per annum. I am not sure whether they are people whom ordinary people would consider to be rich. There are people of relatively modest means who come into that category. The right hon. Gentleman completely failed to tell us how the national income will be increased by supporting Luddite trade union policies, be it Scargillism or that which we find in Fleet street or Wapping.
  Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman failed to explain how he will reduce unemployment by increasing taxes and interest rates. Inflation would be the inevitable consequence of those policies.
  The policies of the right hon. Gentleman are followed, albeit at a distance, by those who sit on the alliance Benches, although quite whom they have followed at the moment I do not know, because none of them are in the Chamber. Recently I have devoted—I admit that it was a somewhat unrewarding pursuit—some attention to the alliance documents on its economic and financial policies, in particular its Budget recommendations for this year. The document is called "Jobs and Competitiveness." I have found a number of interesting points in that document, about which the House and the nation ought to know. It contains a number of false premises. The document says that Britain is becoming a
  "low growth, low productivity, low skill economy."
  I had to look once again at the date of the document, because I thought that it might refer not to 1986 but to 1976 under the Labour Government of which all the leaders of the Social Democratic party, although they would like us to forget it now, were enthusiastic members. The contrast is most instructive.
  In his Budget speech my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed to this Government's record. The growth rate is relatively high and productivity is increasing. There have been five years of growth at 3 per cent. per annum. That growth rate was exceeded in 1985. Then the growth rate was 3·5 per cent. per annum. It was the highest growth rate in the EEC, and it was higher even than in the United States.
  As for low productivity, compared with the period between 1974 and 1979 when manufacturing productivity rose by less than 1 per cent. per annum and when it was the lowest of all the G5 nations, that has been increased in the last six years to 3·5 per cent. per annum. We are second only to Japan. As for the manufacturing sector,

  855
  about which there is so much misinformation, in 1985 output increased by 3 per cent., productivity increased by 4 per cent. and exports increased by 6 per cent. That is a creditable achievement. It is the result of seven years of sound financial discipline.
  I contrast the alliance Budget representations for this year with what it said in its autumn statement entitled "Facing the jobs challenge." It has two plans to reduce unemployment and increase economic activity. According to its latest document, the alliance proposes to spend an additional £3·5 billion to reduce unemployment by 750,000 over the next three years. Six months ago, it proposed to spend £5 billion to reduce unemployment by 1·5 million over four years. One might ask why the alliance is being so modest and moderate in its demands. According to the latest calculations, why not spend £10 billion to reduce unemployment by 2 million or indeed, £15 billion to reduce unemployment to zero?
  One might ask why this inflation in the cost of reducing unemployment has occurred during the last six months. In September 1985 the alliance calculated that it would cost £3,300 per job to reduce unemployment over four years, but in March 1986 it calculated that cost at £4,650 per job over three years. It is a great shame that nobody is sitting on the alliance Benches to explain why this arithmetical invention is as it is.
  How would all this be financed? The alliance says that it will not increase taxation and that it will be financed by borrowing. How will the borrowing take place? Will the alliance borrow from the public? That would merely divert resources from other productive uses. All it would do, therefore, is to shuffle unemployment around different sectors of the economy.
  Would the alliance borrow from abroad? If so, it is a belated convert to Reaganomics, about which it is so scathing, although that is exactly the policy that has been adopted in recent years by the United States, which sustains the United States' artificially high rate of economic activity at the cost of that of western Europe. That has implications for interest rates and the exchange rate. It also assumes no loss of international confidence, despite the new laxity in borrowing that its policies would entail.
  Lastly, would the alliance borrow from the banks? If so, the consequence would be that inflation would be bound to increase. It is evident that the alliance is not satisfied with the levels of debt interest that we are paying at the moment—£19 billion a year out of £170 billion of public expenditure. That now accounts for over half the revenue from income tax, or the whole revenue from value added tax.
  There is a word to describe this kind of economics. It is Dunwoodyism: the theory that there is such a thing as a free lunch, that one can eat lunch today and that the bill will never come in at the end of the day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) proved in his example and as the International Monetary Fund proved during the life of the last Labour Government, there comes a time when the bills have to be paid. Therefore I counsel the alliance to profit by our experiences since the war under Governments of all political persuasions and to realise that there comes a time when the cash runs out.
  856
  In the alliance's autumn statement of last September there seemed to be a number of extraordinary muddles about what it should be doing about a monetary policy. It castigates our Government because of their supposed commitment to a failed monetarist policy, but on the same page it calls for a steady monetary policy. It says:
  "An Alliance Government would keep a firm grip on the money supply."
  In addition, the alliance would stabilise the exchange rate by joining the European monetary system, but it does not say that that would entail even greater reliance upon short-term monetary aggregates and upon interest rates, which supposedly it does not favour.
  There is the same confusion about inflation. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said:
  "If inflation is held down, unemployment will then begin to fall. Anything less must mean that unemployment will continue to rise."—[Official Report, 29 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 604.]
  However, in this document the alliance postulates a rate of inflation, if its policies are followed, of 7·5 per cent. That means that inflation would be more than double what it is now. Before it starts to lecture my right hon. Friends in the Treasury on economic policy in order to put the country back to work, I suggest that the alliance ought to settle the muddle about the premises upon which its policies are based.
  The great panjandrum for the alliance was referred to by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth): that what will keep all these conflicting objectives in line is an incomes policy. The reason for an incomes policy was provided by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who I understand is now the economic guru of the Liberal party, although he has not been present throughout the entire debate. However, as the Liberal party's economic spokesman he said at its assembly last September that we have to commit ourselves to a pay policy, otherwise all that can be said about the economy becomes fluff in the wind. Homespun economics we might expect from the hon. Gentleman, and fluff in the wind is a good description of the alliance's economic policy.
  If we look in detail at its proposed incomes policy, we see how absurd and impossible it is that it could contain the inflationary forces that would be let loose if the alliance's other economic policies were to be implemented. In its Budget representations on page 7, it says that the alliance's incomes policy would cover increases in average earnings that exceeded a predetermined inflation limit. That has to be contrasted with what the alliance says in the same document on a previous page: that it would aim at moderating earnings growth and that it would relate it to growth in productivity.
  The alliance has to decide what is to be the basis of its incomes policy. Is it to be productivity or inflation? What happens if productivity is greater than inflation? Are wage increases to be held down below the rate of inflation to those of productivity? One could ask the same question the other way round: what if inflation is greater than productivity? Are inflationary wage increases to be permitted, notwithstanding that they are not covered by increases in production? There is no necessary connection between productivity and profits. We know that if Jeffrey Archer sells more books, Debbie Owen makes more money. It appears to me that the alliance policy on incomes control is flawed from the start.

  857
  The alliance says that companies with profit-sharing schemes will be exempt from the policy. That is a contradictory objective, because the more successful those companies are in expanding profit sharing, the more ineffective becomes the inflation tax that the alliance proposes as an incomes policy. There are so many exemptions to the incomes policy that one wonders to whom it applies. In addition to firms with profit-sharing schemes, which cover about 5 per cent. of the working population, firms employing fewer than 100 employees will also be exempt. That represents a further 49 per cent. of the working population. Because there will be an inflationary seepage to workers in small businesses, the rest of British industry will be able to give only lower than average increases and increases lower than the average rate of inflation.
  The self-employed will not be covered under the proposed scheme. New firms and people who plan to change jobs will not be covered also. The public sector, which represents 25 per cent. of workers, will be exempt from this inflation tax.
  One can see the avoidance techniques that would come about if such a scheme were introduced. Techniques such as replacing cash payments by fringe benefits, new job descriptions, people being promoted artificially and changes in hours and conditions of work would prevent the incomes policy from working effectively.
  What about the jobs in which productivity cannot be measured? For example, where would Members of Parliament fall in this scale? What about supply and demand in the real world? That does not feature in the alliance's policy. The alliance fails to realise that profits ultimately reflect not productivity but supply and demand, although productivity naturally feeds into it. The same applies in respect of wages.
  The retail prices index, which presumably is the basis upon which the alliance would calculate the inflation limit, is itself an average. Some prices go up more than others. The average is the exception rather than the norm, as is the case with incomes. Not all incomes can or will go up by the average. Therefore, why should others not be able to go up by more than the average? Those are the questions that people faced with these decisions will have to answer, and all that will add to the the cost of the bureaucracy. The alliance has not told us how its inflation tax is to work—whether it will tax 100 per cent. of the excess over the predetermined inflation limit, or whether it will be merely a part of it.
  We will return to all the palliatives and quangos that have been set up by previous Governments. Statistical necromancers will study the entrails of chickens to decide what inflation will be like in a year's time to place a predetermined straitjacket on the economy. At the end of the day, we shall get the inevitable bust-up. What happens when the quangos make mistakes, as they did in 1974 when the pay board got the calculation of miners' pay increase wrong? That torpedoed the Heath Government, but for what?
  At the end of the day, the basis of the alliance's policy is to mistake the cause of inflation. Every year since the Conservative party has been in office, GDP has risen in real and monetary terms. Unfortunately, unemployment has risen also. We can derive from that that unemployment
  858
  has not a macro-economic demand-related cause but a micro-economic cause to which the Government have devoted considerable attention and which the Finance Bill plays an important part in eliminating.
  Instead of trying to drag us kicking and screaming back into the 1960s, as the alliance would seek to do, the Government are continuing, in an effective way, with their imaginative policies. We must base high economic activity and low unemployment on sound financial and economic policies. That is the best way in which the future prosperity of our people will be guaranteed.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I will not support the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) in his devastating attack on the alliance, which had all the power and effect of being hit around the head with a piece of wet, uncooked tripe. It is interesting that alliance Members responded in their usual tumultuous fashion by total absence, instead of the partial absence that is almost normal for the alliance.
  The sad, irrelevant, Finance Bill has a couple of things in common with previous Finance Bills which have been introduced by the Government. Most of the Bills have had vainglorious titles. I remember the Budget for enterprise, which was the prelude to our cataclysmic manufacturing decline which practically turned this country into the world's first undeveloping country. Last year the Government brought down a Budget for jobs. Unemployment continued to rise to levels which this country had never seen. Quite frankly, this year's Budget has been a budget for votes, which is almost certainly a guarantee that the Conservative party will lose the next election.
  There is another common pattern. Whatever the vainglorious titles of previous Budgets, each has provided a set of give-aways to wealth—a steady pattern of smuggling more money into the back pockets of wealth and power in this country. However difficult the circumstances, however great the need for sacrifice, however strenuous the ceremonising to the rest of the community, there are always five or six handouts to wealth.
  There have been handouts in several forms—a fiddle here, a fudge there, a change there, a cut in the rates, an adjustment, a little trimming, some fiddle on the capital transfer tax or a rebasing of the capital gains tax. Behind the deluge of public relations words backing the Budget—the vainglorious rubbish talked about the Budget—a steady dribble of money has been given to the wealthy in the community. On our calculations, this year £3·5 billion has been provided to the top 5 per cent. or so of the wealthy. The Child Poverty Action Group has stated that the richest 7 per cent. will benefit to the tune of £2·6 billion this year as a result of direct tax cuts in the Government's Budgets. The common pattern has been vainglorious titles and a steady dribble of concessions to wealth.
  The Finance Bill represents a wasted opportunity. It is the product of mountains which have laboured. It produces an interesting insight into the Chancellor's psychology, because it is the product of somebody with a tricky mind and rather nasty instincts when it comes to considering the people of this country. The Budget and the Finance Bill provided an opportunity to generate growth. We need growth.

  859
  The figures cited by the hon. Member for Tatton and the Government about the Government's achievements and the growth they have secured are figures which have been supplied since 1982. It is as if the world suddenly began in 1982. The enormous disaster that the country was dragged into between 1979 and 1981 has been totally ignored. The Government achieve growth by conjuring up the figures from 1982. In fact, every year since the Government have been in power the average growth rate has been 1·2 per cent., which is pathetic. The rate is lower than the average growth rate for the previous Labour Government, which the hon. Member for Tatton castigated. That is the record of the Government. There is a desperate need for growth.
  Since the Government have been in office, there has been a catyclismic rise in unemployment. The Government had enormous success in getting down the unemployment figures. The tragedy is that unemployment has continued to rise. The figures have been fiddled to indicate that the Government have got unemployment down. Since the Government have been in office, 15 adjustments have been made to the unemployment figures. Each adjustment has been an adjustment downwards. We need growth to reduce unemployment and to expand the economy.
  We need the kind of expansion that President Reagan has provided in the United States, but not in the manner that the hon. Member for Tatton indicated. President Reagan's approach to the economy is to implement Keynesianism without understanding it. His answer is deficit financing. Eight million new jobs have been generated in the three years that he has undertaken deficit financing.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) put it, this country had an opportunity, in the golden years, the opportunity years, to expand. Oil revenues provided that opportunity. The benefits of channelling North sea oil towards industry would allow growth, provided the pound was kept down. The Government, in the past seven years, have thrown away that opportunity. However, Sheikh Yamani has graciously condescended to provide us with another opportunity. This is Sheikh Yamani's Budget and Finance Bill. He has provided us with an opportunity through the stimulus that the fall in oil prices brings to the economy of Britain and the world. The world economy is expanding. The world faces a benign prospect. We had a chance to seize that opportunity. To do so, we needed to expand and stimulate our economy, especially with lower interest rates and by putting cheap money at the service of the people, not of the financial community—the City and the banks.
  Why are Britain's interest rates practically double those of our major industrial competitors? Why are interest rates in Britain so high? The Government have had one consistent element in their policy—high interest rates. There has been a series of excuses, but there has been a pattern of high interest rates. There has been a constant series of rumours that interest rates would decrease, that there would be a drop in the mortgage rate, that the climate was favourable and that the money supply figures provided an opportunity. But interest rates have never fallen as much as we were told, because the reductions have been
  860
  in terms of half a per cent. here, half a per cent. there, while the increases have been 2 per cent. or more. There has been constant pressure to keep interest rates high.
  The so-called success in bringing interest rates down has been the heralding of an expected decrease, which has never quite come. It has been reduction by rumour, not in reality. Britain's interest rates have been consistently higher than necessary. Interest rates have been crucifying borrowers, home owners, people with overdrafts, local government, industry and investment. They have imposed a burden on the whole economy.
  The banks, which have been the biggest barrier to enterprise, are always eager to lend to South America—indeed, to anyone overseas—and to rush into the newly industrialising countries. They irresponsibly expose themselves. It is like a flashing filigree in a flimsy farce. The banks are eager to expose themselves in an economically and commercially undersirable way. They lend reluctantly to industry, demanding an instant return—in months rather than years—while not being prepared to finance the long-term investment that Britain needs. They thrust umbrellas at people when it is sunny, but snatch them back immediately a hint of rain is seen on the horizon. The banks' record is counter-productive. They, not the nation, have been made rich by this interest rates policy.
  It is interesting, as can be seen from the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, that the biggest stimulus to the economy was an increase in capital spending. The parliamentary unit of the university of Warwick went through all the possible stimuli to the economy according to the London Business School model. Public spending was so important because it had the greatest and most immediate effect in reducing unemployment and stimulating growth. The second biggest stimulus was a 1 per cent. cut in interest rates. It had a greater effect than a 5 per cent. cut in income tax, a 10 per cent. increase in allowances or a 10 per cent. cut in VAT or in employers' national insurance contributions. A cut in interest rates has a greater effect in reducing unemployment than any of the other expedients.
  The Government's excuses for their high interest rates have varied from time to time. When the Conservative party was elected, it told us that, until the money supply was brought under control, interest rates had to be high. That led almost immediately to the folly of 17 per cent. interest rates and the pound being worth, I believe, $2·40. That excuse was withdrawn and the public sector borrowing requirement was blamed. We were told that interest rates would remain high until the PSBR was reduced. Britain's public sector deficit is lower than that of most other countries, but interest rates have remained high. However, the excuse underpinning them has been knocked down.
  For a time we were told that, because American interest rates were high, Britain's rates had to be high to follow them, but that excuse has now gone. The Government now have a new excuse: Britain's interest rates are high because we pay ourselves too much because our labour costs are increasing. The report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service states that one of the rare points of unity between the evidence of the CBI and the TUC is that that excuse for high interest rates is wrong. The CBI stated that interest rates would be high even if

  861
  labour unit costs were falling—an interesting reflection on its faith in the Government. The Select Committee concluded:
  "We ourselves have difficulty in following the mechanism by which high interest rates will produce lower wage increases. Part of the confusion arises because government statements do not always distinguish clearly between cost-push inflation and demand-pull inflation."
  That is just another excuse in a long series of exploded excuses. The reality is that interest rates are high and the Government's excuses for that reality have changed. Interest rates are high to keep the value of the pound high. A high-value pound is the Government's only effective weapon against inflation. Indeed, it is their only weapon. They say that they will keep inflation down by keeping the cost of imported manufactured goods as low as they can through an overvalued pound. In other words, they say that they will let industry, which must compete with those imports, carry the consequences of the Government's inflationary strategy. That is an inflationary strategy of placing a pistol directly at the head of industry.
  High interest rates are a double blow to industry. They cut investment and channel industry's money and profit into the frenzy of takeover and speculation that is occurring in London and all over Britain. It is similar to the last days of the Roman empire. The Government are not doing anything for the long term. Firms are merely going in for tribal cannibalism on an enormous scale. That is the first burden of high interest rates. The second burden is an overvalued exchange rate, which effectively subsidises imports and penalises exports. Our exchange rate is substantially overvalued. That is the only justification one can see for high interest rates, or that is what the Government think.
  The Government have no strategy on inflation, except for sermons. It is no use preaching at industry to keep its labour costs down and to stop wage increases, because an industry that is competing with overseas firms has to pay to attract skills, to keep its labour force and to keep that labour force working. Sermons are of no use in the face of such pressure. Companies awash with cash can pay without those difficulties, because they set the market rate.
  When directors and top management lavish so much money on themselves, as we have seen in the recent massive pay increases, it is indecent and obscene for them to demand that the rest of the people should hold their salaries at their present rate or accept cuts. They cannot preach with one voice and accept more money in the back pocket, as they have done, with any semblance of morality. There is also the hypocrisy of the Chancellor. Demand is predicated in the forecasts on consumption—consumption sustained by the wage increases that the Chancellor condemns with his other voice.
  Costs in the United Kingdom are increasing faster than those in competing countries. Inflation in Britain is higher than in competing countries. I gather that Germany and Japan have enjoyed negative inflation. We should be seizing the opportunity provided by low oil prices, not limping behind the rest of the world and getting less benefit from the growth that is to come. We are limping behind because we are penalising ourselves with high interest rates and an overvalued currency. We are a limping, lame bulldog. We do not even have a licence to bite now, and we are lagging behind the advanced world. The Finance Bill fails to take advantage of the opportunity to escape from that. The Bill is also irrelevant to that need
  862
  and to the purposes of a better society. The Finance Bill, in this difficult time, insists on handing out more and more to those who have more of it.
  The Government are in a trap. We shall try to restore the social justice which has been missing from the Finance Bill. The Chancellor discussed the costs of the inflationary pressure of expansion, but he must bear in mind the cost of running the economy for discipline. We should never forget the damage which has been done by that discipline, nor the horrendous cost in terms of high unemployment and keeping people out of work. The present state of affairs is that Government spending is being cut because of the huge burden of unemployment. That is the result of the economic policies of the Chancellor and his predecessor. The infrastructure is crumbling. It should provide work for the unemployed, but we cannot afford to employ the unemployed to do the work which obviously exists because of the cost of keeping them unemployed.
  It is the economics of bedlam and lunancy. The Budget is a wasted opportunity. It does not take up the challenge of expansion or seize the opportunities which lie ahead. It does nothing to ease the position of those who have been forced into unemployment, forced on to supplementary benefit or forced into poverty by the failure of the Chancellor's economic policies. The Government are not fiddling while Britain burns, but fiddling the figures while Britain sinks.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. John Watts: The hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) have in common an attachment to old-fashioned Keynesian economics plus a less attractive national characteristic, an unlimited capacity for national self-denigration. Their choice of statistics presented the performance of the British economy in the worst possible light. They utterly refused to recognise the realities of the achievements of the medium-term financial strategy—low inflation, sustained growth, rising living standards and a rise in employment.
  The alliance conducts this orgy of denigration from a position of smug and cosy affluence. That is the epitome of the alliance person—those who have forsaken wife-swapping for fiscal flagellation with their masochistic opposition to reductions in income tax.
  The Budget and the Finance Bill show that mixture of ingenuity and imagination which we have come to expect from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. That is especially true of the package of measures which relate to small business and charities. I shall concentrate my remarks on those two aspects.
  I welcome the decision to make the business expansion scheme permanent. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary set out, in his opening speech, the success of that scheme. That success is clearly recorded in the report prepared by Peat Marwick Mitchell. It has enabled small companies to raise risk capital. Amounts of less that £50,000 were raised by over half of the companies which took advantage of the scheme. The decision to make that scheme permanent underlines our determination to maintain a framework in which small companies can be formed and grow.
  The extension of the loan guarantee scheme for a further three years provides loan capital for further expansion and that is welcome. In the past there has been a criticism of the level of premium charged and I am

  863
  especially pleased to see a cut in the premium from 5 to 2·5 per cent. I hope that in a future Budget it will be announced that this scheme is also to become a permanent part of the armoury of measures to assist small and medium-sized companies. The reduction in the small companies' rate of corporation tax to 29 per cent.—my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary reminded us that it was 42 per cent. under the Labour Government—is a further measure that will assist the small company to continue to grow in profitability.
  Therefore we have provided for the four ages of the small company—conceived by the entrepreneur, nurtured with risk capital under the business expansion scheme, funded through its adolescence by loan capital under the loan guarantee scheme and arriving at profitable maturity where not too much of its profit—certainly not as much as previously—will be taken away in taxation. There will be more retained profit to fund further growth.
  The fifth age of the small business and, especially the family business, posed the greatest problems. There are an array of measures to help small businesses to become established and grow. However, family businesses, in their maturity, faced a severe dilemma because of the pernicious impact of the capital transfer tax. This tax made it difficult, if not impossible, for the business to be passed on to the next generation of owners and managers.
  The abolition of capital transfer tax on lifetime gifts will be of great assistance to facilitate the orderly handover of ownership of a family business from one generation to another. The performance of family businesses, both in their investment record and in their return on capital, illustrates the desirability of finding the means by which they may remain in family control and not be forced by fiscal reasons to be floated or taken over by a conglomerate.
  The measures contained in the Finance Bill provide a well-structured fiscal and financial framework to promote small businesses and their growth. However there remains a serious gap in the strategy. Many of the small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency do not look to the Government for handouts of taxpayers' money to support their growth. However, they are looking for more access to greater markets. The Government's expenditure on the purchase of goods and services for the current year will total £34·1 billion. Potentially that is a large market and one to which small and medium-sized businesses must have greater access.
  To ascertain the extent to which Government procurement was providing contracts for small businesses I tabled a series of questions to the major Departments of State. I was disturbed to discover that the Ministry of Defence alone was able to give an adequate answer to a fairly simple question: "What is the value and what proportion of your expenditure on the purchase of goods and services provide contracts for small businesses?" With the exception of the Ministry of Defence the Departments replied that they did not keep records in a form which would enable them to answer the question.
  The Department of Health and Social Security has £8·8 billion to spend, the Department of Transport has £2·4 billion to spend, the Department for Education and Science £2·3 billion. The Department of Education and Science did say that it intended, from next year, to maintain records which would enable it to identify its
  864
  contribution to small businesses. Even the Department of Employment, with its responsibility for the small business sector, was unable to do any better than provide the estimate that perhaps 10 per cent. of its purchasing was directed to small businesses.
  This inability to identify the extent to which contracts are placed with small businesses suggests a lack of awareness of the need to take account of the needs of small businesses when determining Government purchasing policy. Until this deficiency is remedied a major gap will remain in our strategy for encouraging the development of small and medium-sized businesses.
  The scathing and dismissive tone of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) concerning the impressive and imaginative measures to assist charities came ill from someone who was a member of a Government who did nothing to aid charities. Far from being a package designed in a desperate attempt to find something popular for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to do—both the Bill and the Budget contained many other popular measures—it is but a continuation of the steady progress made in improving the tax environment for charities. First, there was the shortening of the term for covenants to four years. Then there was the restoration of higher rate tax relief within limits that will be abolished by this Bill. The sweeping reforms in the Bill place charities in the best position ever to obtain financial support from individuals and companies.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) I believe that the payroll deduction scheme and the new arrangements for one-off gifts by non-close companies will prove to be especially valuable in providing opportunities for local charities to get support from local companies and their employees. Shortly I will be meeting the chairman of the Slough council for voluntary service to discuss how we can get together to ensure that charities in my constituency benefit to the maximum from this very generous reform of tax law for charities. Because of the imaginative and beneficial measures to which I have referred, and the others which time prevents me from referring to now, it will give me great pleasure and satisfaction to support the Second Reading of the Bill in the Lobby.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. John Maples: It is disappointing that the Finance Bill does not deal with a fairly major reform of the income tax system. I suspect that the Government also find that disappointing, as it seems that it will take longer to bring that to fruition than might have been hoped.
  We have had a Green Paper on personal taxation. It is very interesting, but it basically contains only one idea. It is also in danger of pre-empting the debate on tax reform. Perhaps that is what it was intended to do. Major reforms of the income tax system, probably come only once every 30 or 40 years. They thus warrant a very wide-ranging debate on the different possibilities for reform. I shall outline some of the major problems. First, income tax starts at far too high a rate. People pay no tax and then face a 29 per cent. cliff. In that respect, we are out of line with our EEC partners, where the starting rate for tax ranges from between 7 and 22 per cent.
  It is also argued that people in Britian start paying tax too soon and at too low a point on the income scale. In that respect, we are not out of line with the EEC, but we are

  865
  above average. In any event, it is a subjective judgment. However, it seems to have had great influence on Government policy, which has been substantially directed towards raising tax thresholds, on the argument that that takes people out of tax and helps with the poverty trap. The argument that it takes people out of tax is difficult to sustain. I suspect that when the threshold is raised, they go out of tax, but when they receive a pay rise, they are taxed again. Moreover, those helped are seldom families with one relatively low earner, yet that is where poverty tends to occur. It is difficult to argue that raising tax thresholds helps with the poverty trap. If that trap is to be solved by tax thresholds, the threshold for a married man must be raised to about £5,000. That would obviously be expensive.
  The proposals in the Green Paper would achieve that aim by raising the combined threshold to about £6,000. I should be interested in the response of the Minister, but the argument that one can take people out of the poverty trap by raising thresholds is surely overtaken by the proposed reforms to social security. If housing and family credit are to he based on after-tax income, no amount of fiddling with the tax threshold or with tax rates will make much difference. A person's family credit or housing benefit will simply be adjusted in terms of his after-tax income. Raising thresholds after the social security reforms have been brought into operation will have no effect at all on the poverty trap.
  It is true that tax is relevant to the unemployment trap, but it is the average rather than the marginal rate that is relevant. One can deal with average rates just as well by dealing with the basic rate of tax as by raising thresholds. The basic and fundamental problem with our income tax system is that, while we have very high marginal rates for almost everyone, ranging from 29 to 60 per cent., we have relatively low average rates of tax. The percentage of income that a person on three quarters of average earnings would pay in income tax is only 15 per cent., but they face a marginal rate of 29 per cent. Someone on average earnings of £10,000 a year would pay an average of 18 per cent., but would face a marginal rate of 29 per cent.
  That is built into the system because there are so many deductions. It has bad consequences. It is bad for incentives higher up the scale. It is bad because it promotes the black economy and a general indulgence in too much tax avoidance and tax evasion. It has a serious impact on the present structure of the poverty trap, and has serious repercussions on pay bargaining, because it costs an employer about £1·80 to put £1 net in his employee's pocket.
  The reason for very high marginal rates as against low average rates is that about half of personal income is not taxed. The majority of the part that is not taxed is made up of personal allowances. The Green Paper attempts to deal with some of these problems. It deals with the poverty trap in its present form, but after the social security reforms have been made, in those cases where the benefits are based on after-tax income, raising the tax thresholds will have little if any effect on the poverty trap. The Green Paper largely deals with the unemployment trap, but that could be dealt with just as well by reducing the basic rate as by raising the thresholds. The other major reasons given in the Green Paper are the enhancement or promotion of privacy and independence in the case of married women
  866
  dealing with their tax affairs, and the need for help for the low paid, particularly when a woman ceases work to have her first child.
  Those are laudable objectives, and the idea is attractive. However, it would cost £5·5 billion to raise the single transferable allowance to nearly £3,000. 1 should have thought that if we had £5·5 billion to play with—if that is the right word—in the tax reform game, many other reliefs and privileges could be bought with the money.
  We could solve the problem of the separate taxation of husband and wife relatively cheaply. We could help low-paid couples relatively cheaply, perhaps through social security benefits. There would still be a lot left over to help with other tax reforms. The problem at the lower end of the tax scale is that people are left with too little money in their pockets, because they have paid too much tax, or do not receive enough social security benefits. But higher up the tax scale the problem is the marginal rate and its disincentive effect. Raising thresholds does not meet both those objectives. The best way of helping the low-paid is to deal with that problem through employees' national insurance contributions. That would focus the money on the low-paid, giving them the relief without having to give it to everybody else.
  If my calculations are right, we could abolish the 5 per cent. band on employees' contributions at a cost of only £130 million. That would be a cheap way of focusing help on the low-paid without having to give that relief to everyone else. Once one has dealt with that, there are considerable attractions in an alternative approach to tax reform. Paradoxically, we could abolish personal allowances and tax every pound of someone's income form first to last. Although total personal income in the United Kingdom in 1984 was £200 billion, the revenue from income tax was only £35 billion, or 17·5 per cent. Most people would think that that percentage was much higher. It demonstrates the problem of the high marginal rates and the low average rates.
  If we took £5·5 billion off the total that could be raised in income tax, which is the amount that we would have to spend on implementing the Green Paper's proposals, we would have to raise only £30 billion. On my calculations, one could do that with a basic rate of 10 per cent. payable up to average earnings, and 20 per cent. payable up to twice average earnings, with a maximum rate of 30 per cent. thereafter. Obviously, there would be no personal allowances reducing the amount of income that is taxed.
  I should have thought that it would have a dramatic effect on incentives higher up the income scale, on the black economy, and tax avoidance and evasion, if people faced only a 10 or 20 per cent. tax rate rather than a 30 or 40 per cent. rate. It would also have a very dramatic effect on the poverty trap, and a far more dramatic effect than most of the tax threshold-raising that we have been able to afford. I suspect that it would make tax far cheaper to collect. There would, of course, be problems with mortgage relief and pension contributions, but I do not wish to enter what has proved to be a political minefield for all political parties. However, those could either be left in as deductions or rectified by some compensation.
  Some working wives would lose if such a proposal were adopted. The biggest problem is that the low-paid would be left worse off in such a system. The break-even point is about £6,000 a year, which is considerably below average manual earnings, and the maximum loss is just over £4 a week. We could make up that loss to the people

  867
  affected through the social security system by way of housing benefit or family income supplement, that would enable us to introduce a tax system with much lower marginal rates. That is an attractive option and I am sorry that the Government seem almost entirely hung up on a threshold approach to tax. We had that for several years in a row and I thought that this year when the basic rate was reduced and the thresholds were not over-indexed we had got away from that approach. However, the Green Paper suddenly takes us back to it.
  I am anxious to see that we do not enter into major reforms of the income tax system with only one idea in the bag. The debate should be much wider and should examine all the alternatives, of which I have outlined just one. My right hon. Friend and the Government, and all of us on the Government side, ought to find the proposition for a tax system with a basic rate of 10 per cent. and a maximum rate of 30 per cent. attractive to taxpayers and beneficial to the economy.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: Time is pressing, so I shall endeavour to be brief. I listened to the description by Opposition spokesmen of the British economy and I find it difficult to recognise it from that description. It is not the same economy as that which is seen by independent observers like OECD and certainly it is not the economy that I recognised when I was recently in the United States and heard the way we were considered by investors there.
  The dramatic improvements in the British economy in the last few years are due almost entirely to the imaginative approach to budgetary matters taken by my right hon. Friend and the other members of the Treasury team. The business expansion scheme is one of the most creative measures that any Government have ever introduced and will continue to provide enormous help to young and emerging industries.
  I am worried about one of the proposals in the Finance Bill. Hon. Members will be aware of my interest in tourism and leisure, and the Finance Bill contains a proposal to limit or to exclude from the business expansion scheme companies whose net asset backing exceeds 50 per cent. I admit that there have been considerable abuses of the scheme by certain property companies and by companies of that type with high asset backing.
  However, in dealing with covered sports centres or leisure centres a problem arises. At the moment the rules lay down that anything that is added to the land, and would normally be thought to be annexed to the land, should be included in the computation. There is no doubt that the provision of such a facility carries a high risk. I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to consider some amendment in Committee.
  I welcome the considerable benefits that clauses 26 to 30 confer on charities. Those benefits have already been dealt with by other hon. Members so I will not go into them in detail. However, it would be churlish to ignore the other changes about charities made in the Budget, especially the VAT changes. These give enormous benefit to charities that provide for the blind and provide medical services.
  I should like to quote from a letter sent to me by a charity with which I have been closely associated for some
  868
  years. It is the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, which wrote to me immediately after the Budget. The general secretary said:
  "What about the Budget then! As far as we can see, our prayers have been answered and we shall henceforth no longer pay VAT on our drugs … Thank you approximately 150,000 times—that's the amount of VAT which we shall save annually on drugs alone!"
  The Government have not received in the press and elsewhere all the credit they deserve for that particular measure.
  Small firms will be particularly grateful for the changes in the rules for capital transfer tax, now to be known as inheritance tax. However, there remains a serious obstacle in capital taxes—capital gains tax. Although it is possible to transfer from one generation to another without incurring capital transfer tax, that transfer will still trigger capital gains tax, which in itself imposes a considerable obstacle to the continuation of small family businesses. The problem with CGT is that it is not so much a tax on true gains as a tax on inflation. That seems to be fundamentally wrong. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved some way in that direction by providing indexation from a base a few years ago. In future, I hope that he may feel able to go further and to remove altogether the purely notional gain that arises from the effect of inflation.
  Finally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend because if one thing always makes his Budgets stand out, it is his imaginative approach to problems. We have seen from the success that we have had in housing and the sale of council houses how the growth of home ownership has changed the perspective of great sections of our community. To attempt now through the personal equity plan to extend that to stocks and shares is creditable. A number of hon. Members have pointed out that the scheme as conceived may not be perfect. Indeed, it may be capable of improvement. I hope that I shall be asked to serve on the Standing Committee, and that we shall attempt constructively to improve the scheme. At the same time let us give it enormous credit as being an imaginative measure which may possibly transform the face of British society.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: We have had an interesting debate about a most uninteresting Bill. The gap between the Conservative party and the Labour party in our discussion and analysis of the economy, our approach to economic policy, and even our identification of the most important economic issues has shone through the debate.
  I listened to all the speeches from Conservative Members, and two points struck me. First, not even the Government's most fervent, loyal supporters, including the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), could bring themselves to suggest that the Bill was anything other than an exercise in marking time. It is an exercise in waiting to see which way the price of oil will move, which way the exchange rate will move, what will happen to the balance of payments and, above all, in waiting for next year, for an election Budget and an election Finance Bill through which Conservative Back-Bench Members hope to save their seats.
  Secondly, the Bill marks the end of the Chancellor's pretensions to be a reforming Chancellor of the

  869
  Exchequer. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman was cast as the Rambo of the Exchequer, machine-gunning his way through the jungles of taxation to rescue working people. Of course, it was never true. His role was really that of a latter-day Neville Chamberlain, the man who personified non-intervention, because that is what fiscal neutrality is and always was. It means that working people are left at the mercy of market forces in an economic jungle which the Chancellor's friends in the City of London exploit to their own advantage.
  Now all those pretensions of two years ago have been exposed: 1984 was a one-off Bill from a one-Budget Chancellor. Two years later what we have is a mish-mash of odds and ends. In short, this year's Finance Bill is a boring Bill and hardly worth a day in the life of the House of Commons.
  It is also an irrelevant Bill because it does almost nothing about the biggest economic and social problem of our time, unemployment and the poverty associated with unemployment, retirement and looking after children.
  At no time in his speech did the Chief Secretary mention poverty. It took him more than half an hour to get round to unemployment. However, that was better than most of his hon. Friends, who made no reference whatsoever to unemployment or to the plight of the unemployed.
  I can only deduce that all the Conservative Members who have taken part in the debate recognise that, as the Chief Secretary put it in his reference to home owners, the unemployed have no direct interest in this Bill. The Chief Secretary frowns, but that was the phrase that he used. He said that home owners had no direct interest in the Finance Bill, unlike all those bodies listed by him—the stock exchange, the other financial institutions, the businesses, large and small, which have, to the surprise of no one, not even the Chief Secretary, welcomed the Budget.
  Of course they have welcomed it. The Budget was their Budget and the Finance Bill is their Bill. It is not a Bill for the unemployed. That was shown most vividly this afternoon when the Chief Secretary eventually spoke about unemployment. As Hansard will show tomorrow, he was ruled out of order because there is nothing in the Finance Bill, in the opinion of the Chair, to reduce unemployment.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): What?
  Mr. Davis: The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been absent at the time and missed the speech of his right hon. Friend. When he looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that his colleague was ruled out of order.
  The Chief Secretary, like other Government spokesmen, prefers to talk about the figures for employment rather than those for unemployment.
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the connection in his mind between unemployment and the Budget. Since the Finance Bill is, as he knows, the legislative consequence of the Budget, and since the Budget, in its prudence and general approach, was one of the preconditions for the subsequent two points fall in standard interest rates, is that not one of the most important contributions to solving unemployment in this economy?
  Mr. Davis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a reduction in interest rates will have a beneficial effect on both employment and unemployment. Where we may
  870
  differ is in our attribution of that fall entirely to the Budget. There were other reasons. Interest rates were going to come down before the Budget. They are at the moment being held artificially high, if we are to believe the press, by the Bank of England, and I assume that the bank talks these days, post-Johnson Matthey, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The Chief Secretary preferred to talk about the figures for employment rather than those for unemployment. I can understand that emphasis. Government spokesmen always want to tell us that more people are employed today than were employed a year ago and that more people are employed today than were employed in 1983. Today was no exception. The Chief Secretary gave us a new figure. He claimed that 1 million new jobs had been created since 1983. I am not sure how that figure has been calculated. It does not seem to have been included in any statistics published by the Department of Employment.
  The most recent statistics published a fortnight ago do not justify the claim of 1 million new jobs since the general election. I realise that Lord Young issued a press release on the same day that the figures were published and claimed that an increase of 276,000 jobs in 1985 meant that the increase since March 1983—not since the general election—was almost 1 million. If the Government want to make such claims, they should first publish the detailed figures. Otherwise, they will be treated with suspicion in the House and elsewhere.
  But there are more important points to be made about the Government's claim of an increase in employment. There are four things that Government spokesmen do not tell us, four things that the Chief Secretary did not mention this afternoon. The first is that when the Government refer to the number of people in employment, they often include people who are involved in Government employment schemes and training schemes. They include people on the youth training scheme and the community programme. I do not necessarily object to that approach because the Labour party believes in job creation measures, but it really is a bit thick for Government spokesmen to give the impression that those new jobs have been created by the economy rather than the Government.
  We want to see more jobs created by the Government, and we take pleasure in the fact that some 350,000 people are counted—when it suits the Government—as employed as a result of job creation measures. But what was their position in 1979? Then the Prime Minister referred to real jobs, and she was not including those jobs covered by Government schemes.
  Secondly, much of the increase in employment in the past two or three years has taken place in part-time jobs for women, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) reminded the House this afternoon. Again, the Labour party does not object to an increase in part-time jobs for women, but let us be clear about why the number of those part-time jobs is increasing. It is increasing, has increased and will continue to increase as a direct result of the high rate of unemployment. More and more married women are having to seek employment in order to support their families, and the only jobs that are available to them are part-time jobs.
  In fact, the increase in the labour force mentioned by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is also due, in part at least, to the increase in unemployment. The Government's supporters talk about

  871
  the increase in the labour force as if it were the same thing as an increase in the population or the working population. That is not true. The increase in the labour force is measured as an increase in the number of people who are looking for work. If more married women are having to go out to work to support their families, they are counted as an increase in the labour force. That is where the statistic comes from.
  The third point which is ignored by the Chief Secretary and other Government spokesmen in the House and elsewhere is that the figures published by the Department of Employment a fortnight ago show that the increase in employment is slowing down and has slowed down for the past year, despite the so-called "Budget for jobs". Indeed, the increase in jobs last year was down by one quarter compared with the increase in the previous year. There was an especially marked reduction in the number of new self-employed jobs—jobs which the Prime Minister has always boasted about—but the important point is that the total is going down; the rate of increase is declining.
  Incidentally, the figures also show that not only is unemployment rising but that it has risen more quickly in recent months than a year ago. The rate is now twice that of a year ago. The Department of Employment's published figures show that during the past six months the increase in unemployment has averaged 12,000 people a month and a year ago, over a period of six months, the increase was an average of only 5,000 people a month.
  There is a fourth point which the Government often omit or blur over. We now have the preliminary results of a labour force survey of one year ago.
  Mr. Higgins: As the hon. Gentleman was arguing 10 minutes ago that it was out of order to discuss employment, why has he spoken about nothing else since?
  Mr. Davis: I am responding to the claim made by the Chief Secretary, which was found to be in order, of the increase in employment in the last three years, and I am commenting quite properly on what the Chief Secretary said. It is, I think, at the discretion of the Speaker whether I am in order. It was not my decision that the Chief Secretary was out of order but the Chair's decision, because, in the judgment of the Chair, there was nothing in the Bill to help the unemployed.
  To revert to the labour force survey and the preliminary results published one week ago, the figures show that in this country there are 755,000 people with second jobs. Although those second jobs are excluded from the statistics published in the survey, they are not always excluded from statistics published in the Department of Employment Gazette, as I understand it.
  I ask the Chief Secretary to tell the House how many of the 1 million new jobs created since 1983 are second jobs—that is, jobs being done by people who already have a job. To what extent are the so-called new jobs represented by people who are working in the evening or at weekends in public houses? To what extent are they married women who go to work in a local shop on a Saturday? To what extent are they made up, for example, of people such as the man who works in the factory and goes to help in the local bookmaker's on a Saturday afternoon and is classed as having a second job? That is
  872
  not an increase in employment to be put against the increase in unemployment that we have witnessed for the past seven years.
  To be more specific, when the Department of Employment calculates an increase of 276,000 in the number of people in employment in 1985, does the Department include the estimated increase of some 80,000 second jobs a year? Those second jobs do not represent any increase in the real number in employment by any yardstick applied in the real world.
  The Government have made so many changes in the way that the employment and unemployment figures are calculated that hardly anybody trusts the statistics any more. A more suspicious man would suggest that the Government change the figure so often to prevent any accurate analysis of their record. But what they cannot deny is that more people are unemployed today than were unemployed when they came to office in 1979. They cannot deny that more people are unemployed today than when we reached the so-called bottom of the recession in 1981. They cannot deny that more people are unemployed today than when they were re-elected in 1983. They cannot deny that more people are unemployed today than when the House debated the Finance Bill one year ago—a Bill which represented a Budget for jobs.
  It is a fact that unemployment was too high when the Government took office in 1979, but it was coming down and it had come down for several months in succession. Since 1979, it has not only increased but trebled, and shows no sign whatsoever of coming down. And on the basis of evidence along the lines of the dog that did not bark, it is clear that the Government do not expect any significant reduction in unemployment this year. Treasury Ministers have been asked time and again, but on each occasion they refuse to give the figures. They can give forecasts for inflation, for capital investment, for domestic demand and gross domestic product; they can forecast exports and imports and the balance of payments; but they cannot forecast employment or unemployment.
  Why are the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues so coy? They must have produced a forecast; they must have it in the Treasury. Are they really pretending that civil servants do not have the time to do this calculation, civil servants who, each Monday morning, are given a clutch of press cuttings by the Chancellor and his Chief Secretary to estimate and calculate figures to show the cost of my hon. Friends' commitments, hopes, ideas, suggestions and long-term aims? The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles. We know what his weekend reading is. He reads Tribune. Each week he takes cuttings from Tribune, gives them to the civil servants on the Monday and asks them to work out what it would cost to implement Labour's plans. I suggest that he uses some of the civil servants' time to forecast unemployment and the cost of the Budget and the Finance Bill. If the Treasury forecast showed any reduction in unemployment, the Government would not be so coy. That is proof enough that the Finance Bill will not reduce unemployment.
  Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves that it is not only the waste of resources in paying men and women to sit at home instead of paying them to provide goods and services—particularly services—that the rest of the community needs, but the sheer poverty associated with being unemployed that concerns Labour Members. Of course, the best answer to that poverty is to get people

  873
  back to work, and that is why the Labour party has set itself a target of creating 1 million new jobs during the first two years of the next Labour Government.
  However, that is not the complete answer, because I million new jobs will still leave thousands of people unemployed and living in poverty. We shall therefore pay the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed, because the long-term unemployed are one of the three groups to whom we shall give the greatest priority in our campaign against poverty: the long-term unemployed, the pensioners and parents—single parents and married couples, working parents and unemployed parents. These are the people to whom we shall give priority, not because other people are not living in poverty but because they are living in the greatest poverty and must therefore come first.
  What is the response of the Chancellor and the Government to the scourge of poverty? After a careful examination of the Bill, I can find only one section that, by any stretch of the imagination, could be described as alleviating poverty. That section consists of the clause relating to charities. As my right hon. Friend for Sparkbrook explained, we welcome the provisions in so far as they benefit real charities, but look at how much the Chancellor proposes to devote to this much-vaunted scheme. On the most generous calculation, in his Red Book, the Chancellor is giving £55 million a year in tax relief on gifts to charities, adding the provision for gifts by employees and companies together.
  Mr. Lawson: What did the Labour Government do for charities?
  Mr. Davis: We did not abolish the capital transfer tax, and it just happens that £55 million is also the cost of abolishing the capital transfer tax on gifts from the rich to the already wealthy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) pointed out, that is one of the most objectionable provisions of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) and my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) summed up the Bill. My right hon. Friend described it as a Bill that does not measure up to what is required. My hon. Friend described it as irrelevant, and he was right. Compared with the scale of the problems of unemployment and poverty, the Bill is irrelevant and inadequate—as irrelevant and inadequate as the Government. It is a defeatist Bill from a defeated Government—defeated not in the Lobbies but in the country—defeated by the problem of unemployment, and a Government who will be defeated in an election that not even this Government can avoid for ever.
  9.28 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): I start by making it clear to those hon. Members who have not been here throughout our proceedings, and who may have been out enjoying themselves, what precisely the Chair did not rule today. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was rightly discussing aspects of the Finance Bill and of the Budget in relation to unemployment. In its wisdom—the Chair is always right—the Chair ruled that the specific budgetary measures on unemployment that are not in the Finance Bill should not be addressed, and my right hon. Friend immediately responded to that.
  874
  I go beyond that to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls). He was supported by all the Opposition parties on an issue which unites both sides of the House—unitary tax. He asked some important questions on this all-party issue. I shall reiterate the Government's position. The timing has not changed. The Government would have wished for greater progress by now, there is no doubt about that. He asked what Ministers would and could do to assist progress in this matter. Ministers have and will continue to take every opportunity to raise the matter of unitary tax with the United States. He commented on the role of the unitary tax group. I join him in paying tribute, on behalf of both sides of the House, to the activities of the Unitary Tax Group, to the Confederation of British Industry and to Peter Welch for mobilising British industry. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government have fought against unitary tax in every way possible.
  Those of us who were privileged to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) regarded it as lucid and fascinating. I listened with great care, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members did—[Interruption.] I listened as I have throughout the debate, unlike those who have not been present throughout but seek only to interrupt from a sedentary position. I listened, not only because of my right hon. Friend's former role as Secretary of State for Energy but because he was in advance of most of the world in predicting recent changes. Therefore, we are obviously conscious of his remarks. He went on to discuss other matters, including monetary policy. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, the Government will respond to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee recommendation which many of my hon. Friends have commented on.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, made a wide-ranging and interesting speech. I listened with considerable care to his remarks about privatisation. He well knows that we beg to disagree. This is probably not the occasion on which to debate that particular issue except to say, with respect, that I think that he confuses ownership with regulatory needs.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne also raised the issue of capital transfer tax. It has been raised by other hon. Members during the debate. I can assure him, provided the House agrees, that there will be an opportunity to debate that in detail in a Committee of the whole House, without, as he rightly says, being trapped in the rigours of the Finance Bill Standing Committee. We welcome his comments, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who expressed a contrary view and said that that part of the Finance Bill was one of the critical features of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget.
  I was sorry to miss the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) when I disappeared from the Chamber for a few moments. I would be doing the House a service if I drew to the attention of those hon. Members who were not here the question that my right hon. Friend legitimately put to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who made pious comments on the nature of the supposed courage of the alliance in voting against the reduction in income tax to 29 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Member for

  875
  Worthing legitimately asked whether that vote would be a prime plank in their by-election programme at Ryedale and West Derbyshire. I trust that the limited presence of the alliance will not restrict it from ensuring that all the people involved in the by-elections will be well aware of the nature of that vote.
  The alliance parties are again sadly without representation, except for the hon. Member for Stockton, South who was unable to be with us for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). He gave a devastating analysis of the conflicting nature of the alliance's programme. [Interruption.] The alliance should carefully consider my hon. Friend's points, as some alliance Members were not present to hear his speech.
  I welcomed the emphasis which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford placed on the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's verdict which came out categorically in favour of the Budget.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) legitimately raised, in the special way to which we have all become used over many years, the interests of his constituents, especially in relation to tobacco. I am sure that if we have the privilege of his company in Committee, we shall look forward to his individualistic comments, which will help our deliberations. The right hon. Gentleman will in no way mind the compliments which I have paid him, and which I meant, for the way in which he has consistently argued for the interests of his constituents throughout his long and distinguished career in the Palace.
  The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) were especially welcome. As always, he made a wise and balanced contribution. I was especially interested in his remarks on wider share ownership for employees—[Interruption.] I have listened to the debate and am now trying to respond to the specific points that were raised. Those hon. Members who, unfortunately, have not had the pleasure of being present will have no knowledge of what occurred during the debate.
  I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington about employee share ownership, although I do not agree with him that our other activities in the area of direct share ownership would divert us from our stated aims in the Budget.
  I was especially unhappy—as was my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), who robustly criticised it—with that section of the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook which related to charities. The right hon. Gentleman welcomed part of our charity package. However, he made a relatively miserable response when he sought to suggest that our proposals on charities were simply an alternative to what in his judgment was a disappointing Budget.
  The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were interesting. Should there come the benighted time when a Labour Government are in office, those outside the House will wish to examine carefully the extraordinary statement which the right hon. Gentleman made across the Dispatch Box. He said that the Labour Government would redefine the word "charity"—in those lovely Socialist words—to establish who is genuinely deserving. The analysis of that statement, after generations of charity law, will be interesting to consider.
  876
  The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about pension scheme surpluses, and I was delighted at the thrust of his first remarks. He said that he welcomed the thrust of the proposals and thought that they were correct. He will understand why we could not consult the actuarial profession generally on the details before the Budget. Therefore, on the advice of the Government Actuary, we adopted a careful and prudent approach.
  The right hon. Gentleman specifically asked about the 5 per cent. level. The approach advised by the Government Actuary has three related elements. The first is the secure funding method, which is known among actuaries as "projected accrued benefit", and associated with that is a series of prudent actuarial assumptions on which the liabilities are assessed. Secondly, the contingency margin of 5 per cent. which has been allowed was advised on the basis of the secure funding method and the prudent actuarial assumptions that that would safeguard the benefits given to scheme members.
  Thirdly, and related to that, are the three options for the funds to reduce the surpluses: contribution holidays or reductions for up to five years, improvements in benefits, and a refund to employers. The right hon. Gentleman focused on the 5 per cent., but one cannot look in isolation only at one element. We are consulting the actuarial profession. We shall also listen carefully not only to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but to views from outside Parliament.
  I return to the right hon. Gentleman's fundamental point, referred to by other hon. Members, in particular by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). They went to the heart of the Finance Bill and to the Opposition's attitude to the taxation of both capital and income.
  A great deal of the debate both inside and outside Parliament has been about the Opposition's suggestion that the Government's programme will benefit only the rich and that most of the Government's measures can be corrected by changing the pattern of taxation. I shall deal tonight with the analysis introduced into the debate by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I do not intend to deal with the Opposition's expenditure programme. I shall concern myself only with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that they will implement a minimal programme.
  On the Jimmy Young programme on 20 March the right hon. Gentleman referred to a £3·6 billion anti-poverty progamme. My hon. Friends have asked me tonight, who are the rich, and how will they pay for this programme? The answers then become rather vague and indistinct. I shall remind the House of the nature of the questions. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to suggest that the financing of the Labour party's minimal programme will be simple and easy, and this was a fundamental part of our debate. Jimmy Young said:
  "When you say rich, Roy, you mean, who's rich? I mean, what income are you talking about?"
  The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "It's people earning more than £25,000 a year."
  Jimmy Young then said:
  "Now I've got four figures there."
  I am told on the Jimmy Young programme by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that in fact it is very hard to analyse because the Treasury will not provide all the details. Therefore I shall help the right hon. Member for

  877
  Sparkbrook and will give him all the details relating to his programme. He asked a second question that I shall also seek to answer. It related not only to the rich but to how they will pay. Jimmy Young said:
  "When you say tax them properly, what sort of level would they be paying tax then?"
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not a question of the Jimmy Young show but of "Desert Island Discs." We have already heard this speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is making his speech in his own way.
  Mr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Truth is always difficult to take.
  The second leg of the question that is critical in this area is how the rich will pay. In this instance, the tax level will not change very much, we are told by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, because it will all be collected in the form of capital taxes. Let us look at the implications of this proposal before I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House of how this Finance Bill will continue the process of making everybody, at all levels of income, better off than if we still had to face the hazards and the tragedy of a Labour Government.
  As for capital taxes, with which we are dealing in this Finance Bill, let me examine arithmetically what would happen if we had to return to the 1979 position. There are three features of this Finance Bill and of previous Finance Bills to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook objects: abolition of investment income surcharge and reductions in capital gains tax and capital transfer tax. If reinstated, what would they produce annually? Investment income surcharge would produce £825 million a year and changes in capital gains tax and capital transfer tax would produce £835 million a year. That is a total not of £3·6 billion but of £1·6 billion.
  As the Finance Bill deals with matters such as CTT, it is worth making some points on the effects of the arithmetic. If investment income surcharge were reinstated, it would penalise many who are on the basic rate. More than 60 per cent. of taxpayers who would be affected are those on the basic rate, and 45 per cent. of those affected are elderly. The approach which I hear outside is: "the bloody rich." Because of the reductions in the absurd rate of capital taxes, it is worth drawing attention to the effect of this arithmetic. Our much-improved investment planning has produced a yield of 20 per cent. more, in real terms, from capital taxes since 1979, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the House on Monday 24 March.
  If we returned to the rates that applied in 1979, it is questionable whether they would produce what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wants—a yield of £1·6 billion. Let us accept, for a moment, his arithmetic and consider the reality of income tax and the implications at which he laughed earlier. The reality of income tax, in addition to restoring IIS, CTT and CGT reductions, is slightly more complicated. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty when he appeared on the Jimmy Young show regarding the different allowances and the problem whether one is referring to a single person, a one-earner married couple or a two-earner married couple.
  The public want to know the implications of this and previous Finance Bills and the policy of the right hon.
  878
  Member for Sparkbrook as adduced at the Dispatch Box today. Let me tell the country what his policies would mean. To finance this minimal policy, there would be a jump in the income tax rate of single people to 70 per cent. on taxable income above £18,600, or 70 per cent. on all gross income above £20,935. That is the first definition. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is getting very uncomfortable, because this is the first time we have analysed his definition of "rich singles".
  What about the one-earner married couple? Again, there would be a jump to 70 per cent. tax on all taxable income above £18,600, or such a couple would pay 70 per cent. on a gross income above £22,255. I remind the outside world of the right hon. Gentleman's definition of rich. According to him, a rich one-earner couple is a couple earning £22,255. Let us remember those figures.
  I turn to the critical, final figure—that relating to two-earner couples. There are over 5 million two-earner couples. All two-earner couples would jump to a tax rate of 70 per cent. on a taxable income of £18,600, or would pay 70 per cent. on all gross income above £24,590. The right hon. Gentleman's definition of a two-earner couple would be a husband and wife, each earning about £12,500. That is his definition of the rich.
  I have explained who these rich people are. I have explained how they will pay. They are not even in the top 5 per cent. of salary earners. For the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, when he next appears on the Jimmy Young programme, those people are the top 3·5 per cent. of tax-paying units—not the top 5 per cent.
  From the Alice in Wonderland of "Hatteromics", I turn to what the present Finance Bill and other Finance Bills have done since 1979 for the other side of the challenge, as opposed to that absurd pretence that the programme can be financed out of thin air. The other side of the issue concerns what we have done about the burden of tax and the well-being of people at all levels of tax. We had to get control of borrowing. We had to pay the terrifying burden of debts before we reduced the burden of taxes.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was right—some taxes have been increased. North sea taxes have increased. About 40 per cent. of the increase in the tax burden has come from North sea taxes. Equally, VAT has contributed to the increase since 1979 by a little more than 40 per cent. The remaining 10 per cent. plus has come from national insurance charges, which have increased benefits associated with them, and from rates.
  In this pattern of Finance Bills, which culminate in this legislation, the fact that many critical taxes have decreased has not been discussed. I refer especially to the taxes on employment. When the Conservative party came to office, the burden of taxation borne by employers was 14 per cent. Primarily because of the abolition of the Labour tax on jobs, that burden has been reduced from 14 per cent. to 9 per cent. Income taxes have fallen. In 1978–79, income taxes were approximately 32·7 per cent. of total taxation. They have now fallen to 26·9 per cent.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook specifically asked me what that has meant to taxpayers generally. What has the pattern, which has continued in the Finance Bill, meant? [Interruption.] To help the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, I shall compare the income tax and national insurance contributions paid by a married man under the Conservative Government, with his position if Labour were still in office. [Interruption.] I know that, to some people, that is a terrifyingly long and

  879
  happy way in the past, but I remind the House of the precise figures. Under our present tax regime, a married man on a third of average earnings pays 7·4 per cent. of his income in income tax and NIC. Under the 1978–79 regime, under Labour and including the benefits of Labour's 6·5 per cent. NIC, such a person would pay 10·6 per cent. in income tax and NIC—higher than the 7·4 per cent. paid under the present tax regime.
  For a married man earning half average earnings, the figures are precisely the same—18·9 per cent. at present versus 18·9 per cent. under a 1978–79 regime. For a married man earning three quarters of average earnings, the figures are 25·3 per cent. under our Government and 25·8 per cent. under Labour's 1978–79 regime with its lower NIC rates. The position today in terms of the combination of income tax and NIC is better than under a 1978–79 regime.
  A married man on average earnings pays 28·5 per cent. in income tax and NIC but would have paid 29·2 per cent. under the Labour's regime—again a higher figure. A married man earning one and a half times average earnings pays 30·6 per cent. under this Government but would have paid 31·1 per cent. under a Labour regime. I could continue, because obviously the figures become even better. In every instance, the figures are better or the same. That therefore disproves the constant suggestion of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that in income tax and national insurance terms, people are worse off than if Labour had remained in office.
  I have said repeatedly at the Dispatch Box that we should be concerned, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, not simply with the proportion taken in tax but with how well off people are, because that is obviously affected by the pattern of their earnings increases as well as the pattern of taxation changes. I shall take the categories I mentioned and the percentage change in real take-home pay. After all, that is what, theoretically, we are all concerned about when we talk about our constituents.
  Let me remind the House of the figures on the percentage change in real take-home pay. Under the category of those on half average earnings I can quote any group—single, married with children, married with no children. Under the category of those married with no children, there was a 2·4 per cent. improvement in a couple's real take-home pay after five years of Socialism, but after seven years of Conservatism there was a 14·8 per cent. improvement. [Interruption.] The debate is about whether people in work are better off, and I am simply trying to remind the House of the data.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Moore: I will give way only to those who have participated throughout the debate.
  The figures continue, and they get better. [Interruption.] The Opposition do not like these figures. For a married man on average earnings, with no children, during Labour's five years of office, the percentage change in the real take-home pay went down by 0·9 per cent. What happened in the relevant past seven years? There was an increase of 17·7 per cent. What a contrast—between a person's take-home pay on average earnings going up in real terms by 17·7 per cent. and going down by 0·9 per cent.
  880
  What about a couple on twice average earnings? Their take-home pay went down during Labour's period of office by 2·4 per cent. against an increase of 19·7 per cent. during the Conservative period of office.
  I have endeavoured to show how the Finance Bill takes account of people on average, below or above-average earnings and how Conservative taxation policies have benefited those in all categories.
  I was asked by my right hon. Friends the Members for Guildford and for Worthing and by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for the Government's position on the exchange rate mechanism. I can reiterate the precise position. The time is not ripe and, as has been said many times from the Dispatch Box, the matter is being kept under constant review. We will not enter the exchange rate mechanism unless there is a clear balance of advantage in favour of us doing so. The Government's views were stated clearly by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary during a debate on 29 January.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton made an important contribution. He asked us to consider what is happening in manufacturing. That was raised by three or four other hon. Members. I would remind the House that manufacturing profitability in 1984 was at 6·5 per cent., which was the best since 1973. Manufacturing exports went up by 6 per cent. in 1985 and are expected to rise by a further 6 per cent. in 1986. Manufacturing industry is expected to be a major beneficiary of the fall in oil prices. [Interruption.] Hon. Members ought to listen to the extent to which these are all positive aspects of Government policy on manufacturing enterprises.
  In no other recent five-year period has manufacturing been so successful in holding its market share and keeping pace with world output. The Finance Bill offers for incentives a cut in the basic rate, which is of course the marginal rate for 95 per cent. of taxpayers. It offers for business and enterprise a package of measures, including an indefinite extension of the business expansion scheme in recognition of its great success, effective action to prevent family businesses from being broken up for tax reasons, a unique opportunity for individual share ownership through personal equity plans and widely welcomed new reliefs for charitable giving. All that is in the context of a sound economic strategy which has given us, in 1985, the third successive year of both steady growth and low inflation, and an outlook for 1986 which is the best for a generation.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  10 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I listened with the utmost interest to the Financial Secretary's speech—[Interruption.]—but he did not address himself to several points that formed the basis of his own argument. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the very high—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has the Floor.
  Mr. Bell: The Minister referred to the point that people were better off taxation-wise in relation to earnings, but he did not relate that to the fact that earnings have increased over a period of time. [Interruption.] He did not refer to what those earnings were. It is a pity for the House that he did not do so.
  The Minister also failed to meet the point that the Budget had been predicated on the price of oil being $15

  881
  a barrel, whereas it is now $12. Those are all important factors in relation to the Finance Bill—[Interruption.] The House is entitled to know what the Government think of those issues, which are very important for the economy. Indeed, the people of this country are entitled to know what the Treasury team's view is, but the Financial Secretary has not told us.
  The Minister had half an hour in which to speak, and it is a pity that he did not spend that time on the issues relating to Government policy. Instead, he produced a series of spurious calculations that involved a sleight of hand to show what a Labour Government might do, some seven years after the Labour Government were last in office.
  It is a pity that the Financial Secretary refused to spend any time saying what this Government would do, and instead concentrated on what the Labour party would do if it was in government—[Interruption.] From the country's point of view, it is a pity that those points were not clarified. How can the Government put forward a Budget that is based on oil costing $15 a barrel, when the price has fallen to $12? The Opposition want to know how the Chancellor can predicate his Budget on the price of oil when he has lost a further £3,000 million in Government revenue since the Budget statement—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely in order to be speaking now, and he should be heard.
  Mr. Bell: Having had the attention of the House for the past few minutes, I invite the Financial Secretary to respond to those points in the interests not only of the Opposition, but of the country as a whole.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 190.

  Division No. 161]

  [10.03 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Browne, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Amess, David

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Ancram, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Arnold, Tom

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nick

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Best, Keith

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chope, Christopher

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cope, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Critchley, Julian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Crouch, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bright, Graham

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brinton, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Dunn, Robert

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Durant, Tony

  882

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Evennett, David

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lightbown, David

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Farr, Sir John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fletcher, Alexander

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Forman, Nigel

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Franks, Cecil

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Maclean, David John

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Fry, Peter

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

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Madel, David

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Major, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maples, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marlow, Antony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Mather, Carol

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, Harry

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gregory, Conal

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Ground, Patrick

  Merchant, Piers

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Moate, Roger

  Harris, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harvey, Robert

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayward, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Henderson, Barry

  Neubert, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Tony

  Hickmet, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Norris, Steven

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hind, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hirst, Michael

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Howard, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Portillo, Michael

  Irving, Charles

  Powley, John

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Price, Sir David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Raffan, Keith

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Key, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knowles, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knox, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lang, Ian

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Latham, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sims, Roger

  883

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waddington, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Stern, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Watson, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wheeler, John

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Trippier, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Mr.Archie Hamilton and

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Gerald Malone.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Alton, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Deakins, Eric

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Dewar, Donald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dixon, Donald

  Barnett, Guy

  Dormand, Jack

  Barron, Kevin

  Dubs, Alfred

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Beith, A. J.

  Eadie, Alex

  Bell, Stuart

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ewing, Harry

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Blair, Anthony

  Fisher, Mark

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Flannery, Martin

  Boyes, Roland

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Foster, Derek

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

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Buchan, Norman

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Caborn, Richard

  Garrett, W. E.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  George, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Ian

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Golding, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Gourlay, Harry

  Cartwright, John

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Hancock, Michael

  Clay, Robert

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Coleman, Donald

  Haynes, Frank

  Conlan, Bernard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  884

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Redmond, Martin

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  John, Brynmor

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Robertson, George

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Lambie, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livsey, Richard

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McCartney, Hugh

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  McTaggart, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Madden, Max

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stott, Roger

  Martin, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Maxton, John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Michie, William

  Tinn, James

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wainwright, R.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wallace, James

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wareing, Robert

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Weetch, Ken

  Nellist, David

  White, James

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Park, George

  Wilson, Gordon

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Woodall, Alec

  Pendry, Tom

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Penhaligon, David

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pike, Peter

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

FINANCE BILL (COMMITTAL)
Ordered,
That Clauses Nos. 2, 15, 26 and 80 be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Moore.]
Committee tomorrow.

Employment Subsidies
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to set up, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Employment Subsidies Act 1978, a scheme, the cost of which is expected to exceed £10 million for the year ending 31st March 1987, for making payments to employers to enable them to take on as new employees young people with earnings below the limits specified in the statement laid before the House on 22nd April 1986.
The motion authorises the Secretary of State to set up the new workers scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement on 18 March. The Employment Subsidies Act 1978, to which it refers, as renewed by order in 1985, empowers the Secretary of State to set up schemes to give financial assistance to employers, to enable them to take on new employees and to maintain or enlarge their labour force. This is the aim of the new workers scheme.
The Act states that a resolution of the House is necessary if the scheme is expected to cost more than £10 million. The Chancellor announced that this scheme is expected to cost about £26 million between 1 April 1986 and 31 March 1987, and it is, therefore, necessary to pass the motion that we are debating. A similar scheme will be run in Northern Ireland.
The other requirements of the Act—that the Secretary of State should consult such organisations as are considered appropriate, which in this case have included the TUC and CBI, and lay a statement before the House explaining the proposals—have been fulfilled.
Tonight's debate is about jobs for young people. That is our goal in proposing the new workers scheme. It will be an important strand in the comprehensive package of measures that we have developed to support enterprise and employment. The scheme will encourage employers to provide more job opportunities for young people—primarily those who have completed training on the youth training scheme—at realistic wages which sensibly reflect their age and their inexperience of the world of work. It thus delivers help where it is needed and where it can work. It forms part of the most imaginative and comprehensive approach ever devised to give young people a proper preparation for work and a start in a job.
Sixteen-year-old school leavers will now be able to receive two years' training and 17-year-old leavers one year under YTS, leading to a recognised qualification. Already about 60 per cent. of YTS leavers go into a job afterwards and more into further training. The new workers scheme will help to maintain or even raise that proportion by giving employers an extra incentive to take them on. It will contribute to the increasing awareness of economic reality—that wages which are too high and do not bear a close enough relationship to the contribution people are able to make to a business—lead only to fewer job opportunities. Young people do not naturally expect to earn a high proportion of their parents' salary as soon as they start work. That leaves them nothing to aim for and work towards. In the early 1970s, their expectations about wages were inflated and then dashed because young people had been priced out of jobs.
We have made a lot of progress since then. We have introduced YTS, to give young people proper training; we
886
have successfully run the young workers scheme; we have reduced the national insurance costs of employing someone; we have introduced proposals about wages councils and young people and our enterprise, training and employment policies have borne fruit. There have been around a million extra jobs in the past three years. Now we have two year YTS, and to complement it, the new workers scheme.
Mr. Dave Nellist: In listing those measures of which the Government are unjustly proud, is the Minister aware of two facts? First, school leavers' wages, relative to adults' wages, have dropped over the past six years by 12 per cent. for boys and 13 per cent. for girls at a time when youth unemployment has trebled? There is no relationship between cutting youth wages and increasing youth jobs, except more poorly paid youth.
Secondly, the young workers scheme, which the Minister has just appraised, was analysed in research paper No. 42 by Mr. W. Wells of the Department of Employment, which showed that eight out of 10 jobs created by the young workers scheme were at the expense of adult workers. It may well create a few jobs for young workers but that is at the expense of putting workers in their 40s and 50s on the dole queue.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The figure was not eight out of 10 but eight out of 100–8 per cent. of adult substitution—a much lower figure As for the trend of youth wages in relation to employment, most of the fall in youth wages has taken place in the past three years, and that is at a time when youth unemployment has been falling, as I shall illustrate shortly.
I should like to describe briefly the way in which the scheme will work. Its aim is to encourage employers to take on more young people into full-time, permanent jobs, at rates of pay which realistically reflect their age and relative inexperience. To achieve that, a payment of £15 a week will be made to the employer, for up to 52 weeks, in respect of each young person involved. The scheme will be open to all employers except those in the public services or private households. Young people must be paid £55, or less for employees aged 19 or younger on the date they start in the job, or £65, or less for those aged 20 on the day they start in the job. As for the young people themselves, they must be under 21, in their first year of employment, no longer eligible for YTS or unable to find a YTS continuation place.
The resolution seeks the approval of the House for making payments to employers on that basis. Clearly we cannot be precise about the number of applications employers will make under the new workers scheme in the coming year, but our estimate is that some 100,000 successful applications will be made before 31 March next year, on which date there should be, perhaps, 63,000 young people in jobs supported by the scheme. In that case, the estimated expenditure would, as I have said, be some £26 million.
The scheme will be administered by Department of Employment staff in our employment measures office in six regional centres. Staff in jobcentres and careers offices will of course give every assistance to employers who wish to take advantage of the scheme.
We are determined to make the procedures as unbureacratic and straightforward as possible, as it is

887
employers, many no doubt in small businesses, whom we shall be encouraging to offer extra opportunities to young people and who need to feel confident that they will not be caught up in delays and red tape.
We shall be taking steps to make sure that information about the scheme is made available to employers and businesses and we have already included an outline of the new scheme—making clear that it remains subject to the approval of the House—in our new "Action for Jobs" booklet. The new workers scheme is a significant part of our policy for providing the opportunities—or, rather the means for others to provide the opportunities—for employment.
That, then, is an outline of the proposed scheme and I should like to go on to describe the context in which it is set and the way in which it fits into our policies. The House will recognise that the new workers scheme is not dissimilar to the young workers scheme, which as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his budget a year ago, closed on 31 March this year. By that time, 435,000 applications will have been approved under the young workers scheme and, in view of some of the points made in this House when we sought authority for that scheme, and its similarity to the new workers scheme, I think it is worthwhile reminding the House about its success. I am glad to say a full evaluation of the young workers scheme will be published in an article in next month's Employment Gazette. I commend this to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
The evaluation over the four years of YWS suggests that the scheme has been creating more and more jobs per unit of expenditure over time. We think that this has been due both to more employers, and particularly smaller employers, learning about the scheme and creating new jobs for young people under it, and to the fact that more, better trained young people have been available as they left the old youth opportunities programme and, now, YTS. In fact, about two thirds of young people in jobs supported by YWS have previously been on YTS, and the proportion of jobs supported which were created directly as a result of the young workers scheme has risen to its current level of some 27 per cent.
As the percentage has steadily increased since the scheme began, we now estimate that some 90,000 jobs for young people have been created directly by the scheme. These were not jobs that would have existed anyway, not jobs in which young workers on YWS are substituted for other workers at the same firm, not jobs which perhaps displace workers in other businesses, but new, additional jobs.
There are always difficulties with any sort of scheme involving payments to employers for employees they might have recruited anyway. We believe that the careful design and administration of YWS and its direct link to YTS meant that is provided valuable, cost-effective help. It is exactly what we are aiming to achieve for a slightly older, more mature age group with the new workers scheme, which should build on our experience and that of employers in using the scheme, and which will, in its turn, complement the new, developed YTS.
Another important aim of the young workers scheme was to affect the rates of pay of young people so as to achieve a more realistic relativity with adult wages. There is a large and growing consensus of academic studies
888
which shows that the high cost of youth labour relative to adults has adversely affected the job opportunities of young people. In other words, as one would expect, in a labour market in which the demand for young labour had fallen from previously high levels, young people's relatively high wages were increasingly handicapping their search for work. Some success seems to have been gained in this area. Since 1982, when YWS was introduced, relative earnings of under-18s have fallen and so has unemployment. Of course, several factors will have influenced both youth earnings and unemployment, including the introduction of YTS and demographic movements. But no doubt the young workers scheme will also have been influential, as we expect the new workers scheme to be.
YWS was successful because, in the vast majority of cases, young workers supported by the scheme continued in the same post or with the same employer at the end of the period of support—a survey of employers told us that this was their intention in 90 per cent. of cases. That is an impressive result, I think the House will agree.
Mr. John Prescott: Did they do that?
Mr. Lang: The vast majority, as far as we are aware, did just that.
Some hon. Members expressed concern that training would not be given under YWS. Again, there is evidence from surveys that employers have provided a significant amount of training for those young workers for whom they were claiming support.
Now the new two-year youth training scheme is with us, it offers two years' training for 16-year-old school leavers and one year for 17-year-old leavers—training in greater depth and in the occupational skills which industry and business need. There are around 360,000 entrants each year and up to 500,000 in training at any one time. The new workers scheme will boost the employment prospects of those leaving YTS or who are too old for it by giving employers a positive incentive to recruit them.
The age group we are catering for with the new scheme is thus the 18 to 20-year-olds. They, the post-YTS age group, will have prepared for the world of work, acquired a recognised qualification and now need the opportunity to prove their worth to an employer. For them, NWS will thus be, as I have said, part of a highly imaginative and comprehensive package of measures towards a start in work with the prospect of two years of high quality training followed by a year's supported employment at sensible wages.
Young people need a sensible start in which they can find their feet, learn skills, prove their value to themselves, their workmates and their employer. What they do not need are expectations of being able to leave school without a skill or the qualities employers are looking for and being able to walk into a job earning the same as an experienced adult. Those expectations are false and too often frustrated.
YTS and the new workers scheme together offer a sensible progression in earnings from the first year's YTS allowance of £27·30, the second year's allowance of £35, and then a wage of up to £55 in a new workers scheme job for an 18-or 19-year-old recruit, or up to £65 for a 20-year-old new worker. That is a sensible progression, in reasonable stages. Crucially, NWS gives a young person

889
the opportunity to earn more, as their contribution to an enterprise increases and their skills and experience develop.
Just as the new workers scheme complements YTS, so too it fits directly into our wider policies to support employment and enterprise opportunities. We have introduced to the House our proposals for removing from the scope of wages councils young people below the age of 21, so as to increase their employment prospects. If those proposals receive the approval of the House, as I am confident that they will, there will be all the more opportunity for employers to create more vacancies for young people new on to the labour market without the concern that they would have little chance of contributing as much to the enterprise as they are required to be paid.
Moreover, it is precisely at levels of earnings similar to those which will apply under the new workers scheme that the positive effects of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's changes to the rates of national insurance contributions will work most effectively, increasing the attractiveness of young people to employers.
Taken together with the effects of our other policies for employment and enterprise, the new workers scheme will provide a significant extra boost to the prospects of young people entering work. It follows on from a successful and proven scheme, the young workers scheme, which complemented YTS and provided job opportunities for 435,000 16 and 17-year-olds.
Now we have gone on to develop and introduce an even more effective and relevant preparation and training provision in the two-year YTS, which the new workers scheme will tie into exactly, by encouraging employers to take on young people leaving YTS or no longer eligible for it. It is right in line with the changes that we are proposing for wages councils and young people. It is supported by changes in national insurance rates.
Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North): The Minister has been extolling the virtues of the scheme at some length. He will recall that at the outset of his remarks he said that he was called upon to consult both the employers' organisations and the TUC. He has spoken at length about the attitude of the employers. Will he explain that the TUC, the body responsible for organising over 11 million workers, completely rejects the scheme?
Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to do that soon. We consulted both the CBI and the TUC. The CBI supported the scheme, and the TUC opposed it. He will be able to enlarge on the reasons that the TUC gave, and I shall be happy to reply to them.
Mr. Geoff Lawler: In one draft of the statement that I have seen, it says that applicants should normally have exhausted eligibility for YTS. Will my hon. Friend confirm that they must have done so, to prevent employers poaching people half way through the YTS, much to the detriment of the skill training?
Mr. Lang: The object is that a YTS leaver should go into a new workers scheme. In the first year of that scheme, there will be those leaving the one-year YTS who are unable to get continuation places on the YTS, and will want to move to the new workers scheme, which will make specific provisions for that. The object of the exercise is that the one scheme will lead on to the other, thus helping young people to a graduated progression into employment.
890
It will be cost-effective and carefully administered, so as to deliver positive financial encouragement where it can do most good, with the minimum of fuss.
I believe that the new workers scheme to be a sound and useful addition to the Government's comprehensive series of measures in the interests of jobs for young people, and I commend the motion to the House.
10.35 pm
Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North): In any debate about employment or employment creation schemes, which we are discussing tonight, it is important for the participants to keep three sets of figures very much in mind.
The first figure to keep at the forefront of our minds is the 3,323,776 registered claimants receiving benefits in the United Kingdom now. Of course, "registered claimants" is the Government's definition of the unemployed. The second figure or set of statistics to keep at the forefront of our minds is of about 200,000 men and women currently employed on the Government's community programme. It is one of the Government's major job creation schemes. An important fact to bear in mind is that no fewer than 1,500,000 unemployed people are eligible for a place on that programme.
The third figure is probably the most important in the context of the debate. It relates to the level of unemployment amongst the under-25s. It is obviously germane to the introduction of a scheme that affects young workers. Unfortunately, there are not any unemployment figures for the under-21s, so I must make do with unemployment statistics for the under-25s. There are no fewer than 1,246,892 of them: that is, 36·6 per cent. of the total unemployed people are under 25 years of age. By any standard that can be described only as a crisis. It is even more of a crisis when we appreciate that hundreds of thousands of those youngsters have never had a job since they left school.
All of the figures that I have given were used by the Minister on Tuesday 22 April during employment Question Time. His answers can be found at columns 99, 100 and 104 of the Official Report for 22 April.
The other figure that we must think about is the missing figure, that is, the difference between registered claimants the Government's favoured definition and all those who are unemployed, who would gladly accept work if there was any available for them. This is a grey area. The Government have consistently fiddled the unemployment figures for the past six years.
My estimate—of course, anyone can join in this game—is that more than 1 million unemployed are not being measured by the statistics. They would accept employment if it was available to them.
We must bear in mind that each of those figures represents a human being. Many of them are young people. Their efforts and abilities are being wasted. They are probably the greatest wasted resource in our country today.
A further factor to bear in mind in our debates about employment and job creation schemes is the curious contradiction of the Prime Minister and other Ministers that is evident whenever the Tory party gets round to discussing one of the schemes. They claim that the Government cannot create jobs. Yet here are tonight discussing a scheme that the Government tell us is a job creation scheme. I believe that the Prime Minister is

891
cynical about all these schemes. That contradiction is the reason that the Government's job creation schemes are in a mess. They are cosmetic exercises. Often they are designed more to depress wages than for any other reason. That is certainly true of the young workers scheme and the scheme we are discussing tonight.
A consistent feature about the schemes is a desire to do something—anything—about the unemployment statistics rather than tackle the real causes of unemployment. I am sure that the House would appreciate the comments that were made last week during employment Question Time when Tory Back Bencher after Tory Back Bencher suggested to the Minister various methods and means of having another fiddle of the unemployment figures.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Fiddle?
Mr. Evans: Yes, another fiddle of the unemployment figures. They suggested ways to reduce the total of unemployed claimants. This new wheeze—the new workers scheme—reflects that philosophy perfectly, because all the evidence of the past few years shows that it will not increase employment and will do nothing to benefit young workers. I put it on the record immediately that the next Labour Government will scrap this scheme, just as we would have scrapped the young workers scheme which it replaces.
The Employment Subsidies Act 1978, under which the Government must come to the House for approval for the new measure, provides explicitly in section 1(1):
"The Secretary of State may … set up schemes for making payments to employers which will enable them to retain persons in employment who would or might otherwise become unemployed, to take on new employees, and generally to maintain or enlarge their labour force."
The new scheme, as with its predecessor, will not maintain and will certainly not enlarge the labour force.
Many trade unions will provide proof that, in many cases, youngsters employed under the YWS merely replaced older employees on higher wages. The incentive to do that is great. By replacing an 18-year-old on the average wage with a subsidised YWS employee, the employer stood to save more than 40 per cent. on labour costs. Even when creating a new job through the scheme, such an employer stood to save more than 25 per cent. Under the new scheme, with the protection of the wages councils removed from under 21-year-olds—as the Government plan to do—an employer taking on an NWS candidate will benefit from a saving of about 60 per cent. on labour costs if he sacks someone else, and of about 25 per cent. if he creates a completely new job.
Mr. George Park: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Coventry, 24 young people are chasing every job vacancy? The only way in which new jobs can be provided is for employers to sack other workers and take on what amounts to cheap labour.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. I am sure that almost all of my hon. Friends from all parts of the United Kingdom could make similar points about their constituencies.
The argument that the scheme will benefit the economy simply does not hold water. There is no evidence that
892
merely by depressing wages we can reduce unemployment. The net effect on job creation—supposedly the rationale for the scheme—will be almost nil. In 1984, a study conducted by Sussex university estimated that the young workers scheme subsidised jobs that would have existed in 94 per cent. of cases anyway. Even the Government—in a Department of Employment commentary for the Select Committee on Employment entitled "Young Workers Scheme: Survey 1985"—estimated the figure to be 73 per cent. That estimate was taken from a tiny sample of 960 workers interviewed, of whom only 754 were young people.
I recall reading an article in the Financial Times in 1982, when the YWS was at its peak, stating that the scheme created only one job in 10 of those that it subsidised. I remember the article vividly because of its punch line. It arrived at the conclusion that the YWS would make our young people the most expensive shelf stackers in the history of British business. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I have often been attacked by Right-wing commentators for making similar points, but we believe that the new scheme will make matters even worse.
For the youngsters who are taken on by employers under the new workers scheme, there is no guarantee of a full-time job and no guarantee of training. The youngster who, through no fault of his own, cannot find a job—the simple fact is that in many areas no jobs are available—will be rewarded for his willingness to be employed on the scheme at less than standard wages with a job that offers no training, no prospects for the future and only the scrap heap once again when his year is finished. I have a son who spent one year on YTS and a considerable time on the young workers scheme. I can therefore speak with some family knowledge of the position of the young people concerned.
The scheme is an open invitation for employers to practise job substitution. I fear that the scheme will become an adult workers substitution scheme, especially among adult female workers who earn between £70 and £100 a week. None of those female workers is likely to be on the employment register or able to claim benefit and they will often be substituted by a young female who will be on the register earning about £55 a week. The employer will therefore save money by employing the younger woman and, as far as the Government are concerned, the employment statistics will decline.
I should like to ask the Minister a question about the earnings ceiling which, according to paragraph 3 of the glossy document, is determined by the age at entry. As I read the document, young workers who are aged 19 years and 11 months will qualify for a wage of £55 a week or less. As I understand the scheme, they will not be entitled to a rise on their 20th birthday. The Minister nods in agreement, showing that my understanding of the position is correct. Therefore, the obvious time to recruit a young worker would be just prior to his 20th birthday. That means that for 11 months on the scheme, they will be earning £10 less than even the miserable maximum that the Government prescribed of £65. That is grossly unfair.
I reiterate that the scheme will not create new jobs, at least not enough to warrant the substantial expenditure that the Government are committing to it. The real intention of the scheme, which the Government have not even bothered to hide, is to depress wages in the hope that that will allow employers to afford to take on more employees.

893
That fantasy—I hesitate to credit the Government with a legitimate policy—is as discredited as the economic guru, Mr. Alan Walters, who dreamt up the original YWS. The fact that the Government have spent more than £190 million over the past four years simply to allow unscrupulous employers to force down the wages of young people is, I suggest, an obscene waste of taxpayers' money.
The entire concept of high wages creating high unemployment is defunct. Among young people, wages have fallen by 11 per cent. relative to adult wages over the past six years. In the meantime, youth unemployment has increased much faster than the rise experienced among other age groups. While 18 to 20-year-olds in employment earn on average two thirds of the equivalent adult wage or less, they experience unemployment rates of more than 24 per cent. It is noticeable that the NWS will not apply to the public sector and is targeted at the low paid, unorganised sector of the economy. It will have no effect on the organised highly skilled sector of the work force where youth wages have risen in line with adult wages. The Government's plans under this scheme will lead to the creation—if it does not already exist—of an institutionalised low pay sector, resistant to wage increases and to changes in wages structures.
That raises another question relating to paragraphs 20 and 25 of the glossy booklet about the way in which gross weekly earnings are calculated. The heading in the booklet is "How are earnings calculated?" According to my understanding of those paragraphs, if any young worker employed under the scheme receives overtime, shift payments, commission, bonuses, productivity payments, paid travel time or London or large town allowances, merit or skill payments, and these additional payments take the young worker's earnings over the maximum amount prescribed, no payment will be made to the employer. The Minister nods, so I presume that again I am correct. The young employee will not be permitted to refuse to work overtime or to demand night shift payment, piece work or any of the other matters that I have outlined, because there will be plenty more employees where they came from if the employer chooses to sack them because they refuse his request. They will have to do the work and they will not be paid for it.
When the coverage of the young workers scheme fell from its peak of 137,000 in 1982 to its present level of 55,000, the Government decided to merge the scheme with the youth training scheme in a two-year programme. I thought that the Government had learnt their lesson. However, with the introduction of this scheme—similar but, in my view, more damaging and less effective—I wonder how long it will be before the Government learn the biggest lesson of all: that real jobs will be created only if the Government invest in industry and expand the economy. The charity Youth Aid, commenting on the new workers scheme, said:
"The Government is not offering a solution for the young, but a further incentive to unscrupulous adults to exploit and cheat them."
That is a bitter comment, but in my view it is a fully justified complaint.
In conjunction with the plan to revitalise the economy and to invest in the infrastructure, such a scheme would be more acceptable if it were open to unemployed workers of all ages and if it were not pegged to a specific maximum earnings level. That would be genuine job creation.
894
There should also be a condition, which there is not in this scheme, that an additional job will be created each time an employee is taken on and that employees will be guaranteed at least a year's employment, with an element of training to be incorporated in the job. If the criterion of an additional job were met, it would kill the scandal of adult substitution which is far, far higher than the figure given by the Minister. If training were incorporated as a condition to be imposed upon employers, it could lead to what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would support—a Government-sponsored and financed three-year apprenticeship based upon acquired standards: two years of YTS and one year of training and work.
Most craft unions are increasingly prepared to accept apprenticeships that are based upon training to standards rather than upon a time-based apprenticeship. One of the leaders of my trade union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, Gerry Russell, was reported in the Financial Times of 22 April 1986 as having said:
"Leaders of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, Britain's largest craft union, believe that its policy of including a time-based element in apprentice training should be abandoned. Mr. Gerry Russell made this clear in his chairman's address to the AUEW's policy-making national committee, which opened in Eastbourne yesterday."
I stress that that will not happen under the proposed new workers scheme. No training conditions are laid down in the scheme.
There is the additional difficulty of this anti-trade union Government being unable to obtain any co-operation from the British trade union movement, particularly since it has made it clear that it will reject root and branch the scheme that has been put before the House by the Minister.
The scheme, as it will operate if the Government have their way, does not have the backing either of the trade union movement as a whole or of the trade unions that are involved in the industries that are concerned with the scheme. As I have already said, it is targeted at those areas of the economy where union representation is minimal. It should be an additional condition of the scheme that applications will be accepted only where rates of pay, standards of safety and employee protection are high enough to be acceptable to the recognised and appropriate union and where its acceptance is given. However, as there is very little union participation, one has to ask, in view of the abolition of wages council protection for those tinder 21 years of age, why paragraph 10 of the explanatory booklet was printed. What does paragraph 10 mean when it says:
"It is the employer's responsibility to ensure that these obligations are met and approval of an application or payment of a claim does not imply acceptance by the Department that they are being met."
Surely it is the Department's duty to ensure that any employer who is receiving a subsidy from the taxpayer is meeting any legal requirements that the Department has laid down.
There is one further vital question that the Under-Secretary of State must answer. On Friday 24 April, the Minister for Social Security, slipped out a written answer, the effect of which was to increase disqualification from six to 13 weeks for anyone who
"voluntarily leaves employment without just cause; refuses or fails, without good cause, to apply for a suitable job".—[Official Report, 25 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 241.]
Does that apply to the new workers scheme? If so, the scheme will rapidly become known as the forced labour scheme, especially if young workers are directed to

895
employment outside their own area—for instance, from impoverished areas in the north, where it is doubtful that there are enough employers to take on unemployed people, to the more prosperous south. Young workers will be denied the right to leave low-paid employment which is either mind-bendingly boring and repetitive—for example, shelf-stacking—or injurious to health. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that many Labour Members could give him plenty of examples of jobs which are injurious to health.
Surely even this tyrannical Government will not deprive our young people of every liberty. Surely our young people will not have to be subject to 13 weeks' loss of benefit if they refuse low-paid employment, or if they find that they cannot live with certain conditions. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point.
That is the Tory part of the story. The good news for young people is that a Labour Government would scrap the scheme as it presently stands and incorporate it into a strategy for the general reflation of demand and output in the economy. Employment and training measures will back up this growth in a co-ordinated way, to create jobs where they are most needed, and make up the present deficiency in skills. A package of job creation measures under a Labour Government would ensure proper training for the future, adequate conditions of employment and wages which do not exploit the work force, in a realistic bid to benefit those who require jobs and the country as a whole.
Plainly, the scheme as presently constituted does not meet any of those criteria. It is a mean and contemptible scheme. It is damaging to Britain's young work force. I urge the House to reject it.
10.57 pm
Mr. Geoff Lawler: Any scheme that increases opportunities for young people must be welcomed. I believe that the new workers scheme will be welcomed. It is not short term but seeks to alter long-term entrenched attitudes which have depressed employment opportunities for youth in the past few decades. During the 1970s, the level of youth employment fell. Over the past 30 years or so, youth wages have risen consistently. It is no surprise that, in 1972 under 18-year-olds received an average wage which was 32 per cent. of an adult's wage. In 1979, they received 40 per cent. of the adult rate. That illustrates the problem for young people.
Since 1981, relative youth wages have been static. Again, it is no surprise that, in the under 20 age group, unemployment has declined in the past two years. In January 1984, the proportion of those unemployed in the 18 to 19-year-old age group was 27·4 per cent. In January this year, the figure was 25 per cent. The level of youth unemployment is going down. The figures are more dramatic for those under 18. The link is clear. It is common sense to anyone involved in industry that, if young people demand high wages, employers cannot afford to take them on. They must be paid a realistic wage.
Youth unemployment is not totally related to wage levels. Other factors govern why youth unemployment increases proportionately more than adult employment. The first thing an employer does when he enters a recession is stop recruitment. The second thing he does is
896
lay off the people recruited most recently. For those reasons, youth tends to suffer disproportionately during a recession.
It is tragic that 153,948 people under 19 have not had a job since leaving school. Of course, there is scope for further initiatives. The immediate scope can be seen in current average earnings. An 18-year-old man commands a wage of £89·50 a week on average. That cannot reflect the true value of youth labour, given their inexperience and lack of skills and given that people are receiving training and investment. The wage rate is totally unrealistic in general for a large number of young people.
The problem is not so much the attitudes of young people. I sincerely believe that they are prepared to accept their true worth to society. Anyone who doubts that need only look at the success of YTS. About 84 per cent. of those on the scheme have said that they are happy with it. The problem lies with the unions and employers, who too readily agreed high wage levels for young people and cobbled together agreements which, over the years, excluded increasing numbers of young people from the opportunity of employment.
The problem lies also with parents. They, perhaps more often than not, influence their children and instil unrealistically high expectations. Over the past 30 years, those parents have consistently bid up the price of labour. They have placed us in our present position where youth labour in many industries is priced unrealistically high. It is priced far higher in Britain than in many of our competitor countries which have much lower youth unemployment rates.
The scheme will be of maximum benefit in three respects. First, it will be of benefit in those industries where unrealistically high wages still predominate. They are generally the most heavily unionised and have come to terms with employers and fixed high youth wages relative to adult wages. If the scheme is adopted in those industries, I hope that there will be a change of attitude and that the unions and employers will get together and use the scheme positively and constructively.
Secondly, the scheme will help those people leaving YTS with a qualification that is not particularly good. They will be at the end of the queue. The scheme will be especially helpful in encouraging those who are least well qualified to get work after YTS. It will ensure that a far higher proportion of YTS leavers find employment. It is not a coincidence that nearly half those people who have not obtained a job since leaving school have no qualifications.
Thirdly, the scheme will encourage more trade associations, employer associations and individual industries to put together three-year training schemes. The first two years will comprise YTS and the third will be the continuation year leading to apprenticeships and skill qualification. That has already happened with great success with the electrical contractors. They have increased threefold the number of young people taken into their industry—a real measure of the extent to which restructuring wage rates to more sensible levels can be of great assistance and create jobs. The construction industry is now doing the same thing. I hope that the scheme will be widely adopted by more employer groups and industries.
Of course it is of concern if any wage subsidy scheme produces an element of substitution, a certain part of which is bound to be unnecessary payment. The

897
Government must monitor this scheme to ensure that the money goes where it is most needed. If necessary, the Government should introduce extra conditions and make the scheme more selective. That would ensure that the scheme achieves its objects and that the money is well spent.
This scheme offers many young people the first step on the employment ladder. If young people remain unemployed they have no chance. When young people get the first step on the employment ladder it does not matter what their wage is. The important thing is that they have a job and a chance to prove themselves. They can work up the ladder and achieve good wages.
11.5 pm
Mr. Michael Hancock: On 23 April this year the Paymaster General answered a question concerning the net possible gain in jobs from this scheme. He said that there would be a gain of about 27 per cent. That begs the question of what happened to the other 73 per cent. The answer is that the Government were massaging the employment figures.
The Comptroller and Auditor General carried out a survey on the special employment measures which were administered by the Department of Employment which helps to answer the question I have posed. The report stated:
"Thus, the pay of young people is insignificant in terms of the economy as a whole. The DE suggested that whilst wider differentials must in theory help to transfer some jobs from older to younger workers, there was a risk that this might be at the expense of other vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities, women and disabled workers. If borne out in practice, this could have significant consequences for the cost of Young Workers' Scheme: substitution of older workers by under-18s would be likely to mean increased benefit payments since older workers can be expected to have on average a higher level of benefit entitlement."
The Comptroller and Auditor General recognised that these schemes do nothing more than massage the situation and that the net gain is extremely small.
Earlier in the debate we heard of the horrific figure of 1·25 million people under 25 who are out of work and we must all be conscious that anything that looks like an opportunity for young people to have a chance of a job should be considered carefully. Experience has taught most people that these schemes hold little hope for the ambitions which, I hope, all young people have when they embark on a career.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who intervened in the Minister's speech, spoke of the ratio of 25:1 of young people who are out of work in Coventry. In Portsmouth, that ratio is 20:1, and in the travel-to-work area it is 15:1. In an area on the south coast, a place which does not spring to mind when people discuss unemployment black spots, there are legions of young people lining up to fill any vacancy. The problem is repeated time after time throughout the country.
This proposed scheme will not hold any hope or salvation for those who so desperately look to the Government and the House to offer them the chance to fulfil their ambitions harboured over the years. A scheme such as this can have three effects on youth unemployment. The subsidy may be claimed simply because it is there and not specifically for the purpose of creating additional jobs. Some employers will look to recoup what they can in the form of the subsidy.
898
There can also be a displacement effect which was made clear by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). The Minister has admitted that the displacement effect has an overwhelming effect on people in work. People are pushed out by the schemes.
Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the likely displacement effect of the new scheme will be far worse than under the young workers scheme? It related only to 17-year-olds, but this one includes youngsters of 19 and 20 right up to their 21st birthday.
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is right to be so pessimistic about the future. Experience must lead all hon. Members who have followed the matter carefully to see that the higher the age, the greater the effect of displacement on those in work. All hon. Members must accept the displacement argument.
My third point relates to job creation and the ability of the schemes to provide training. This measure will not expand the job market, create jobs or give people an incentive. I have read and reread the statement in the hope that I would find something that would lead me to believe that the Government were committed to investing in training. Surely, if we are ever to get to grips with the problem of 1·5 million under 25, hundreds of thousands of whom have never had a job to call their own, we must get to the nub of the problem.
I am sick to death of hearing chambers of commerce say that they do not get the right sort of people coming for jobs, that school leavers are semi-literate, and that people leave technical colleges with no skills. That is the problem. It is no use trying to bribe employers to keep down unemployment figures. The problem is that we are not providing people with the skills and ability to make them a worthwhile prospect for employment. The answer is not to bribe employers to take people off the dole queue. That will only add to and deepen the despair of many youngsters.
We shall not get out of the trough through solutions such as the one before us tonight. It is too deep for that. Until the Government recognise that significant point, unfortunately, night after night and day after day, our young people will feel frustrated, our streets will overflow with resentment and the Government will suffer from a backlash from our youth for the way in which they have been sold short. The Government can expect nothing else from people whom they have betrayed.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) spoke of ambitions being raised by the parents of these youngsters. Does he suggest that it is wrong to want to better oneself, to gain more for one's sweated labour and endeavours, or to try to get a bigger slice of the cake? During the 1960s and 1970s, when I was working as an engineer, my employer did not say to me, "We shall take a smaller cut in profit so that our product will be more competitive". That did not happen. But as a trade unionist, fighting for better conditions in factories, I was repeatedly told by the men, "If management can make more, surely we are entitled to a bit ourselves." Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is living in that rarefied atmosphere that Ministers must occupy because he seems to miss the point completely.
Is it not right for people to grow up with the ambition to have a job, and to earn a wage which will allow them

899
at 18 to support a family and a home? Many of my constituents now aged 20 have never had a job but are still married and having children.
Mr. Lawler: My point was that many parents say to their children, "Don't take a job unless you are paid £80 or £90 a week for it." That means that one is not destroying ambition; one is destroying opportunity, because many of them will not get jobs if they expect to get £80 or £90 a week at the age of 17 or 18.
Mr. Hancock: That sounds even more absurd the second time. The hon. Member has not just missed the point; he was never in a position to grasp it if he genuinely believes that to be the case.
The debate is about the failure of the Government to create a more prosperous economy. Instead of throwing more money into a scheme that only temporarily postpones unemployment, we should surely seek to train our young people for the future. We would do far better by investing the £26 million in training that would give people the skills that employers will want to use.
The Minister spoke about his concern for the unemployed. Perhaps at the end of the day, if there is real conviction in what the Government are saying, they will be prepared to put their money where their mouth is and provide training in skills that young people need to get out of the Catch 22 situation. Employers might then not have any option but to take on people in real jobs created for the purpose of giving us a prosperous economy.
11.16 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: The idea in this statement is not a new initiative: it is a re-hash of the old and discredited young workers scheme that was recently stopped because it catered for the under-18-olds who are now covered by the two-year YTS. This scheme will pay employers £15 per week for a year—provided they restrict pay to no more than £55 per week if the employee is under 20 and £65 if he is 20. It is a bribe, an inducement, to employers to pay low wages. Its sole purpose is to exert a downward leverage on pay. Together with the exclusion of young people from the orbit of wages councils, it is part of a comprehensive strategy for reducing the incomes and the standard of living of the whole of the young generation from the age of 16 to the age of 21.
Young people leaving school will be expected to go on an under-funded youth training scheme and then to go on to the low-paid new workers scheme until the age of 21. Both these schemes are brought together as a continuous whole. We now have a picture of the Government's intention and policy for youth, covering permanently the expectations of a whole generation.
Let no one delude himself that the new workers scheme will solve youth unemployment. It will produce no new jobs. It will only redistribute exising jobs. I spoke about the young workers scheme, of which this is merely an update, as discredited. It was discredited by expert ananlysis by the Public Accounts Committee and by the Institute of Manpower Studies, which said that 85 per cent. of the take-up of the scheme was "deadweight"—that is to say, that the subsidy was being claimed for jobs that existed anyway. In addition, there is the substitution effect—the subsidy causing cheaper young workers to be
900
used at the expense of adult workers who would be displaced as a result of this deadweight because it created so few new jobs.
The Public Accounts Committee said that in 1983 the net cost of each person taken off the unemployment register by the YWS was £5,355—by far the highest net cost of any special employment measures because of the negligible employment effect. When the YWS was abolished we thought this had been recognised, but it had not; it was abolished because it clashed with two-year youth training scheme. It has now been revamped to take over after YTS and to continue low-paid employment.
There would be something to be said for an employment subsidy if it were paid for those workers who it could be demonstrated were additional, and, most importantly, if it were not attached to a particular and very low level of wages—in other words, if the subsidy were not part of a concerted policy of reducing the pay of the lowest paid, not part of the misguided nonsense of pricing people into jobs. But that is what it is; this is what we have to consider. The Government are deluded. Their sole policy for tackling unemployment is reducing wages. That is the only idea they have in their head, and it is a fatally flawed one, as all experience shows. This is why they abolished the fair wages resolution which said that workers on Government contracts should have fair wages. It is why they abolished schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act. It is why they are attacking wages councils and excluding young people from their jurisdiction.
What has been the practical effect of all this? Despite these measures, unemployment has continually increased. It has trebled since the Conservatives came to office. They can think only of more of the same. They believe that the only way to get people off the dole is to move them into sweat shops. Working people are being told that they are the cause of unemployment and that unless they take lower wages, to price themselves into jobs, unemployment will continue to rise.
That is the central plank of Government policy, strategy based on a flawed theory which is causing widespread poverty and hardship, for only the poorer people are having their wages reduced. The latest earnings survey showed that in 1985, the bottom 10 per cent. had pay increases of less than the rate of inflation, while the top 10 per cent. had increases of well above that. It is no accident that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. It is happening because of Government policies such as the measure we are debating tonight.
Nor do the Government's polices lead to more jobs. For example, the Contract Cleaning and Maintenance Association said in May 1984 in its submission to the Select Committee about the effect of abolishing the fair wages resolution:
"A directive from the Treasury shortly before the recession pointed out that the Resolution would no longer apply to public sector contracts, and provided guidance. In some cases, individual contracts were actually renegotiated (rather than waiting for the existing contract to expire) with two results: (a) an increase in productivity and a reduction in number of cleaning staff employed; and (b) reductions of wages and of other terms and conditions of employment for cleaning staff. These results were the inevitable consequence of the requirement imposed on the cleaning contractors concerned to reduce contract prices. With regard to the renegotiation of contracts, either at the end of the contract or before, the Association believes that there is a very real possibility that the employment of staff at lower rates

901
of pay than those currently obtaining could, through a parallel reduction in the quality or motivation of staff, lead to a lower standard of service."
Thus, the effect of abolishing the fair wages, resolution has been threefold. The first has been a reduction in wages; the second, a reduction in the numbers employed; and the third, a lower standard of service. What an appalling collection of results.
Has the House noticed what is happening at the driver and vehicle licensing centre, Swansea? A report appeared in The Guardian on March 3—a similar story appeared in The Daily Telegraph—saying:
"Women cleaners at the Government's Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea are protesting to their MPs about the new employment deal which will mean more work for less pay. The private contractors who employ them are proposing to reduce the workforce from 130 to 102. The women, who earn £27 a week, will also have to take a pay cut of 30p an hour, lose their holiday money and carry out their nightly work in two and a half hours instead of three. The firm, Exclusive Cleaners of Bristol, is out to save £132,000 on a new contract with the Department of Transport beginning on March 24. The firm has told the women that the employment deal is not for negotiation."
The result of cutting these already pitiful wages is the employment of not more but fewer workers. Nor does it matter by how much wages are cut in our great public services, because the Government are setting out to rein back the numbers employed in the public sector and are limiting local authority expenditure in areas such as construction.
This measure, to reduce young people's pay, has no intellctual credibility. It is based not on evidence but on prejudice, dogma and the ideological spite of the hard Right. I was told in a parliamentary reply on January 16 last that between April 1979 and April 1984, the average gross earnings of males over 21 had increased by 79 per cent., that those of 18 to 20-year-olds had increased by only 63 per cent. and that those of the under-18s had increased by only 57 per cent. In other words, male youth wages fell by 23 per cent. compared with those of male adults, and young women's pay fell by 30 per cent. We have had the equivalent of a laboratory experiment in cutting youth wages. Did it work? Were more employed? We all know the answer. Youth unemployment has actually trebled and gone up disproportionately. So the argument is completely bogus, and there is no reputable basis for this spiteful measure.
In considering whether lower pay is the way to higher employment, we may note that this was not the approach taken recently with the higher-paid civil servants, the judges or the top brass in the armed forces. We may also note that unemployment in Britain is higher where wages are lowest, and vice versa.
The last piece of evidence that I want to consider is the working of the Equal Pay Act in the 1970s. In that decade its aim was to achieve equal pay for the same work over a five-year period. Had it been brought forward now, a decade later, I am sure that the Government would, under their present dogma, have claimed that lifting women's pay would damage their employment prospects. Although the law had loopholes, there was a sharp rise in the relative pay of women; but this did not stop the trend of increasing female participation in the labour force. Women's pay rose faster than men's and so did women's employment, thus denying and disproving the pricing-out theory about jobs.
The phoney pricing-out theory is used by the Government to attack the young and the low-paid, and to excuse and shift the blame from the failures of their
902
economic policy. The new workers scheme, a low-paid scheme for young workers, is not the route to job creation; it merely impedes discussion of how to tackle unemployment. While others are enriched, it is an attempt to put the whole of the younger generation up to the age of 21 in a straitjacket of low pay. This will show young people who their enemies are and mobilise them for a change of Government as soon as possible, and hence a more hopeful future.
11.26 pm
Mr. Lang: When we started our debate tonight, I said that it was about jobs for young people. Various points have been made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—I shall take them up in a moment—but I remain convinced that this is an issue on which there is no real division, on party or any other lines, about our objectives. We all want to see young people properly equipped for working life, with the right preparation and grounding and with their own particular aspirations and ambitions.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) referred to the unemployment levels for young people, and asked about some of the figures for the lower age range. He may like to know that in January 1979, when his party was in power, those under 20 represented 17·3 per cent. of total unemployed; in January of this year those under 20 represented 15·5 per cent. In the case of the under-18s—my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) also introduced some interesting figures—where unemployment was more than twice as high as the overall national rate in January 1979, when the last Labour Government was in power, it was down to less than 50 per cent. more by January 1986.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a report by Sussex university which I believe was undertaken in 1982, rather than 1984, and so was done at the very outset of the young workers scheme, when the figures and the impact were very unclear. It said that the net effect on job creation, he tells us, was nil—but, of course, the subsequent research carried out more recently has shown that the figure of new job creation has been steadily rising and is now estimated at about 27 per cent. Some 90,000 new jobs have been created.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will believe that, if the Government did not think that there was merit in this scheme, we would not be contemplating putting taxpayers' money into a successor scheme, based largely on the outline of the original scheme.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there was no training, as he claimed, on the young workers scheme. I draw his attention to the fact that 22 per cent. of the members of the young workers scheme were on formal apprenticeships, 50 per cent. had some induction training and 72 per cent. had some informal, on-the-job training. As to gross weekly earnings, and the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about overtime, we have certainly set the earnings for the different age groups at specific levels, but if an employee rose above those limits he would leave the scheme; he would remain in the employment of the employer but the employer would no longer claim the £15 subsidy. Alternatively, instead of giving him increased overtime, the employer could take on another new worker and thus create another job.
Mr. Evans: As many youngsters will be expected by their employers to work overtime, if a youngster works

903
overtime, let us say, on a Saturday or a Sunday and is given overtime payment, and that takes his payment above the qualifying level, does that mean that the job subsidy will stop? If that is the case, the youngster will be expected to work overtime, and the employer simply will not pay him.
Mr. Lang: The limit of £55 for 18 and 19-year-olds and £65 for 20-year-olds is an upper limit which must include such things as overtime or other additional payments.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the benefit position, but there is no change in the way that benefit sanctions are applied. The possible disqualification period is simply extended from six to 13 weeks. As for young people being forced into the young workers scheme, so far some 435,000 applications have been voluntarily made by the employers, and there has been no problem in finding 435,000 young workers to go on to those schemes.
Mr. Nellist: I am sure that the Minister will appreciate this correction. When he opened the debate, I challenged him on job substitution, on an analysis made by the Department of Employment of the previous young workers scheme, predicting the same result for this scheme. Does he remember that his Department commissioned the Institute of Manpower Studies to analyse the young workers scheme and it showed that 94 per cent. Of the jobs in that scheme already existed and only 6 per cent. were created? His Department's evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on 28 February 1984 showed that 77 per cent. of the jobs on the young workers scheme were old jobs. Finally, research paper No. 42, commissioned by the Department of Employment and written by Mr. Bill Wells, shows on page 70 that for reduction of young workers' wages some 68 per cent. to 86 per cent.—not 8 per cent.—of any jobs created would be substitution. The scheme is elastoplast politics playing with the ages of the unemployed, shifting around the unemployment problem, not creating new jobs for workers.
Mr. Lang: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not remain for the debate to make his speech instead of intervening in my opening speech and then returning to intervene when I reply.
Mr. Nellist: I went to the Library to get the figures.
Mr. Lang: Several other points have been made by other hon. Members about substitution, but at present I am dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North. Young people whose wages were forced up by trade unions during the late 1970s in order to demonstrate their muscle, were exploited in the sense that, when reality set in and the demand for their labour began to decline, it was the young workers who were the first to lose their jobs because they were over-priced in the market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North made a number of sensible points. He was right to emphasise the commonsense aspect of having a scheme which allows young workers to move into the world of employment at an appropriate wage rate, related to their experience and ability to deliver. I was interested in his proposal about a three-year training scheme and I can assure him that we shall be monitoring the new scheme carefully.
904
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) complained about the net cost to the Exchequer, and quoted a figure of £5,553. That figure is completely out of date. The figures published in the public expenditure White Paper show a net cost to the Exchequer in 1984–85 of £2,400 and in 1985–86 of £1,400 for the young workers scheme per person removed from unemployment and in a job. That figure takes account of the deadweight and the substitution to which hon. Members have referred and which they have exaggerated. Those figures compare interestingly with the £7,000 net cost to the Exchequer mentioned in the Select Committee's recent subsidy scheme.
As for our estimate for the new workers scheme, that would be even lower than the £1,400 and might be in the range of £1,300. The generation of new jobs by the young workers scheme has been increasingly successful. Perhaps the Opposition cannot believe the growing success of our schemes because their schemes in the 1970s—the youth and adult employment subsidies—had such poor results.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) referred to the 27 per cent. new jobs created and seemed completely to dismiss them, although they amount to some 90,000 new jobs. He referred to the 63 per cent. or 64 per cent. deadweight like a pessimist who prefers to say that a whisky bottle is half-empty when an optimist would say it was half-full. I am bound to say that I find his whole approach profoundly depressing. As for the reference to displacement being overwhelming, I made no such reference. The displacement or substitution is around 10 per cent. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) the adult substitution is around 8 per cent., not the 80 per cent. figure that the hon. Gentleman tried to suggest to the House.
The rest of the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South was a mixture of woolly emotional nonsense, completely lacking in any constructive policy proposals, entirely out of touch with the trend of young unemployment, which is now down, and addressing itself to no specific details of our policies. It might have been more interesting for the House if he had offered one constructive policy of his own.
It is important to realise that we are introducing the new workers scheme into a situation in which, while we are deeply concerned about the scale of youth unemployment, nevertheless there are positive signs of progress. Taking the three years to January of this year, unemployment has fallen by 35,000—16 per cent.—among under 18-year-olds, by 28,000–7·5 per cent.—among 18 and 19-year-olds and by 63,000–11 per cent.—for all those under 20. Three years ago, those under 20 represented over 18 per cent. of the total unemployed. Now, that figure is around 15·5 per cent. of the total.
The position for young people, therefore, has improved in absolute numbers and vis-à-vis other groups. There are a number of reasons. Of course, the introduction of YTS has had an effect. So have demographic changes, as well as the general level of demand, which reflects the success of our wider employment and enterprise policies, generating 1 million extra jobs in the same period.
Mr. Evans: Will the Minister concede that there are still 1 million fewer in employment now than there were in 1979 when the Tory Government took office?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures. Of course jobs were lost in 1980 and 1981 in large

905
numbers when we picked up the tab for five years of Socialism and inherited an economy in which industrial relations were in chaos, inflation was rife, overmanning was rampant and jobs were waiting to be blown away at the first gust of the recessionary wind. Since 1981, we have been able to pick up the pieces and gradually generate new jobs. Year by year, we have had success in creating new jobs in increasingly large numbers. We now see not only over 1 million new jobs created since 1983 but youth unemployment, according to the figures that I have just given, steadily falling.
We have also seen, particularly since 1982—
Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister accept that, of the new jobs that the Government claim to have created, some 574,000 are women's jobs? According to a written answer by his Department this week, 99 per cent. of those 574,000 new women's jobs are part-time jobs of less, or far less, than 30 hours. If one were to count the number of new jobs on a full-time equivalent basis, the 1 million figure would be seen for the chimera that it is.
Mr. Lang: I am not sure what is wrong with women's jobs. Many women have decided to return to the labour market. That, in addition to the increasing number of school leavers coming into the jobs market as against pensioners retiring from it, has meant that we have had to move still faster to stand still. I do not see what is wrong with part-time jobs. Over 500,000 part-time women's jobs have been created in the last few years. These are jobs that people want—employers and women want them—jobs that create extra flexibility in the economy. I do not see any justification for the hon. Gentleman describing them in so derogatory away.
What we have also seen, particularly since 1982, is some movement towards a widening of the dangerously narrow gap between the pay rates of young people and adults. I am careful not to ascribe the happy effects of falling youth unemployment solely to this decline in relative pay. There are, as I have said, other factors, but the turning of the tide on young people's pay relativities has not come a moment too soon.
Less than 20 years ago, a school leaver joining a factory at 15, would expect to take up to six years to reach the adult rate, at 21. Since then, that six-year period has been compressed, in many cases, into a two-year period between 16 years of age and 18, with serious consequences for youth unemployment levels. We have had to work hard to try to get the message across that pay rates for young people that are too high are a handicap to them in convincing employers to take them on rather than other groups of workers.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the German system of not paying school leavers any more when they leave at 16 than a young worker starting on a training period is a good one?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an extremely sensible point. The German approach is realistic and sensible and may to some extent, account for the strength of the German economy.
We still have a long way to go. For example, engineering wage relativities are generally about 20 percentage points higher now than they were 20 years ago. The importance of the new workers scheme is that, like the YWS which it succeeds, it encourages employers and
906
young people to be sensible about young people's pay, to offer jobs to more of them rather than unrealistically high wages to just a few. The young workers scheme was successful and had some effect. Relative pay rates for young people have declined since 1982. We also believe that the new workers scheme is the sort of help wanted by employers, many of them small businesses.
Mr. Lawler: Does my hon. Friend accept that, of the 1 million or so jobs created over the past three years, some 450,000 have gone to self-employment? Does that not offer great hope for future employment growth?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right, and I am glad that he recognises, as do all my right hon. and hon. Friends, the great importance of self-employment—that it has created new jobs. We now have the highest proportion of self-employed in the economy since 1921, and that bodes well for the future. It is also of interest that the vast majority of jobs on the young workers scheme went to small firms; that will be reflected in the development of the scheme.
Of course, the scheme will direct some jobs towards young people rather than older workers. That is our aim in singling out this age group for special help. It is, like the Government's other employment measures, carefully designed and cost-effective. It also fits into our broader strategies. It complements the two-year YTS, the national insurance changes and the wages council proposals. Young people know that our measures work— over 1 million through YTS—and a quarter of enterprise allowance businesses are run by under-25s. That bodes well for the continuing development of enterprise.
If only the number of new company starts under the 1974–79 Labour Government had equalled the level of company starts now, we would be facing a far more encouraging prospect for jobs. Over 435,000 jobs have been supported by the young workers scheme. The new workers scheme, too, offers practical help, where it is needed, for young people entering the labour market, and their employers. I commend the motion to the House.
11.33 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: This measure is the latest example of class politics. It has nowt to do with creating jobs for young or old workers, but everything to do with the Government's essential philosophy of driving down workers' wages to allow the employers more profit. Every shred of evidence that has been examined, whether from the Midland Bank review, the Institute of Manpower Studies or the Department of Employment's research, shows that reductions in young workers' wages have not solved the problem of youth unemployment.
This measure carries all the hallmarks of the anti-youth, anti-working class measure that the YTS was. The real reason for the scheme should be written into the Official Report. It is designed to create a generation of youth on a conveyor belt. It is coming out of school used to £27 quid a week on the YTS. These workers would be on £44 a week if that allowance had risen with the general level of earnings since the scheme's inception in 1978. There has been a £17 a week cut in the training allowance given to young people. The general level of school leavers' wages has fallen by 12 per cent. for boys and 13 per cent. for girls since 1979, yet youth unemployment has trebled.

907
As Nye Bevan used to say in this place, "Why look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?" The Government's record shows that all they are interested in doing is driving down the wages of young people. Job creation will happen at the expense of older workers.
This is a cheap and nasty measure that ought to be thrown out by the House.
Question put:—
The House divided:—Ayes, 170, Noes 111.

Division No. 162]

11.45 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Amess, David

Ground, Patrick

Ancram, Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John S

Ashby, David

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Hanley, Jeremy

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Baldry, Tony

Harris, David

Batiste, Spencer

Harvey, Robert

Bellingham, Henry

Haselhurst, Alan

Best, Keith

Hawksley, Warren

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hayward, Robert

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hickmet, Richard

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hind, Kenneth

Bottomley, Peter

Hirst, Michael

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

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Howard, Michael

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Bright, Graham

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Brinton, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Brooke, Hon Peter

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Bruinvels, Peter

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Buck, Sir Antony

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Burt, Alistair

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Butcher, John

Key, Robert

Butterfill, John

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

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

Knowles, Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Lang, Ian

Cash, William

Latham, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Lawler, Geoffrey

Chope, Christopher

Lawrence, Ivan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Colvin, Michael

Lester, Jim

Coombs, Simon

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Cope, John

Lightbown, David

Cormack, Patrick

Lilley, Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Dover, Den

Lyell, Nicholas

Dunn, Robert

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Eggar, Tim

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Emery, Sir Peter

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Evennett, David

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Maclean, David John

Fairbairn, Nicholas

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Fallon, Michael

Madel, David

Farr, Sir John

Major, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Malins, Humfrey

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Malone, Gerald

Forth, Eric

Marlow, Antony

Franks, Cecil

Mather, Carol

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Maude, Hon Francis

Freeman, Roger

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Fry, Peter

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Merchant, Piers

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Goodlad, Alastair

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Gow, Ian

Miscampbell, Norman

Gower, Sir Raymond

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Gregory, Conal

Moate, Roger

908

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Shersby, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Sims, Roger

Neubert, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Newton, Tony

Stern, Michael

Norris, Steven

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Osborn, Sir John

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Ottaway, Richard

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Thurnham, Peter

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Trippier, David

Pawsey, James

Viggers, Peter

Portillo, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Powley, John

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Raffan, Keith

Watson, John

Rathbone, Tim

Wheeler, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wood, Timothy

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Younger, Rt Hon George

Roe, Mrs Marion

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes:

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Mr. Tony Durant and

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mr. Peter Lloyd

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Alton, David

Hoyle, Douglas

Anderson, Donald

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Barnett, Guy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Bell, Stuart

Kennedy, Charles

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Lamond, James

Bermingham, Gerald

Leighton, Ronald

Bidwell, Sydney

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Blair, Anthony

Livsey, Richard

Boyes, Roland

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Caborn, Richard

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

McWilliam, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Madden, Max

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Marek, Dr John

Clarke, Thomas

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Clay, Robert

Maxton, John

Clelland, David Gordon

Michie, William

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Nellist, David

Conlan, Bernard

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

O'Neill, Martin

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Park, George

Corbyn, Jeremy

Parris, Matthew

Cunningham, Dr John

Pendry, Tom

Dalyell, Tam

Penhaligon, David

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Pike, Peter

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

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Deakins, Eric

Prescott, John

Dubs, Alfred

Randall, Stuart

Duffy, A. E. P.

Raynsford, Nick

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Redmond, Martin

Eadie, Alex

Robertson, George

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Sheerman, Barry

Ewing, Harry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Fisher, Mark

Skinner, Dennis

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

Foster, Derek

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

Foulkes, George

Spearing, Nigel

Garrett, W. E.

Stott, Roger

George, Bruce

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Godman, Dr Norman

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Golding, John

Wallace, James

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hancock, Michael

Wareing, Robert

Harman, Ms Harriet

Wigley, Dafydd

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Haynes, Frank

Winnick, David

909

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mr. Don Dixon and

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to set up, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Employment Subsidies Act 1978, a scheme, the cost of which is expected to exceed £10 million for the year ending 31st March 1987, for making payments to employers to enable them to take on as new employees young people with earnings below the limits specified in the statement laid before the House on 22nd April 1986.

Redundant Miners (Coal Allowances)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]
11.56 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: This debate is about the forgotten miners. These men were mostly made redundant during the large scale pit closures of the 1960s. Despite the fact that many of these men had worked down the mines from the age of 14, despite the fact that they worked under far worse conditions than pertain in the industry today and despite the fact that they received only a pittance in redundancy pay, these men, who were made redundant by the Wilson Government in the 1960s, did not qualify for concessionary coal if they were under 60 when they were made redundant. That was in spite of the fact that most of these men contributed to coal pools to make provision for retired miners under the old system.
These men missed out in a great many ways. They missed out when in 1973 the Heath Government reduced the qualifying age for concessionary coal to 55 but backdated that only to 1969. They also missed out when, under this Government, the age was reduced to 50 in 1983 with no back-dating. Above all, they missed out when, in the 1960s, they were so ungratefully taken for granted by politicians who for too long had taken their votes for granted.
I would not claim that all of the benefits for the mining industry have stemmed from Conservative Governments, but many, if not most, have, especially when it comes to concessionary coal. We have a proud record, which is all the more reason to go a little further and complete the picture. The Coal Board figures show that the cost of extending the concessionary coal benefit to the forgotten miners would be about £3 million. That is a tiny fraction of the total cost of concessionary coal and is just over one tenth of 1 per cent. of the total taxpayers' subsidy, both direct and indirect, to the coal industry.
I accept that this matter greatly affects my constituency. In fact, about 10,000 men were made redundant as a result of the wide-scale pit closures in the area during the 1960s. That figure represents almost half of the total proposed redundancies which in 1983 and 1984 caused the miners' strike. However, in the 1960s, when a Labour Government were in power, it did not cause a cheep. In addition to being a matter of concern to my constituency, it is also a matter of great concern to many other right hon. and hon. Members, as witnessed by the fact that nearly 100 Members of Parliament signed early-day motions on the subject.
I do not necessarily expect my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, to give an affirmative answer tonight, but I ask him to go away and consider, with his colleagues, the fact that the case and the cause of these forgotten miners is just. The cost is not great, but the injustice most certainly is great. I hope that he will consult his colleagues and do his utmost to ensure that these forgotten miners are not forgotten for very much longer.
I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is now in the Chamber. I am sure that he will be straining at the leash to make a contribution to this debate. I am aware that other hon. Members have raised this matter on previous occasions. I welcome very much

911
their support, including that of the hon. Member for Bolsover, for this campaign. However, I have to put the hon. Member straight on a few points.
During our debate in March on concessionary coal the hon. Member for Bolsover tried to make out that he had been tirelessly pushing this cause for years, but he was well wide of the mark. During that debate the hon. Member claimed to have raised the matter during previous debates on concessionary coal. I remember that the hon. Member refused to accept interventions during his speech in that debate. I understand why very well. I checked his contribution to the 1985 debate and found that although during his speech, which lasted for more than 30 minutes, he waxed very lyrical upon a number of subjects, including the miners' strike and that although, with his well-known charm, he scattered insults at several Conservative Members who attended that debate, so great were his oratorical efforts that he did not manage to say one word in support of the forgotten miners.
Despite the hon. Member's record of having raised the matter during the early days of this Government, he seemed oddly unwilling to push the case in Parliament during the period in office of the last Labour Government, when one might have thought that he might have exerted some influence. But perhaps I underestimate the Treasury Bench of that time.
I know that the hon. Member likes to think of himself as a relentless pursuer of truth, as a true parliamentarian and as the man who speaks for Joe Average. Considering, therefore, his much-vaunted fearlessness, I find it astonishing that he should not have given way once during the last debate on concessionary coal, so that his misapprehensions might be put right. None the less, I am sure that he now welcomes the fact that the record is being put straight. It would be churlish of me not to accept the hon. Member for Bolsover's support of those Conservative Members who are fighting this cause. If he can do his utmost to couch that support in sensible and sane terms, it will be valuable and welcome.
12.3 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate and put the record straight. It is well known by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) that I and many other Opposition Members have raised this matter on many previous occasions. I have checked the record.
On 22 March 1983 there was a debate similar to that which was held in March 1986. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy. At column 820 of that debate I made another intervention. It was the fifth or the sixth on the subject since I have been a Member of Parliament. I called upon the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy to take into account the deprived miners and their widows in the southern end of my constituency, and others in Lancashire, who are unable to get coal. It will be seen that at that time the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy said that he would take the matter on board. He referred to the matter twice in reply, and said that although he could not guarantee anything, he would look at it.
912
As for not raising the matter when my right hon. and hon. Friends were in office, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it did not matter to me which Government were in power. Quite frankly, I think that those few thousand people have had a raw deal from both Governments. When the redundancy payments and concessionary coal legislation was passed in the House of Commons, it should have been back dated to include those pre-1968 cases. It is scandalous that those people have been deprived of coal. Many of those miners worked in the industry for more than 40 years, and some are survived by widows.
I am pleased to be able to put the matter on the record for the umpteenth time. I ask the Minister to look at it further. That is the reason why I have written. During the past few weeks I have written—
Mr. David Ashby rose—
Mr. Skinner: I am not allowed to give way in such a debate. I am sorry, but those are the rules. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Energy some weeks ago. The reply I received was unhelpful to the constituents concerned. Therefore, I wrote to the Prime Minister recently, asking her to reconsider the views of the right hon. Gentleman so that she might intervene and the people concerned could receive the coal that they richly deserve. I have put the matter straight. Hansard is a document that anyone can read. What I have said is absolutely correct. If hon. Gentlemen wish to read the Hansard record of the position of previous Governments, they will find many references made by myself, by my hon. Friends and members of the mining group. It is high time that the Minister did something on behalf of the miners concerned and provided them with five loads of coal a year. That has been provided to many people who have not worked in the industry for 40 years. These miners are unable to receive that concession.
I am told that the cost of providing this necessary benefit to those who have given their all to the industry will be about £3 million per annum.
12.2 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) is to be congratulated on securing this important opportunity to raise an issue which, as he has reminded us, is of great concern to many of his constituents and to many former miners. I believe that my hon. Friend has already lobbied extensively on their behalf and has established an excellent reputation as a good constituency Member of Parliament. He made a strong and clearly heartfelt plea in support of ex-miners in his constituency. I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue in many mining communities. My hon. Friends the Members for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) and for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) are present in the Chamber, along with the hon. Members for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I fully understand the disappointment that is felt by those who contributed to coal pools when they were working but who, under the rules of the schemes to which they contributed, have no entitlement to concessionary coal following redundancy.

913
I have listened carefully to the points raised, but I would not be honest if I did not make it clear that I cannot see any possibility, after all these years, of introducing new measures to benefit this small group. I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover said that those people have had a raw deal. He put forward some compelling arguments. I think that he was the first hon. Member, during this short debate, to point out that the cost of providing the coal is £3 million. One of the reasons why it is not possible to benefit this small group is the cost involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley cited the figure of £3 million. The cost of covering this situation could be expected to amount to many millions of pounds over the years.
Equally important is the impossibility of achieving the end desired by my hon. Friend without creating new difficulties. Just as concessionary coal to serving workers is part of their remuneration, concessionary coal to redundant mineworkers is part of their redundancy package. Redundancy terms for mineworkers, including the provision of concessionary coal, have been improved on numerous occasions over the years and there is no possibility of retrospectively awarding to those who left in earlier years the generous terms now available. Any attempt now to apply to those who left under one set of terms part of a system of benefits introduced later would produce grievances at least as strong as those which it was intended to satisfy.
Hon. Members will know the history of concessionary coal. It is one of progressive improvement. The practice of supplying free or cheap coal to mineworkers finds its derivation in the necessity for domestic heating of water for daily baths. Because of the absence of pithead baths, those baths had to be taken at home. As time went by, concessionary coal came to be looked upon by the men and, to some extent, by the coal owners as part of wages. As a result, although the need for bathing at home was progressively eliminated with the general provision of pithead baths, the concession continued, although in some cases at a reduced rate.
Concessions on coal became one of the matters to be negotiated as part of the wage bargaining system. The concessions came to benefit not only serving workers but retired workers, widows and sick and injured workers. The coal became, and still is, much prized amongst all those groups.
Since nationalisation, the National Coal Board has done a great deal to negotiate new agreements designed to remove anomalies and standardise entitlements. Initially, this involved the negotiation of agreements covering whole wages districts. Where these extended the supply of coal to categories of beneficiaries not previously entitled, this was done at the expense of serving workers, who accepted a reduction in their entitlement or agreed to contribute a proportion of them to a pool to be used for the benefit of retired, sick or injured men and widows. These still complex arrangements were further complicated by the advent of clean air legislation and the need to make special arrangements for concessionaires living in smokeless zones. In 1961, a national agreement was negotiated with the unions providing for the supply of smokeless fuel in these zones on standard terms and conditions.
In 1962 the NCB agreed that redundant men over 60 at the date of redundancy should be treated as retired men for concessionary coal purposes. However, where coal was
914
provided under pooling schemes it was left to the local committee of management to agree to an increased level of contributions for serving workers to provide coal for the redundant men. Not all committees of management agreed, and in the 1960s there were still many anomalies in the supply of concessionary coal.
The rundown in numbers of serving workers in the industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley pointed out, had a significant impact on the relative proportions of serving workers to beneficiaries, and hence on coal pooling schemes. To keep the schemes in balance, each serving worker's contribution to the pool needed to be increased, or each beneficiary's entitlement reduced, or both. In practice, that did not happen to a significant extent and the pools ran up substantial deficits and ceased to be viable. In the Coal Industry Act 1965 powers were given to the Government to reimburse to the NCB part of the costs of maintaining arrangements for benefits in kind in areas where the number of persons employed by the board had fallen since the end of March 1965 as a consequence of the closure of collieries. This power has been kept in being through later legislation, and presently derives from section 6 of the Coal Industry Act 1977. Last year, using that power to make substantial contributions to help the board finance the maintenance of concessionary coal arrangements, the Government contributed £18 million.
Following the introduction of the first redundant mineworkers payments scheme in 1968, which provided benefits for men aged 55 or over on redundancy who otherwise satisfied the requirements of the scheme, there was pressure to enhance the terms available to enable such men to receive concessionary coal as though they had reached normal retirement age. The Government responded to this pressure in the Coal Industry Act 1973, amending the power to make schemes benefiting redundant mineworkers in the 1967 Act. In that same year the first concessionary coal payments scheme was introduced by order. This provided for reimbursement to the National Coal Board of the full cost of concessionary coal to men aged 55 to 59 who qualified for benefits under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme from 14 December 1969, and half the cost of providing concessionary coal to such men age 60 to 65.
Benefits under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme were successively improved over the years, and in 1983 weekly benefits under the scheme were introduced for those aged 50 to 54 on redundancy. The concessionary coal payments scheme was extended to cover this group at the same time. Last year the Government paid the National Coal Board under the concessionary coal payments scheme £13 million in addition to the £18 million I mentioned earlier.
Throughout this period negotiations between the board and the NUM on the provision of concessionary coal continued, and in October 1983 the present national concessionary fuels agreement finally came into operation. This provides for uniform direct entitlement of retired miners and widows to coal. It generally increased coal allowances, but restricted the availability of cash in lieu save in cases of genuine medical difficulty.
I hope that hon. Members who are familiar with the history of concessionary coal will forgive me for having briefly outlined some of its more important features.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Hunt: After I have dealt with the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover, there are two aspects to which I wish to draw attention.
Mr. Skinner: The thing which rankles with the people who are not receiving coal—I do not think the Minister has touched upon it—is that all those who do not receive coal but who ought to made a contribution to the local pool schemes, some for 40 years. In Derbyshire the people used to contribute 30 cwt. of their total annual entitlement. This is like someone paying into an unemployment scheme or a social security scheme for 40 years and not getting his entitlement at the end. That is the injustice, and that is why they believe that they have a case.
The previous Tory Government introduced a scheme to give retirement pensions to those aged 80 years, even though some of those people had not contributed. That was a sensible thing to do. It is not as though the Government are being asked to do something which previous Tory Governments have not done in other areas.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member will surely recollect that I dealt with that point in my opening sentences. I said that I fully understood the disappointment which is felt by those who contributed to coal pools when they were working but who, under the rules of the schemes to which they contributed, had no entitlement to concessionary coal following redundancy. That was the rule of the scheme to which they contributed and it made no provision for them to have that benefit.
The two other aspects to which I wish to draw attention are, first, the progress which has been made over the years in improving the arrangements under which concessionary coal is provided to beneficiaries and those who have left the industry on redundancy; and, secondly, the extent to which this Government have contributed financially to make this possible.
It is against this background that I must say that any change now will create anomalies and injustices at least as severe as any it might remove. For example, if it were decided that henceforth the Government should meet the cost of providing concessionary coal to anyone who qualified under the first redundant mineworkers payments scheme but was made redundant before the effective date of the concessionary coal payments scheme in December 1969, this would merely add to the grievance of those whose redundancy fell before 17 July 1967, and who, therefore, never had the advantage of benefits under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme in the first place. If, however, the relevant date is taken back to
916
before 17 July 1967, the men cannot meet the requirement under concessionary coal payments scheme legislation to have satisfied the conditions for receipt of redundant mineworkers payments scheme benefits, and it is now impossible to know who, but for the fact that the RMPS had not been introduced, would have satisfied equivalent conditions. So this requirement would have to be waived. But that would inevitably create a sense of grievance among those who became redundant later, but who failed to satisfy the conditions which have subsequently been removed for men who left earlier.
Furthermore, what about those who would be covered by any new concession but for the fact that they have no ability to use concessionary coal? I am thinking of those who have perhaps moved into houses where they do not have the ability to burn coal, or who, since we are now talking about quite elderly people, might have gone into homes or warden-assisted accommodation. Are we to give them cash in lieu, even where under the terms of the present national concessionary fuel agreement they would not be entitled to it? If we are to give cash in lieu, we are no longer talking about the provision of concessionary coal; we are talking about a further state cash benefit to some of those who received redundancy benefits from the coal industry in the 1960s. Alternatively, are we to let such people sell their concessionary coal, even where this would lead to loss of entitlement to anyone receiving coal under the present national concessionary fuel agreement?
My hon. Friend has made a compelling case. I appreciate the regard in which concessionary coal is held in mining areas, and can understand the disappointment of those who contributed to coal pools when they were working, left the industry on redundancy in the 1960s, but under the rules of the schemes to which they contributed have no entitlement to concessionary coal. But there is no magic wand which can be waved to satisfy this group without creating anomalies and injustices at least as acute as those which it was designed to cure. Nor can the money for a further concession by conjured up from nowhere.
The history of the provision of concessionary coal to redundant miners, retired miners, sick and injured miners and widows is one of progress. Successive Governments have provided generous financial support to help make that progress possible, but I can hold out no prospect of the further concession which in tonight's debate my hon. Friend has so ably argued should be made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past twelve o'clock.

WALES
  Hearing Aids (Waiting List)
  Hearing Aids (Waiting List)
ENERGY
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
  Oil Products
  Oil Products
  Oil and Gas Developments
  Oil and Gas Developments
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
PRIME MINISTER
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Sovereign Bases, Cyprus
  Sovereign Bases, Cyprus
  Northern Ireland (Public Services)
  Northern Ireland (Public Services)
  YTS Trainees
  YTS Trainees
  Libya
  Libya
  Fire Disasters
  Fire Disasters
  Shops Bill
  Shops Bill
  Engagements
  Engagements
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Female Students
  Female Students
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Education Services
  Prison Education Services
  City of London Police (Black People)
  City of London Police (Black People)
  Police Establishments
  Police Establishments
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
  Mr. Iorwerth Jones
  Mr. Iorwerth Jones
  "Policing the Miners' Dispute"
  "Policing the Miners' Dispute"
SCOTLAND
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  St. Alphege's, Southwark
  St. Alphege's, Southwark
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Cement
  Cement
  Social Work Staff (Qualifications)
  Social Work Staff (Qualifications)
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
  Rates
  Rates
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
EMPLOYMENT
  Business Licensing
  Business Licensing
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Workplace Accidents
  Workplace Accidents
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  YTS and Community Industry
  YTS and Community Industry
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Maternity Pay
  Maternity Pay
  Jobclubs
  Jobclubs
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Banking Act 1979
  Banking Act 1979
  Departmental Budgeting
  Departmental Budgeting
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
DEFENCE
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Armed United States Personnel
  Armed United States Personnel
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
  Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Twinning
  Twinning
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Trichinenla Spiralis
  Trichinenla Spiralis
  Animals (Religious Slaughter)
  Animals (Religious Slaughter)
  Badger Control
  Badger Control
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
THE ARTS
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Claimant Statistics
  Claimant Statistics
  Health District General Managers
  Health District General Managers
  Physically and Mentally Handicapped People (Supplementary Benefit)
  Physically and Mentally Handicapped People (Supplementary Benefit)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Embryo Research
  Embryo Research
  Pension and Social Security Upratings
  Pension and Social Security Upratings
  Welfare Food Scheme
  Welfare Food Scheme
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Vacant Hospital Beds
  Vacant Hospital Beds
  Foetal Scan Systems
  Foetal Scan Systems
  Mentally Ill Persons
  Mentally Ill Persons
  NHS Beds
  NHS Beds
  Medical Treatment (Supplementary Benefit)
  Medical Treatment (Supplementary Benefit)
  Residential Homes (Board and Lodgings Regulations)
  Residential Homes (Board and Lodgings Regulations)
  Community Care Resources (Lincolnshire)
  Community Care Resources (Lincolnshire)
  Hospital Beds (South-East Thames Region)
  Hospital Beds (South-East Thames Region)
  Conductive Education
  Conductive Education
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Residential Homes Act 1984
  Residential Homes Act 1984
  Computerisation
  Computerisation
  Students (Benefits)
  Students (Benefits)
  NHS Accommodation
  NHS Accommodation
  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Wrightington Hospital, Lancashire
  Wrightington Hospital, Lancashire
  Anaesthetics
  Anaesthetics
  Medical Techniques
  Medical Techniques
  Registered Homes
  Registered Homes
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Sheltered Workshops
  Sheltered Workshops
  Psychiatric Patients (Community Care)
  Psychiatric Patients (Community Care)
  War Pensioners (Housing Benefit)
  War Pensioners (Housing Benefit)
  Nuclear Installations (Cancer)
  Nuclear Installations (Cancer)
  South-East Thames Regional Health Authority
  South-East Thames Regional Health Authority
  Police Pension Schemes
  Police Pension Schemes
  Cyclosporin
  Cyclosporin
  Convalescent Homes
  Convalescent Homes
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Snake Attacks
  Snake Attacks
ENVIRONMENT
  Merseyside Residuary Body
  Merseyside Residuary Body
  Merit Bonuses
  Merit Bonuses
  European Year of the Environment
  European Year of the Environment
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Non-departmental Bodies
  Non-departmental Bodies
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
  Snakes
  Snakes
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Registration Prefix
  Vehicle Registration Prefix
  Written-off Vehicles
  Written-off Vehicles

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

Postal Service: Morning Deliveries
Lord Pender: 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 over the last two years to the latest convenient date what percentage of first daily postal deliveries were made:

(a) before 8.30 a.m.

(b) between 8.30 a.m. and 10 a.m.

(c) after 10.00 a.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the detailed operation of postal deliveries is the responsibility of the Post Office Board. However, I understand that, while at local level Post Office management closely monitors delivery times, there is no system for monitoring performance nationally.
Lord Pender: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that disappointing reply. One would have thought that those were the sort of statistics that the Post Office would carry. Does my noble friend agree that the late delivery of morning mail causes disruption of people's daily lives and creates, in turn, business inefficiency? Does he also agree that the recent cost-cutting restructuring of the postal delivery system is a false economy?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it depends to some extent on what my noble friend means by "late". For example, in urban areas the first delivery should be made between 7 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. The rural areas normally receive one delivery each day and this can continue until lunchtime or even the early afternoon. There are social consequences for Post Office staff in altering that.
As regards the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, the reorganisation of the Post Office is not solely a cost-cutting exercise. It is an exercise which the Post Office expects to result in its being rather more cost-effective.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a reflection on the efficiency of the Post Office Board that, as my noble friend said, it has no machinery for monitoring performance on the important matter of deliveries? Are not the Government responsible for appointing the board?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that local monitoring is undertaken as an integral part
130
of the responsibilities of local management for the supervision of postal operations in their areas. However, with wide variations in local circumstances it is not appropriate, nor is it useful, to monitor delivery times at national level.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister accept his noble friend's dictum that the Government have a responsibility for monitoring the Post Office?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Post Office is, as the House will know, a body set up by statute whose operational matters are within the control of the board. I can certainly give my noble friend and all noble Lords an assurance that the expressions of disquiet that your Lordships have made on three occasions in the past six weeks will be conveyed to the chairman of the board of the Post Office.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that under the statute the Government themselves retain the power of general direction to the Post Office? Does he further accept that even though the Government may not concern themselves with day-to-day operational matters, as the noble Lord said, in the final analysis policy must surely remain with Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that of course is quite right. The matter raised by my noble friend Lord Pender is, as I suggested in my earlier answer, an operational matter for the Post Office.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in view of the imprecisions and uncertainties which seem to surround the important matters of jurisdiction and responsibility in respect of monitoring, would it not be well for my noble friend the Minister to address himself to the old question, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there is no imprecision as between the Government and the Post Office in this matter.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister ask his noble friend to address the House in English in future?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Post Office has never been as good as it was when under direct ministerial control? Will the Minister do a reverse privatisation, so to speak, and bring the Post Office back under direct control of the Minister concerned?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords. It is the Government's policy to return to the private sector all those businesses that are currently in the public sector where such opportunity arises, since we believe that they can operate rather more efficiently in that climate than they can otherwise.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Post Office in this country is more efficient than that in any other country in the world, and at a more reasonable cost?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because I can confirm that that is the case. At the same time, I remind your Lordships that the real cost of mails and other postal services is lower than it was 15 years ago.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, my experience is similar to that of the noble Lord who has just asked a supplementary question. However, does not much depend upon the head postmaster? I used to receive a lot of mail from Middlesbrough and I still do. I am bound to say that it has been regular and I have never had any cause to complain.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for retailing his experience, which I confirm. In most postal areas postmasters and their staffs are as helpful as they can be. In particular the mail service has increased by 17 per cent., I think, in three years. A huge amount of business is being done, the vast bulk of it to the satisfaction of the consumer.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that recently on my garden path the postman delivering my morning mail crossed with the postman delivering my afternoon mail? Is he further aware that when I queried the reason for that I was told that it was due to shortage of staff?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords, I was not aware of those two facts. I envy the noble Lord having two deliveries in a day, even if they happen to cross.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the great value in removing the various industries from national control is that there is no longer a need to collect statistics on matters which, though of great interest, are peripheral; and that if we go on trying to collect the different figures which may be relevant, it will be enormously expensive and not to our advantage?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in most respects I agree with the noble Lord. The Post Office has been at pains not to increase the cost of services, and your Lordships will recall that the cost of second-class mail was reduced. It is a question of cost-effectiveness. Although mail deliveries are nearly reaching the performance target set by the Post Office board, which I think your Lordships will find acceptable, one has to bear in mind the cost to the consumer in providing not only statistics but additional services.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how much money and how many staff are being saved by splitting the mail into two categories?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Not without notice, my Lords.

Charities: Budget Legislation
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the total extra money that will be received by charities as a result of measures announced in the Budget.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the benefit to charities will depend on the public response to the Budget proposals, but it could be at least £120 million next year and perhaps more.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. May I further ask him whether he agrees that at this time many people are showing a wish to give to what they see as good causes in response to successful fund-raising events? That being the case, does he further agree that the incentive offered in the recent budgetary arrangements will have the advantage of encouraging these people to give more and others to give something?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the points made by my noble friend. In particular I think she refers to the new payroll deduction scheme, which could be a great success.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to comment on a letter in today's edition of The Times which indicated that many well known charities will be worse off if the legislation remains as it is? I note the Answer that he gave to his noble friend that the cost could be as much as £120 million. I should like to ask him whether he is aware that in the Budget debate the Chancellor estimated that in a full year the cost in loss of tax would be £1 million. If he is right, is it not all the more important that the money should go to genuine charities? Will the noble Lord agree therefore that a new definition of charities should be introduced to exclude establishments such as Eton, Harrow and other public schools?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first let me say that I saw the letter in The Times this morning. I have taken advice on it. It is a fairly complicated issue and I think that there may well be a misunderstanding in it. I am sure that my right honourable friend will take note of the contents of the letter, and I point out that this matter is subject to debate in another place during the passage of the Finance Bill.
As regards the second point raised by the noble Lord, the figure I quoted in my original Answer was the estimated benefit to charities from these proposals, which was £120 million. Regarding the charitable status of public schools, these measures do not allow people to use the payment of fees as a form of charitable status. The legislation would only be applicable to building works or other such things.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, following the last question, may I ask my noble friend whether he will ask his right honourable friend to look carefully

133
not only at the possibility that the taxation of some charities may adversely affect large, important and well known charities, but also at the effect on small ones such as parochial church councils?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend says and I shall indeed ask my right honourable friend to take those effects into account. Perhaps it would be convenient to write to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, with a copy to my noble friend, giving a summary of the briefing which I received on today's letter in The Times. I think this will help to clarify a number of points.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in view of the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is the original estimate of the £120 million that may be available to charities the net sum or is it subject to taxation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, it will be the net sum, as the tax has been removed.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, as the only member of your Lordships' House who is sporting an Etonian tie this day, and as I have a grandson at Harrow, may I ask for an undertaking from the noble Lord that those two scholastic establishments will not be singled out for discrimination?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must declare an interest too as an old Harrovian and also as having a son down for Harrow, and I can give the noble Earl that assurance.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, do not the last question and the question from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, suggest that the Treasury may have opened something of a Pandora's Box? Is it not probable that there will be considerable problems over demarcation lines regarding entitlement to the VAT concessions and that some of the money will end up in what may appear to your Lordships to be pretty surprising charities? Finally, if the worth of these concessions to the charities is £120 million, can the noble Lord tell us how it happens that loss of tax is only £1 million?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the figure of £1 million was the noble Lord, Lord Barnett's; it was not mine. The net worth to the charities is very much an estimate. As I said in my original Answer, it depends on the response from the public. But the actual Exchequer cost, on that sort of basis, we estimate to be £60 million. On my noble friend's other question about opening a Pandora's Box, I believe that, on the basis that the charitable payroll deduction scheme is limited to £100 a year, it is not likely to have the effect that my noble friend describes.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister accept that the £1 million that I quoted was not my figure? It was the Chancellor's in the Red Book at the time of the Budget.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall have to look into the figure. I am not quite sure what the £1 million does refer to. It certainly does not refer to any of the figures that I have before me.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as the briefing that the noble Lord has mentioned is likely to be of wide general interest, will he find some way of making it more generally available than to the two Members of your Lordships' House in question?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have said that I shall write a letter on the basis of the briefing. Naturally, I shall place a copy in the Library, as is the normal practice.

International Tin Council: Immunities
2.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: 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 propose to withdraw the immunities extended to the International Tin Council under S.I. 1972/120.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as hosts to the International Tin Council, the United Kingdom is bound by the headquarters agreement to accord the immunities set out in that agreement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does not the noble Lord realise that the existence of the International Tin Council and indeed the validity of its corporate entity depends upon the degree of integrity of the member governments comprising it? Is the noble Lord aware that the default of most of the members of the International Tin Council has left the British creditors of the ITC in a very sorry condition—a condition in which, owing to the terms of the statutory instrument granting the immunities, there are three kinds of creditor: the first, a series of creditors who arrived at private agreements with the ITC agreeing to a waiver of their immunity; the second, those who had concluded a contract subject to arbitration; and the third, unsecured creditors? Is the noble Lord aware that owing to the refusal of the Government to eliminate the immunity, the provisions of the Insolvency Act relating to the fair distribution of assets among creditors has ceased to have any effect whatever? What do the Government intend to do to redress the unfairness that has arisen?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I listened with interest to the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made. In answer to the questions that he asked, I would say, first, that the Government are not satisfied, on the basis of breach of the tin agreement or otherwise, that there is any legal justification for withdrawing the immunities. Secondly, that there may have been arrangements between the ITC and some creditors is a matter between the ITC and those creditors. It is certainly not one for Her Majesty's Government.
In regard to the Insolvency Act, the headquarters agreement, as the noble Lord and indeed all your Lordships will know, is the usual agreement when international bodies take up office in any country so as to avoid those provisions. Lastly, in so far as other

135
creditors are concerned, since there are a number of legal actions about, I do not think that it would be helpful for me to make any comment that might prejudice the position of both the Crown and others in any legal proceedings that may flow from that collapse.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister not agree that what is causing grave irritation in the tin mining industry in Cornwall is that those involved—management and workers—realise that because of this country sticking to its own SI and to the agreement with the ITC, all that we derive from such honourable adherence is unjustified punishment?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord should, I think, address the first part of his question to me when I answer the second Question on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. As to the wider issue, it was certainly regrettable that some ITC countries refused to participate in the proposed settlement made in March. That is a matter of some regret to ourselves.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to tell us today exactly what are the obligations of individual member governments under the International Tin Agreement; whether the obligations are joint and several, or merely several; and what is the total potential liability of the United Kingdom Government under that agreement?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I regret very much that I cannot answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with regard to joint and/or joint and several responsibility, since the various advices that Her Majesty's Government have had are not totally in accord. There are different views with regard to that point. The Government's liability is restricted under the agreement to 4 per cent. of the amount involved. Again, at this stage I am not able to tell the House what those liabilities may total since all claims have not yet been registered.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that an immunity that can be withdrawn after the event but before implementation is a little bit like an umbrella being let subject to it not raining?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in 1982, when we entered into the sixth agreement, it seemed the right and proper thing to do. I do not think that it would be helpful were I, with hindsight, to suggest what we might or might not have done, because events themselves have dictated this position.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House some indication what further steps the Government propose to take towards persuading those other governments in default to honour their obligations?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that discussions through diplomatic channels continue in this matter.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in regard to the difficulties of interpretation and the differences arising out of the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, can my noble friend say what is the machinery for resolving these matters? Does it go to the International Court of Justice or is there some built-in procedure for arbitration? What is the machinery?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the determination of the machinery is in the hands of the litigants.

Tin Mining Industry, Cornwall
2.59 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in order to safeguard the future of the tin mining industry in Cornwall.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government have made clear that they are willing to consider applications for assistance towards the cost of projects which will make the mines competitive in a free market for tin.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the industry itself will gain but little comfort from his statement which restricts any aid that may be required to the operation of the appropriate Industry Acts? Is he also aware that what is required in this instance is a substantial injection of funds in order to maintain the employment of over 4,000 people in this industry which is vital to Cornwall and so as to save the Government approximately £25 million a year in expenditure on relief which would otherwise be paid to those people?
Will the noble Lord try treating the tin industry in Cornwall with a modest degree of generosity comparable to the Government's colossal subsidy to agriculture and the expenditure of over £100 million on a minor city bank which happened to get into trouble?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord thinks that my original Answer will bring small comfort to the tin mining industry in Cornwall. I repeat—because I should not like anybody to misunderstand—that we are willing to consider any application for assistance which will make the mines competitive in a free market for tin. I do not want to bandy numbers with the noble Lord opposite, but the figure of 4,000 people to which he refers is quite different from what the industry has indicated to my department. It is more likely to be 1,200 miners plus 300 people in peripheral activities and some hundreds in associated areas. That is a long way short of the figure given by the noble Lord.
The tin industry will be accorded all the assistance that we can give, commensurate with its further operations being viable. It is certainly not Her Majesty's Government's policy to provide operating subsidies. Even if that were so, it is unlikely that the

137
necessary European Commission approval would be forthcoming.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what the noble Lord has just said is well understood in Cornwall by both management and the skilled craftsmen. I shall ask my question now, as the Minister earlier suggested. The workers in the industry are aware that while we adhere to our own statutory instrument with regard to the International Tin Council other people do not, and to them all the promises by the Government to help seem ludicrous if other nations do not play the game. They are also aware that they are now living in an era in which we have the fastest growing unemployment ever in our industry. This point, too, plays an important role and is one of the matters which the Minister ought to consider.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, boils down simply to this: what shall we do when we find that an international agreement is not supported by other countries which are signatories to it? This is a matter to which we shall have to give most careful consideration in the light of events and then take what steps we feel are necessary with regard to international commodity agreements.
With reference to the point about labour let no noble Lord be under any misapprehension that we are as concerned about the growing numbers of unemployed people across the industrialised world and in Europe as we are about those in our own country. The Government's financial and other policies are aimed at, and are succeeding in holding, that position and at making some small dents in it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the reply by the Minister mean that he rejects all international commodity agreements which are aimed at protecting large numbers of primary producers against excessive movements in the market? Is it not a fact that the International Tin Agreement failed because the market was not followed and the prices were kept too high? That depressed prices far below what they would have been if the agreement had been managed in a manner appropriate to the market.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, at this stage all I would be prepared to say in answer is that this is a very complex matter. A number of issues are involved. One which the noble Lord mentions is important, but it is by no means unique in terms of the collapse of the Tin Council's operations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that if the applications to which he has referred are not granted and the tin mines in this area of Cornwall are closed, that would be a major tragedy for the economy of Cornwall and for the people who would be made redundant as a result of the closures? If that were to be the case, the effect on the economy of Cornwall would be serious. In those circumstances what further steps would the Government take to find work for these people who live in Cornwall, who are Cornish, and who should not move away if they do not wish? What steps will the Government take to rebuild the economy following such a disaster?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asks a hypothetical question.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, since we have not yet received claims for assistance—though we understand some are on the way—it would be wrong for me to suggest the outcome of those applications. When the claims have been dealt with might be the right time for the noble Lord opposite to raise his question.
In broader terms the Government have a number of schemes available for assisted areas to help with the relocation of other businesses and the retraining of people. Those schemes will be brought into play if necessary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that this is a grave situation and an emergency? If he so agrees, could consideration be given to seeking some specific derogation under the Rome Treaty to keep the industry and its workforce viable?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, of course I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that this is a very grave situation. It arose in October of last year and came to a head in March of this year. Other industries have faced what my noble friend describes as emergency circumstances. The Government will do what they can to resolve those circumstances with the tools which are at their disposal. I do not think that there can be any question this afternoon of seeking derogation of our international responsibilities in a matter of this nature.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that his analogy with other industries is quite false and that for over 20 years the tin agreement has been designed to keep the prices in the market different from those which would prevail in the free market? Does he agree that the collapse of the tin agreement—in October, as he rightly said—created a completely new situation which had not been faced by other industries? In the light of that would he not agree that there is a case for some transitional arrangements to allow the Cornish tin industry to adjust to a totally new market situation which has developed only in the last few months?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in general terms I would agree with what the noble Lord says. I would refer him to my original Answer, which was that the Government have made it quite clear that they are willing to consider applications for assistance towards the cost of projects which will make the mines competitive in a free market for tin. I do not think that I can say any more than that.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the prison officers' dispute.

139
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Gas Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Sex Discrimination Bill will be taken.

Patents, Designs and Marks Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as the Minister has had such a busy afternoon so far, I am delighted to be able to issue nothing but praise to him and to his officials for the way in which they have conducted this Bill through its various stages in this House. I am also pleased to say that I have been able to persuade the Government to allow about 12 amendments to the Bill. Some of them are minor amendments but many of them will be of use to industry in helping to create wealth and in saving legal costs.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for his remarks. I am sure that the House will join me when I say that the joint effort on the part of the noble Lord and the Government has produced this reasonably satisfactory solution this afternoon.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we, for our part, would like to offer our felicitations to the noble Lord on having piloted this Bill through so smoothly. We noted with some anticipation that the Government showed sufficient flexibility in this instance to agree to no fewer than 12 amendments which emanated from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. We sincerely hope that this is an omen for future Bills, possibly of a rather more important and significant nature, and not excluding the one which will go into Committee after these deliberations have finished.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his remarks, and I am grateful to him for what he was able to do during the passage of this Bill, which he suggested himself on Second Reading might be controversial. Undoubtedly its passage was due to his assistance in moving that controversy into an area with which we shall deal much, much later.
As regards other Bills which may come before your Lordships' House and in which both I and the noble Lord may be involved after the Whitsun Recess, I am quite sure that all your Lordships will agree that we shall have to deal with the matter when those Bills come to this House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Gas Bill
3.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Director General of Gas Supply]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Director General, shall appoint four Directors with such functional responsibilities as the Director General may from time to time determine.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6A. I make no apology for returning to this matter since the regulation of this monster private monopoly is indeed of paramount importance. Moreover, depending upon the progress of business today, this may be the last opportunity that we shall have of discussing the matter on Clause 1; but we shall have to wait and see.
We all tried from the Opposition Benches last Thursday to impress upon the Government and Members of the Committee opposite that we did not believe that the regulatory provisions in the Bill were strong enough, and that a single person in the office of director general would be in an extremely weak position vis-à-vis the new private monopoly, British Gas plc. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, tried through his amendment to solve the problem by creating a commission and commissioners with special responsibilities for important sectors of the gas supply business. That was rejected out of hand almost contemptuously by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. A similar attitude was taken in respect of my own amendment—Amendment No. 4—which I withdrew because I wanted to consider what had been said from all sides of the Committee. Indeed the same cavalier attitude was taken towards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, which sought to appoint separate directors for Scotland and Wales. That was how we were treated.
Members of the Committee on the Front Bench opposite really must realise that we are serious in our concern over the lack of strong regulation. They must understand that we have a duty in this House to revise and improve defective legislation, and that if the Government will not treat our fears and doubts seriously and recognise that we are not prepared to be ridden over roughshod, we shall have to adjust our actions and attitudes accordingly.
We are right to be concerned about the regulatory procedures, because we have an example before us. We have the example of the actions of British Telecom since it has been privatised. We all know that the Director-General of Oftel was quite impotent when

141
British Telecom plc decided that it was in their interests, and the interests of their shareholders, that the price to domestic telephone consumers should be raised outside the RPI, and above the RPI minus X formula. That was the first indication that we had that the Director-General of Oftel would not be able to regulate the telecommunications industry in the way in which we had expected that he would do so.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord but he has made rather a serious allegation about Oftel. Is it not the fact that Oftel did indeed investigate the tariff increase, and that Oftel satisfied itself that the increase was entirely in conformity with the formula laid down in the licence?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Oftel may very well have satisfied itself that it was in accordance with the formula; but what Oftel certainly did not do was to convince the rest of us and the public that BritishTelecom plc had not raised prices to domestic customers over and above that formula. Indeed, that was not in accordance with the assurances which were given to my noble friend during the pasage of the Telecommunications Bill through this House. Those are the facts of the matter, and that of course is simply one example, and an example which exacerbates our concern.
We saw yesterday in the Guardian, and perhaps in other newspapers, that British Telecom have decided to end the free repair of emergency telephone equipment. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Bruce can remember, but I believe that we were given certain assurances in regard to the emergency telephone service while the Telecommuniations Bill went through this House. But now what we find is that in the interests of the shareholders British Telecom have decided to withdraw, out of normal hours, their free repair service of the emergency telephone system.
This of course means that the taxpayer has been had twice. First of all his assets were sold at half price, and, now that they have been sold to BritishTelecom, the taxpayer, through the health service and through the police service, is going to pay, as a result of this particular action, an extra £20 million over and above what we would have expected to pay to a nationalised publicly-owned BT. That is £20 million more out of the taxpayers' pocket and into the pockets of British Telecom, who have done very well, thank you, up to now and are obvioulsy going to do a lot better.
What does this mean in respect of this particular Bill? Assurances were given in another place, I believe, that the free inspection of appliances for the elderly and handicapped living alone would be maintained. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that it will be maintained. All we have is the assurance of the publicly-owned British Gas Corporation. But there is no assurance that, once it becomes privatised, the service of free inspection of appliances for the elderly and handicapped living alone will continue.
There is nothing in this Bill, and nothing that the director will be able to do, to ensure that that continues. Is that to be the same in respect of the emergency service, which at the present time is free, or is that to be taken away as well? I think all of us on this side of the Committee are right to be concerned about
142
the powers of the director and the proper regulatory control of a privatised British Gas.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede both warned the Government Benches last Thursday night that their cavalier attitude was unacceptable. I repeat now that the Official Opposition and all others not on the Government Benches—and perhaps on the Government Benches as well—expect their views and amendments to be treated properly and seriously. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
I withdrew my Amendment No. 4 last Thursday to consider what had been said during the course of the various debates. Having considered that, I have decided to table this amendment to give the Committee and the Government a further opportunity to improve Clause I of the Bill. As noble Lords will see, we propose in our amendment that:
"The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Director General, shall appoint four Directors with such functional responsibilities as the Director General may from time to time determine."
It will be noted that in this amendment we have not sought to tie the director general's hands in relation to the functional responsibilities he allocates to his four directors. I am sure that we could all make suggestions. I am sure that suggestions will be made later in this debate.
For example, the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, last Thursday when he spoke on Lord Ezra's amendment, said in col. 1301:
"I might have been tempted to be in favour if the breakdown between the duties had been slightly different from the way they were phrased".
Therefore this amendment helps him. In this amendment we have, I hope, met the very point about which the noble Viscount was concerned. I hope that proves the point also that the Opposition do listen to what other people say, and are not hidebound as the Government seem to be.
It would be open, therefore, for the director general to appoint his directors to be in charge of those disciplines which he believed were most relevant and useful to his regulatory function, and there is the added benefit that he would from time to time, as he felt circumstances required, change and reallocate those disciplines. The beauty of the amendment is that, as well as ensuring that the director general does not stand alone between the consumers and British Gas plc, it provides that degree of flexibility which is the essence of up-to-date regulation.
Furthermore, since the Bill and the authorisation are so complicated, the director general can do with some high level support. I say this because it would appear that not even the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who together with his noble friend Lord Belstead, is piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House, really understands the Bill if his reply to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, is anything to go by. The Committee will recall that the noble Baroness in her comments said at col. 1300 to 1301:
"The Committee will recall that at the moment under the present proposals the gas industry will not be compelled to disclose the profits it makes from the domestic consumers when it shows its accounts. There will be no way of showing how much those profits from the domestic consumers have contributed to some cross-

143
subsidisation, whereas if we had the commissioners which my noble friends have been talking about, we should at least have one who would deal with tariff consumers. I think that should be borne in mind and perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, comes to reply he will deal with that particular point, with the transparency of the accounts that will be shown, and say whether or not the profits received from the domestic consumers of gas will be disclosed."
The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, at col. 1308 replied:
"The noble Baroness asked me about separate accounts. We shall be debating that subject at some length on later amendments; for example, there is Amendment No. 68 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. However, it is already the case that under Condition 2 of the draft authorisation British Gas will be obliged to publish full information about the profits of the gas supply business.
"In addition, the director will have full ability under Condition 7 to call for any further information that he might consider appropriate. Under Clause 35 of the Bill, the director has the ability to publish as much information as he considers expedient to give to tariff customers. That will ensure that if the director wishes to publish further information about the finances of the industry in the interests of consumers, he will be able fully to do so."
I wonder whether that is correct?
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, referred to Condition 7 of the BGC authorisation, and the director's right to publish information he receives. He implied by his reply that it will be possible for the director to publish the accounts for the tariff customer as distinct from the public gas supply industry as a whole. However, the authorisation in Condition 7 severely limits the director's right to publish some information, and I have no doubt that the noble Baroness had that in mind. In paragraph 1 of Condition 7 the British Gas Corporation is required to furnish accounts along with other information to the director. However, BGC is not required to furnish information if the director is acting:
"(a) under Section 23 of the Act"—
that is, modification by agreement; or,
"(b) under Section 24 of the Act"—
that is, making reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and,
"(c) under Section 35 of the Act"—
which relates to the publication of information and advice.
3.30 p.m.
In addition, under Section 35 the director cannot publish information which might prejudice the interests of BGC. He cannot publish information under that section. The transparency of accounts for tariff customers cannot be an enforcement matter under Sections 28 to 30, since it is not a condition or requirement under the terms of the authorisation. These powers to investigate complaints under Section 31 are limited to enforcement matters, so the director cannot use that section either.
Given all this it is hard to see what specific assurances the noble Lord, Lord Gray, was giving. Certainly his remark that if the director wishes to publish further information about the finances of the industry in the interests of the consumers he will be fully able to do so simply does not seem to be the case. I have said that to illustrate the complexity of the Bill and to try to show that even the noble Lord, Lord Gray
144
of Contin—who must have studied this Bill day in day out at very great length—does not seem to understand exactly the implication of the Bill and of what replies he is giving in this Committee. I, and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, will be interested to have his further answers to the points that I have just raised.
In my view our amendment gives the Committee another opportunity to see that the regulatory regime is adequate or, better still, gives the Government the opportunity to make amends for the brush off they gave us last Thursday, either by accepting the amendment as it stands or by giving an undertaking to consider it seriously between now and Report stage and to come back to the House or to the Committee with their own amendment to achieve what we are seeking in our amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: I should like to add a few minutes to this point. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said and I fully support it. In our debate on Thursday when I supported the amendment moved by my noble friends Lord Diamond and Lord Ezra, which the Committee was not able to accept, I tried to explain that I was worried about the domestic consumer in this legislation. I also said that one of my chief worries was not so much what Professor Carsberg had not done in the case of domestic consumers and British Telecom, but over the fact that I thought primarily that the legislation was to blame rather than Professor Carsberg. But I am not so sure now that I hold to that belief.
I should like to give the Committee another example of my worries. I read in The Times today that British Telecom is now proposing to reduce charges to business users holding more than 20 lines. I have no objection to charges being reduced to users of more than 20 telephone lines. What I take exception to is that a statement was then made quite definitely that British Telecom proposed to recoup the expense of lowering the charges to these people with all these telephone lines by increasing the charges to the domestic consumer. That I believe is absolutely disgraceful. I hoped I might have a chance of raising it today so that the noble Lord, Lord Contin, could give me an answer.
I know that concerns British Telecom and not this legislation. As we all know, when the matter arose in the House British Telecom and the Government were able to produce reasons so that if an increase that was too much was added to an increase that was too little and below the mean that was allowed, then the average achieved was permissible. But I do not think that is right; I think that is sharp practice. The sooner that Professor Carsberg, whom I have defended and whom I hope to defend in the future, gets on to that the better. As I understood it, Professor Carsberg did not feel that he could intervene on that aspect until at least a year had elapsed to see whether or not British Telecom was justified.
However, I am now back to this today because as I read the amendment it does not mention appointing commissioners, but it seeks to appoint four directors to help the director general.
If I remember correctly, when I raised on Thursday the issue of the transparency of the accounts—because

145
at the moment British Gas is not compelled to show the profits made from the consumer and thereby prevent cross-subsidisation—the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, told me that, if he so wished, the director general could call for this to be done. I do not think he should call for it to be done; I think it should be in the legislation. Be that as it may, one of the proposed directors could probably attend to that. I am wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Gray, can comment to the Committee on the attitude of British Telecom (presumably permitted also under the legislation for British Gas) of increasing charges to domestic users to pay for reductions in charges to those who are bigger users.
I also read something else which I thought was particularly bad. It was not only that charges to domestic consumers were to be raised, but apparently the worst blow was to fall on the unfortunate domestic telephones users who do not use their telephones enough. Whether the Minister or the people in charge of British Telecom believe that doing that will make people use them more, I do not know, I do not understand it. But when the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, replies, will he tell the Committee whether he thinks it will be possible for British Gas under this legislation to behave as British Telecom has done, and so to ignore the ordinary domestic consumer so that prices to him continually rise when there is no necessity for them to do so?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, seemed to be in a rather irritable mood at one part of his speech. As one who listened fairly carefully to most of the proceedings of the previous day on this Committee stage, I thought that his criticisms of my noble friends were wholly unjustified. On the contrary, I thought that my noble friends showed exemplary patience during proceedings which—shall we say?—did not err on the side of brevity, and certainly during one speech, where brevity was not a very conspicuous feature. Therefore I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, with his threat that if the Government's attitude did not change he would find it necessary to revise his attitude, was a little difficult to understand. The justification for it is certainly not apparent—at any rate, not to one noble Lord who sat through the proceedings of the previous day.
This amendment is quite narrow in scope, although it has been widened even into discussing the working of another Act. I am intrigued a little at the importance which noble Lords opposite and in the Alliance seem to attach to the mere numbers in the controlling and supervising body. They started last week by going for three commissioners. Now they want one director general and four assistant director generals. Inflation has moved from three to five, which is a rather rapid rate in the course of the week. With respect, it is extraordinarily naïve—I am surprised to observe any naïvety in the person of Lord Stoddart of Swindon—to believe that the mere numbers of people appointed to this directorate, as opposed to what is done in respect of their powers, is of any real significance.
No one believes for a moment that if the Bill stands as it does (and I hope it will) that the director general
146
will be alone. He will have a staff, probably if past form is to be followed, which many of us would regard as excessive in size. These bodies are apt to grow. Whatever else he is, he will not be alone; and to ask, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, did, "What can this poor man himself do against this powerful corporation?" is wholly unrealistic.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to think a little further. If the director general is to be provided—he might well have said saddled—with four subordinates all appointed by Ministers, the director general's position is a great deal weaker than it would be if he were left as the sole ministerial appointee. Those of us who have served in public authorities know that the more members of the authority there are who are appointed by the Minister the less is the authority of the chairman or of the director general. I see the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, shaking his head. I hope he is not going to quote the Price Commission to me, because if he does I shall have quite a lot to say about the Price Commission from which during his chairmanship I suffered a certain amount of boredom—"tedium" is the more courteous word. I suggest that this official, the director general, is going to be in a much stronger position if he is the sole ministerial appointee, with the rest of the staff—and there will be a staff—being his appointees, his subordinates, without any challenge to his authority. Therefore, if the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is, as he appears to suggest, that of strengthening the position of this important functionary, I suggest to him with very great respect that he is going wholly the wrong way about it and that the sensible way would be to leave the director general to appoint his own staff.
We certainly want to see a strong character appointed to that post; I wholly agree. We want a man of the highest qualifications and abilities, because it would be a great mistake to suggest that it is only noble Lords opposite or those in the Alliance who are interested in the position of the consumer. We are all immensely concerned with the position of the consumer, but we are not discussing that, on which there is broad agreement of the Committee, but the particular mechanism for providing this protection. I suggest to the Committee that the noble Lord's rather naïve idea that there is safety in numbers is somewhat misleading.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has just resumed his seat, that often I find him a very persuasive advocate even when I do not happen to agree with his conclusion. However, I did not find his speech this afternoon so persuasive. Let me explain why. As I understand it, his argument is that if the Minister has powers to appoint a number of people rather than one, that undermines the position of the principal officer concerned with the matter. That is a curious doctrine.
Let me take two or three examples. I was chairman of the Parole Board. The Home Secretary appointed 50 members of the board. Did I feel that that undermined my position as chairman of the Parole Board? Of course I did not. The Home Secretary appoints the Commissioner of the Metropolitan

147
Police. He also appoints five Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police and a Deputy Commissioner. Is it seriously to be argued that that undermines the position of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? One has only to go through examples of that kind to see how thin is the basis of the argument we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Please.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: We are concerned here not with an organisation such as those the noble Lord has described but with a board in which it is proposed to appoint a director general. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that the position of that director general is going to be strengthened by ensuring that he does not appoint his own subordinates but that they are appointed by the Minister?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, the noble Lord has just repeated the point which I have endeavoured to answer. I do not think that that is a persuasive argument, for the reasons that I have cited already. This is constantly done, and if the noble Lord would encourage me to do so I could find plenty more. The director general, or whoever is the principal officer, appointed by a Secretary of State does not feel that he is in some mysterious way undermined because the Secretary of State has appointed others to subordinate positions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry, but—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall give way in just a second, if I may. That is why I find the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, unimpressive. Of course I acknowledge the fact that the noble Lord says, I am sure rightly, that he is concerned about the position of the consumer. Speaking for my noble friends, I am sure that we shall gladly support any proposal emanating from the noble Lord which strengthens the position of the consumer so far as this Bill is concerned. What does concern us—this relates directly to the point made by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry—is that in the previous examples where we have transferred power from a public monopoly to a private monopoly the position of the consumer has already been gravely undermined, and we see nothing in this Bill which satisfies us that we have learnt from that experience.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord did not answer the question I put to him. I did not put to him the question whether the position of the director general would be undermined. I asked the opposite question: whether it would be strengthened.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: To answer the precise point the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has put to me, I do not think that is the central question. The
148
central question is as I put it: does it undermine the position of the director general for Ministers to appoint these senior subordinates? The answer to that question is: no, it does not.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: The examples which have just been quoted by my noble friend Lord Harris related to the Parole Board and the Metropolitan Police. With due respect, they are not trading organisations in the way that the Gas Board will be a trading organisation, and I think we might strengthen our argument from these Benches if we quoted the experience of trading organisations such as the British Railways Board and other boards in the nationalised sector, where it is not uncommon for a Minister to appoint a director general or a head of a nationalised industry and make subsequent appointments for consumer interests: director of supplies, finance director, and so on. In my experience in nationalised industries, in no sense did that in any way diminish the responsibility of the director general or the chief executive. So, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, his argument is not supported by the event.
Lord Diamond: I should like to support very strongly the amendment that has been moved so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and to explain why we on these Benches welcome it as an attempt to do what we ourselves failed to do, which was to persuade the Committee that the present arrangement was wholly unsatisfactory and unlikely to achieve the purposes of the Government.
As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has just repeated, the purpose of the Government is to ensure adequate protection for the consumer. That is one of the purposes which arise because you have an existing public monopoly with the protection which that provides being turned into a private monopoly which, by definition, has no protection for the consumer unless it is provided by statute. We are dealing with a statute which provides that very protection. I am glad that we start off on common ground: how can we best achieve the common purpose stated by the Government and by the Opposition parties of protecting the consumer where you have the circumstances which I have described?
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has produced a novel argument. Of course, he is a reliable and highly respected Member on the Conservative Benches—highly reliable in the sense that he can always be relied on to get up and produce from the top of his head quite good arguments in support of what he has just heard the government spokesman say. That is a great skill in which he excels, if I may say so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If I may say so, those are highly complimentary observations. But I point out to the noble Lord that I have not yet had the privilege, and neither has he, of hearing what the Government spokesman is going to say on this amendment. I do not know what he is going to say.
Lord Diamond: The noble Lord does know. It is written in the Bill which he has read. The noble Lord said—and if he said it, no doubt it is true—that he was here until five to eleven on Thursday night. Is that

149
correct? There is no answer. He said that he was here until five to eleven last Thursday and heard everything that was then said.
I tried then to put before the Committee arguments which, if he has not heard and if the Committee wishes me to repeat, I shall gladly do so. These were arguments to try to persuade the Committee that what he is saying is wholly novel, wholly unproved and, one might say, on the face of it implausible. It is implausible that one person will act on his own against a chairman and board of high calibre and enormous experience, entrenched in their work and supported by an experienced, long-term staff of high calibre and high remuneration, as befits such calibre. It is implausible that he will be able to stand up and make representations to such a chairman and board the more readily if he is on his own.
I said that that was implausible. What I mean is that I regard it as nonsense. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me using those terms. It is nonsense to suggest that a man is better equipped to cope with that situation on his own than if he has colleagues who are able and who have authority.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Diamond: The noble Lord has a slight attack of impatience, but I shall give way if he wants me to.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord has wholly misrepresented me in saying that I suggested that this man should be on his own. On the contrary, I suggested, as he will see if he reads Hansard, that he should have subordinates of high calibre and ability appointed by himself.
Lord Diamond: I know that the noble Lord said that. I heard him. But they are of high calibre and low status. What we are concerned with is people who have the status, or very close to the status, of the director general himself; people who can impress by their ability and by their status; by the number of pips. We are all familiar with that. We do not regard a general as being—well, I shall not pursue it; I have no need. Everybody understands the position. A man of status acting on his own is likely to be strengthened if he has colleagues, experienced and of high calibre, acting with him.
The noble Lord seemed to raise the minor objection that four such directors should not be appointed by the Secretary of State. If he prefers to put down an amendment saying that they should be appointed by the director general, so long as they have that status, we would look at that with considerable care and, indeed, would welcome it. I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has drafted the amendment in this way so as to make it the more acceptable to the Government.
Everybody is aware of the fact that there is grave concern about the way these provisions in a previous Bill are proving to be unsatisfactory. The provisions in this Bill, so we are told in the Notes on Clauses, are copied from the provisions in the Telecommunications Bill; the Bill that set up British Telecom. We are therefore entitled to ask whether they
150
are working well. The Committee has already heard that they are not. I am bound to underline what has already been said because it has been said modestly and the whole tragic position has not been put fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that he had read in the Guardian that the telephone emergency services were no longer to be supplied free; that they would have to be paid for. The noble Lord, as usual, was modest in quoting his authority. His authority was the Guardian. My authority is the spokesman who came on television on the one o'clock programme to explain the view of British Telecom. He said that it was going to do this, and it was going to do it because the powers to do it were included in the prospect us and the public had bought shares on the basis of that prospectus. That is what he said. There is no question about whether it intends to do it, how it intends to do it and the authority that it is claiming for that.
What it is claiming is that it is running a business. It is running a business and it is not concerned with services, not even emergency services. It is running a business. It is not even concerned with the fact that every original shareholder who still holds his shares has made a very substantial profit indeed on paper on his shares if he still holds them. He may very well have sold them at a great profit already.
The representative was not even concerned with a capital profit. That is put on one side. It is taken for granted that there will be a large capital profit and, in addition, that the shareholders should reasonably expect the board of British Telecom to charge for what has never been charged before in respect of emergency services so as to make sure of adding, if possible, to the dividend on top of the capital gain. That is the situation, or part of the situation, which we want to avoid being repeated.
My noble friend Lady Burton, who is an expert in looking after the consumer, said, if I may say so, innocently and in good heart that she had no objection to the contract customers, the non-tariff customers, being charged less. She had no objection to the people with more than 20 lines being charged less. But let us follow that a little further.
Why are they being charged less? Is it for no good reason? Not at all; they are being charged less so as to eliminate competition. That is the purpose. The Telecommunications Act provides some protection in that it allows opposition companies to come into the field and, if they can, compete with large suppliers of the same service. I am talking about the telephone service. That is what is provided for. How does big business get rid of competition? We all know. It is by undercutting the competition mercilessly until they have gone bankrupt. The very big boys are able to do this the more so if they have other customers whom they can charge in order to cover their costs and make a profit out of them in place of the others.
At the back of the mind of British Telecom in starting this battle of reducing the charges to the large, 20-line customers is to eliminate the competition which it is not enjoying. How can it do that? It can do it by charging the small customer. Those are two examples, added to the third one which we all know, inasmuch as every private telephone user is now paying more than he would have paid had telephones

151
not been privatised. The charges have already been increased. So we have three solid cases to put before the Government as to why the Government's desire of protecting the consumer and ensuring some measure of competition will not work, because it has not worked on the same clauses that are being copied and put into this Bill.
It is for that reason that we oppose it strongly and wish to impress on the Committee the need to have not what was called in the other place a "tadpole"—a word which would not fall naturally from the lips of one Member of this Committee. We do not want to have a tadpole attempting to carry out these enormous responsibilities but we want to have, if you like, not a commission, such as every state in the United States has found to be necessary on its experience (and every one is still continuing to do so) but a group of directors with authority and status who could achieve this purpose. This is a solid amendment, and I hope that the Committee will support it.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not intervene during the discussions on previous similar amendments, but I listened to them with enormous interest and I have been thinking about them since. It seems to me that in arguing this afternoon for having five directors instead of one on this regulatory body, noble Lords opposite have compared it to the board of British Rail, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, suggested that because the board of British Rail is appointed by the Government it would be desirable that there should be five directors on this regulatory body in connection with the gas industry, also appointed by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, suggested that because members of the Parole Board are appointed by the Government that is an argument for having five directors of this regulatory body, rather than one. We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the argument in which he seemed to be likening what would be going on in the gas industry to something like a football match, where you had the board against the regulatory body and unless there were plenty of people in both teams it would not work.
The question we are really discussing, it seems to me, is whether there should be a director of gas and his staff, whom he has chosen. We shall see later that the Government are suggesting that the number of that staff should be limited, and there is a mechanism for doing that. His own staff will be backing him up. They will be very senior people, I should have thought, and because they are chosen by the director rather than by the Secretary of State it would not necessarily mean that they would be weak in argument. It seems to me that the parties who are constantly in discussion are telling us that they do not want a lot of appointments by the Secretary of State because they fear that would make them too political; and so to be arguing for five instead of one seems to me to be rather extraordinary. It seems to me to be a perfectly satisfactory arrangement to have a director appointed—able and well paid, with clear, strong duties—and staff whom he has chosen and whose number is controlled. There is
152
surely nothing wrong with that as a managerial arrangement. I should have thought the public would find it very odd if this Committee were to decide to have five directors instead of one on such slim arguments.
Lord Ezra: Noble Lords on the Government Bench opposite must by now surely be aware that the main reason motivating us on this side of this series of amendments is our concern about the efficacy of the regulatory machinery. We are moving into uncharted seas in British industry. As was pointed out in the Second Reading debate, the Government themselves in their manifesto of 1983 said that in privatising it would not be their intention to transfer monopolies simply from the public to the private sector. Apparently they have changed their minds on that score and, they having changed their minds, we must now make absolutely certain that private monopolies are regulated effectively in the interests of the consumer.
We are not necessarily saying that the director general should have four, five or whatever number of directors to support him, whether they are called commissioners or something else. Underlying all these amendments is our grave concern, in this new industrial situation which is being created by this proposed government measure, that too little attention appears to have been paid to the regulatory mechanism. I think it would help us a great deal on this side of the Committee in looking at the public interest—because this is not a political issue but a matter of public interest as regards safeguarding the consumers—if the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, should he be replying to this debate, were to say that the Government accept that there is a serious issue here, that they will consider this matter and will come forward with proposals at a later stage.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): I think we have had a very useful debate this afternoon. Certainly I suggest that it is a much more constructive debate than we had on any of the amendments we discussed on this subject last Thursday. However, I must take issue straightaway with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in respect of the inference, if not the actual suggestion, which he made that the Government had not been taking seriously the points of view represented by the Opposition last week. Indeed, I think he said they felt they had been ridden roughshod over, and I must take exception to that. I think we covered about half a dozen amendments during a whole day's sitting; and I feel that my noble friend Lord Belstead, along with myself, listened very carefully to everything that had been said. The mere fact that we did not agree with most of it surely does not indicate that we were not prepared to give due consideration to what was said.
It is a funny sort of world if, because you do not accept an amendment, you are obviously behaving in a cavalier style. Whatever criticisms the noble Lord may have of our Front Bench, I do not think that during my short three years' experience of this Chamber I have ever heard any of our Ministers on the Front bench be other than courteous to those sitting on the Opposition Benches. I rather resent the

153
implication which the noble Lord included in his remarks and I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for so quickly seizing upon that point and pointing out the fact that indeed it would hardly have been surprising in the circumstances if Ministers had become a little bit irritable. Sitting on these Benches and looking across at the other side, we saw plenty of irritable faces on that side, over the delay which was taking place throughout the day.
I have again listened very carefully indeed but, you know, there have been relatively few new arguments presented by noble Lords opposite. It has been a rehash of the same arguments, perhaps dressed up a little differently in the hope of attracting the support of some of my noble friends. I think my noble friend Lord Torrington was mentioned, but I doubt very much whether the wording of this amendment is likely to change my noble friend's view very much; and no doubt he will himself consider very carefully what has been said in this debate.
We have already discussed at some length the possibility of a commission or additional directors for Ofgas. The Opposition may feel that it is third time lucky for them. I do not think that they will be lucky because their arguments have not been any better today than they were last week. As I have already said, there is a basic philosophical difference among the sides of the Committee on how to bring about the most effective regulatory organisation. We believe that it is important that the responsibility for regulating the gas industry should rest with one individual, the Director-General of Gas Supply, and it should then be up to him to take whatever steps he feels necessary to achieve the necessary staff distribution.
The director general will be at liberty to give members of his staff responsibilities under him for particular areas. I imagine that that will be the sensible way for him to run his office and his affairs. If he wishes to assign staff to different functional areas or on a geographical basis, that will be a matter for him to decide. He may call the heads of branches "directors" if he wishes. Again, that is a matter for his judgment. The Secretary of State has no need to play a part in that. The director general will also be able to take on the services of consultants if he feels that he needs advice on any particular issue.
As I have said, flexibility is the key. Why four directors, for instance? Flexibility and freedom of action properly go with the responsibility. I reiterate that the final responsibility must rest with the director general.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made a number of points which I feel I should answer. He referred first to the free repair of telephone emergency equipment and related that to this Bill. He mentioned the withdrawal of the free repair service. I am glad that he did not see fit to draw a parellel with gas, because we have inserted in the authorisation to be granted to British Gas Condition No. 11 which will specifically require the British Gas Corporation to provide a continuous service for dealing with reported escapes of gas and to advertise such a service. That condition, like all conditions of the authorisation, is enforceable by the director general under his powers contained in Clause 28. In addition, Schedule 5, paragraph 13 ensures that
154
a public gas supplier must deal with escapes of gas and make them safe on both its side and the customer's side of the meter without charge.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also asked me about the publication of information. He argued that it is not possible for the director general to publish information. I do not agree with the noble Lord. I do not think that he has correctly interpreted the provisions of Condition No. 7 of the authorisation. It is possible for the director general to collect the information necessary to ensure that British Gas is adhering to its obligations to avoid undue preference to its tariff consumers under Clauses 9 and 14. It will be possible for the director general to publish whatever information he wishes under the provisions of Clause 35. If the noble Lord looks more closely at Condition No. 7 of the authorisation, he will see that the director general can require British Gas to make reasoned comments on the accuracy of the information which he proposes to publish. I therefore reject completely the criticism made by the noble Lord on that subject.
4.15 p.m.
When the Committee last met we had some discussion on the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. I answered them in considerable detail at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was good enough to include in his speech extracts from Hansard of the exchanges that we had in which the noble Baroness asked me about increases in charges to pay for reductions to business consumers. I can assure the noble Baroness that that will not be possible under the regime that we have proposed because, as noble Lords opposite will no doubt appreciate, the price control formula is designed specifically to control prices in the tariff sector. It does not, as in the case of the BT formula, apply to an average of both industrial and domestic consumers. There is therefore no possibility of pushing up domestic prices while lowering industrial prices so as to keep the average within the limit, as in our case tariff sector prices only are covered. I am glad to be able unreservedly to give the noble Baroness the assurance that she seeks that under our system such changes would not be permitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who when we last met gave us the benefit of his researches at some length, contributed to the discussion again today. I do not know whether it has to do with brevity or with whether the points he made today were better, but his succinct delivery was much more impressive, and had I been of such a mind, I might almost have been persuaded by some of his remarks.
The noble Lord of course has the great advantage of having been a Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In that capacity in another place he had the experience of suffering a great many insults from the other side, as is common practice there. I am sure therefore that he will not take it amiss if in the kindest posible way I poke a little fun at him this afternoon. He suggested that the director general will be better equipped to deal with the BGC board on his own. That is nonsense. Schedule 1, paragraph 4 provides:
"The Director may, … appoint such staff as he may determine".
Those appointments will all be Civil Service appointments and will have to be cleared by the

155
Treasury. That is one of the points about which we argued recently. If the director general considers that the best way—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I ask the noble Lord a precise question? These are Civil Service appointments to be approved by the First Civil Service Commissioner. Can it be made clear precisely who gives authority for the appointments?
Lord Gray of Contin: The appointments are ultimately all approved by the Treasury. They cannot be made without the authority of the Treasury.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am putting a point of some importance. There was a dispute about Mr. Levene's appointment to the Ministry of Defence. Undertakings were given that in the future all appointments of the character of Mr. Levene's would be cleared by the First Civil Service Commissioner. Is that the case here or is it not?
Lord Gray of Contin: Obviously appointments are made by the director general. I hope within the next few moments to be made aware of the answer to the question that the noble Lord has asked. Yes, they are Civil Service Commissioner appointees, but perhaps I can get full particulars for the noble Lord and communicate with him. As I was saying, if the director general considers that the best way to fulfil his functions and duties under the Bill is to appoint certain staff to particular posts with certain specifications, this he can do. If he wants to call upon—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Would the noble Lord mind giving way?
Lord Gray of Contin: May I just carry on for the moment? The noble Lord will be speaking again. As regards the various titles which were suggested for different directors, or whatever they may be as laid down in the amendment, the director has the power to appoint deputies. He can call them deputy directors or deputy director generals. In military terms, he can give them as many pips as he likes. It is entirely up to him. Therefore, I cannot accept that the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about the director acting on his own is justified. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord does not sincerely hold that view; but I am trying to persuade him that his fear in this regard is not justified.
We have spent a good deal of time on this amendment. In many ways, it is a rehash of what we were talking about last Thursday. I do not think that the Committee will wish me to hold back for very long the anxiety of its Members to come to a conclusion on this matter, and I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment; or, if he persists in pressing it, I must ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord's venture into the realm of a humorous dig at the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seems to have misfired a little. Indeed, the answer that he has given in relation to the powers of the director general to appoint staff has, I am afraid,
156
got him into a slightly humorous situation, in that we now know that it is the Civil Service Commission that appoints them; he does not appoint them. He can give them various grades or as many pips as he likes, as the noble Lord put it, but the position will have to be resolved far more authoritatively than that. It is quite clear from what the noble Lord has said, where he has not contradicted himself on the matter, that there is an overwhelming justification for this amendment in that one wants appointments of high-powered people made at a higher level altogether to deal with what is truly a formidable executive board of British Gas.
The situation is rendered all the more humorous by the fact that earlier on this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was kind enough to define the position of government as against the nationalised boards, giving government full power to determine policy but leaving the operations of the particular board or industry affected to those in control of it. This is the perfect situation that has obtained up till now.
Let us observe the position. Here is a gas industry which has been conspicuously successful, as anybody who cares to read Appendix Ito the accounts of British Gas covering the past 10 years will immediately be able to appreciate. There can be no complaint whatsoever about the economic and profitable performance of British Gas, functioning as a publicly owned company with the Minister being given general powers of direction, which undoubtedly the Minister has.
I ask the Committee to consider what has happened. Without all this detailed paraphernalia of the Bill, without all the regulation that is proposed in the various documents that are brought with this Bill, the Government are trying to achieve exactly the same purpose that has been achieved over the past 10 years at least—all for the sake of handing over the capital ownership to private shareholders. It must be one of the most ridiculous circumstances that could ever be laid before the British people. This paraphernalia, this complication, the hours and hours spent in debate, the hours and hours spent in drafting clauses in order to safeguard the public interest and to achieve protection for the British public, which they have had for at least 10 years without any regulatory body at all and which has been achieved purely because of the knowledge of the corporation, which is ultimately responsible through the Minister to Parliament, is completely useless in that respect.
The reason why one wants a more powerful regulatory body is very simple. We on this side, and the public at large, do not trust the Government at all to introduce in good faith regulations or Acts which will in fact, as distinct from theory, protect their interests, and they feel like that for good reason. My noble friend Lord Stoddart has given an example this afternoon of what happened to Oftel and British Telecom; and the point was amplified by the noble Baroness a little later on. But to quote what the British Telecom spokesman actually said reveals the true nature of the dilemma. What the spokesman said was:
"The service that was the free priority telephone repair service for police, fire and ambulance stations and hospitals was previously a drain on BT, but it was absorbed because we were a public corporation. Once we were privatised, we became a company like any other company and all of our customers have to pay the going rate for services."

157
That is exactly the state of affairs that we on this side wish to avoid. We want the regulatory body to be effective, and to be effective it must be manned properly.
We are considering this within the context of the Minister's own Explanatory Memorandum which, at page viii of the Bill gives an idea of what the Government expect to happen in terms of manpower as a result of this Bill. I should like to quote it to the Committee because it is within this context that we consider the Government's real intention of setting up a proper regulatory body. It states:
"It is expected that the staff of the Director General of Gas Supply and the staff of the Gas Users' Council will together number about 80 to 100. The abolition of the existing National and Regional Gas Consumers' Councils will result in the disappearance of about 100 public sector posts. The conversion of the British Gas Corporation to a public limited company may lead to a small reduction in the number of staff in the Department of Energy. There may be a small increase in the staff of the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if a large number of matters are referred to them. It is probable that the net effect on public sector manpower will be a slight reduction."
I invite the Committee to consider whether the way the Government were looking at it there is consistent with their determination to have a regulatory body which is propely staffed, not only in terms of numbers but also in terms of quality and rank.
4.30 p.m.
If Members of the Committee care to study the proceedings of the Select Committee on Energy in another place (House of Commons Paper No. 15 published on 15th January last) they will find out the misgivings of this all-party committee. They will find there that the committee is anxious that the director general's department shall have adequate authority. There is the whole question of looking after the Office of Fair Trading aspects of the new plc's activities, a possible reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and certainly duties in connection with the continuity of the policy hitherto carried out by British Gas to buy British supplies wherever possible, which is something British Telecom undertook to do in the early stages.
There are important functions relating to competition, which occupies or should occupy a highly specialised area in the department of the Director-General of Oftel. These merit not merely staff who go through the normal Civil Service Commission and have its approval; they demand that the staff be headed by people of rank, in every way capable of dealing with their opposite numbers in the new British Gas plc. Nowhere is this more necessary than in the finance and accounting field.
British Gas brought forward the suggestion, which was, I think, accepted by the Government—it is so stated in the energy committee report—that once it was privatised it would no longer be required as a plc to produce any more information than is normally required by law under the Companies Acts, as amended by the various other measures that have been brought into the matter by virtue of compliance with the European Community accounting regulations, or to present accounts in any form different from a normal British plc. Hitherto British Gas has produced
158
very informative accounts going far beyond anything that is produced by a plc in the normal way.
Moreover, for regulatory purposes it is necessary not only that this should continue but that it should be enlarged. If the Committee will look at the proposed authorisation, it will find new categories of costs set out under the various conditions in the draft authorisation that do not have any comparable category in even the large and extended accounts which British Gas has been able to produce.
One thing has to be done if there is to be transparency. The published data used by the director general for the purpose of checking whether the authorisation regulations have been carried out must conform with the authorisation in order that everybody may see exactly the basis upon which any price adjustments are made. It will be apparent to those noble Lords who have occupied positions in public life—certainly those noble Lords who have been in commerce or perhaps in large industries—that the accounting requirements set out in the authorisation and their proper checking require people of high status, with fully subordinate staffs to enable the job to be done satisfactorily, particularly as new accounting categories are created and there are areas of ambiguity within the draft authorisation form submitted to the House.
All these considerations add up not to a small director general's department, headed no doubt by a reputable gentleman, but with a small subordinate, albeit skilled, staff. They add up to having a fully effective and powerful organisation ranking in every respect with the executives in British Gas who are their opposite numbers. They need not necessarily have a complete counterpart, one for one, but they require a very high powered body if after this Act has been passed the public of the United Kingdom are to be accorded those safeguards they have now when it is a public corporation. They want to be satisfied that this prosperous and secure state of affairs now, when British Gas is a public corporation, can be guaranteed even after this absurd exercise of privatisation has been carried out. That is why we shall insist on this amendment.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Chitnis, L.

Amherst, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Aylestone, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Banks, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Barnett, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Birk, B.

Denington, B.

Blyton, L.

Diamond, L.

Bottomley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Ennals, L.

Caradon, L.

Ezra, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

159

Fitt, L.

Mulley, L.

Fletcher, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Northfield, L.

Galpern, L.

Oram, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hayter, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Heycock, L.

Rhodes, L.

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rochester, L.

Hunt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hylton, L.

Seear, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jacques, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stallard, L.

Kagan, L.

Stedman, B.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Walston, L.

McNair, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mais, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mayhew, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Molloy, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Gainford, L.

Allerton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beloff, L.

Greenway, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Blake, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Braye, L.

Hood, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Caccia, L

Kemsley, V.

Caithness, E.

Killearn, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kintore, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cathcart, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Cayzer, L.

Layton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

Lyell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V.

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norrie, L.

160

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Pender, L.

Somerset, D.

Perth, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strathspey, L.

Porritt, L.

Swansea, L.

Portland, D.

Swinfen, L.

Radnor, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Terrington, L.

Reay, L.

Teynham, L.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Rodney, L.

Todd, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trumpington, B.

St. Davids, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Salisbury, M.

Vickers, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Sandford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sandys, L.

Young, B.

Selkirk, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Shannon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think we have reached a suitable moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Prison Officers' Dispute
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the prison officers' dispute being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I will with permission make a Statement on the dispute with the Prison Officers Association.
"The House will recall that I set out the issues in the dispute in my reply to a Private Notice Question from the honourable Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, on 17th April. Since then I have twice met representatives of the National Executive Committee of the Prison Officers Association. Following my first meeting, I put to them in writing on 22nd April a package of proposals for resolving the dispute. When I met them again yesterday, POA representatives accepted that my proposals provided a way forward. They undertook in return to consider my request that they call off industrial action in order to allow a resolution on this basis to proceed.
"In the event, the POA NEC declined to go beyond the offer of an undertaking that it would instruct its members not to take action while talks on the basis of my proposals were proceeding. In effect, that amounted to an offer to suspend, but not to call off their industrial action. Their previous undertaking to suspend had proved ineffective and damaging industrial action had taken place despite it. So their position yesterday represented no advance on the position they had taken in talks last

161
week and was unacceptable to me. The Government cannot conduct talks under the continuing threat of further industrial action in this vital public service.
"The association has therefore broken off discussions and announced that it is considering ways of extending its industrial action, which may include strike action. As I make this Statement, it is still unclear what action the POA may take in practice.
"I deeply regret this action by the POA NEC, which shows no regard for the longer-term interests of their members nor, equally importantly, of the prisoners in their charge. The sort of industrial action which we have already seen at Gloucester Prison—where prison officers yesterday took control of the prison and refused to accept the orders of their governor and where they are still refusing to return to normal working—is unacceptable. The Government will take all possible steps both to sustain the right of governors to manage their prisons and to protect prisoners and the public from the consequences of POA action.
"In this context, a circular will be issued tomorrow to the courts containing advice on the implications for them of the dispute. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. I will consider any further measures which may be necessary in the light of developments.
"Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to make a final appeal to prison officers to look at the package of proposals I have placed before them and to judge whether it is worth throwing that away by taking further industrial action. As I have publicly acknowledged on many occasions, prison officers do a difficult and often dangerous job. They deserve to be well paid. But the heavy burden of overtime must be lightened and there must be increased efficiency. Progress towards formal discussions about a range of new systems designed to meet all these objectives was being made when the NEC call for industrial action went out. My agenda for talks represents a positive way forward for prison officers and, indeed, the whole prison service. I very much hope that, even now, prison officers will end their action in order to avoid lasting damage to the prison service and to their own interests".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement. It falls to me to deal with the Statement from these Benches, in view of the professional position of my noble friend Lord Mishcon.
The Statement by the Home Secretary is a grave one, made at a grave moment in our nation's affairs. Surely in the dangerous situation in which we find ourselves—indeed, it is approaching a national emergency—reasonable bridging must take place between the prison department of the Home Office and the Prison Officers Association. Is it not entirely reasonable that the prison department should ask at this moment for the suspension of industrial action while discussions take place on the main issue? Is it not right that there should now be a truce? Indeed, has the
162
Prison Officers Association not offered suspension of industrial action, as the Home Secretary's Statement says? Is not the demand for a total calling off of industrial action unreasonable before it is known what may emerge from the discussions which the association is ready to undertake?
In my submission, no trade union can undertake to accept what is demanded by the Home Secretary and still keep the confidence of its membership at this time, before an offer of participation in discussions. Is it not a fact that over the weekend prison officers were required to give written undertakings, against the threat of suspension, to submit to new conditions of service? Was that the best way of dealing with this critical situation in the circumstances? Does it not make sense for both sides to suspend action pending further discussions between them in the hope that a peaceful formula can be found?
I submit that such a formula is capable of being found and should be found. Unfortunately the whole atmosphere of the discussions has been poisoned by the actions of the prison department and the governor of Gloucester Prison over the weekend. How do matters stand now in that prison? Further, what happened at Leicester Prison this morning, where again a crisis situation seems to have been reached? Has not the situation there also been aggravated by action on the part of the governor and his immediate staff?
In this grave crisis in the affairs of the prison service, and in view of its wider implications for the country as a whole, my plea is for reason to prevail.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in thanking the Minister for repeating this Statement. As has been said, it is one of the most serious Statements that has been made in the history of the prison service. I think that we must all recognise that at the outset.
Does the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is particularly regrettable given the fact that there are many fine public servants who work as main grade prison officers and many admirable men who work as governors? Does he further agree that in this particularly difficult situation our support must go to the handful of governors who are having to deal with the extremely difficult situations in many prison department establishments in this country?
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the background to this dispute is the intolerable overcrowding that exists within the British prison system. On Wednesday of last week we discussed this matter. We note that he has indicated that his right honourable friend is contemplating issuing some form of circular which will go out tomorrow to the magistrates' courts, and I assume to the Crown Courts, and that he will put this document in the Library. May I ask him whether a Statement will be made in the House tomorrow, because presumably the circular will be asking magistrates to take a certain course of action as regards sentencing offenders? If that is so, it will be desirable to have some form of Statement made in the House.
May I ask the noble Lord further whether the Goverment are now contemplating using the executive

163
release scheme which has been discussed in this House on a number of occasions and which obviously must be one of the matters that the Home Secretary is now seriously considering? Is he aware that many noble Lords who have had dealings with the prison service over a number of years take the view that this dispute has been boiling up for eight years at the very minimum? Is he aware that one of the problems does not concern the attitude of the national executive of the Prison Officers Association but lies in the constant series of disruptions which have taken place in a number of prisons and which have been called by local branches of the Prison Officers Association? It appears from what he has said that something of this sort happened at Gloucester. Can he say a little more about what indeed did happen at Gloucester Prison?
Is the noble Lord aware that in the extremely difficult situations which obtain in many of our grossly overcrowded prisons, it is absolutely right that the Prison Officers Association should be consulted as closely as possible both by the governors and by the prison department in London? But is he aware also that in the critically difficult situations obtaining in those establishments, many of us believe that the governor must make the final decisions in so far as they concern the disposition of his staff?
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that everyone is anxious to see this very sad dispute resolved as speedily as possible? Will he take every step to keep the House closely informed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for their reception of the Statement. Perhaps I may start my reply to the various questions which they have put to me by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it is the earnest desire of my right honourable friend, myself and everybody in the prison department, as well as members of the Prison Officers Association, to see this dispute brought rapidly to a close. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that it is a very grave matter. I hope that it will be possible one way or another to find a sensible bridge to the problems which exist, but the noble and learned Lord must not underestimate the difficult nature of the divide that has now arisen between us.
As regards the question of the suspension of industrial action which was offered by the POA yesterday, as I explained when I repeated the Statement, that would have meant that talks would have taken place under a continuing threat of further industrial action. This was unacceptable, particularly as the leaders of the Prison Officers Association had said that my right honourable friend's proposals, which were set out in his letter of 22nd April to the POA National Executive Committee, constituted a reasonable way forward. I do not think that it is acceptable for the Government to talk under that sort of duress. It is particularly unreasonable in the light of the fact that we had reached a very similar position only last week and then suddenly we were faced with action at Gloucester just before the weekend.
As for the nature of the dismissals, suspensions or "temporary relief from duty", which is the phrase that
164
is being used in this case, some officers who are in fundamental breach of their duty have been temporarily relieved from duty until they agree to work normally. The staff concerned have been involved, for example, in refusing to accept orders. They have been refusing to man the courts and refusing to let prisoners into establishments. This action is not selective dismissal, as the POA has claimed; nor is it the same as a disciplinary suspension. If staff agree to work normally, they will be reinstated. The sanction is one that is well recognised throughout the Civil Service. There is no question of it being noted in any way that action had been taken. It is a perfectly normal and well accepted procedure.
5 p.m.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, suggested that the atmosphere had been poisoned by the activities at Gloucester over the week-end. I can perhaps say to the noble and learned Lord, and amplify the point for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that certainly the activity at Gloucester, in particular what has happened since the week-end, is most regrettable. Before the week-end the governor at Gloucester had for three weeks been asking the Prison Officers Association representatives to come to talk to him so that arrangements could be made to meet the budgetary control that has to be maintained by a prison governor of his establishment on the question of overtime. For three weeks he asked them to come and talk to him. For three weeks they refused. In the end he had to take certain steps, not particularly devastating steps, but minor steps, to bring himself back within the budget target.
Since then activities at Gloucester, as the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, know, have become rather more serious. Yesterday prison officers at Gloucester prison refused to man the courts, to escort prisoners to court and to obey the lawful orders of their governor. Not only did their action interfere with the administration of justice; in effect they took control of the prison. That is unacceptable to the Government and, I believe, unacceptable to your Lordships. It is one of the most serious actions, if not the most serious action, that many can remember within the prison service. The prison officers are a disciplined force. That is necessary if we are to maintain administration of justice in the way that we know it.
This morning staff reported for duty and were therefore told that if they wanted to work, they must agree to work normally before they would be allowed inside the prison. They declined to do so. The prison is presently being run by the governor and other governor grades. Twenty prisoners have staged a rooftop demonstration, but the police are standing by and the situation is under control. It was for persistently refusing to undertake the duties involved in conveying prisoners to court that 13 officers at Gloucester were temporarily relieved of duty. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that there are many fine public servants amid the prison officers, and indeed among the governors, who have publicly deplored the action at Gloucester. I join with the noble Lord in adding support for what the governors have to do. It is of course for the governors to manage their

165
prisons and not for the prison officers to manage prisons. That is certainly what the effect of the action at Gloucester could have been.
Your Lordships are, I believe, well aware that we are concerned about overcrowding. That is why we have set about the biggest prison building campaign this century. It is also a matter of concern to staff in prisons that they should be able properly to manage the regimes that exist there. I have to say to your Lordships that among the practices followed in prisons there are many instances of those that are far from flexible. This means quite often that regimes cannot be as comprehensive as we should all like.
As to the circular to the courts that I mentioned just now, the business of the courts will inevitably be disrupted. The circular that goes out tomorrow will ask for magistrates' courts' understanding of what has arisen and will suggest ways of reducing the burden on the police. For instance, the courts might be able to adjourn some cases or to grant bail immediately in others. We shall draw attention to the difficulties and ask the courts to bear them in mind. But we shall not, of course, be seeking to interfere in judicial decisions in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about executive release. Yes, the early release power in Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 is intended for use, but only in extreme circumstances. My right honourable friend would not be prepared to use it except in extreme circumstances.
As to the question of the POA generally and manning issues, we have of course made it plain to the association all along that we must consult it. The difficulty, as the noble Lord will be aware, arose over the absolute right to negotiate over manning, and that has never been a feature of any side of public service life. We have said all along that we are prepared to have discussions with the association and I hope come to a sensible arrangement. Failing that, management must have the right to manage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, having referred to Gloucester, mentioned Leicester. There has been no action at Leicester today.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the view being expressed in Gloucester prison is a national view? Can he also say what was the ratio of prisoners to prison officers about 10 years ago, and what it is today overall?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly not the case that the action being taken at Gloucester represents a national view. There are prison establishments up and down the country that, so far as I can tell, certainly deplore the action that has been taken at Gloucester, are working perfectly normally and have continued so to work over the last few days. As for the ratio of prison officers to prisoners, the number of staff at the moment is nearly 19,000 and the number of prisoners about 47,000. Over the last 10 years prison officer numbers have increased by about 18 per cent. and prisoners by 12 per cent.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why there has been no comparable trouble in the prison service in Scotland where the main convict prison at Peterhead is in my old constituency? There has been no trouble there.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that there has been no trouble there. As to precisely what are the negotiating arrangements with the Prison Officers Association in Scotland, I am afraid I cannot help the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister reflect that while the prison department manages budgets, governors and prison officers have to manage men—and violent and dangerous men at that? Will the Minister not agree that a ballot held in conformity with the Government's own legislation giving the POA executive a majority of 81 per cent. for industrial action is a powerful mandate? The voice is not the voice of the POA executive; it is the voice of the members of the POA. Will the Minister accept that the offer made by the Prison Officers Association late last night was both statesmanlike and responsible and that his right honourable friend would do well to follow the pattern then set by the prison officers?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that managing men and managing budgets are all part of a necessary balance that must be struck in the overall management of resources voted by Parliament to the prison service. So it is essential that at the end of any discussion the prison governor is the person who exercises control over the way that the resources are spent. Otherwise, it would be a matter of the POA dictating how budgets are spent. There can be no compromise on that. I agree, however, that ultimately a balance must be struck on all these issues, including work practices.
With regard to the mandate, yes, of course I accept that it is a mandate based upon the voice of the Prison Officers Association. But so far as I know, even at this late hour the Prisons Officers Association national executive committee has not put the letter which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary discussed and which he wrote on 22nd April in front of the membership. However, that is a matter for the executive.
I am all for statesmanslike approaches to these problems and certainly both my right honourable friend and I shall proceed in a statesmanlike way. But with regard to last night's statement by the Prison Officers Association, had we adopted that proposal we should have been placed in precisely the same situation—the noble Lord shakes his head, but I am afraid that this is the way it appears—as we were in last week. Then my right honourable friend said that he would be prepared to discuss the three main items in the letter of 22nd April, and then we suddenly found ourselves faced with the Gloucester issue.
I referred earlier to increases in numbers of prison officers. I said to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux that that was over a period of 10 years. I should have said that it was since 1979.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is important in this House at this crucial time that we should say nothing which would encourage members of the Prison Officers Association to carry on with this industrial action?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. As we have said, this dispute could have very serious effects not just on the way that prisons are run but also on prison officers, prisoners, and the whole criminal justice system. I hope that we shall all continue to look at it coolly.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that having listened to the explanation he has given to the House in this critical situation, speaking personally I fully agree with the line the government are taking? I say this with great reluctance because having for many years seen a great deal of the work in our prisons I have always held the highest regard and admiration for the work of prison officers, and I continue to do so. However, I agree that the Government have done the right thing in the particular circumstances.
Having said that, will the noble Lord agree that this critical situation which has arisen is of itself symptomatic of a far more fundamental problem? I know that the noble Lord is fully aware of this, but I make the point nonetheless. It arises from the inappropriate number of offenders who are sent to prison when they would be more satisfactorily and effectively dealt with by other means, and in many cases from the length of prison sentences imposed on those who must go to prison.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, feels able to support the line which the Government have taken on this issue. With regard to it being symptomatic of the concern he feels for what he sees as an inappropriate number of offenders being sent to prison, I must say to him that while through appropriate publications and other means we take steps to encourage those who may dispose of offenders not to send them to prison unless they have to do so, it is a matter for the courts to decide whether they send people to prison, and we must provide the places while they do so.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, in rising to support most strongly what my noble friend has said in such a moderate and statesmanlike way, may I ask him about what was mentioned in the Statement relating to the burden of overtime, in particular with regard to average earnings? Can he comment upon the average earnings of prison officers and on the need for overtime, which was mentioned in the Statement and which must clearly be one of the particular points involved?
Lord Genarthur: My Lords, the average earnings of prison officers are about £15,000 a year, of which overtime amounts to about 30 per cent. If the average amount of overtime worked each week is about 16½ hours—which is where the figure stands at the moment—there are a great many officers working far in excess of that; they are working 20, even 30, hours a week on top of a standard 40-hour week. That cannot be in the best interests of either the prison service or the individuals who have to do that amount of extra work.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there have been recent reports emanating from a member of the prison officers
168
executive suggesting that prison officers in Northern Ireland might be encouraged to join this action? Is he aware that that kind of approach will do the reputation of the Prison Officers Association great damage in this country? It would be an act of ultimate irresponsibility.
Perhaps I may return to one matter which I previously raised with the noble Lord. Will he undertake to keep the House closely informed about this situation? We all recognise the sensitivities of it, but as a meeting of the executive of the Prison Officers Association is taking place as we meet, and as the circular is coming out tomorrow, and there will clearly be a number of developments, will the noble Lord undertake to keep the House closely informed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with regard to the last request of the noble Lord, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will bear this very closely in mind. It will be a matter taken forward through the usual channels. But I can promise the noble Lord that yes, we shall bear it closely in mind.
With regard to Northern Ireland, I am aware of that threat. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be extremely damaging if the action were to spread to Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that it will not do so.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before we leave this very serious problem may I ask one question? Am I right in thinking that the only difference between the Government and the prison officers is one of suspension and abandonment of strike action? It seems to me a very narrow difference. I should like to say to the prison officers—whose friend I hope I have always been—that they should look at this. It seems to me that there is a way out by saying, "All right, abandonment for the moment, but we shall call it abolition. We can always start it again at any minute. The difference is verbal, and therefore we shall agree". If they would do that, the whole matter could be solved because I believe—this is not a question though it should be—that the kind of proposals that the Home Secretary will make will be acceptable.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if that is an avenue which the prison officers feel that they are able to go down, I agree with the noble Lord that it may be one way forward; I hope that it might be. But if we are faced with suspended action, which may for one reason or another lead to action taking place while talks are going on, and if the kind of action we saw last week when a prison governor was, absolutely rightly, continuing to govern his prison and to look after the finance which had been made available to him by vote from Parliament is to be called into question, serious negotiation cannot take place.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would be good enough to reassure me that Her Majesty's Government will ever defend the right of management to manage, that the prisons be managed by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that that right to manage be not usurped by those whom the Home Department employ on our behalf?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, Lords, I can certainly give my noble friend that assurance. It is a matter which has been stressed regularly over the last few days and it applies particularly in a service such as the prison service which is a disciplined service and which involves many different aspects of our national life. We are aware that prison officers have an interest in the safety and well-being of prisoners and in other issues as well. But governors must have the right to manage.

Gas Bill
5.20 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 1, after ("appointment") insert ("or reappointment").
The noble Lord said: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 12, which is a consequential amendment. It may save a little time if we discuss the two amendments together. The amendment refers to subsection (2) which appears at the very top of page 2 of the Bill and says:
"An appointment of a person to hold office as the Director shall not be for a term exceeding five years".
However, it goes on to say:
"but previous appointment to that office shall not affect eligibility for reappointment".
Therefore, the Bill contemplates reappointment in certain circumstances, but nowhere does it define what the period of reappointment shall be. The first line of the subsection talks about:
"An appointment of a person to hold office",
and defines that as being not for a term exceeding five years. We shall discuss later whether that is an appropriate period.
The simple point which I am making is this. Do the words "An appointment" in the first line of the subsection cover the question of reappointment, or is it not also necessary to refer to reappointment so that there will not be a situation whereby a person is appointed in the first place for an acceptable period and is then reappointed for a far too lengthy period—for example, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it? That is the point upon which I wish to receive clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that I can briefly give the noble Lord the reassurance which he seeks. I assure him that these amendments are not necessary. I am advised that there can be no doubt that the Bill as drafted will apply to the director equally on reappointment or on initial appointment. Thus, under Clause 1(2) any appointment of the director is limited to a maximum of five years, and under subsection (4) any appointment of the director is subject to the terms of appointment under subsections (2) and (3) of the clause.
I quite agree with the noble Lord that it would be entirely undesirable if, having served his original appointment, he could then go on to serve an unlimited further appointment. However, I assure the
170
noble Lord that the Bill as drafted takes account of that point.
Lord Diamond: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he is so sure about it, I naturally accept his assurance and seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("five") and insert ("four").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 8 is a simple probing amendment. The director is appointed for up to five years, and one wonders why the period should be five years. A period of that length will cover more than one government and, as the director can be reappointed, there seems no point in having as long a period as five years. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There is one further point which perhaps the noble Viscount has not made. If you take, consequentially, periods of five years, after a long period of time you will reach 25 years, which I understand is the period of the authorisation. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is undesirable for the appointment of any director to be coterminous with the end of an authorisation and that he has to straddle a reauthorisation. That is why we ask the Minister either to clarify that that will not be the case or to accept the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: The Committee may not be aware that five years is a standard period for public appointments of this kind. The Director General of Fair Trading and the Director-General of Oftel both have five years as the statutory maximum length of their terms of appointment, as do nationalised industry board members and members of similar bodies. There is no obligation that an appointment be for the full five years, but the period is designed to enable the post-holder to build up expertise in the subject and to provide a level of continuity. A shorter term would be destabilising both for the industry and the staff of Ofgas.
Viscount Hanworth: I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's arguments, but nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 9.
Page 2, line 6, after ("by") insert ("six months").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Seear, with whom I have discussed the matter, I rise to move Amendment No. 9. The first two lines of subsection (3) read:
"The Director may at any time resign his office as the Director by notice in writing".
It is as simple as that. The amendment proposes that the notice shall be six months' notice in writing. It seems to us quite impracticable that a new director of adequate qualifications, skill and experience could be found in the market and engaged within a period of less than six months.
As we all know, it takes a great deal of time and nearly always the person most suitable for the job is already in important employment and would most probably have to give three months' notice. Therefore, by the time you have found him and he has given three months' notice, I do not see how you can possibly expect to find a suitable replacement in under six months.
If that is the case, it would be embarrassing—indeed, it would be more than embarrassing, it would leave the consumer unprotected—if there were to be acceptance of notice without any period attached to it, which is what the Bill provides, because in those circumstances, presumably one week's notice would be adequate, or whatever he chose to give. Therefore, it is important that the matter should be clarified and that a minimum of six months' notice should be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I fully appreciate the intention behind the tabling of this amendment; namely, that sufficient notice should be given by an outgoing director to enable a new one to be found and for continuity of his office to be assured. That is a perfectly reasonable aspiration and one which we share.
However, Clause 1 already provides that the director must give notice if he resigns his office. We envisage that the period of notice to be given will be spelled out in the director's terms of appointment. We fully accept the need for continuity in the directorship, which will be important for the stability of Ofgas itself, and we believe that there is no difference of principle between us on this issue. I hope that in the light of that assurance the noble Lord may be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Diamond: I do not want to press the amendment unduly, but I have difficulty in understanding what the Minister said by way of explanation. After all, the subsection says:
"The Director may at any time resign his office".
It does not say that he may resign his office in accordance with the terms of his employment under subsection (1). It says:
"The Director may at any time resign his office",
and we can all understand the reason for that. It is no use trying to force a person to work who does not want to work any longer. If that is the case, at the moment I cannot see that the anxiety, which I am delighted to find is shared by the Government and by myself, is dispersed by having nothing in the Bill to indicate that one expects a reasonable period of notice. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister has something further to say on that point.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Is it not the case that what is happening here is that parliamentary counsel simply does not want the clause altered? It is as simple as that. The clause having been written, it is now sacrosanct and must not be amended on any account. Surely the amendment to insert "six months" is perfectly reasonable.
172
If the noble Lord says they intend to incorporate six months within the terms of the service contract, whatever it may be, what is the objection to putting it into the Bill? It seems to be quite proper. It is not an extraordinary provision to have in an Act. Why should the noble Lord hide behind the excuse that there is really no need for it and that it will all be in the terms of the service contract? If we are all of the same mind, why not enshrine it in the statute? There is no harm in it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think we are all of the same mind, but we take the view that the terms on which the director is appointed should deal with this matter. I suggest to the noble Lord that it would be a mistake to write this into the legislation, because there could be many different reasons for resignation. It would be a pity completely to tie the hands of everybody for ever more by enshrining it in legislation.
The director, for example, might want to resign for reasons of health. There could be other reasons. There could be domestic problems; there could be all sorts of things. It would be a mistake rigidly to enshrine this in the Bill. I am sure that there is nothing of principle between us in this matter. It just is that we take the view that it would be more appropriate to have this included in the terms under which the director is appointed.
We should preserve the flexibility that we have at present. There could be circumstances when the Secretary of State would want to waive a period of six months if there was a good candidate already available and able to follow on. That is just another reason for not enshrining it in the legislation. I think we should make a mistake by doing that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Would the noble Lord accept the word "reasonable" in front of "notice"? That might meet both sides, who agree so completely.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord has made a constructive suggestion, but, with respect, I still think it would be better to have this included in the terms of appointment of the director rather than have it referred to in the legislation.
Lord Diamond: We are all concerned with having clear legislation. This subsection is as clear as a bell. It says:
"The Director may at any time resign his office as the Director by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State".
It fixes no period for that at all. I am bound to ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to say that in view of these representations he will take further advice?
We are all after the same thing. We are not trying to press the noble Lord to do anything that he does not want to do, or that he says the Bill does not want to do. We are all trying to do the same thing. Let us have a good, clear Bill. If he would be good enough to look at that at his leisure and say that he is prepared to do that, then we would withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will not give that assurance. This amendment is a little more serious than has been suggested. If we make it a statutory condition that the notice must be for six months, then, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate, that means that, even if there is very good reason for the director to go—he may have a disagreement of policy with the Government; he may have the offer of some major appointment elsewhere; he may be becoming unfit because a statutory condition cannot be waived, to be legal notice under the Act, as it will then be, it would have to be six months' notice. On the other hand, as my noble friend said, if it is in the director's contract, then the Minister can waive that in appropriate circumstances. There is a little more in this amendment than had been suggested, and what there is I think is rather bad.
Lord Diamond: The noble Lord has misunderstood me out of his zeal to support the Government. I am not suggesting necessarily these words at all. If the Government prefer the words suggested by my noble friend, "reasonable notice", that is all right too. It is not the case that the Secretary of State cannot get rid of an undesirable director. The next few lines in the Bill provide for that. It says:
"and the Secretary of State may remove any person",
etc. It is not the case that, if you have somebody ready and waiting, it is difficult to arrange for the holder of the office to withdraw even within his period of six months and for the newcomer to be taken on, or preferably for there to be an overlap of a month, as is most regularly done, which helps continuity of organisation and efficiency.
All this is suggested in order to provide for clarity and greater efficiency. I would still hope that, notwithstanding the not very constructive advice from his noble friend, the Minister will say that he will make sure that what he said is right, and that there is no need whatever to alter the wording; and that it provides not what it seems to provide, but what he thinks it provides.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will listen to what has been said. This clause is very wide. It says:
"The Director may at any time".
It is not "may resign his office as director", but it is "may at any time". They are the offending words. It has been made clear already by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that he could give a minute's notice according to this Bill, and clearly that cannot be satisfactory for an office of such importance as this.
As I understand it the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is trying to be helpful. He is saying that it should not be expressed in such wide terms in a statute. He is asking the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to come up with some sort of words that would be acceptable. All he is doing is asking the noble Lord to look at it—not reject it out of hand, but look at it before the next stage of the Bill to see whether we can reach an accommodation. Surely we are good natured enough towards each other to accept that simple proposition?
Lord Gray of Contin: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for illustrating much
174
better than I have been able to do the fact that this amendment is really not necessary. All the points that have been made can just as easily be incorporated into the terms on which the director is appointed. I have no doubt about that at all. But I am always reasonable, and the noble Lord has asked me in a reasonable way whether I would look at this again. I am prepared to do that without any commitment whatever. I am almost 100 per cent. sure that I shall come back of the same mind as I am now, but I shall certainly look at it again as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Diamond: The noble Lord is as courteous as usual, and if he does that he will give us the necessary reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 7, after second ("State") insert ("after consultation with the appropriate Committee of each House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: On page 2, line 7, we find:
"the Secretary of State may remove any person from that office on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour."
We shall discuss "incapacity or misbehaviour" later. What I am concerned about at the moment is the protection that I think would be appropriate. If we accepted the amendment, the clause would read:
"and the Secretary of State after consultation with the appropriate Committee of each House of Parliament may remove any person from that office on the ground",
stated in the subsection. The reason for this is obvious.
One wants a director to feel a maximum of independence in carrying out his duty. Nobody wants him to be a stooge of the Secretary of State. Nobody wants him to be unduly afraid of the Secretary of State. On the other hand, the Secretary of State has a responsibility to Parliament and he must act responsibly before removing any person, for the reasons stated.
Throughout when we have referred to provisions of this kind we have been anxious to ensure that the director has greater status, greater security and greater self-reliance than he has at the moment. As the Bill is drawn, he is rather a lone person, subject, I might almost say, to the whim of the Secretary of State as to his removal. It is a serious matter to remove a person merely on the ground that he was doing his job thoroughly but being a bit awkward and therefore causing pressure; he would be moved from British Gas, as it will then be, on the grounds possibly and only that the regulation was being surprisingly effective.
Some strengthening of the position of the director in that way would be sensible. It is not a great deal. It is nothing more than consultation. It is not determination by the appropriate committee of each House. If he were wise the Secretary of State would no doubt take account of the consultation and of the views of each committee, but he is not bound by them. He is not bound to disclose confidences if he does not want to do so. If it is within his knowledge, and if as a responsible Secretary of State he feels that there is something he cannot disclose in the national interest, he would say so and refuse to disclose it. People would judge accordingly.
The first point I want to make is that we need to strengthen and add to the confidence of the director. This is one way of doing it: to ensure that he is not sacked merely because he is not doing exactly what the Secretary of State would like him to do.
My second point is that in this case I have suggested the words
"the appropriate Committee of each House of Parliament".
If the Minister were to say that he prefers some other form of words or type of consultation, I should be glad to listen to that. It is not the essential point, but in this case it is wiser that there should be consultation with each House of Parliament.
I have no need to deal with the question of the "appropriate Committee" because we discussed that previously. It was decided that the phrase was suitable to cover whatever committee might be in existence at the time. It is better that the director should have the protection of being able to put his case, if necessary, to each House of Parliament rather than to one. The reason for not suggesting only the House of Lords but bringing in the other place as well is that another place is full of Members who are continually being refreshed in their knowledge by constituency contacts and may have a great deal to offer in coming to a wise judgment as to how the consultation should emerge. It is for those reasons that I am making the suggestion. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, will see fit to accept this amendment. Ministers are human and are therefore fragile individuals. There are few of us, even in this place in an atmosphere of philosophical serenity, who do not occasionally acquire either justifiably or unjustifiably strong personal irritations and dislikes.
Indeed in one case which has been before your Lordships' House in comparatively recent months we had intense ministerial irritation with Mr. Ken Livingstone, which prompted the Prime Minister, in a fit of intense anger prior to the publication of the 1983 election manifesto, to decide to abolish the GLC as a means of ridding herself of him. This is perhaps an extreme example. I agree that the circumstances were exceptional, but then so is the Prime Minister's temperament! I shall assume that members of the Government are normal individuals, not given to sudden gusts of emotion either of hate or love, but nevertheless human.
Let us say that we have a Minister of State or a Secretary of State who has a director general of this body of Ofgas. Let us say that in his normal social contacts, which are entirely proper, where he mixes from time to time with directors of City institutions and other large investors he hears complaints about Ofgas being much too restrictive and how the City does not see that it will receive its dividends unless the director general has a slightly lighter rein. The Minister ponders these things, he sees the director general and he taxes him with trying to institute too strict a regime. Let us say that the director general, being a robust individual, replies that he completely disagrees with
176
the Minister and all that he is trying to do as director general is to carry out the will of Parliament.
Let us say that a degree of personal tension develops. This might ultimately culminate in the position where a director general might, properly and in the public interest, wish to make certain public remarks about the inadequacy or otherwise of the mandate entrusted to him. Such things happen and have happened many times within my memory of parliamentary life, inside or outside this place, which now goes back some 40 years.
Within that context what does a Minister regard as "incapacity" or "misbehaviour"? Incapacity may cover physical incapacity, mental incapacity or temperamental incapacity or it may be anything else that the Minister chooses to make it. What about misbehaviour? I can understand the word "misdemeanour" because that has a legal connotation. It is a misdemeanour, for example, if one is caught exceeding the speed limit. I believe that that is a misdemeanour. I am not sure, strictly speaking, whether getting a parking ticket is a misdemeanour. But "misbehaviour" may be rather loosely interpreted, bearing in mind the arguments that we have heard so far, particularly applied to the original appointment of the director. We have been assured by the Minister that the greatest possible care will be taken in the selection of what the noble Lord, Lord Gray, or the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, described before as a very high powered individual. It depends on what capacities will be available in the country for this purpose.
The Committee will recall that when the Government were seeking to appoint a new managing director or executive chairman for British Steel, Sir Keith Joseph had to scour the boardrooms of Britain and he could not find one until it was pointed out that Mr. MacGregor was already sitting on the board of British Leyland at the time. There was enormous difficulty in getting one. Surely if there is enormous difficulty in getting one, this will put the Minister very much on his guard. If we are to believe what we see in the programme "Yes, Minister", he will get the advice of the good and the great, the mandarins of Whitehall, who have lists of individuals whom, in certain circumstances, they are doubtless prepared to recommend, and the Minister will exercise his judgment. How can a person selected by the Minister, with the advice of the good and the great and the mandarins, ever be guilty of incapacity or misbehaviour within the broad general terms that are put down here?
In those circumstances I think that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is excellent. All of us in our executive lives, whether we are in business or anywhere else, occasionally like to talk to somebody about a problem. It need not necessarily be with one's own colleague in one's own business or, dare I say it, one's own colleague in the Cabinet; that is, assuming that members of the Cabinet talk to one another, which is sometimes doubtful. It is nice to be able to talk to a responsible body when nobody can reproach you for having consulted it. Who could possibly reproach the Minister for consulting a committee of either House of Parliament? This seems to be a very sensible precaution indeed and I hope the

177
Minister will see the reasonableness of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, which I have endeavoured to reinforce. I sincerely hope that the Minister will bend on this particular point, even though he may in these circumstances—I note the look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—be urged by his noble friend to do exactly the opposite.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was almost engaging in the art of prophesy. Indeed, there were moments in the course of his speech which were actually relevant to the amendment, though in common fairness I must say there were not very many.
First of all, I should like to ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. His amendment refers to an "appropriate committee". what committee of this House has he in mind? I perfectly accept that in another place probably the Select Committee on Energy would be appropriate; but in this House what is the appropriate committee to be empowered to be consulted in this way? The phrase "appropriate committee" has been used several times in opposition amendments on this Bill. I have been puzzled, and now I have the opportunity to ask, as to which committee of this House is deemed appropriate.
Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, what happens if the misbehaviour or incapacity arises during the long recess? Are the public to be deprived of the protection of an effective director general because Parliament are not sitting and they may not be sitting for some months? Plainly, even if the incapacity and misbehaviour arise during the Parliamentary Session there will be a certain amount of delay, since parliamentary committees cannot always be assembled straight away. I wonder what the noble Lord suggests on that.
Thirdly, surely there is really nothing in this point at all. If a Secretary of State takes the drastic action of removing, on grounds of incapacity and misbehaviour, a very senior functionary of this sort, the Secretary of State will certainly have to answer for that both in this House and, unless another place has changed very much since I left it, in another place. Therefore, what the noble Lord is really trying to achieve is that this important functionary shall not be removed without Parliament being able to consider the matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Of course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have been listening very carefully to the noble Lord. Of course, he is quite right that in the removal of a person from office the Secretary of State would have to answer to Parliament. Undoubtedly this matter would be raised. I remember the case of Lord Hall who was dismissed. Parliament certainly had the opportunity to question the Minister, but the gentleman who was sacked never had the opportunity of himself answering to Parliament; he did not have the opportunity of putting his point of view. Lord Diamond's amendment would in fact cover exactly that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think the noble Lord is over-simplifying the matter. If a public functionary of that sort is sacked it is unlikely that he will remain completely silent. It is unlikely that the press and the media will not ask him for his views and for his justification. It is even unlikely that he may not have friends in one House or another who will be very happy to listen to his case. Therefore, with respect, is he not better placed to argue his case in public in the media or through the aid of friends in this House than in the relative quiet of a Select Committee?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given way. Is he saying that the director general who is dismissed because of the provisions of the Bill as they stand at present should have an opportunity only after the event? Why should he not have an opportunity before the event?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: One reason is that if he has an opportunity before the event there is delay in perhaps an urgent and difficult situation in respect of a functionary, the importance of whom for the protection of the public noble Lords opposite have spent two days arguing in Committee. Now they are apparently prepared to argue for a period in which the person who is guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity is obviously unable to act because he is awaiting a hearing by a Select Committee. As no one knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, the practical reality is this: a Secretary of State who makes a bloomer and removes a man who is doing a good job in an important office puts his own office on the line. No one knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that that is so. Therefore, the great safeguard is not only the fact that the Secretary of State will have to answer to Parliament after the event, but also before the event, and before taking a decision, the Secretary of State has to satisfy himself that what he is doing is right, sensible and something he can get away with in Parliament.
Lord Somers: I thought this was a Bill to make the gas industry independent. If that is so, why does it have to go through all the rigmarole of consulting both Houses of Parliament before it does any of its private business? The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has persuaded us, in his usual gentle and persuasive manner, that some members may sometimes make mistakes. I do not deny that. One of them made a colossal mistake in introducing this Bill. However, we have it, and therefore we must make the best of it; but if the gas industry is to be independent I cannot see why it should thereafter be bound to all the rigmaroles of parliamentary discussion.
Lord Diamond: Courtesy requires that I should answer the three questions which the noble Lord has put to me; but perhaps I may precede that by answering the points that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has just made.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, said—I could not agree with him more—that one of the greatest mistakes made was to introduce this Bill at all. That will find considerable support in many parts of this Chamber. He then asked: why are we taking all this

179
trouble when the theory is that the whole of this body should be independent, and the director should be independent? That is not the case. This is an appointment by the Secretary of State; it is a quasi government department. In fact, I might also leave out the word "quasi" and say it is a government department without a government Minister at the head of it. So there is no question of independence but, as the noble Lord knows—
6 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I think what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said was that the gas industry should be free. Of course, we are not talking about the gas industry, we are talking about a regulator here. I think the noble Lord would agree and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Somers, would agree, that it is a different matter. The gas industry will be controlled by a board which would be quite separate from the regulatory body.
Lord Diamond: I understand that. I had thought that I had heard the noble Lord, Lord Somers, correctly; but I may well not have done so. But I am sure that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, correctly. He put to me three questions. He asked me, first of all, which committee was involved when we were talking about "appropriate committee". I am sorry that he has asked me that because he made clear that he was here for the whole of our first day's proceedings, when, of course, I went over this matter, not at great length but at sufficient length, I thought, to explain it.
I explained it by referring to—in the case of the other place—the Energy Committee, which has already considered these matters and made a report—an unhelpful report as far as the Government are concerned because it was a critical report. The Energy Committee is very well equipped to deal with matters of this kind. Therefore, I imagine—but one does not want to limit it in that way; for one wants to leave it to the good sense of the other place—that they would decide to interpret "appropriate committee" in their case as the Select Committee on Energy.
I went on to add that we have two committees which might be satisfactory and might be regarded as appropriate but that it was better to say "appropriate" because, of course, one does not know whether these two committees will continue for all time, they being sessional committees, as I believe. One such committee is the Energy, Transport, Technology and Research Sub-Committee, Sub-Committee L of the European Communities Committee. I explained that that was one committee which this House might regard as being appropriate because it dealt with energy and was well equipped to do so and a number of most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House serve on Sub-committee L.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the noble Lord leaves that, is he aware that his amendment does not provide for this to go to a sub-committee but to a committee of this House?
Lord Diamond: I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to hold us up on little details of that kind. We are anxious to get on with the Bill. If the noble Lord at a later stage wants to introduce an amendment saying, "For 'committee' read 'or sub-committee' ", we should welcome that. It would be easily disposed of.
There is another committee which I mentioned on a previous occasion, but courtesy requires that I repeat the point. It is the House of Lords Offices Committee, which is well equipped to deal, and does deal, with matters of staff appointments. It is a very large committee; many noble Lords present probably serve on it and it is very well equipped to do that particular job. But I thought, again, that it would be better to leave it to the good sense of your Lordships' House to decide which of those two committees, if they are in existence at the relevant time, should be asked to carry out that function. That is the answer to one of the three questions that the noble Lord asked me.
The second question that he asked me was whether it was not the case that the Minister appoints and, therefore, the Minister has to answer to the other place, as indeed does a Minister in this place too. Of course it is the case that he has to answer; but, as has already been pointed out, the crucial point is that he has to answer after the event. It is of no earthly good when this chap has been sacked for no good reason to be able to get the satisfaction of embarrassing a Minister. What we want is the protection of the consumer and not the embarrassment of a Minister. Therefore, that is no protection whatever because it comes after the event. One wants to have some method of dealing with it before the event.
Then the noble Lord puts forward a very helpful and constructive point. He says, "What if this happens during the Recess?" The purpose of putting down amendments at Committee stage—as nobody knows better than the noble Lord, because he was instrumental in a Bill not very long ago, a mere 40 years, in putting down one or two amendments himself, if I recollect correctly—is to cover the ground, to trawl, to find out which amendments are acceptable to the Government and which are not. The aim is to find out the Government's position and, at a later stage—and in this House, we have two later stages, which is a great advantage for doing a good job in amending a Bill—to put down an amendment which might be accepted by the Government in the light of what they have said at an earlier stage.
So, at a later stage, if the noble Lord cares to come forward or if the Government says, "We are not prepared to accept this amendment without the addition of some protection, such as, 'except such an event occurring during a parliamentary Recess, when the Secretary of State shall have the sole power'", it will be perfectly easy to frame an amendment which will deal with the matter and of course it is a very helpful suggestion that the noble Lord has made. If the Government do not put forward the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord himself will do so.
Those are the answers to the noble Lord's questions and, if I may, I will add just one point about the possibility of difficulties arising. One illustration has been given in the case of the GLC. However, an illustration which comes very much to my mind and

181
which is more easily recollected by all the Members of your Lordships' House, is of course the Westland affair, where the chairman of an aircraft manufacturing company had an interview with the Secretary of State about which there was considerable confusion, to put it at its least. The Secretary of State was extremely wrathful and if he had been dealing with a director instead of a the chairman of another company he would have given him the sack then and there. But he did not. And matters developed and the person who got the sack was not the chairman but the Secretary of State.
It would be unfortunate, would it not? if the Secretary of State lost his temper over something when dealing with the director and gave the director the sack, when a little spare time would have made it clear to the relevant committee of either House that the person who should be sacked was the Secretary of State and not the director. We do not want that history to repeat itself. I am not imagining; I am merely reminding your Lordships of very recent history. It is in those circumstances that I hope that the Minister will be good enough to speak favourably with regard to this amendment.
Lord Sandys: The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has demonstrated an endearing solicitude for the director general and has taken us into a number of situations which may or may not have endeared themselves to your Lordships. But I suggest that we may look at this situation in a totally different light if we regard it in a field which is a long way from this type of appointment. I suggest that ecclesiastical law may be a parallel, not perhaps a very good parallel but it is a parallel where a bishop, through a committee, appoints a person. He may, if he appoints that person to a freehold, remove him only on the grounds, as stated in the Bill, of incapacity or misbehaviour. The bishop, if he wishes to dismiss that particular incumbent, has regard to the situation and he will do so only on those very grave grounds.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have suggested that the Minister would do so on grounds of personal animosity. There may well be circumstances which have arisen in the past which could be chosen as parallels, but I think that the Committee in examining the Bill may agree with me that grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour are quite clearly stated and quite clearly identified. Therefore I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this amendment is misguided and inappropriate for the Bill.
Lord Whaddon: On the other hand, I find the case made by my noble friend Lord Diamond sound and convincing. We should be aware that the world we are entering with the new company is something completely new. There is no close parallel at all in British industry up to now. We are handing over to a private company a gigantic monopoly which will have the most dramatic powers over the lives of 16 million (is it?) consumers. We should therefore be extremely careful about the defences we erect for the protection of the public interest.
In an earlier debate I referred to my fear that the industry could come to be like Dracula, digging its
182
fangs into the public's jugular. We are trying to erect a fragile defence and, heaven knows, the director and his staff are in all conscience a fragile defence; a very thin line of garlic flowers that we are putting in the way of this Dracula! But we must be careful to make sure that the Minister, in a fit of pique, is not able to rip away this line of defence. Therefore I would say that there is no direct parallel and we are handing over to a private company an industry which will have potentially devastating effects on millions of ordinary families. We must take every precaution and the greatest care in protecting the public interest. I must say that the case made by my noble friend is utterly convincing, and I feel that this amendment is one which the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, could with dignity accept.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think perhaps I made a mistake on the previous amendment by agreeing to take it back. That seems to have given noble Lords on the opposite Benches the idea that they have an easy pushover here and that—
Noble Lords: No, No!
Lord Gray of Contin:—and that I am going to weaken on issues which are very much more clearly defined. I think I should put them out of pain right at the start by telling them that I have no intention of accepting the amendment. Nevertheless, I realise this is a subject which was debated at considerable length in another place, and I welcome the opportunity of putting on record the Government's position. I know the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his persuasive way, gave the Committee the option of going for a number of possibilities when he explained what his amendment seeks to do; but I do not think that he has come up with anything that I would be persuaded by, and I shall now try to set out our position.
The Committee will know that the procedure we have set out in the Bill for the removal of the Director General of Gas Supply follows a well established precedent. Both the Director General of Fair Trading and the Director of Oftel may be removed only by the Secretary of State. It would be entirely unnecessary and inappropriate to single out the removal of the director for consultation with committees from either House of Parliament. We have provided that the Secretary of State has responsibility for the director. As well as being able to remove the director, he receives an annual report from him on his activities. That is laid before Parliament and it ensures that the director is accountable through him to the whole of Parliament.
6.15 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his suggestions, made one or two points which I think I should deal with specifically. Perhaps the most important one I want to put right is that the Secretary of State should not be able to remove the director on frivolous grounds. I doubt very much whether any Secretary of State would want to do such a thing anyway, but I take the point. However, I believe we have already provided for this by using in subsection (3) the words "incapacity or misbehaviour". These place stringent and narrow limits on the grounds on which the Secretary of State may remove the director.
Furthermore, the director can, if he disagrees with the Secretary of State's decision (as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out very clearly), raise the matter with those who are in a position to have it raised in Parliament. That could, and probably would, happen very quickly indeed. In addition, he has the facility to take the matter to court if he feels sufficiently strongly, and the court will then decide what the circumstances of the case amount to and whether incapacity or misbehaviour can be proved. I submit, therefore, that the director already has the protection in the legislation and that that is the protection the noble Lord seeks to give him; in other words, it is already there.
The arguments which were deployed by the noble Lord, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, did nothing to reinforce the position. I had some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, when he asked what was the point of carrying out a privatisation scheme and giving British Gas liberty for the future if you are going to introduce an amendment of this sort. I think he probably finds, as many of us do, that some of these arguments tend to be a little repetitive. He probably shares my view that they could perhaps be dealt with a little more hastily, and we could then make progress and move on.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, rightly pointed out the weaknesses which he saw in the amendment. Despite the support which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, I am afraid that these arguments have done nothing to convince me. On the previous amendment I could see the point that the noble Lord was seeking to make and I agreed to look at it again. The noble Lord emphasised on that amendment that this was not a political matter and that we were acting in the best interests of the public. I tend to feel that in this amendment we have crept back into the political arena a little bit and that the philosophy of noble Lords opposite is becoming more pronounced once again. I cannot be persuaded by this amendment, and if the noble Lord seeks to press it, I must ask my noble friends to vote against it.
Lord Ezra: Would the noble Lord in his definition of "incapacity or misbehaviour" specifically exclude differences of opinion?
Lord Gray of Contin: I think we have to take the definition of those words in the dictionary and work from there. I think that difference of opinion is something quite different, and I would not care to comment further than that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to the philosophy of this side of the Committee. Does he not accept that the philosophy that we are expressing from this side is of greater involvement of Parliament? Does he not agree with that?
Lord Gray of Contin: I am always in favour of the involvement of Parliament, but there is no point in involving Parliament where Parliament has no need to be involved. I see no advantage whatsoever in involving Parliament in this amendment, any more
184
than I did in involving Parliament through the committees suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in the amendments we discussed last week.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, I have a technical question. I am most anxious that the noble Lord should not have committed himself, in what he said previously, beyond where he wanted to go. If the Committee's recollection agrees with mine, he said that in the event of the director general being dismissed on grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour he would have a legal remedy in the courts against the Minister. Will the noble Lord confirm that he said that and that that is the case? Will he also say what grounds the director general would have for bringing such a case before the courts?
Lord Gray of Contin: I confirm that it is correct that the director general could have recourse to the courts. The grounds would be a matter for his judgment if he disagreed with the reasons given for his dismissal by the Secretary of State.
Lord Diamond: I want to make clear that I am not talking about incapacity or misbehaviour as they are the subject of two later amendments when we shall be seeking proper clarification and will discuss the matter fully. It is unfortunate that the noble Lord the Minister thought it necessary to bring that point into the argument, because he will then accuse us of repeating it when we come to deal with it again later. On that same tack may I, on behalf of the noble Lords, Lord Sandys and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, reject completely his allegation that they were speaking in order to hold up the business? It is far from that. Both noble Lords had constructive speeches to make. I do not necessarily agree with them but I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will not say that the purpose of a Committee stage is to prevent any Member on his side of the Chamber speaking, just as he cannot prevent us from speaking.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord forgive me?
Lord Diamond: I hope that the noble Lord notices the clock.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am deeply moved by the tribute that the noble Lord has paid me, because after all no one could speak with greater authority on the subject of holding up business.
Lord Diamond: If the noble Lord wants to attribute that title to himself, he must be free to do so.
I wanted to deal with what the Minister called the well-established precedent. He said that the Government were following a well-established precedent. The precedents are the Office of Fair Trading and Oftel. Those are the only cases he has mentioned when he keeps on talking about well-established precedents. There are in fact two, and only two. The Bill is modelled on those two.
The first has a totally different purpose. I am afraid that every time the noble Lord brings in the Office of

185
Fair Trading as a parallel for privatising gas I shall have to remind him of the fact that they have two totally different purposes. It may save time in the drafting of a Bill and save the Government from the necessity of thinking about it when they are rushing through a Bill, merely to take clauses from a previous Bill and slap them in this Bill without any change. Although it may save their energy it is not a great tribute to their sense of responsibility and it does not help us. That example is no precedent whatever.
There is one precedent of a similar character and one only; and that is Oftel. We say time and time again that that precedent is being shown, as we sit here, not to have worked well in the consumers' interests, which is what we are talking about. We are talking about protecting the consumer against this monopoly. That is the Government's line as to what they are trying to do in the Bill.
I am bound to say that there is no satisfactory precedent for the terms of the Bill, as they are put down. I had hoped to receive a much more satisfactory reply. I do not want to hold up the business by suggesting that we should divide. If the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, wants us to divide, we shall accede to that readily. I was proposing not to delay the business and not to seek a Division. After having made clear that this is an important matter to which we shall have to come back, after having carefully read what the noble Lord the Minister has had to say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 10A:
Page 2, line 8, after ("incapacity") insert (", other than incapacity likely to be of a temporary nature,").
The noble Lord said: I hope that it will save time and be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this amendment, we discuss also Amendment No. 10B. The effect of the two amendments is to make clear that although the Secretary of State at present, acting alone and without any consultation, may remove any person from that office on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour, we seek to suggest that it is better to insert that the incapacity should not merely be of a temporary nature and that the misbehaviour should be gross misbehaviour.
I am in the difficulty that I can find nowhere a definition of the words "incapacity" or "misbehaviour". The Bill relies on those two words and yet so far as I can see they are defined nowhere in the Bill. It is left to common sense and Webster's for us to try to find out what they mean. That is not a satisfactory way to legislate. The first questions that I want to ask the noble Lord the Minister are whether there are, first, any definitions, secondly, any precedents. Has the matter been heard in court and defined so that we have some legal precedent on which to go and to tell us where we are? If not, this is slapdash legislation and we do not want such legislation to issue from this Chamber.
I shall refer first to incapacity likely to be of a temporary nature. It would obviously be unfair for a director general to be removed from office merely on the grounds of incapacity which for one reason or another was going to dissipate or disappear in the
186
course of a week or two or a very short period. There would surely be others who could look after the business until he was sufficiently recovered, supposing that the illness was temporary. The clause says merely "incapacity". Nowhere does it say "temporary incapacity". It is therefore open to a Secretary of State who is waiting for an opportunity, for good or bad reasons, to get rid of a regulator, to say, "Ah, he has the 'flu. He has a temperature of 104. He is incapacitated. I will drop him a line terminating his appointment." I do not know what "incapacity" means. It could mean all sort of things. Temporary illness could clearly be included.
I wish to ask the noble Lord the Minister various questions: first, as to legal precedent; secondly, as to definition; and, thirdly, as to whether, as it stands, the clause does not cover temporary incapacity, which would be wholly unjust and therefore should not remain in the Bill.
I now wish to refer to misbehaviour, with which I shall deal shortly because how we act afterwards depends on the reply of the noble Lord the Minister. Again, "misbehaviour" is not construed or defined. I know of no definition in the Bill. I am not aware of any legal precedent, of any case having gone to the courts for a decision as to whether a certain action was misbehaviour. It is therefore sloppy legislation of the kind that, as I have said, we do not want to issue from this Chamber.
6.30 p.m.
So would he please be quite clear as to the meaning of "misbehaviour", and does it include what one would normally regard as gross misbehaviour? Gross misbehaviour is very well understood; but, for all I know, misbehaviour might be all sorts of things. It might be wearing the wrong clothes to go to the office. I do not know what it means, but it may refer to all sorts of trivialities which are wholly inappropriate to exercising power to remove a man from office. Of course, it would give rise to compensation, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether this individual who is charged with this enormous responsibility can feel he has reasonably safe tenure of office, so that he can do his job properly without this sword of Damocles hanging over his head in the word "misbehaviour".
It is no answer to say that if a misjudgment were made by the Secretary of State, the individual could have recourse to the courts. That means that after two years or so he will get some money out of the Government—that is, out of the taxpayer—and in the meantime he has been got rid of and there is no likelihood of him coming back to do the job. So references to appealing to the courts give me no satisfaction whatsoever.
The wise man is the man who arranges his affairs so that he never has to appeal to the courts, and the wise government is the government that arranges its affairs so that it does not have to answer questions in court. If the matter is clear beyond doubt, you do not have to ask a judge to tell you what the legislation means. It is clear on the face of it. I am sure that I have made clear the essential reason for my amendments, and I beg to move the first one.
Lord Belstead: In moving this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has asked whether there is any precedent for the drafting of subsection (3) of Clause 1 which is the subsection that we are discussing at the moment. The answer to that question is that the wording of this subsection is identical to Section 1(3) of the Fair Trading Act. Removal on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour is widespread and commonplace for officers in such positions and for board members of nationalised industries. Indeed, I have no doubt that on many occasions when nationalised industries were being set up some 30 years ago governments, of which the noble Lord was a leading member, probably approved this kind of wording for the legislation concerned.
The two words to which the noble Lord is seeking to add qualifying words—namely, "incapacity" and "misbehaviour"—are objective criteria and dismissal on either ground could be challenged in the courts. It is for that reason that there is not a definition. It will be for the courts to decide whether the grounds given by the Secretary of State for dismissal constitute incapacity or misbehaviour.
The noble Lord has had his fun asking me whether I can give a precedent and produce a definition. Let me now throw the ball back to the noble Lord and ask him a little about his amendment. For instance, what is meant by "temporary"? When the Committee stage of this Bill began on Thursday of last week, I was under the impression that it was a stage of the Bill which was temporary. I must say that doubts are beginning to crowd in on me as to whether I was right in that assumption. As to what "gross" may mean, again I am not entirely sure; but what I am certain of is that it would so fetter my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that I think it would render that leg of the grounds on which the Secretary of State could part company with the director almost useless.
I say quite seriously that this part of subsection (3) is genuinely designed to provide the director, when he or she comes to be appointed, with security of tenure during the period of office and thereby to give sufficient independent status to resist interference in the manner in which the director discharges his or her functions. In other words, it was felt that putting in this wording, which is to be found in other legislation, would give the director a free hand, provided that the director was comporting himself or herself properly.
I recognise that these are two amendments which, in a sense, demonstrate the kindness of heart of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in that he wants to make the grounds on which the director may be given notice less easy to fulfil. But I really think that they are amendments which are unclear and they would fetter the Secretary of State's power in a way which would not be acceptable to the Government.
Lord Diamond: I find that answer most disappointing and not all that straighforward. I asked specifically for a legal precedent and the noble Lord has not answered that question at all. He quoted two statutory precedents. I spent considerable time explaining to the noble Lord why those so-called statutory precedents were not precedents. Does the noble Lord really want me to go over all that ground again? I explained exactly why, in our view, they were
188
not proper precedents and asked for a legal precedent. It is noble Lord—who holds an important position in the Government—who is bringing forward this legislation. It is his responsibility to explain it and to answer reasonable questions. The reasonable question is about clarity, yet all he does is to ask me: what is "temporary"? It is for the Minister to find out what is temporary. He has the staff. I have none. I have no staff, I have a quarter of an office and yet I am expected to know what is the meaning of "temporary".
The purpose of this stage of the Bill's proceedings is to probe and to find out whether we can improve it. I think we can improve it by making clear the kind of incapacity to which I have referred. For example, a temporary illness strikes me as incapacity. If a man cannot get out of bed for a week and do his job, I would regard him as being incapacitated. Yet I do not regard that as at all a justifiable reason for sacking a man, who in other respects is doing a perfectly good job but has temporarily fallen foul of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord has not answered the question at all. He has merely referred us to two statutory precedents which for the reasons I have given we do not at all accept as precedents. I do not propose to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw this amendment, as an example of the unsatisfactory way in which the Government are attempting to avoid their responsibilities in dealing with the Committee constructively and courteously.
Lord Belstead: I think I ought to say that the statutory precedent which I mentioned is on all-fours with the precedent which is in the Bill. The task of the Director General of Fair Trading is the regulation of economic activities, in exactly the same way as the Director General of Ofgas will be regulating the affairs of the gas industry. I do not think I can add to that. It is true that I have not crawled through legal precedents, but I did not realise that I was to have the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, putting the case for the amendment in the way that he has. However, I think I have given a reasonable answer, and certainly I have given a good enough answer to vote against the noble Lord.
6.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 109.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Denington, B.

Barnett, L.

Diamond, L.

Birk, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blyton, L.

Ennals, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Falkender, B.

Chitnis, L.

Falkland, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Foot, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

189

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Northfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Grey, E.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Heycock, L.

Rea, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rochester, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Serota, B.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jeger, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L,

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kaldor, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kennet, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Whaddon, L.

McCarthy, L.

White, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mais, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mulley, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Halsbury, E.

Allerton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Alport, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kemsley, V.

Birdwood, L.

Killearn, L.

Blake, L.

Kimball, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kintore, E.

Braye, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caccia, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Middleton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Pender, L.

Dundee, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elton, L.

Portland, D.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Geddes, L.

Rodney, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rugby, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Greenway, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandys, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

190

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vickers, B.

Vinson, L.

Swinfen, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Whitelaw, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Torrington, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 10B not moved.]
6.48 p.m.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("such removal being subject to appeal to an industrial tribunal established under section 128 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.").
The noble Lord said: In this amendment we are discussing again the power of the Secretary of State to,
"remove any person from that office on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour".
We tried to get those terms defined and clarified but we have not been able to do so. What this amendment seeks to do is to say that such removal should be subject to appeal to an industrial tribunal.
I know that the Government have stated that an aggrieved sacked director may appeal to the courts. For the reasons I have explained, that is of no real satisfaction. One wants to avoid the necessity of going to court. It is a lengthy and immensely expensive process and it is wholly inappropriate where you are talking about service contracts. Therefore we have established machinery under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act which provides for an industrial tribunal to hear cases of unfair dismissal and the like.
If the director in question holds himself to have been unfairly dismissed, he should have the right to go to an industrial tribunal. That is so obviously the case that it is the law of the land, so far as I understand it, that he can go to an industrial tribunal except where his employment is terminated within the first two years of his being appointed. I may be wrong on that. The Minister, I hope, will have been advised about this and will be able to help the Committee. If the Government still take the view that it is their duty to help the Committee in understanding a Bill, they will be able to assist the Committee by saying whether it is true that everyone aggrieved under this subsection could go to an industrial tribunal to have his case considered if he has been engaged for a longer period than two years but not if he has not been engaged for that period. That is the short point. I hope I have made it clear and that the Minister will be able to give us a full answer. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The director general of supply is a statutory office created by Clause 1 of the Bill. The person who is for the time being appointed to that office by the Secretary of State is given considerable independence in the discharge of his functions under the Bill. The main terms of his appointment are laid down by the Bill itself and the only grounds on which such a person can be removed from that office are

191
those specified in Clause 1 of the Bill—incapacity or misbehaviour.
Just as with other appointments to such public offices—the Director General of Fair Trading, the Director General of Telecommunications, the chairman and members of nationalised industries, to name but a few—the Secretary of State has to answer to Parliament for his decision to remove the director, and to the courts if an application is made to them in respect of the director's removal from office. In our view, that is the proper method of review and the noble Lord's amendment would introduce what we see as an unnecessary and inappropriate appeal which cannot be justified on earlier precedent or principle.
I hope I have made the Government's position quite clear. I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but I am not persuaded that what he suggests would be an improvement on what we have decided upon. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, on reflection, to withdraw his amendment because I am afraid I cannot accept it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord rejected the amendments that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his unsuccessful attempts to get some clarity on the phrase "incapacity or misbehaviour". Indeed, he sought further explanations when he tried further to clarify what the Government themselves meant by "incapacity or misbehaviour".
The noble Lord, for reasons he has described and which I shall not repeat—I do not wish to enter into any further argument about them—declined to accept the position put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. It occurs to me that if the noble Lord the Minister were prepared to accept this amendment it might help to allay the fears that are genuinely held that this office will not carry the clout that it ought to carry. The examples of nationalised industries which the noble Lord quoted as a precedent—but not a precedent within the strict terms referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond; that related of course to precedents established by case law and case decision—are entirely different to those applicable to this particular office. This office is going to be held by a person who is bound to find himself in the centre of conflict. By the very creation of a privatised industry by this Bill, the very act of bringing it forward automatically creates a conflict between the public and the private interests; otherwise there is no necessity for the office at all.
If the new company, run as a private enterprise responsible only to its shareholders, functioned automatically in the public interest then by its very existence as a private industry this entire provision for its regulation would be unnecessary. It is precisely because there is a conflict of interest between the private and public interests that the whole office of director general, and the paraphernalia surrounding it, are created.
That is not the case with the other "precedents"—I use the word in quotes—that have been brought in by the Minister. He said that there is a precedent in the sense that Oftel occupies very much the same position. I
192
prefer to use not "precedent" but "analogous" to the position obtaining of Oftel. But quite clearly there is a conflict. Secretaries of State have their own temperaments. Some of them, incidentally, can express themselves fairly pungently and show their temper fairly pungently. They are not all as rational as people would like to think they are and as their own press makes them out to be. Some of them occasionally go round the bend in expressing their prejudices, their hates and their dislikes. It has not been unknown for them to do that and if the noble Lord wishes I could most certainly, without any fear of offence in this Committee, give examples.
If the noble Lord opposite accepts this amendment it would at least give this particular official the security of going before an industrial tribunal. An industrial tribunal is composed not only of lawyers but people with a certain amount of commonsense who can give a rather more commonsense interpretation, and are likely to give a more commonsense interpretation of "incapacity or misbehaviour" than is possibly the case with the courts. It is not so expensive, it is easier and it does not create public furore. I should have thought that if the noble Lord wished to reassure the Committee and to reassure any appointee to what must be, inevitably, a hot seat, this is the very amendment that the noble Lord should accept, and we should all be very happy about it.
Lord Diamond: I feel very unhappy indeed with the reply from the noble Lord the Minister. Perhaps I may stretch the meaning of an English word to use it in regard to what he said. I prefer to call his reply a statement. He read out his brief. That is fine. Of course we are interested in hearing what his brief said, but I asked him two specific questions to which we had no answer whatever. Those questions are absolutely crucial to the action we must take on this amendment. Is it or is it not the right of every man and woman who is employed to go to an industrial trubunal if they want to argue that they have been unfairly dismissed?
I am not a lawyer and I do not have any of the resources that the Government have. Therefore, I hope we are not going to receive the same answer that we had on the last occasion: "I cannot answer your question because I did not expect you to ask it". I do not know what is the purpose of having unseen, unknown, distinguished and knowledgeable individuals seated in a certain place in the Chamber unless it is to enable noble Lords, on referring to their memory, to find answers to the questions being asked. It applies in this Chamber and in the other place. Therefore, I hope we do not receive that answer again.
My first question was: is it not the right of every individual to appeal to a tribunal, as defined here, if he feels himself to have been unfairly dismissed? I should have thought that by now it was an established freedom of every individual. But the noble Lord has not referred to it at all. He referred to appealing to the courts, which takes much longer, means much more delay, and is much more expensive. It is because on both sides of the Chamber we wanted to rid the courts of the responsibility and the cost of trying cases of this kind that Parliament appointed tribunals to do the job. That is the first question to which we have had no answer whatever.

193
The second question, which I am bound to repeat because the noble Lord did not pay one iota of attention to it, is this: is it not the case that that machinery is available only if a person has been employed for a continuous period of more than two years? That is a simple question. I shall continue talking, if the noble Lord finds it convenient, until his recollection enables him to find the answer. That is the second question that I have asked.
If that is the case, and if it is the right of every man and woman in this country to appeal to such a tribunal when he or she feels aggrieved about the way his or her appointment has been terminated, and if it is also the case that this measure does not apply in the first two sears of the appointment, surely it is up to Parliament to provide for it. If a person is appointed perhaps for only two years—for not more than five years, but perhaps only for two years—is it not right that he should have the same protection provided by statute? I hope that by now the recollection of the noble Lord the Minister has worked and he is able to tell us the answers to those questions.
7 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I shall certainly try to answer the questions of the noble Lord. I did not really require his sarcastic comments to bring me to my feet to do that. He has been a Minister himself and no doubt has had to refer to his "Box" on many occasions in his life. I have read of some of his performances as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I can tell him that I certainly would not have been happy with his answers on occasion. Nevertheless I shall do him the courtesy which his seniority merits and I shall certainly try to answer the points that he has raised with me.
The noble Lord will recall that the legislation to which the amendment refers was passed by a government of the party opposite in 1978. It did not seek to apply the machinery of industrial tribunals generally to such Crown appointments as the director of Ofgas, and we are simply following that precedent. I am really quite surprised to hear the noble Lord argue for such a change when the legislation that was introduced by a government of which he was a supporter, and indeed I think a member, has been found to work reasonably well.
Let me just remind him, because he may have forgotten some of that legislation, about the purpose of industrial tribunals. The Donovan Royal Commission on trade unions and employers' associations described the purpose of industrial tribunals as being to provide for workers and employers an easily accessible, speedy, informal and inexpensive procedure for the settlement of their disputes.
So far as concerns the question of unfair dismissal, Section 54 of that same Act of 1978 states:
"In every employment to which this section applies every employee shall have the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer".
In Section 138 of that Act the right is applied to "Crown employment", which is defined in subsection (2) as meaning:
"Employment under or for the purposes of a government department or any officer or body exercising on behalf of the Crown functions conferred by any enactment".
194
This will have the effect of applying the right to the staff of the director, but the director himself does not come within that definition since he is not employed but is the holder of an office established by statute. We have followed the precedent of the 1978 Act, which I am quite sure has the full support of the noble Lord, and we see no reason to make changes such as the noble Lord suggests. He may not agree with what I have said, but I hope that he will at least agree that I have tried to explain and be helpful to the Committee, as is the duty of a Minister.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord sits down will he just clarify one point? He says that the director general will not be an employee for the purposes of the particular Act that he cited. Will he inform the Committee under which schedule for income tax purposes his emoluments will be assessed?—because Schedule E concerns emoluments from employment. Will the person be employed or not? If he is employed and his salary is assessed under Schedule E, that surely makes him an employee and therefore brings him within the Act.
Lord Gray of Contin: I should imagine that the noble Lord, as a chartered accountant, has probably much more idea of the answer to that question than I have at this moment. I cannot possibly supply him with the answer. It has nothing whatever to do with this amendment. There will be amendments a little later—probably much later at the rate we are going—which will deal with this subject and we can have that matter clarified at that time. The "troops" will have to be very quick; indeed, they have been jolly quick, and so I can say that different rules apply for tax purposes than for employment law. I shall try to elucidate a little further on that reply in due course, but I suggest that this is what the "Box" normally calls a "holding answer".
Lord Diamond: I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his customary courtesy in giving us a full and very helpful answer. I am only sorry that he did not give it in the first place because then I should not have needed to ask him the question again. Indeed, it is plain to the Committee that had I not stood up a second time, we would not have obtained this most valuable information. I am very grateful to him for it. It makes clear the value of what the Committee is presently engaged in, which is digging into the meaning of an Act to find out whether we are acting justly. Clearly we are not.
We are providing that the staff of the director can appeal on the grounds that the noble Lord made clear—because it is much quicker, cheaper and more certain of natural justice. They will have what is regarded as an essential liberty of the employee who feels himself aggrieved at the way his office has been terminated. Although every such person can appeal under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act to an industrial tribunal, the director himself cannot do so. I did not think that that was the case. I thought that he could appeal. I thought his office would be regarded as that of an employee and assessed under Schedule E—and I take the point of the noble Lord. I thought that the director would be regarded as an employee and therefore would be subject to this Act

195
which was passed for the benefit of employees of all kinds. I thought that he would be covered by the Act except for the first two years and that as we were contemplating a case where two years might even be the totality we had to extend the provision.
It is much worse than that. He is not covered by this measure at all. He can be sacked but does not have the right that is granted to every other employee of appealing to an industrial tribunal. It is a right that he should have and, as we discovered through our joint energies, one that he does not possess. It is a right that we ought to incorporate in the Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I wonder whether he has considered this point in relation to the status of the director general. We heard earlier this afternoon that his appointment is subject to the Civil Service commissioners. Would that not make him an employee? I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me.
Lord Diamond: I am most grateful. That is the case. It was only discovered, as the noble Lord will recollect, as a result of our deep investigation. The Committee did not know that until it was revealed by question and answer. It has now been clarified. We are aware therefore that there is this importance attached to his appointment. As an ordinary layman, I regard it as employment and the man himself as being an employee. Of course, I do. It never occurred to me when I put down the amendment that the director was not an employee and therefore not entitled to have this right and this freedom that is given to every citizen who is an employee. I am bound to say that this is a right that we should unquestionably insist upon.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has considered the inhibitions that attend anyone proceeding under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 for what are in effect damages for breach of contract. If he examines those matters carefully, he will find that if one really wants true damages for breach of contract for unfair dismissal, one would be most unwise to limit oneself to the powers and discretions accorded to industrial tribunals. One would have no option but to go to a court, as we know it. I am bound to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the fact that someone may be taxed under Schedule E from the profits of his office or his employment does not automatically, in my view, bring him within the word "employment" for the purposes of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
Lord Diamond: I always listen with great care and sympathy to what the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, says if only for the fact that he comes from Leeds and must therefore be right. Wild horses would not drag out of me the name of my birthplace. What the noble Lord says is very relevant. I am not suggesting in this amendment that he should only have this right. Under the Bill, as it stands, he has the right to appeal to the courts. It does not say so. One does not have to say it either in the Bill or in the amendment.
196
So if the circumstances envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, which the Government hope will never arise, did arise, and the Government exercised their power of dismissing a director in such circumstances that considerable damages were likely to arise, and the Secretary of State was therefore guilty of at least a considerable lack of judgment, then the individual in question, the director, could decide whether he wanted to go to the industrial tribunal, with the inhibitions rightly mentioned by the noble Lord, or whether he wanted to exercise his rights and go to the courts. He could do either.
I am not suggesting that the protection of the courts should be removed from the man. Far from it! I am suggesting that in all the circumstances that are likely—namely, that the Secretary of State would not undertake a wholly misconceived act and dispose of the director general in that way but would do something that was perhaps a matter of opinion—the aggrieved director general would feel that he was entitled to go to the industrial tribunal and get the matter quickly put right there, possibly with the right of re-employment, although that is a separate issue. It would be dealt with quickly and inexpensively. Everything that has been said by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, gives me further encouragement to invite the Committee to incorporate this amendment in the legislation.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not have forgotten that "incapacity" or "misbehaviour" are well known words used in regard to contracts of employment. The Committee will, I believe, be aware that "incapacity" means that someone is no longer in possession of his full mental faculties among other things. Maybe he is not in full possession of his physical faculties, rendering him incapable of continuing to perform his duties. "Misbehaviour" is, again, a pretty formal word, well recognised in employment law.
One example is the commission of a criminal offence. These matters are very clear cut. They are not grey, but black and white matters from which dismissal from office flows in accordance with the terms of the contract under which the person in question was originally engaged. There is not much room for argument unless of course the allegation is mischievous. But if the allegation is true, because the man is in a lunatic asylum—to use the old-fashioned word—or because he has misbehaved through being convicted of a criminal offence, those are matters of fact over which there is no argument. In those circumstances, the position is clear cut, in my view, and dismissal has to be expected in those events in every sort of contract of employment that I have ever seen.
Lord Diamond: The noble Lord is right. If the man commits a crime, he will be properly sacked. And if he is put in a lunatic asylum for the obvious reason, he will be regarded as totally unfit to do his job and his employment will be terminated. Of course that is the case. But there are other cases that are not so clear. I have asked for a legal precedent. I have not been given a single one. The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, says that this is all clear and well-trodden ground. I do not know

197
that it is well-trodden ground. I know only that I have asked the Government for a single legal precedent and they have not given one.
I know what the word "incapacity" may mean to the layman. I do not know what it means in law, because I have not been helped by the Government in providing a legal precedent. To the layman, incapacity may be long term or short term. A man rendered incapable for a short time would, I believe, feel aggrieved and want to go to the industrial tribunal and explain that he was incapacitated for the time being, that he was unable to work for a week or two weeks and that he thinks it totally unfair that he should have been dismissed. I believe therefore that this amendment is absolutely essential to protect the employee and the liberty of the subject.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Northfield, L.

Ennals, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ezra, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkender, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rhodes, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Heycock, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kaldor, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alport, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Belstead, L.

Butterworth, L.

Birdwood, L.

Caccia, L.

Blake, L.

Caithness, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

198

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Middleton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rodney, L.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandys, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hooper, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kintore, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lane-Fox, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Torrington, V.

Layton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Ullswater, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Margadale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marley, L.

Windlesham, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Yarborough, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Ypres, E.

Melville, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in moving that the House do now resume, I suggest that we do not return to consideration in Committee on the Gas Bill until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sex Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Private Households and small undertakings and partnerships]:
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham)The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("such a person's private affairs") and insert ("intimate details of such a person's life")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to clarify the new exception for employment in private households which we are introducing in this Bill. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 excludes all employment in private households from the requirement not to discriminate in selecting employees. The European Court of Justice ruled that this was too wide an exclusion, although it accepted that the principle of equal treatment must give way in some circumstances to the principle of respect for private life.
Clause 1 permits an employer to discriminate in relation to jobs which involve working or living in a private home and which entail physical or social contact with a member of a household, or knowledge of such a person's private affairs, such that there could be reasonable objection to a man, or a woman, having the job.
The phrase "knowledge of such a person's private affairs" has caused concern in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Platt quoted from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on "affairs" at Committee stage and argued that the lack of a precise meaning could lead to unnecessary litigation.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked what kind of private affairs a householder might have which one sex could reasonably find out about but not the other. He obviously moves in very broadminded circles.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne explained the kind of situation we had in mind. I believe the disagreement is now about wording rather than the intention. The intention is to protect, for example, a woman who would suffer embarrassment and indignity to think of a man washing and ironing her underclothes or performing other very personal services even if she were out of the house at the time or bedridden upstairs so that there was no physical or social contact.
The new wording I am proposing refers to intimate details of a person's life instead of "private affairs". This is slightly more sharply focused and still close to the European Court's phrase "respect for private life". I hope that it will be acceptable to noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his tribute to my broadmindedness. We welcome this amendment so far as it goes. We took the view that there was never any need for the second limb of Clause 1(2) and as a result of that we supported an amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, at Committee stage to delete the second limb.
We took the view that any justifiable exception to the application of the Sex Discrimination Act to private households was perfectly reasonably covered by the first limb, which refers to the degree of physical and social contact. Nevertheless, I suppose it may reasonably be argued that the effect of taking out "affairs" and inserting "intimate details" probably narrows the effect of this limb and certainly makes it somewhat less confusing. Therefore, we welcome the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Young, will assure the House that this amendment is absolutely and unequivocally necessary in order to comply with the EC directive? If it is not unequivocally necessary, I wonder what a Conservative Government, who purport to believe in the freedom of the individual and in the maxim that an Englishman's home is his castle, are doing by further circumscribing in this manner the freedom of the individual to decide whom he or she shall or shall not admit to his or her household.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord
200
Monson, that the amendment we are suggesting is one which I am advised will come within the ambit of the ruling of the European Court, and that is the reason why it is there.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendments of section 77 of 1975 Act]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
("(5A) Subject to the conditions in subsection (5B) below, where in any proceedings a court or an industrial tribunal has declared or otherwise determined that a term of a collective agreement or a rule made by an employer is void, unenforceable or otherwise unlawful by virtue, wholly or in part, of this section, the Secretary of State may refer the collective agreement or the rules of which the term or, as the case may be, the rule forms part to the Central Arbitration Committee constituted under section 10 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, to declare what amendments need to be made to remove any discrimination on grounds of sex and on what the date or dates any such amendments are to have effect, not being in any case earlier than the date of the reference.
(5B) The conditions are:

(a) that the consent to the reference has been notified to the Secretary of State—

(i) in the case of a collective agreement, by an employer or a trade union party to it; or

(ii) in the case of a rule, by the employer who made it or a trade union recognised by him in respect of persons to whom it applies; or

(iii) in either case, by the Equal Opportunities Commission; and

(b) that a period of not less than 90 days has passed—

(i) where no appeal is made against the judgment of the court or industrial tribunal, commencing with the day following the last date on which such an appeal could have been instituted; or

(ii) where such an appeal is made, commencing with the date of the final judgment in the proceedings.

(5C) Where under subsection 5(A) above the Central Arbitration Committee has declared what amendments need to be made then, in so far as the terms and conditions of employment of any person are dependent upon the collective agreement or the rules, whether by way of contract or otherwise, they shall be ascertained by reference to the collective agreement or, as the case may be, the rules as so amended.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as my noble friends and I are responsible for Amendment No. 2 appearing on the Marshalled List, it may be proper and courteous if I say a brief word about the difficulty which has overtaken it. We are advised that it is "undesirable"—to use the words of Standing Orders—to move it at Third Reading. In accepting that advice, as of course we do, we should not want your Lordships to think that we had ignored the problems of procedure. Indeed, we had hoped that we had—to use the words of Standing Orders—put down an "issue" which was not the issue that had been determined at a previous stage. However, as it turns out, we were wrong.
What we tried to do at the various stages was to devise a solution—acceptable, if possible, to the Government—through the Central Arbitration Committee for the enforcement of Clause 2. In doing it at this stage we have not succeeded. In our submission it is a matter of interpretation of some importance to your Lordships that this falls within the prohibition of the Standing Orders as to a Third Reading amendment, and it may be something at which your Lordships may wish to look.
We express the hope that the Government will look at something like this amendment in another place, where, after all, many changes will join the changes which have already taken place to the Bill here. In that hope and with that explanation of the considerations that we had in mind, I have expressed the reason why I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I said at Second Reading that with this Bill the Government were carrying forward their commitment to promote equal opportunities in employment between men and women. During the discussions in your Lordships' House we have heard differing views as to how some provisions should operate and indeed whether some should be omitted altogether. There has, however, been no disagreement over what I would describe as the essence of the Bill—that men and women should be treated equally in employment and that barriers should be removed which hinder either from making their full contribution to the economy.
Noble Lords know that my overriding concern as Secretary of State is to see a reduction in the unacceptably high level of unemployment. If new jobs are to be created, existing work must be done efficiently so that firms can grow and prosper. It is vital that jobs go to the people best able to do them regardless of whether they are men or women. The further measures against sex discrimination in the Bill will help towards this.
The first two clauses of the Bill had their origins in a judgment of the European Court of Justice. The House has already considered the private homes provision today, and I shall say no more about that. I have made it no secret that I do not welcome the obligation to extend the full complexities of sex discrimination legislation to employment in the very smallest firms. I therefore welcome the fact that the European Council agreed in December that priority should be given to action on deregulation in line with views expressed by the United Kingdom Government. We have found a wide measure of support among other European Community member states for reducing the administrative and legislative burdens on business. Meanwhile we have honoured our obligations under the Treaty of Rome by repealing the small firms exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Clause 1 also now contains a parallel provision on partnerships which was proposed by my noble friend Lady Platt. This is clearly a logical extension of the clause and I welcome it as such. Clause 2, on collective agreements and employers' rules, has also benefited from amendment by your Lordships' House. It is clear that noble Lords opposite would have liked further amendment, and that is a point of disagreement between us. But I am confident that the clause will meet our European Community obligations and encourage revision of collective agreements to remove discriminatory terms. It is an improvement, albeit a modest one, to our equality legislation.
202
I turn now to the second half of the Bill. Its main aim is to remove outdated and discriminatory restrictions on the hours women may work in factories. It will allow women in factories to assume their full role in the economy alongside men and also alongside women in other occupations who are not subject to such legal restrictions. The proposed repeal meant that the role of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 needed to be re-examined. This Act regulates night baking for men only, so repeal of the restrictions on women's hours alone would create an anomaly within the baking industry. The hours of men would be controlled but those of women working alongside them would not. In the light of this we decided that this was the occasion to repeal the 1954 Act.
Putting these proposals into historical context, the 1979 report of the Equal Opportunities Commission had concluded that there was no longer any justification for maintaining legal provisions on hours of work which require men and women to be treated differently. Its overall recommendation was therefore that the legislation should be removed or—where health, safety and welfare demanded it—replaced so that it applies equally to men and women. Extension to women was the Equal Opportunities Commission's preference in the case of the baking Act. Since that time there have been extensive consultations on how best the overall recommendation should be carried forward and in particular on the extent to which restrictions continued to be valuable on grounds of health.
I have been at pains to emphasise in the past that we should not be making these proposals if we believed that there would be any risks involved to health and safety at the workplace. The available evidence on the effects on health of night work and long hours is inconclusive. But there is certainly no reason to think that the effects are different for women than for men. In reality many women in white collar jobs and in factories operating under special exemption orders currently work hours which would otherwise be prohibited by the legislation we seek to repeal. Yet there is no body of evidence that this causes difficulties for these women. The existing legislation, however, entails significant bureaucracy through the exemption order system and this constitutes a further important argument for repeal.
This briefly sums up how the original two clauses in this part of the Bill came about. However, the Bill will now leave this House with three additional clauses. There is a new procedure for the Secretary of State to make "equal protection orders" following reports and consultation. A further new provision incorporates the statutory restrictions that are to be repealed into the existing employee's contract of employment and ensures that dismissal for refusing to accept new hours of work would be treated by an industrial tribunal as automatically unfair. The final new clause imposes on all employers proposing changes in hours a significant new statutory duty in relation to the health, safety, welfare and interests of employees, particularly those with domestic and family responsibilities—and also empowers the Health and Safety Commission to issue a code of practice containing practical guidance on this duty. These clauses now form part of the Bill and will go to another place for consideration there.

203
The Bill is to undergo further changes in another place concerning retirement ages for men and women, which your Lordships will have an opportunity to consider in due course. In the meantime, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Bill is leaving their House as a modest and welcome measure to improve equal employment opportunities for men and women. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, at the time of the Second Reading the obvious way to epitomise the attitude to this Bill on this side of the House would have been to say that it was a curate's egg of a Bill. The only problem was that the idea that it was a curate's egg of a Bill suggested that it was all mixed up, and it was not easy to say which bits of it were excellent and which bits were not so excellent. But of course this Bill was not quite like that because all the excellent bits were at the top of the egg. As you worked your way down the egg, the egg got worse.
We had no great objection—indeed, we welcomed it so far as it went—to the clause on applying sex discrimination to private households and to small undertakings. It was going in the right direction, even if it was not going quite far enough. We welcomed also the clause on avoidance of sex discrimination in the case of non-legal collective agreements, though we said that it did not go far enough in that we argued that there was no mechanism for effectively enforcing this part of the Bill in a collective way.
The rest of the Bill, we said (and still say) was quite illogical and totally unconnected with the decision of the European Court. It was, in fact, ideologically based, in respect of the provisions for the removal of restrictions on the hours of work for women and, in the baking industry, of the hours of work for men.
It is true that at Second Reading the Secretary of State sought, as I understood he also sought today, to argue that there was a connection between the first half of the Bill and the second half of the Bill. For example, at Second Reading, at col. 1176 of Hansard on 27th February, he said that the restrictions on women's hours restricts working women's employment opportunities, so that in a sense we are adding to the employment opportunities of women by abolishing those restrictions. He said, as he has said today in a rather more qualified way, that of course this part of the Bill was advocated in 1979 by the majority of members of the then Equal Opportunities Commission. However, it has become increasingly clear, as distinguished members and ex-members of the Equal Opportunities Commission have argued during this Bill's passage through the House, that that was not really what the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1979 said at all.
As the noble Lord himself said in the statement he has just made, in respect of the baking industry the solution of the Equal Opportunities Commission was not abolition but extension. It was always clear in the majority report in 1979 that extension was an equally available option to abolition. What the EOC were against in 1979 was discrimination, and they saw
204
extension, as much as abolition, as a way of moving against discrimination.
It also became increasingly clear as the noble Lord went on, and as he said today, that the main reason for this Bill, and the part of the Bill about which the Government are most pleased and most unqualified in their support, is the second aim of the Bill. As the Secretary of State said at col. 1179, also on 27th February, the present legislation,
"stands in the way of modern employers who wish to staff their enterprises with maximum flexibility and efficiency".
In other words, protections for workers—or, as he would say, regulations for workers—are condemned as one more example of Burdens on Business.
That was at the time of the Second Reading. Since then, as the Secretary of State has also said, we have had the Committee and Report stages, and we would argue that at each stage the Bill has been improved. Indeed, in the amendment that the Secretary of State himself put down at Third Reading he has marginally improved the Bill still further. It is still a curate's egg of a Bill. It is still a mixture of the fresh and the stale, the good and the bad, the edible and the inedible; but due to the process of amendment in this House it is a slightly better egg than it was.
7.45 p.m.
Moreover, now it can be said that the good parts of the Bill, the edible bits, pop up throughout the Bill. They pop up as a result of no fewer than six improvements that we have managed to secure during the passage of the Bill through this House. The first was of course the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, and accepted on Report. It included partnerships in the scope of Clause 1.
The second improvement was that something was done today about the second limb of Clause 1(2) of the Bill. Thirdly, in Clause 2 we have passed the amendments advanced in the first place by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on the application of the clause to applicants for work. That has been accepted by the Government. Most important of all, we have had another amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, which has introduced the new concept of the equal protection order. This has been introduced into the body of the Bill as the new Clause 3.
The part of the noble Lord's speech which worried me most was his failure, after mentioning the ways in which the Bill had been changed in this House, to give any indication of how the Government intend to look upon this new concept of the equal protection order when the Bill gets to another place. This will, if it stands in the Bill, make it possible for the Act to serve as an instrument of what the Equal Opportunities Commission wanted to see happen; the Act can serve as an instrument for extending the scope of worker protection in a genuinely non-discriminatory way. We would argue that that was the spirit of the 1979 EOC report. That was the fourth change made in this Bill.
The fifth is only less important because it is more limited: the new Clause 7 which achieves a right of unfair dismissal for existing employees forced to work at night. I would have wished that the noble Lord

205
could have given us some indication of how this amendment is to be received by the Government. I would remind him that this amendment is in line with an amendment the Government introduced in their ill-fated Shops Bill. Therefore it can reasonably be argued that in precisely similar circumstances the Government accept an argument for some kind of acquired rights.
Finally, we come to the new Clause 8 which, as a result of successive attempts at amendment, has achieved the provision of a code of practice to be taken into account when any employer makes substantial changes in hours of work. I should like from my side of the House to pay tribute to the formidable collection of Peeresses, the pride of Baronesses, who have participated on this Bill. Between them they have taken a large part of the argument forward. They have enabled us to pass these six improvements to the Bill: six changes, all of which have improved the quality of the egg.
Yet we must record our failures either to move the Government or to move the House. Four of these are worth recall. The first—and in some ways not that important if the rest of our amendments stand—was the attempt of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, without success, to make the working of the present Clause 4 more flexible and pragmatic. The second was his attempt to make the Government draw logical conclusions from their previous obsession with ballotamania; to retain the secret ballot provisions in so far as they exist in this field. Again we were unsuccessful. Thirdly, there was the attempt by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden, helped by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, to get the protection of the baking Act extended to women. Again, if the amendment we moved, providing for a new concept of an equal protection order, survives, we can argue that that amendment is not all that important or essential.
But the great failure we have had, and the failure that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn would have attempted to redress even now at Third Reading, if we had been able to do so, was the unfortunate, inexplicable, unjustified and ideological refusal of the Government to accept that there should be an effective enforcement mechanism for Clause 2. We tried this repeatedly. We tried in Committee but we failed. Despite the fact that my noble friend Lady Turner argued that there was no effective collective enforcement mechanism; that large numbers of women would not go to the tribunals to enforce their rights under the existing legislation proposals; that there was available and ready the CAC, which could provide an effective collective enforcement mechamism, we were totally unable to persuade the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who conducted the debate on Second Reading, replied, as the House will remember, by concentrating heavily on the importance of the role of the industrial tribunals.
So we attempted, in returning to this matter on Report, to provide the House with an alternative which allowed the industrial tribunals the first crack of the whip: an amendment which protected the role of the courts and saw the Central Arbitration Committee as a residual stopgap. But I am afraid that on that occasion we had a quite different set of objections from the Secretary of State and, unfortunately, we have not
206
been able to move a similar amendment at Third Reading.
I make three final points about the role of the CAC in the enforcement of this part of the Bill. The first is that it is an experienced body in this field. Until the scope of the CAC was limited by a High Court ruling several years ago it performed an important role in promoting non-discrimination in pay and related areas to the general satisfaction of both sides of industry. It was not simply the trade unions who were satisfied with the work of the CAC in this field. It was generally accepted that it combined the pursuit of non-discrimination with an appreciation of industrial relations realities. Its role in this respect was widely respected in industry. Therefore we are not talking about an unknown system operated by people whose experience and efficacy is in doubt. The distinguished chairman of the CAC knows better than almost anyone in the field how to combine the pursuit of non-discrimination with an appreciation of industrial relations realities.
My second point is that such a role is required to make reality of the rights which lie buried in the heart of Clause 2, especially those relating to indirect discrimination. Many of these rights will not be applied and effectively enforced unless there is an external prod, which is not dependent on individuals, and unless the solutions provided take into account the real problems of the firms concerned.
My third point on this is that if the Government are, as the Secretary of State has said, to deal with the results of the Marshall case then more than ever we shall need a scheme providing the kind of across-the-board approach which the CAC can achieve. Putting the Marshall case right will not be easy. We cannot say that all employers immediately will either introduce age 60 retirement qualifications for men or age 65 retirement qualifications for women. They will wait to see. Some will put some people up to 65 and some people down to 60. Some will be reluctant to move at all. A few will be devious because for them equalisation can have considerable consequences. The removal of discrimination could have serious consequences for employers if it is done in a piecemeal way, which is the only way that it can be done if it is to be enforced by industrial tribunals. Therefore, more than ever some kind of collectivist overall solution that respects back-up principles of collective bargaining and the rule-making necessities of employers must be found because of what the Government have to do in respect of the Marshall decisions.
We beg the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, not to be so ideologically bigoted and not to impose the same old tired individualist solution to the problem of the Marshall case that the Government have sought to impose on problems arising from recent European decisions.
Finally I should like to make one or two final comments on the overall aims of the Bill. At Second Reading the Secretary of State gave us four reasons for the Bill: the removal of discrimination, one; the promotion of opportunity, two; the removal of restrictions on industry, three; and the stimulation of competition in the labour market, four. I asked at Report stage whether these four objectives could be combined in one Bill and what would the

207
Government's priorities be if one or another of these estimable ambitions—we are not against any of them—came into conflict with each other.
I suggest that despite the amendments that have been passed on the Bill, and certainly if they do not survive in their present state in another place, we all know only too well what the Government's priorities are. At the top of the list, removal of restrictions: Burdens on Business. Next, there is the stimulation of competition in the labour market; then there is the promotion of opportunity. Last and least the removal of discrimination. Thus the true measures to remove discrimination in Clauses 1 and 2 arise externally, out of the decision of the European Court, although the Government could have introduced them themselves. We were told when they were introduced by the noble Lord the Secretary of State that they were not welcome or acceptable in every respect. In relation to Clause 1, he found it particularly hard to accept this as his major policy aim was to remove burdensome restrictions from small businesses. We were told—and we have been told again today—that the Government hope that these things that they do in the first half of the Bill will only be temporary so far as small firms are concerned because they are trying to reverse the policy in Brussels. In fact they are only acceptable at all in minimum form and if they are accompanied by the second half of the Bill: namely, the abolition of restrictions, or protections, on women's nightwork and the abolition of restrictions, or protections, on men's nightwork in baking—all this on the formal grounds that neither of these things is applied universally either across industry or to both sexes.
I want to be fair to the Secretary of State. I am not saying that he and the Government do not believe in non-discrimination. I am certainly not saying that covertly they believe in discrimination. What I am saying, and what I think the evidence suggests and the record shows, is that they will pursue the goal of non-discrimination only in ways that do not interfere with, and can be shown to carry forward, their dogma of removing the Burdens on Business. Of course, that means that, whatever the evidence may be, the only way they can carry this forward is by abolition rather than extension. I do not say that when the Secretary of State is good he is very good and when he is bad he is horrid. I say that on the evidence of this Bill when he is good he is forced to be good and when he is bad he enjoys it.
8 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to say from these Benches that on the whole we welcome this Bill. We welcome the extension of non-discrimination to small firms and partnerships. I would again underline that this was omitted from the original 1975 legislation only because of administrative difficulties and not because at that time anyone thought there was any good reason for indefinitely excluding the small firm.
I also welcome the change in the outdated form of protection for women workers which was, I think, increasingly becoming a handicap to the development of equal opportunities. In line with the recommendations
208
of the Equal Opportunities Commission, we have always argued from these Benches that what was needed was, where appropriate, common protection for both men and women. That protection would not take the same form as had been reflected in the Factories Acts which had developed over 150 years and were in many ways greatly outdated, but we do not see advance towards the removal of discrimination by the total removal of all protection and therefore regret the fact that we were unable to save the baking regulations.
However, it is to be hoped that with the provision of the code of practice (although I have certain reservations about the proper use of codes of practice) it may be possible to develop through custom and practice which, after all, remain a very powerful force in British industrial relations, the kind of common protection for both men and women which will be in line with the spirit of the recommendation of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
I very much hope, reflecting briefly some but not all the things that were said by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that there is no intention on the part of the Government in another place to remove the improvements which were passed in this House. I think that would be an extremely retrogressive step, and I very much hope that the Government will refrain from taking it. I want to underline, however, what I think is the greatest weakness in this Bill now; that is, the omission of the CAC. To put it bluntly, I am bound to say I think that this is based on an inadequate understanding on the part of the Government Front Bench of how industrial relations really work. The idea, which seems to me to be exceedingly naive, that you can leave the enforcement of this kind of thing to industrial relations is not an approach which would be supported by anybody who has had practical experience of industrial relations on any side of industry. The CAC which, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has said, is in very high standing and much approved on both sides for the work that it has done is manned—if I may still use that phrase, with apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—by people of very great experience in the field of industrial relations. This is an opportunity thrown away to get a very good piece of machinery back into place.
Finally, I should like to say to the Government that I very much hope that in the development of equal opportunity between the sexes they are not always going to wait to be told what to do by the European Court of Justice. I find that singularly disagreeable since in 1975 we in this country produced the first piece of sex discrimination legislation of any of the European countries. No legislation of a similar kind had been produced anywhere. I find it very disappointing indeed that we are now trailing behind and reluctantly coming into line when we are forced to do so by the European Court. Surely the Government are capable—or perhaps they are not—of taking their own initiatives in this field. With those reservations we welcome the Bill.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity on Third Reading of the Sex Discrimination Bill to welcome the improvements

209
which have taken place since the original consultation stage. I shall keep my remarks brief. I should like to thank my noble friend the Secretary of State for initiating some of the improvements, notably the inclusion within the legislation of the principle of indirect discrimination and of small partnerships as well as small firms. Those are both very important matters to the Equal Opportunities Commission. Indeed, we believe that today's further amendment will reduce confusion and possibly subsequent litigation.
The majority of the Commission welcomes the general removal of restrictions on working hours and conditions for women, but we are glad that—as we recommended in 1979—safeguards are now included in the Bill; in particular that there is a duty placed on employers when changing substantially the hours of work of their employees, men as well as women, to consider their health, safety, welfare and interests, and to make appropriate provision having regard to the nature and size of their businesses.
In this connection also we welcome the fact that the Health and Safety Commission, after consultation with the European Commission, may make a code of practice containing practical guidance on this duty and that the extent to which an employer has carried out his duty under this provision shall be relevant in determining the reasonableness of his actions before an industrial tribunal.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Secretary of State for retaining this addition in Third reading and trust that it will now be part of the eventual Act. I also welcome the insertion of the provision for the protection of existing workers and I hope that it remains when the proposed Act comes into force. I am also grateful to my noble friend for his undertaking to issue notes of guidance after the passing of the Act, in particular in connection with the voluntary submission of collective agreements to the Central Arbitration Committee and the encouragement of employers' and workers' organisations to renegotiate and remove void terms of agreement to avoid confusion to all concerned.
We look forward to the inclusion of the new clause, or clauses, as a result of the Marshall case which will allow women to continue in public and private employment up to the age of 65 if they so wish. The Government have moved with commendable speed in this matter.
We hope that in the Social Security Bill in connection with the proposed flexible decade of retirement the Government will now take a similar opportunity to set a time scale to a programme of equalising pension ages. Judging from our research that would be a most popular measure and would remove many unfairnesses which frustrate and annoy both sexes. These feelings will become more acute as a result of the Marshall case. I have pleasure in supporting this Bill on Third Reading.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House there have been some notable improvements made as a result of the amendments that have been successfully accepted
210
here. I hope that when they reach the other place they will continue to remain a part of the Bill; but problems remain, and the main problem I see is that of enforcement. It seems to me that in seeking to put into operation the decision of the European Court the approach taken by the Government has been a minimalist one. In other words, the Government, in presenting the Bill to your Lordships, have done the absolute minimum that seemed to be necessary in order to comply with the European Court judgment. We have improved upon that during the Bill's passage through the House but the issue of enforcement concerns me greatly. Unless there is a reasonable means of enforcing this legislation, I do not think that we shall be held eventually to have adequately complied with the judgment.
As I said earlier during the course of discussions on Report and in Committee, it would be a great pity if we were yet again to be found to be in default of European legislation. The enforcement question is important. I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time on this but, as previous speakers have said, the Central Aribtration Committee, of which I happen to be a member, has a substantial record of success in the industrial relations area. When we raised this on Report and in Committee, we were told that the attitude of the Government was that these issues could be dealt with in industrial tribunals. Let me say, as a working trade union official, that this is not an approach that is acceptable when dealing with collective agreements. The tribunal system was established to deal with individuals rather than with collective agreements and the Equal Pay Act acknowledged that when giving the CAC a role in the enforcement of non-discrimination in collective agreements.
The absence of such enforcement machinery will to some extent nullify the thrust of this legislation. Incidentally, I am glad to hear from the noble Lord the Minister that it is intended to introduce legislation to deal with the Marshall judgment. However, may I again ask that a minimal approach should not be taken in relation to Marshall; that we should not do just what is minimal in order to comply with that judgment, because there are other issues involved in addition to proceeding to the same retirement age as men? There is the whole question of pension entitlement and equalisation of pension rights, which is inseparable from the argument about the retirement ages.
When we have legislation to deal with Marshall it would be good to see that the Government had taken note of the desire that there should not be a minimal approach to the European Court judgment but that an attempt should be made to put into operation legislation that would adequately reflect the desire that there should be equal opportunity and equal rights for women and that the legislation should be drafted in terms that will meet those requirements.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am pleased to discover at least that I am at the same time both horrid and naive in insisting perhaps on a priority of this Government, which as far as I am concerned will always remain a priority of this Government. It is simply employment. When this Government express concern about the burdens on business they do not do so for any reason other than the effect it has on

211
employment. When the Government express concern about the provisions of some of the amendments which noble Lords opposite and other noble Lords have brought to this Bill, they do so not because they are concerned to promote discrimination. They are concerned to do all they can to eliminate discrimination, but they are concerned to do it in a manner consistent with the growth of employment and of jobs.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for a catalogue of the amendments proposed and rejected by your Lordships' House. At times I marvel at the wisdom of your Lordships' House. In the light of some of the points made in the debate today, I should like to reaffirm our commitment to repealing the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954. Of the two possible courses open to us, repeal or extension of the Act to women, we are certain that repeal is the sensible way forward. It seems pointless to extend the Act at a time when more than two-thirds of the employees in the industry work hours set by collective agreements which bring exemption from the provisions of the Act.
The 1954 Act was introduced not on grounds of health and safety but to resolve the longstanding problems that the industry had in reaching effective agreements on hours of work. The industry now appears to have set its house in order. It is the Government's view that this Act is unnecessary. Hours of work will become a matter for collective and individual bargaining without the statutory underpinning which the Act has provided, as is the position in all other industries.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked whether I could elaborate on the Government's approach to the new clauses. These clauses now form part of the Bill and they will go to another place to receive further consideration there. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, raised the matter, as did the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, of the Central Arbitration Committee and the enforcement of Clause 2. I must repeat that individuals who suffer unlawful sex discrimination—and that is the individual workers themselves—already have the right of full redress through the industrial tribunals. They can win compensation of up to £8,000 or two years' back pay. Section 4 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 protects the individual against victimisation for bringing a case.
The noble Lord suggested that even where one or more individuals has proved sex discrimination, the employer, possibly aided and abetted by the unions, will do nothing to remedy the situation of others in a similar position. I cannot accept that any sane employer would lay himself open to a string of cases on the same issue when he is not only bound to lose and possibly will have to pay compensation but also very likely will be faced with costs.
This Bill provides that unlawful discriminatory terms of collective agreements will be void, as required by the Equal Treatment Directive. I have said before that I consider that the renegotiation of collective agreements is best left to the parties who make them and who live with them and their consequences every working day. However, if employers and unions want outside help in renegotiation, this is available from ACAS and, if both agree, from the CAC. The Equal
212
Opportunities Commission also has formal powers of investigation if any further back-up is needed. My noble friend Lady Platt raised the matter of Marshall and the retiring age. We issued our consultative document on 1st April and invited responses by tomorrow. A number of interested organisations have yet to respond, but the comments received so far indicate that the Government should go ahead with preparing amendments to this Bill on the lines set out in the document.
Your Lordships will have a chance to debate any amendments made in another place. The Marshall judgment was about sex discrimination in compulsory retirement from work. Not surprisingly, it has set people thinking about the wider issues related to retirement, including state pensionable age. Where responses to the consultative document have touched on pension issues, my department has brought them to the attention of the DHSS. I believe that that fairly deals with many of the issues raised, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he will agree that he is not without influence in another place, let alone in Downing Street. Is his statement that he marvels at the wisdom of this House any indication that he may recommend that the Government accept that wisdom?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was marvelling at the wisdom of the House when it rejected some of the amendments proposed by noble Lords opposite.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty-five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.19 to 8.25 p.m.]

Gas Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("and vacate").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11A. At the same time I gather it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss also Amendments Nos. 11B and 12A. The effect of these three amendments would be that the vacation of office would be distinguished from the appointment to office. Subsection (4) would now read:
"Subject to subsections (2) and (3) above, the Director shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment".
At the end of line 11 there would be inserted a new subsection which would read:
"The Director shall, subject to subsections (2) and (3) above, vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment or if called upon so to do by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament".
If I may first deal with the words "as such", which is purely a drafting point, the words have been left out in the proposed amendment because I could not see the purpose of putting them in. If the Minister has a good reason for putting them in perhaps he would be good enough to explain it, and that will be that. As to the rest, the wording is devised to create a situation under which the director shall be subject to subsections (2) and (3), as the Bill proposes. He will vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment as the Bill proposes, but in addition, as an alternative,
"if called upon so to do by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament".
What situation is that amendment intended to meet? It is intended to meet the situation where there has developed what I might call a cosy arrangement between the regulator and the Secretary of State, where the regulation is, in the view of Parliament, not being carried out at all effectively, where the Secretary of State is not prepared to do anything about it and where the director has no reason to resign under his appointment and is not desirous of resigning and yet it appears to both Houses of Parliament that regulation is not being effective.
As we know, the whole purpose of this section of the Bill is to provide machinery under which regulation shall take place in order to protect the consumer against this enormous monopoly. It is already the situation that with regard to Oftel there is widespread criticism in Parliament upon the way in which regulation is proving to be inadequate under the Act. This proposes to give Parliament a say in the way the regulation should be carried out so as to strengthen it.
Again, if, for example, Members of another place are bombarded with letters and calls from their constituents, making it clear that they are suffering (as compared with a situation which would have arisen had there been no privatisation) under the unintended effects of the privatisation measure, and it is made clear that the director is not for some reason or another carrying out his duties in an effective way, Parliament would have the opportunity of intervening.
It is therefore clear that the director general would not only have regard to the Secretary of State who appointed him. There is always the danger when the holder of an office is appointed by the Secretary of State and the renewal of his appointment is subject to the goodwill of the Secretary of State. That is the main point. Where the director general has served four out of the five years for which he is appointed and is required to carry on his duty he will be expecting to seek and be granted reappointment. Who will reappoint him? The Secretary of State, of course. Under what circumstances will he be reappointed? If he keeps his nose clean, and if he does nothing which upsets the Secretary of State.
That is what happens with regard to all such appointments and therefore it is right that there should be some counterbalance to strengthen the desire of the director general to act in accordance with the terms, of the Act and, if there is too cosy an arrangement, to protect the consumer by giving Parliament the right to call upon him to resign. There would be no injustice in that. Parliament would have to be satisfied. Both
214
Houses would have to be satisfied. That means satisfying a great many people with good, objective judgment and experience.
The director general would be protected in that way. If he thought that, in being called upon to resign when in his view there was no incapacity or misbehaviour, he was being improperly treated and if he felt himself entitled to compensation, compensation would be payable under the Act. There is nothing here to remove that right. No injustice is being done. It is merely a method of achieving what we are trying to achieve all the way through Clause 1—to strengthen the power of the director general to regulate in accordance with the Government's wishes.
Lord Belstead: When the noble Lord was moving this group of amendments, he said that Amendment No. 11B would remove the words "as such" and that perhaps the Government would explain the reason for having them in the Bill, if there was one. I shall deal with that point. As I understand the drafting, the director general who is in office at any time should hold and vacate his office as director general in accordance with the terms of his appointment. T hat is the meaning of subsection (4). The words "as such" refer to the office of the director general and are therefore necessary for the proper construction of the subsection. Laymen might think that one could refer to "that office" but the parliamentary draftsman has said "as such". As I understand it, that is the intention of the drafting.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord and I understand the reasons why he moved this group of amendments, but I suggest that the drawbacks of the amendments would outweigh the benefits, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, sees them. There are two drawbacks. The amendments fall on the grounds of inconsistency and injustice. With regard to inconsistency, I make the point that we spent a great deal of time before we broke for dinner with noble Lords opposite, and not least the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seeking to make more secure the director general's tenure of office. That was done in Amendments Nos. 10A, 10B and some other amendments. This amendment would make his office less secure.
I find it hard to accept that the director general should be subjected to the possibility of removal by parliamentary intervention. In saying that of course I realise that he is appointed by the Secretary of State and it is right therefore that if necessary he should also be removed by the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament. In addition to saying that, I think that the amendment is inconsistent—I genuinely think that it is because it runs entirely counter to the amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken previously—and could lead to great injustice. No reason would have to be given by Parliament for intervening. No challenge could be made by the director general. Removal by the Secretary of State on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour can, as my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin said some time ago, be challenged in the courts. No right of appeal would be available to the director general against a resolution by Parliament. I feel sure that those omissions are an

215
oversight but, nonetheless, that they are defects absolutely fatal to these amendments.
Lord Diamond: They are not oversights. I draw a great distinction between a decision made by one man—the Secretary of State—and a decision made by two Houses of Parliament. The two Houses of Parliament have the capacity to pass any legislation they choose. That is different from the fiat of one individual who may have the wisdom of Solomon but who from time to time is capable of making an error of judgment.
Moreover, as I have explained, Members, particularly of another place, are continually being refreshed in their knowledge of how the regulation is working on the ground by the contact that they have, daily by correspondence and at least weekly by personal interview, with constituents who are affected by the way in which charges are being made, services are not up to standard, their inquiries are not being dealt with, endless delay and so on.
It is clear that Parliament would act justly. In my view it is not appropriate to give courts the power to set aside the decision of Parliament. They do not do that. They may bring a Minister to account for not having abided by the wishes of Parliament, but it is not for the courts to set aside a decision by Parliament. I have no doubt that by the time such a resolution had been passed by a majority of both Houses every possible aspect of the matter would have been fully aired. There would be no opportunity for people to make a bad judgment through bad temper, haste or anything like that. There are two Houses of Parliament and to get a resolution through two Houses of Parliament the issue has to be clear and acceptable to the majority in both Houses. That is a safe provision and by no means unjust.
I repeat that if the net effect in law of the resolution were that the director general were still entitled to compensation, he would receive his compensation. I agree that he would not get back his office, because in its wisdom Parliament would have decided that it should end.
I agree that there is a superficial inconsistency in the sense that, as the noble Lord the Minister has made clear, so far we have been arguing for strengthening the position of the director general. It enables him to act strongly if he knows that the Secretary of State is not the only person to be considered. He cannot therefore feel that he is safe by having satisfied, in some unacceptable manner, the Secretary of State while his functions are not being carried out in a manner satisfactory to the consumer.
That is the situation. We have to prepare for both sides. We have to cater for the situation that the Secretary of State may want to dismiss a man for no good reason and for the situation that the Secretary of State may be unwilling to dismiss him because he is satisfied with the way things have been carried on. For example, he may not want the new gas company to be put into any difficulty about maximising its profits and, therefore, he may not want the regulation to interfere unduly with the way in which the supply of gas is being carried out. It is easy to imagine
216
circumstances in which there would be too cosy an arrangement between the Secretary of State and the director. Therefore, I think that this is an amendment which is worthy of more consideration than it has been given. It is up to the Committee to make its views known, but I shall leave it at that at the moment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: This amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seems to be eminently reasonable. It is essentially a fall-back provision which could be rarely used. As the Committee is aware, the only way of getting rid of a High Court judge, if it be the desire of Parliament, is by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. This remains the ultimate sanction, which clearly would be very rarely used. I am thinking in terms of 10, 20 or 50 years. So far as judges are concerned, to my own knowledge, however imperfect that may be, I cannot remember a case where a judge was removed by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. That is the ultimate sanction. I should have thought, in the circumstances put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that this was a very good final long stop provision that ought to be incorporated. I shall not detain the Committee any longer, because the noble Lord has put the position very clearly. For my part I shall support the amendment.
Lord Diamond: The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, does not want to intervene further. That being the case, and as I do not want to embarrass the Government in the way they were embarrassed the other night when it was made evident that they had not even kept the Committee together, I shall not make any challenge. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11B, 12 and 12A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It would be wrong to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill without a few comments from this Dispatch Box about it and about the discussions that we have had up till now. It is true that we are proceeding slowly towards the end of the second day of debate. It is also true that we are about to finalise, one way or the other, whether this clause is allowed to stand part of a Bill which contains 68 clauses and nine schedules. Throughout this debate, all parties on this side have expressed their concern, first, at the weakness of the regulatory system and, secondly, at the manner of appointment to the organisation over which the director general will preside.
We believe that the amendments which we have put before the Committee have been eminently reasonable, and if the Government had said "We understand your point. We understand your worries about this Bill. We understand that we are converting a public monopoly into a private one, and are just as concerned as your are that a private monopoly should be properly regulated, so we are, at least, prepared to have another look at the problem of regulation and at the position of the director general of Ofgas", they

217
would have given this side of the Committee some comfort, but every single amendment has been rejected.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, accused me of being irritable. He is quite wrong. I was not at all irritable. I was merely sorry that the Government were not prepared to listen to the amassed experience of this side and at least to consider seriously what had been said. The noble Lord also accused me of being naïve. I do not think I am naïve. It is probably the noble Lord and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches who are being naive in believing that this weak regulatory authority will be able to protect the public interest against a privatised gas monopoly. That is being naïve. But I can assure the noble Lord that I am not at all irritable. I hope that I never get irritable in this Chamber. I so enjoy your Lordships' company and the well informed discussion which takes place, and I sincerely hope that I shall never get irritable.
I do not wish to delay the Committee long, but I have to repeat that we believe that, in the light of the experience we have had with Oftel and British Telecom, our case is proved against this clause which is not strong enough and does not give the director general sufficient support. We shall undoubtedly come back to the matter at some later stage, even if the Committee votes that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. If it does that, I believe that we shall certainly wish to return to the matter. It is an essential, and indeed a central, part of this Bill which, as we all know, is converting a public monopoly into a private one, although the Conservative Party drew attention in its election manifesto to the undesirability of converting a public monopoly into a private monopoly per se, without competition from any other source.
That is what is being done here with weak regulation, and we very much regret that we have been unable from this side to persuade the Government to move somewhat in our direction. We regret it very much. We hope that between now and Report stage—because I imagine that there will be a fair time between now and Report stage—they will read what has been said, they will think and reflect upon what has been said and hopefully will come back in a better frame of mind to accept some of the reasonable suggestions we have made to them.
Lord Whaddon: I also find myself approaching the end of debate on Clause 1 with a certain sadness that the Government have not listened to the sincere worries expressed from this side of the Committee. The position of a monopoly in any type of nation—whether it be capitalist, socialist, communist or whatever—and its relation to the consumer has always been one of profound difficulty. Sometimes, as in the United States, tremendous efforts have been made to break up monopolies to provide a little competition and to try to ensure that the competition produced a fair deal for the consumer.
In other cases, effective competition was impossible because of the technical nature of the industry. Here we have such a natural monopoly where only the faintest trace of competition at the rim can be conceived and where, under whatever shade of government, the consumer must face a natural monopoly. The Government must always answer the
218
question: what are you doing to force this technical monopoly to give a decent deal to the consumer?
I acknowledge that competition can be a great spur in bringing about the lowest prices for consumers, but this is not the case now. How do we protect the consumer from abuses of a private monopoly? It is a grave thing that the Government do. They know they are doing it and they do it from profound conviction that private ownership is inherently superior. But we on this side have our doubts about the Government's dogmatic position and we need convincing that the public are adequately protected.
We know that later in the Bill is a most complex formula for setting the price of gas. It could be written in Sanskrit so far as I am concerned, and we shall require a good deal of explanation as to how it will operate. Noble Lords will surely realise that any private company will seek and find a thousand ways of maximising its profit on behalf of its shareholders, because as a company its duty is to its shareholders. The duty of the Government is to the electorate as a whole and to consumers as well as to companies. I am very scared that the right balance has not been achieved up to now.
We shall be discussing later in the Bill how the setting of the price of gas can be satisfactorily achieved, but as I pointed out briefly to noble Lords opposite, much more than the price of gas is involved. Where a private monopoly is in charge of a huge power sector such as gas it will see the opportunities of reaping very substantial profits, not simply from the supply of gas but from related activities.
I beg Members of the Committee opposite to consider the position of the commercial director of the new company. He will be told by the rest of the board that his job is to sell at the highest profit margin and that his own future, his salary, his perks, his pension and his job will depend on constantly rising profitability. He will tell his sales managers to seek out every opportunity. There are so many opportunities other than the simple supply of the fuel itself when you are supplying a commodity such as gas. It is not a matter just of pumping gas into a large pipe at one end and pumping out through a multiplicity of small pipes at the other. There are gas stoves, gas heaters, gas pokers and gas appliances of all kinds.
What controls will there be on those commodities that will be supplied along with the gas? What controls will there be over the maintenance contracts that will be involved and the thousands of ancillary pieces of equipment that go along with them? There are electronic devices—devices for sitting on the other side of the room and switching a stove on or off without getting out of your seat. There are the activities of the advertising director to persuade housewives that they will not be up to the standard of the Jones's next door if they do not spend another £100 to have the new super stove fitted, The effect on the life of the consumer will be profound. I cannot see that the rights of the average housewife will be adequately protected from the powers of the director of Ofgas as we see them at the moment.
I see enormous potential. I wish I were 20 or 30 years younger and had the opportunity of applying for the position of sales manager or sales director of this

219
huge monopoly. The great lake of profit that is there to be reaped makes one's mouth water. One can imagine that advertising agencies will be waiting to dive into this as soon as the Bill becomes law. But that is not what we are here to do. Having released this monster on the public we have to try to erect some fragile barriers to protect the public. I am sorry to say that up to now Ministers have not attributed the honesty of purpose and the depth of concern which is to be found sincerely on this side of the Committee.
I can appreciate that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite are well aware that they are reasonable, honest, decent men. Presumably they feel that their colleagues in the Government are also all decent and honourable men and women. But consider this. Will they always be in office? Do they consider that all possible members in the future will be decent, honourable men and women, who will never step outside what is decent, honourable and reasonable? Can they honestly put their hands on their hearts and say so? They have more confidence than I have if they feel that. We should surely now be hammering out laws and regulations which will protect the consumer against every conceivable abuse.
I regret very much that up to now the attitude of the Government has been that any reasonable chap would certainly run a reasonable service under this Bill. I have yet to be convinced that a conceivable scenario of possible future Ministers would not lay the public open to immense abuse. I am very far from convinced on that and I cannot approve Clause 1.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before we leave this clause, I am rather surprised that from the Benches opposite we have heard nothing but talk of monopoly. I understood when I spoke in the Second Reading debate and listened to other speeches that the gas industry was by no means a monopoly. With the price of oil dropping through the floor, electricity is becoming a very real challenge to the gas industry. I was most interested to note also the evidence in the other place to the Select Committee on Energy, from the chairman of the National Gas Consumers Council. When she was asked a question—"Is competition always going to be more effective a friend to the consumer than regulation?"—the answer from her and also from her council was clearly this:
"Yes, this is a Council view and certainly the view of most members of my council … In the end competition helps the consumer".
Up to the meter in the gas industry a natural monopoly exists, but after the meter there is room for competition. We must get this whole question in perspective and realise that the gas industry, although a monopoly as far as the domestic consumer is concerned for the gas, it is by no means a monopoly in the energy field.
9 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No one could accuse your Lordships' Committee of having failed on this Bill so far to pursue conscientiously its duties as a revising Chamber. We have spent very nearly two days on Clause 1 of the Bill and whatever the future may hold, any suggestion, even from the Benches opposite, that
220
we are not an active and effective revising Chamber can be strongly repudiated. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, despite the declared policy of his party, indicating that he agrees with me on this point.
So much has been said on this clause that I want to add only two observations. First, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, seemed slightly to resent the suggestion I made earlier that he had been a little naïve in one or two of his speeches. I think, on reflection, that he was, because most of the amendments which we have dealt with were not going effectively to strengthen the director general. Some of them, if put into the Bill, would have weakened him. Therefore, to accept the plausible arguments which have been put, mainly from the Alliance Benches, to the effect that the director general's role would be strengthened argued a certain lack of knowledge of the way that government works. I did not intend to offend the noble Lord, for whom I have the highest regard, and I hope he will take note of these thoughts for the future.
My second observation is to congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench if only on their patience. Two days on one clause—an important clause, but perhaps not the most important in the Bill—is a very long time for your Lordships' Committee to spend. I think many Ministers in charge of a Bill in those circumstances might have been tempted to a little irritation. On the contrary, my noble friends appear to have preserved their equanimity throughout. Lest I strain it further, I conclude my observations by warmly congratulating them on that.
Lord Diamond: We cannot let this clause go without expressing our anxieties that it should have been left in the Bill in exactly the same form in which it was first printed for the other place. It has remained unaltered by the other place although there was no guillotine in Committee at this stage, with some four or five sittings on Clause 1.
The clause has been totally unamended in your Lordships' Committee although we have subjected it to careful and thorough examination and have found points that any Front Bench that had any discretion left to it would have found reason to accept or reconsider and amend in some slightly different form. Therefore, we are very dissatisfied that Clause 1 is to remain in the Bill in its original form.
As has been indicated, it is a very important clause. I think it is the most important clause of all. That is why it is put first. In the view of the Government and of the draftsmen it is the most important clause. As we all know from experience, Clause 1 always takes a considerable time to consider in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, was good enough to say when he spoke at the end of our debate on the first amendment, he understood very well that we take much longer when considering Clause 1 of any Bill than when considering, for example, some of the later, less important clauses. That is well understood. We must remember that as we are going through the Bill. The noble Lord commented that we have progressed only as far as the end of Clause 1, but it is only five minutes past nine and there is plenty of time for further and deeper consideration of other parts of the

221
Bill. We shall see how far we get. The statistical ability of the noble Lord is somewhat lacking in making that comment.
This is an important clause because we are dealing with a monopoly which is likely to be the largest in the country. I remind the Committee that it will be much larger and much tighter than the monopoly which existed before nationalisation. There was nothing like an organisation of this kind covering the whole country before gas was nationalised in 1948. The Government are not proposing to return to the status quo ante. In case noble Lords object to foreign languages I shall translate by saying that we are not returning to the position that existed before nationalisation. The Government are proposing to do something far more monopolistic and something which will result in a far tighter monopoly than previously existed.
On what basis are they doing that? As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will remember, gas was not proposed to be nationalised out of the blue. It followed a deep and lengthy inquiry by a committee which was specially set up to consider the situation. As far as I recollect, it was the Hayworth Committee. I may be wrong in my recollection but there was a committee which examined the situation and reported in favour of nationalisation as the proper method of dealing with the protection of the public where we had this most important utility operating in the way that gas was operating in those days.
What have the Government proposed in this way? On what are they relying? We all know what they are relying on: they are relying on the need to get their hands on the cash at the earliest possible moment. That is all that is happening. Nobody is arguing that the present set-up is not efficient. Of course it is efficient. So what will happen? The only difference will be as a result of the very powerful commercial pressures which will be applied. We all understand that. In the Alliance we have no objection whatsoever to the private sector of industry. We have sympathy with it and we understand it. It forms a necessary part of the economy and we all know how it works. Indeed, I have been in this field or closely associated with it for over a third of a century. We know how it works and that there are strong pressures to maximise profits. What does that mean here? Quite simply it means a transfer from the consumer, who is the payer, to the shareholder.
We agree about efficiency. The industry is efficient at the moment. If it were left in its present state, it would be more efficient next year and even more efficient the following year. That is the natural development of course. So this Bill is not put forward for the sake of creating an efficiency that is non-existent at the moment. There will be the same input and the same outflow in a situation in which the pressure will be to increase dividends and maximise profits, and what will they fall on but the cost to the consumer? It cannot come from anywhere else. That is the pressure that will be there the whole time.
To try to keep it within bounds, we set up regulatory machinery under Clause 1. The machinery takes the form of one man (with a small staff, with the approval of the Treasury), who is appointed partly by the
222
Secretary of State and partly by the director. So there is one chap to perform the entire task of standing up to the enormous monopoly that will be brought into being by this Bill.
In Clause 1 we have been trying to find some method of strengthening the protection from the abuse of a monopoly. We have tried to do it in all sorts of ways. We have tried to strengthen it by making it a commission instead of one person. We did that on the basis that it had been found to be necessary in every single state of the United States where there is a commission to protect the public against utilities which by their nature have to operate as private monopolies.
The fatherland of private enterprise has no doubt whatever that there must be private enterprise in order for the utility to function, but also that there needs to be very strong protection for the consumer where this private monopoly is allowed. Therefore there are commissions in every single state, as far as I am aware. After all their experience the states continue to use that method of protecting the consumer.
So the first thing we tried was a modest suggestion for only three commissioners—nothing like so large a body for what is a much larger monopoly than the utilities in any individual state of the United States. We made this modest suggestion in order to add some protection for the consumer and to strengthen the regulatory process. It was turned down flat. Then we tried to strengthen the regulator by giving him a relationship with Parliament, at first with the House of Lords only. That proposal was turned down flat in your Lordships' Chamber. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that the Government decided that an appropriate Committee of the House of Lords did not have the ability to do this simple task.
We suggested committees of both Houses, but nothing would be accepted by the Government. I repeat that the Government turned down flat, here as in the other place, any suggestion which would strengthen the regulator. We tried to strengthen the regulatory process in relation to individual nations. We suggested that there might be a director with status and responsibility for Scotland and another director for Wales. At that point one of your Lordships—I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, but I may be mistaken—suggested that we ought to consider the regions of England as well. Immediately we said that we should be very glad to consider that suggestion and that if he would put down an amendment to that effect, we would support it.
We have tried in every way possible, having regard to the logic of a situation involving a huge monopoly of this kind, with enormous commercial pressures moving one way only, to strengthen the counter-weight to protect the consumer. None of our proposals has been accepted. We are left with something that is analogous to Oftel. We are left with a kind of Ofgas that is analogous to Oftel at a time when repeated reasons have appeared for being dissatisfied with the way in which Oftel is working and when new reasons are continuing to come frequently to light. One came to light only yesterday. I can therefore have no confidence in this clause. It is a pity that we have to allow it to be passed and made part of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
I am bound to repeat and expand upon the manner in which a commercial monopoly works when dealing with different categories of consumer. We already know that the private consumer, the tariff consumer, has been put at a disadvantage. According to what we read in the press—we have no reason to doubt The Times report—the gas company is proposing to reduce charges to its contract customers in order to extinguish—no, exterminate is a better word—possible competition. We know that this is not an unusual process. We have only to look at air transport, with which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is very familiar, to remind ourselves that the American courts have found that large carriers got together in order to prevent the Laker company continuing in business and that there was a conspiracy, involving damages running into large sums, in which a British company and an American company were jointly responsible. We know that this is the way in which large companies may sometimes work in order to get rid of competition, to drive it out of existence and to try to make it bankrupt.
In the United States—fortunately for those living there—there is machinery and a government department to protect the consumer, to detect, wherever it exists, this kind of monopoly and to try to prevent the worst abuses of it. We do not possess that in this country. That is why we have tried in every possible way to bring into the Bill something that would strengthen the protection of the consumer and strengthen the regulatory process. This has been denied to us, and we have now to decide what to do about it.
My recommendation to your Lordships' Committee is that this matter should be brought up again at a later stage. There are so many issues involved that we shall not wish to be denied the full right to examine them and to repeat the arguments at a more appropriate hour of the day. All I would suggest now, should this be convenient to the Committee and if everyone has said all that they wish to say, is that we allow the clause to pass notwithstanding that we are wholly, but wholly, opposed to it.
Lord Gray of Contin: We have spent nearly two days talking about Clause 1. We have had a wide variety of reasons given in support of many amendments and groups of amendments. We shall all probably remember the first clause of the Bill as the Diamond clause. It has given the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the opportunity to prove, if proof were even needed, his political virility. The noble Lord has done so with acclaim. I hope that it has not tired him out too much. There is a long way to go. So far as I can see, looking at the faces across from me, I do not believe that his performance has been greeted with much enthusiasm on the Opposition side. As Ministers, however, we appreciate the amount of research and hard work that have gone into the contributions that the noble Lord has made. It was a pity, I thought, that the noble Lord spoiled it with the clause stand part debate when he gave us a resumé in great detail of all the things he had done during the past two days.
224
However, I should like to correct one point of detail. He suggested that yesterday I had said that I felt it was essential, and indeed I fully accepted, that Clause 1 of a Bill would take a very long time. What I said when I was winding up the first amendment was that I raised no objection to the first amendment to the Bill being similar to—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady MacLeod, suggested—a Second Reading debate all over again, because that is often what happens. But I did have hope that after that first amendment—which took three hours—we should have made some progress. The progress, I must remind the House, is abysmal. I hope that we shall be able to condense our remarks rather more than we have done up until now and show the other House that we can be a very efficient revising Chamber without taking endless time over each little part of the legislation.
I thought that tonight my noble friend Lord Sanderson—in a short but very effective contribution on Clause 1 stand part—summed up pretty well what many of us on this side of the Committee feel about the whole matter. My noble friend highlighted that there is a lot of room for competition after the British Gas Corporation is relieved from its obligations under the equivalent of a nationalised situation. The noble Lord opposite may laugh—and I cannot think what he is laughing at and I doubt whether he knows—but in any case I accept his sense of humour, which deserted the noble Lord for a long time this afternoon when others were enjoying the joke. However, that is beside the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made one of his characteristic contributions, always to the point, factual and succinct, and I am grateful to him for giving that lead to his side. I hope that it will be followed as we proceed through the debate.
Of course my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has made such an important contribution to the debate we have had upon Clause 1 stand part, was as ever apt in his remarks. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Belstead I should like to thank him very much indeed for the kind things which he said about our tolerance during the last two days.
We have listened very carefully to all that has been said. I mentioned a little earlier that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, must not feel too disappointed that we have not seen fit to accept any of his amendments. We listened very carefully to those which he moved, those moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and those moved by the official Opposition. I agreed to take one point back and to have a look at it again, but we were not persuaded by the arguments.
We believe that in this clause the appointment of the director and the establishment of an Office of Gas Supply is one of the key aspects of the Bill. Wide-ranging powers have been provided for the director in the Bill and those will ensure adequate regulation of the gas supply industry. Under arrangements provided for in Clause 1 the director and his staff will accumulate great expertise and knowledge of their subject.
We believe that it is vital for the protection of consumers' interests, for public confidence in the privatised British Gas Corporation and for ensuring long term security and the availability of gas supply in

225
Great Britain that this Bill becomes law and that we move forward in a momentous step into the future for the British Gas Corporation.
The Bill provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that the director has sufficiently secure tenure of office to enable him to act in an independent manner, but it also places on him duties and constraints to ensure that he is responsible and sensible.
I believe that Clasue 1 is obviously one of the most important clauses in the Bill. We have considered it in great depth and it goes forward unamended because we have not been persuaded that the arguments which have been put forward—and I am not criticising the way in which they were put forward or the arguments themselves—merited acceptance and the amendment of the clause which I hope will remain Clause 1 of the Bill when its passage is completed.
With those few remarks, I am very pleased to support the Motion, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I want to expedite the progress of the Bill, and therefore I intervene only because the noble Lord permitted himself to say that so far as we are concerned—and I am now talking for the official Labour Opposition—it appeared to him that the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not command our support or enthusiasm. I would therefore wish to disabuse him of that idea. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has acted in the best traditions of this House in seeking to ventilate and to define the various matters to which the country as a whole expect us to devote some detailed attention. He has performed a very admirable function.
For our part, we think that Clause 1 of the Bill exposes the Government's nakedness. It is all very well for the noble Lord to whistle to keep up his own courage in what he knows is a miserable Bill for a miserable purpose—a Bill which achieves no useful end so far as the country is concerned. He is entitled to do that and I would not wish to take away from him his moment of euphoria, which I can assure him over the next months will become dissipated as it becomes apparent to the people of this country as a whole that the Government have no ideas and are completely discredited.
I shall not take the matter further because I wish the Bill to proceed. However, I wish the noble Lord to be disabused. So far as we are concerned and so far as progress has been made, we entirely support the very considerable effort that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has made to try to ventilate the obscure corners of the Bill.
We hope that we shall not be accused by the Government of not having made our own constructive contribution towards what the nation expects of the official Opposition.
Lord Diamond: Before the Question is put, there is one further question that I should like to address to the Minister and I think that it would be best to put it to him at this stage. It is entirely up to the Committee whether I raise the question at this stage or later, but
226
in my view it is best raised now. I preface my remarks by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for what he has just said.
The point I wish to raise is this. If anybody looks at this Bill they will find it impossible to discover the duties of the director. It is as simple as that. In Clause 4 there is a fairly detailed description of the manner in which he shall exercise his functions. It says that he shall have:
"a duty to exercise the functions assigned to him by this Part in the manner which he considers is best calculated"—
and then a full description of the manner is given in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d).
However, where do we find the duties? We have to read through the whole Bill and pick out individual clauses where reference is made to the duties of the director. Those of us who had the good fortune to be supplied by the department with an annex attached to the Notes on Clauses know that the duties of the director are referred to in a large number of clauses. They are not exhaustive. It is merely some of them.
Would it not be of assistance to those who have to work to this Bill when it becomes an Act to include either a schedule or an annex setting out which sections refer to the duties of the director general? It is not a difficult matter. It has been done in large part already, but that is merely for the benefit of those of us who have to speak to the Bill. It is not necessarily a regular part of every Bill, but the noble Lord himself has said that this is a most important clause.
9.30 p.m.
The duties of the director are crucial to the containment of monopoly and the safeguarding of the consumer. He has a number of duties. I am sure the point I am making is clear. I am only asking whether the Minister will be good enough to bear in mind that it would be convenient for those who have to operate under this Bill when it becomes an Act if there were some reference in this part of the Bill—and I think it ought to go in Clause 1—to an annex or schedule to be incorporated in the Bill.
It need not be exhaustive. It could include the usual phrase "Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing". It could set out for the benefit of all of us the various sections and subsections. That would enable people to have a good idea of the totality of the director's duties. I leave that with the noble Lord in the hope that he will think that that is a constructive idea and give it some thought in the days ahead.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Director General of Gas Supply]:
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 64, line 4, leave out from ("as") to end of line 5, and insert ("are currently paid to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that it would be convenient to take also Amendment No. 14, which refers to the same point.
Page 64, line 4, deals with the payment to the director of,
"such remuneration, and such travelling and other allowances, as the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury may determine".

227
What the amendment seeks to put in its place is remuneration and expenses such as,
"are currently paid to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy".
The reasons behind that amendment are fairly obvious. In the first place, it is less embarrassing and less difficult to fix remuneration for individuals rather than having a category which you do not have to do other than follow. The category is the obvious one of a Civil Service, because this is a department which is deemed to be a government department, and as we have had confirmed only today the director general will be a civil servant.
As I understand it, it is well within the philosophy of the Government that they should turn most of these similar appointments into categories for which remuneration and other allowances can be fixed in that way. I seem to recollect a statement to this effect during the debate on this Bill in another place, but I may be wrong about that. I understand that it is the Government's wish, in a general way, naturally, to avoid the complications, awkwardness and embarrassments of fixing individual remuneration for individual people: tie it down to a category, and you know where you are.
The category I suggest is that of civil servant and the point of the category seems reasonable to me, but it is not crucial or critical regarding this amendment. I have suggested that the rate of remuneration should be such as is paid to the deputy secretary in the Department of Energy. Why the Department of Energy? That is the most obvious department because it is related to this matter and is the sponsoring department of the gas industry. Why the Deputy Secretary? I regard the permanent Secretary as having wider responsibilities than the director general and so the natural conclusion would be one step down to the deputy secretary. One does not know what he is paid; it does not matter. But it is aligning responsibilities with other responsibilities in such a way as to give a sense of justice and fairness without extravagance or excessive economy and everybody should be happy about it.
This is a reasonable amendment and I hope the Government will give us an idea of their reaction to it: first, that it is within their general philosophy that appointments of this kind should be lined up with Civil Service appointments; secondly, that the appropriate department would be the Department of Energy; and thirdly, and by far the least important of all, that a point should be chosen which is comparable to that paid to the deputy secretary. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to say a few words on this amendment. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that I am in some difficulty with his amendment. The reason is because when I asked the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for certain information last Thursday evening he was either unable or unwilling to let me have it. He has not let me have it today, or indeed before today. I said:
"Before the noble Lord sits down, earlier I asked him a number of questions. May I repeat them? I asked if the director was to be full or part-time"—
228
a relevant question, I should have thought the Committee would think—
"I do not think that we have had an answer. Will he be expected to devote the whole of this time to looking after the interests of gas consumers, or will his contract allow him to have directorships or jobs other than the directorship of Ofgas".—[Official Report, 24/4/86; col. 1361.]
I asked whether the noble Lord could give some suggestion of the salary that the Government had in mind for the director. I also asked the noble Lord to explain why be believes, if he does so believe, that the regulatory regime set out in this Bill is as strong as the one set out for the telecommunications industry. We need to know the answers.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, show clearly that we need to know those answers. We have not yet had those answers. We do not know what status the Government intend to accord to the director general. We do not know what relationship there is likely to be between the salary, expenses and what-have-you of the director of Ofgas and the chairman of British Gas plc. I insist that the relationship is important because it will be seen by the world at large that the salary and remuneration of the director of Ofgas will indicate exactly what his position is and how important the Government see him as a regulator. Indeed, it will indicate what sort of power he is likely to have in relation to the general manager or the chairman of British Gas plc.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has chosen a particular grade in the Civil Service. I believe that for a person of the calibre that we should like to see as director general of Ofgas that is not good enough. I think the noble Lord and I were surprised to learn that this appointment was going to be subject to the Civil Service Commissioners. We expected somebody who was going to be extra-special, a person of very high calibre. We now find that he is going to be subject to the Civil Service Commissioners. That in itself tells the story.
Within that context, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is relevant, but I do not believe it should be relevant because I think this man should be of a much higher calibre. I mean no disrespect to deputy secretaries. They are very able people, there is no doubt about that; but this is a special job. There are not going to be several deputy secretaries; there is going to be only one director general of Ofgas. This is going to be a special appointment, and I do not think it would be right that he should be seen as having the position and status of a deputy secretary. I am in this difficulty and the Committee is in this difficulty because of what we heard earlier, that the appointment is to be subject to the Civil Service Commissioners.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will put this to the vote. I hope that he will not and that he will agree with me that we need more information; we need the answers to the questions we have asked about the salary and status of the director general before we can press any amendments. I hope the noble Lord understands my difficulty and I hope he realises that I understand his difficulty as well. He was right to put these amendments down because they enable the Committee to probe this matter, to question the Government and ask them to come clean

229
about the director general and how they relate him to his regulatory function over British Gas plc.
With those words, having merely given my thoughts to the Committee and being unable to go further because of lack of information, I shall sit down. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments but that they will enable the Government to give us more information—indeed, the information which we need to consider this Schedule and the rest of the Bill in a proper manner.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think on all sides of the Committee we are concerned that the director should have the necessary status to have authority in carrying out his functions, but this cannot be achieved by reference to his pay and conditions alone. As we have already indicated, a number of considerations will be taken into account in appointing the director, not least matters relevant to his experience in relation to his functions under the Bill. It is the Government's intention that he should be appropriately rewarded. There is nothing in the existing paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 which prevents that. As presently worded, the paragraphs give us the necessary flexibility to determine what may be an appropriate salary.
I should like to make the point that, while the staff of Ofgas are to be civil servants, the director himself will not be a civil servant. He will be the holder of an office established by statute. I do not believe that the noble Lord is right in saying that there was a statement that such officials should be linked to Civil Service grades during the passage of the Bill in another place. Certainly I have not been able to trace that statement this evening.
9.45 p.m.
The Government believe that the most important question is to get the right man to do the job, as no doubt noble Lords opposite agree. It is for this reason that we do not wish to have the hands of the Secretary of State tied to a particular grade of civil servant but to leave flexibility to make the best possible choice. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the Civil Service Commission. Although the permanent staff of the director will be approved by the Civil Service Commission, the director himself will not. He is an appointed officer and not a civil servant. I hope that clarifies that point.
We believe that the schedule as drafted is flexible to enable the establishment of a strong and effective Ofgas and that the Director General of Ofgas should be chosen and not tied to a particular grade; but we must have the power to choose the right man to do the job.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I welcome the statement just made by the Minister with regard to getting the right man. The Minister is familiar with the kind of salaries that are now being offered in the supervisory authorities under the Financial Services Bill who have a relatively small responsibility compared to the vast responsibilities of this man. They are simply supervising a small sector of financial services. I very much support the Minister in saying that if he is going to get the right man for this important function it may be necessary to go beyond the Civil Service grades.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I can understand the desire of the Minister to have a degree of flexibility. There has been some flexibility in the privatised industries. One finds, for example, that Sir George Jefferson of British Telecom, somewhat surprisingly immediately the company became privatised, without a meeting of the ordinary shareholders (because the AGM has not yet taken place) and not with the voice of the ordinary shareholder, suddenly had his salary raised by some £6,000. If that was communicated to him before privatisation, I have no doubt that it would have softened his mind somewhat towards the desirability of privatisation.
I can quite understand the desire of the noble Lord to have a degree of flexibility. I observe from the accounts of British Gas for 1984–85 that at least two of the directors are earning between £45,00 and £50,000 per annum. This is all right. The corporation is going to be privatised under the provisions of this Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will give us some idea of the extent to which the chairman's salary is going to be raised immediately after privatisation; because quite clearly it will be decided before, because the ordinary shareholders, the capitalist democracy, to put it in the noble Lord's terms, will not have an opportunity of meeting until one year later. It would be useful therefore if we had some idea of the salaries now proposed and on offer to the existing chairman of British Gas, shortly to become British Gas plc.
This is of some relevance when one comes to consider the misgivings put forward by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Like him, I am in instinctive sympathy with the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that the salary of the director should be stabilised by reference to a certain rank in the Civil Service. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has put it at deputy secretary, but I do not think he stands on that particularly; what he wants is some degree of stability. It would be useful now to know whether the Government intend to relate it to a specific grade, to put the matter clearly in the public mind beyond all possibility of undue financial rewards being offered by them to carry forward the purposes of their own miserable Bill. There is a powerful argument for having the salary stabilised in advance so that it is not manipulated subsequently. I sincerely hope the noble Lord will be able to reassure us on that point.
However, the Committee will not have forgotten that the noble Lord still has not answered the question put forward by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Why is the Minister so reluctant 10 say whether or not the appointment will be full-time? The question has been put to the Government Front Bench in specific terms on at least three occasions and on each occasion the Government have avoided answering. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked quite specifically not only whether it would be a full-time job but also whether the person appointed would be permitted to hold other directorships and have other interests as well. That question is quite capable of an easy and honest answer. All the Government have to do is to say, "We are not sure of the position at the present time", or, "We believe that if he has existing directorships, he should be entitled to hang on to them". They can be quite frank. The question was asked in the first instance about whether it is to be a

231
full-time appointment. That has been put three times as a direct question to the Government Front Bench and each time they have evaded it.
I turn to the second point, about whether the director will be permitted to hold other directorships. It is no sin to do this; there must be many noble Lords, mainly on the opposite side of the Committee, but possibly straying over on to this side, who hold many directorships of one kind or another. Why do not the Government say what they have in mind? I am quite sure that they wish to be frank about this. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has been extremely amiable and honest about these matters and I should not wish to pass any different observations about his two colleagues. They are all honourable men; why can they not come clean about it? If they do not do so, we are bound to come to the conclusion on this side of the Committee that the suspicions in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, are well founded and that, even if we do not agree with the particular grade that he has specified, we should at least fix some grade so that the Government cannot wriggle further.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The Government are certainly not trying to wriggle anywhere, let alone further. I can give the noble Lord the answer for which he has been waiting, having asked the question three times. It is, yes, indeed, the director of Ofgas will be full time. Whether or not he will be allowed to hold any outside directorships I cannot say at this stage. I suppose it might be said that if he does hold outside directorships, he cannot possibly be full time. I believe, from all our considerations of the Bill so far, that it will be a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week job; but no doubt the noble Lord will hold that against me—
Lord Bruce of Donington: No.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether there was any relationship between the proposed salary of the director of Ofgas and that of the chairman of British Gas. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked how much the chairman of British Gas would receive after privatisation. That of course would be entirely a matter for the shareholders of British Gas. I do not think that there is anything I can say on that point at the moment. Again, I feel it necessary that there should be sufficient reward for the responsibilities that he now has and will take on.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Does the noble Lord appreciate that at the moment of privatisation, when the shares are put on sale to a small proportion of the public—they will go mainly to the institutions—and are taken up, the possession of the shares at that time
232
does not give the shareholders any right to determine the chairman's salary? The chairman's salary cannot be decided by the shareholders as such until the company's following annual general meeting, which would normally take place 15 months later.
Clearly the chairman must start with a salary. At the time that the changeover takes place, the shareholders are Her Majesty's Government. They are the shareholders who will decide what the salary will be, because nobody else can decide.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: The noble Lord may be misdirecting himself, because the person who will be the chairman of a nationalised industry which is about to be privatised will be appointed by the Government to hold office during the transitional period after privatisation. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 57(3), he will find that:
"During the transitional period section 1 of the 1972 Act shall have effect …
(2) The Corporation shall consist of—
(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State".
That Chairman will not hold office after what happens in Clause 57(2) because there the Secretary of State may:
"after consulting the Corporation and the successor company, dissolve the Corporation on a day specified".
Any chairman who is appointed will hold office only until the Secretary of State dissolves the corporation in accordance with Clause 57(2). The privatised gas company, or whatever one calls it, will then be a public limited company and its directors will have the right, if they so desire, to appoint a chairman other than the one appointed by the Secretary of State. He will hold office until he is re-elected at the first annual general meeting of the privatised industry.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, who has confirmed my point, I am obliged to him for his perspicacity and for reading Clause 57. It was most kind of him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marshall of Leeds for his explanation. I am sorry that I fell for the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to discuss the salary of the Chairman of the British Gas Corporation, because after all we are discussing the possible salary of the director general of Ofgas. The noble Lord made a point about relativity. I have already said that I do not accept it as such. I feel, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, correctly said that we must have the flexibility necessary to ensure that we can get the right person to fulfil that important duty. I therefore urge the Committee not to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and tie the salary to that of a Deputy Secretary.
10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: May I ask the noble Lord one simple question? I shall perfectly well understand that he may not be able to tell us the proposed salary of the chairman of the board. But does he think that by the time we reach Clause 57 he will be able to tell us what the salary of the chairman of British Gas plc is likely to be during the transitional period?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: If we ever reach Clause 57, I hope very much that somebody may be able to enlighten the noble Lord. But I am certainly holding out no promises at this stage.
Lord Diamond: Unfortunately, I did not hear the whole of that exchange. What I was going to ask the noble Lord the Minister was whether he would be good enough to give us some information at this stage, so that we can turn the matter over in our minds and know how to deal with it when we get to the later stages of the Bill. It has been made absolutely clear—and the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, has reinforced it—that the interim chairman will be appointed by the Government. Therefore, the Government must know what range of salary they have in mind for that individual.
The noble Lord the Minister has said that that is not immediately relevant to discussing the salary of the director general. With the greatest respect, it is immediately relevant. The director general will have to stand up to the chairman. The director general will protect the public against any possible excesses by the gas company, which is represented by the chairman. He is the chief officer and speaks for the gas company. He will be meeting the chairman time and time again, and everybody knows that the size of the respective remunerations is part of the bargaining strength of the parties to a negotiation.
Their salaries are known to one another. They are public property and are not private, both so far as the chairman is concerned and certainly so far as the director general is concerned. The salaries are known to one another and it is part of the negotiating set-up that the respective salaries are taken into account. So I am saying to the noble Lord that, far from being irrelevant, it is directly relevant to the consideration of what level of remuneration should be paid to the director general.
It would be very helpful if he could tell us at this stage, first, what the Government have in mind with regard to the interim chairman of the gas company, because the Government will appoint him. Secondly, and of equal importance, can he tell us what level of remuneration they have in mind for the director general? I do not know what this is, but it is entirely within the Secretary of State's decision, as approved by the Treasury, and it must have been discussed by now. It will come out, so why on earth not help us by telling us now what it will be? That will be very helpful in enabling us to understand how the Government are proposing to give effect to this Bill.
Thirdly, can he tell us what is the present level of remuneration of a deputy secretary at the Department
234
of Energy? I am quite prepared to admit that this may not be the right level. I have explained how a probing amendment was put down in order to elucidate the situation and to elicit the facts. That is the function of a Committee stage. By comparison, I should also like to know what level of remuneration will be paid to the director general himself. We shall then have some idea of what we are talking about. These matters are public property and I do not understand why there should be any hesitation in disclosing them. I hope that the Minister has the information with him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have already answered the noble Lord's first question and, as I said, I do not know how much the new chairman of British Gas plc will be receiving. At the present time, I think that the chairman of British Gas gets in the region of £50,000 a year. I may be wrong and I do not have a copy of the annual report before me. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has, and he will put me right if I am wrong.
The present salary of a deputy secretary in the Department of Energy is between £40,000 and £42,000. It is very close to that in any case, although it may not be precisely that figure. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not know that amount when he put down his amendment. It seems a peculiar amendment to put down without first of all checking what a deputy secretary is paid. But still, that is for the noble Lord. Therefore the comparison at the present time between a deputy secretary in the Department of Energy and the chairman of British Gas would, I imagine, be unfavourable in terms of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
As to the proposed salary of the director general, I can only repeat what I have already said. We shall look for the correct man. It will be a question of finding the best possible candidate and negotiating on that basis. But to be tied now to an absolutely firm limit as to what we can pay him would put us in an extremely difficult position if we wanted to get the best man, which I think on all sides of the Committee we agree we do.
Viscount Torrington: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would seriously consider that the possession of a salary similar to that of the present chairman of British Gas alone would be sufficient to allow that man to negotiate on equal terms with the present chairman.
Lord Diamond: That is the whole purpose of putting down the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Viscount because that enables me to explain what I have already explained. I must repeat it because the Minister did not take on board why we put down these amendments and what we are seeking to ascertain. It is not a question of my having no idea of what a deputy secretary earns. That is not the position. I thought—and the noble Lord has confirmed this with regard to the staff but not with regard to the director general—that the Government were taking the view that it would save a lot of trouble if these appointments were aligned with Civil Service appointments. So far as

235
the staff is concerned, having said that they are to be appointed by the Civil Service Commission, that ends all argument. They are to be civil servants paid on Civil Service grades, so there is no problem about that. The only question arose over the director himself.
I suggested that the appropriate level might be, at all events for consideration, a deputy secretary for the reasons which I gave to the noble Lord the Minister—namely, that it seemed to me that the permanent secretary had responsibilities wider than the director general. If you are to have a happy and contented state of affairs within the Department of Energy, you have to have regard to responsibilities and levels of remuneration, and the Department of Energy might have felt disposed to advise the Secretary of State that the appropriate category was a deputy secretary. I am not tied to that. I agree entirely with what has been said by various noble Lords who have been good enough to contribute to this debate that this is a probing amendment to find out what the appropriate level might be and what is the view of the Government.
We now know that the view of the Government is that the director general should not be a civil servant. Although he is the head of a government department, he should not be regarded as a civil servant or be tied to any Civil Service grade. He should be paid such amount as the Government think they ought to pay him when they come to it in order to get the best man for the job. We do not object now that we know what the situation is. They want to get the best man for the job and then fix probably what is the market price for such a man. That is a very helpful answer and makes putting down the amendment worth while.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before we part with this amendment, can the noble Lord supply us with a little further information? Can he inform the Committee whether the Government have yet advertised the position, whether they have approached a recruitment agency and whether they have taken any active steps towards filling this appointment?
We can understand the nervousness of the Government that they might fall before the Bill comes into operation and therefore might not be prepared to take the risk of committing themselves to a director general. However, on the assumption that the Government can keep up their courage and believe that they will continue in office for a while, will the noble Lord inform us whether they have yet started to search? If the noble Lord consults a former Secretary of State for Industry—Sir Keith Joseph—he will find that he had enormous difficulty at one time in making a very senior appointment. It took him ages of agonising in order to be able to achieve his purpose and much soul-searching before he finally made his decision. Can the noble Lord inform us whether the Government have yet started on the process of selection, as that will be of enormous assistance to us?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord and I can assure him that all on this side of the Committee hope to be here for a little while longer yet and that we are not panicking in any way.
236
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken steps to fill this appointment and will make an announcement in due course.
Lord Whaddon: Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me on one small point. The director general is to have a salary which is to be fixed later. His staff will have Civil Service rates and remuneration and, presumably, Civil Service pensions. As we all know, two of the great reasons for being in the Civil Service are security of tenure and the inflation-proof pension. Those are great perks which cannot be matched by any private industry.
We are to have this new public company which will be acting as do other public companies and presumably giving high salaries to its board. But it is extremely unlikely that it will be giving complete inflation-proofed pensions. However, we have this anomalous creature, the director general, half way between private industry and civil servant who will be paid a salary to be determined and presumably with some equivalence to private industry. I should like to be clear on whether or not his pension will be inflation-proofed as a civil servant. If not, how will the pension be calculated?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that is a question which the noble Lord should address to the potential director general to see what terms he can negotiate with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Diamond: We are very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the information that he has given. I think he could easily assist us a little further without prejudicing the situation. He has made clear that the first steps have already been taken in advertising this position; I am referring to the position of director general. Therefore, the Government must have taken the usual steps of discussions between departments including the Treasury, if I may say so, and if my recollection serves me aright. They will have taken steps to agree upon the level of remuneration or the kind of remuneration at which they are aiming. Perhaps the noble Lord can give some indication, without prejudicing the position, of what is the precise figure that is being offered, on the basis of the exact qualities of the candidate who comes forward. Perhaps he can give an indication between two figures of what he has in mind. That would be very helpful indeed. I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to do that, having regard to what he said about an advertisement having already been placed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not think that I said an advertisement had been placed, as such. I said that steps had been taken. I cannot at this stage give any further information than I have already given.
Lord Diamond: We are grateful to the noble Lord for the information that he has given. It has made discussion on this amendment worthwhile. We will come back to it at the appropriate clause in the Bill. No doubt by that time further steps will have been taken and the Government will not be so coy about

237
disclosing what is a matter of public interest and very relevant to the consideration of the Bill. In the meantime, if I am not anticipating any further contributions from colleagues (which I do not want to stop unnecessarily prematurely), I shall seek the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 64, line 13, leave out from ("State") to end of line and insert ("after consultation with the appropriate Committee of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, which states:
"If, when any person ceases to hold office as the Director, it appears to the Secretary of State … that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, there may be paid to him a sum by way of compensation of such amount as may be so determined"
with the added precaution:
"If… it appears to the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury".
For reasons that I shall explain on a later amendment, the words "with the approval of the Treasury" are inappropriately placed. With the permission of the Deputy Chairman of Committees, I shall seek to discuss that as a separate amendment. What we are discussing at the present time is the amendment which says that this payment of compensation is to be made,
"after consultation with the appropriate Committee of each House of Parliament".
We know that compensation is a very sensitive matter indeed. It is sometimes known as a "golden handshake", and the amounts can vary enormously. The guess that every employer has to make as to the kind of compensation to which an individual employee may be entitled if he goes to the court to seek it is a very difficult guess indeed. All sorts of figures are given. The formula is very difficult to come by and there are different formulae in different circumstances. The matter of compensation is therefore a very wide one indeed.
It will be very difficult for the Secretary of State on his own to fix the appropriate amount of compensation for the special circumstances which make it right that the person should receive compensation. He will be subject to very severe criticism not only from Parliament but perhaps from the Public Accounts Committee and others if he makes a serious misjudgment. It would be far better, to protect himself and his office, to protect the public purse and to provide for a good sense of justice, if he were aided by having the views of Parliament with regard to the amount of compensation. That is why the amendment proposes that there should be,
"consultation with the appropriate Committee of each House of Parliament".
We are only talking about consultation. It is not for Parliament to decide or to initiate or to have the final say. It is for the Secretary of State to do that, but it is for him to take the wise and sensible precaution of
238
bringing Parliament into his thinking and obtaining Parliament's views. It is a simple, straighforward and wise amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: We on these Benches should like to support the noble Lord in this amendment. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 is a little curious. It says:
"If, when any person ceases to hold office as the Director, it appears to the Secretary of State… that there are special circumstances which make it right",
etc. Earlier on this evening (or was it late afternoon?—a sense of time begins to elude one as time passes)—
Lord Belstead: Indeed!
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am so glad that I have the noble Lord with me on that. His sense of vagueness corresponds almost to my sense of precision.
Earlier on we were discussing the circumstances of the termination of the director's employment by reason of incapacity or misdemeanour. We had a long discussion about that, and tried to make a change. I am very curious to know the circumstances envisaged by the Government when drafting paragraph 3, which begins:
"If, when any person ceases to hold office"
It does not necessarily mean, "ceases to hold office at the termination of engagement"; otherwise, those words would have appeared.
Paragraph 3 states:
"If, when any person ceases to hold office as the Director, it appears to the Secretary of State … that there are special circumstances".
Can the noble Lord give the Committee some idea of the circumstances in which the director ceases to be the director where incapacity or misdemeanour are not involved or where the termination of his contract by the normal expiration of time does not apply? What are the circumstances in between? In opposition, bearing in mind the record of the Government on this and other matters, one is entitled to approach this schedule with a degree of scepticism appropriate to the circumstances. Am I right in saying that this paragraph could not be used to induce a director to depart at a time when the Secretary of State found it perhaps convenient that he should depart, and that the paragraph would not apply in circumstances such as might conceivably be envisaged as taking the following form of informal conversation? The Secretary of State might say to the director: "Look, old boy, I should like you to leave now. I cannot really make public the reasons I want you to leave, but, believe me, I am being leaned on to get rid of you because your appointment does not altogether suit the people with whom my party is in political contact. Can we do a deal whereby you vacate office under special circumstances and I award you a certain amount of compensation?"
I am well aware that noble Lords opposite are honourable men who would not themselves contemplate the kind of coversation that I have imagined for the purpose of making a contribution to the debate. But they must agree that there is a possibility, in which they would themselves never be

239
involved, of these circumstances arising. Bearing in mind the power of the good and the great in Whitehall and the necessary collusion of the Treasury in such a device by the Secretary of State to rid himself, if necessary, by the payment of money, of the services of the director, do we really think that another great department of state should be involved? The relationship between departments of state is not always as harmonious as we are given to imagine. The sordid Westland affair took the lid off that. We had departments of state in opposition to one another. I am given to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who was a distinguished Minister at the Treasury, will also inform us that the Treasury was not always at one with other departments. Would it not be better—
Lord Diamond: I apologise for interrupting. The noble Lord could have used the words, "was practically never".
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. Would it not be better under the circumstances envisaged in paragraph 3—which are themselves unique in that special circumstances are nowhere defined—for a third party to be called in on the lines proposed in the amendment submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond?
I have quite an open mind about this. If the Government can give me good reason to believe that the existing paragraph should stand as it is and provide adequate explanations—instead of having explanations dragged out of them after the three or four separate efforts which have to be made normally in the course of this Bill—I am prepared to let the pararaph go forward as it is. But I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has put forward a case that ought to be answered, and I hope that it will be answered in the spirit in which he modestly submits his amendment to the Committee.
Lord Ezra: I share the uncertainty expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as to the significance of paragraph 3. The preceding paragraph, paragraph 2, makes due provision for providing pension or other arrangements on the retirement or death of the incumbent. This is normal for any such appointment. What seems rather abnormal is what is said in paragraph 3. I therefore hope that the noble Lord in replying will elucidate the circumstances which could lead to this special compensation, presumably in addition to whatever was provided for in paragraph 2.
Lord Gray of Contin: This is another probing amendment and I am happy to try to help noble Lords by trying to answer some of the queries which they have raised.
The Committee are aware that there are well established precedents for the way in which compensation may be paid in such circumstances. I believe that it is right that the Treasury should approve any such payment, as it does all such government payments. It is right that such payments should be scrutinised and the Treasury is the appropriate body to perform that scrutiny. We have provided that the
240
Secretary of State has responsibility for the director, and, as I explained in answering a previous amendment, as well as appointing and removing the director, he receives an annual report from him on his activities which is also laid before Parliament. This ensures that the director is accountable through him to the whole of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in talking about compensation asked me some questions. The Secretary of State will have the ability to seek internal advice from the Civil Service on the level of any compensation needed; or indeed if he thinks that it would be right to seek external advice from an expert consultant on such matters, he has that alternative available to him. He will in any event need the approval of the Treasury under paragraph 3. I believe that this provides the appropriate protection for the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was making suggestions as to how and when paragraph 3 might be appropriate and asked me what situation the Government had in mind. This also caused concern to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who drew attention to the fact that in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 it is spelt out that:
"there shall be paid such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of him on his retirement or death, or such contributions",
and so on. But paragraph 3 is broadly drafted because it is well nigh impossible to imagine the number of circumstances which could lead to the situation where the director might have to resign, or might decide that he wished to resign, and where in such circumstances it would be appropriate that a contribution to a pension would be the right action to be taken.
I do not believe that there need be anything underhand about such a payment. I am sure that no Secretary of State would engage in the type of "leaning on" practices which the noble Lord suggests. However, in any event that certainly is not what the clause was designed for; the clause was designed and drafted to take care of those sometimes unpredictable circumstances which arise and under which the director could be compensated. The circumstances may involve health or they may be physical or mental. One can think of many reasons.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Diamond: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course we can all imagine the different circumstances. However, the noble Lord said earlier that there were various precedents. Therefore, I assume that he has in mind particular cases where particular amounts of compensation were paid. Will he give us some indication of the type of circumstances where compensation has been paid in this kind of situation?
Lord Gray of Contin: No, I certainly cannot do so. The noble Lord seems to expect Ministers and their advisers to have at ready hand an enormous amount of information. I shall certainly seek to get the information for the noble Lord, and to make it available to him. However, I am afraid that I cannot provide him with that information at the drop of a hat. I am doing my best to be helpful to the noble Lord in explaining

241
possibilities regarding paragraph 3 of the schedule. However, as I have indicated, it is widely drafted, and it is widely drafted for the very reason—
Lord Whaddon: The noble Lord has very graciously offered to provide the information. The information requested by my noble friend is not unreasonable under the circumstances. We cannot be expected simply to accept arguments put forward without substantiation. The noble Lord has rightly said that he will make it available, but as a constructive Opposition we are obliged to ask for substantiation in the way in which my noble friend has done.
Lord Bruce of Donington: If the noble Lord is not going to reply to that point, perhaps I may reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, have said. The terms of paragraph 3 are quite explicit and the noble Lord has had due notice of the amendments that were put down to it. His department at least must have been on notice as regards the type of questions that would be asked. I would be very surprised indeed if the noble Lord were not properly briefed on any questions that might conceivably arise from consideration of paragraph 3.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked a very simple question: what are the special circumstances? The noble Lord excluded—and I immediately accept his exclusion—the kind of scenario which I put to him as a possibility. I immediately accept his assurance that paragraph 3 would not be used in those kind of circumstances to "lean out of office" what was deemed to be a recalcitrant director general, and to pay him some money to get rid of him. The noble Lord has given me that explicit assurance which I accept.
However, there are special circumstances. I do not know who drafted this particular paragraph. Civil servants may have drafted it or it may have been the individual child of the noble Lord himself or of somebody else in the department. However, normally speaking it would be somebody like the permanent secretary or the under-secretary who produced the draft and they who would have had some circumstance in mind.
On the assumption that the scenario which I laid before him is incorrect—and, as I have said, I accept that—what are the special circumstances? It really is no good to come to the Committee and say, "Well, there are all kinds of special circumstances, but I really cannot enumerate them to the Committee. I have several precedents that I am willing to quote". The Government must have some idea as to the purpose of this clause. If the noble Lord comes clean about the purpose, which I sincerely hope he will, we can pass on speedily to the next amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: I think if the noble Lord passed on speedily to anything, it would be an accident. However, I take his word that his intention is good.
Lord Bruce of Donington: That does not do you any good, you know.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am not accepting that criticism from the noble Lord. I made suggestions as to one or two of the possibilities under which paragraph
242
3 of the schedule might be used, but I indicated that it was broadly drafted because there could be many other situations in which it could be used.
The noble Lord became a little confused. What the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me was not for further examples under which it could be used. In my initial statement I had said that there are well established precedents for the way in which compensation may be paid in such circumstances, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me whether I could give him some of the precedents. I have indicated to the noble Lord that I cannot at the moment give him those precedents, but that I shall have this question examined for him and I shall in due course write to the noble Lord and let him know some of these precedents. Of course I shall make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, receives a copy of the letter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am obliged.
Lord Diamond: We are grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the helpful way in which he has indicated that he will disclose these precedents so as to enable us at a later stage in the Bill to make an assessment of whether the public interest is being properly protected, and indeed the interest of the director general as well. That is one of the reasons why I was pressing that question at this point.
The noble Lord is likely to find out from the advice he is given that the answer is a wide one; that on different occasions the amounts of compensation vary enormously. It is a difficult task to get specific advice as to what a particular compensation in a particular set of circumstances is likely to be. Therefore, I still think that there will be added protection both for the Secretary of State and for the director general himself if this amount of compensation is not decided until the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament has been consulted.
It is a short process. It is a helpful process. It does not add any particular burden on to the Secretary of State that he should merely consult the appropriate committee. I am still of that view, but we shall come back to it. I want to leave the matter wide open so that we can come back to it when we know a good deal more, and we shall know a good deal more when the Minister has been good enough to honour his undertaking, as I know he will, to drop me a line, and of course place a copy in the Library so that it is available for everybody who is interested. Until that time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 64, line 16, leave out from ("as") to end of line and insert ("the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury may determine.")
The noble Lord said: Several of your Lordships have already said what a curious paragraph this paragraph is. This is a particular curiosity to which I want to draw the Minister's attention in the hope that he will feel that the new drafting which emerges from the amendment I am moving helps to clarify the meaning of this paragraph, and is therefore not only helpful to the Government but acceptable to the Minister.
I draw the Committee's attention to the extraordinary language of this paragraph:
"If, when any person ceases to hold office as the Director".
That is all right. The point on which I am anxious to have the Minister's close attention is what continues after that:
"if it appears to the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury".
That is totally unintelligible to me: the Treasury has to approve before something can appear to the Secretary of State! I do not know what that means. In my six years of office as Chief Secretary to the Treasury I never sought to insist on my approval before a Secretary of State had an appearance before him; never! I suggest to the noble Lord that although one approaches the drafting of a paragraph with immense caution and modesty, there is no meaning that I can see as it is presently drafted.
What is intended is clear and what is intended could remain clear simply by adopting the amendment. It would then read:
"If, when any person ceases to hold office as the Director, it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, there may be paid to him a sum by way of compensation of such amount as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine".
That is where the Treasury comes in, to approve the payment, not to approve the thinking process of the Secretary of State or some appearance before the Secretary of State either in the daytime or nighttime.
I suggest that the present drafting is quite unintelligible and the amendment I am suggesting, modestly, with knowledge that one is not a draftsman and that the Government have the most expert draftsmen at their disposal, would make sense. It would make the provision legible and intelligible, and, above all, it would provide exactly what the Government have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The logic of what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said is so obvious that it is quite unnecessary for me to elaborate on it further. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will accept the amendment in the interests of his department and of clarity.
Lord Whaddon: I am looking forward avidly to hearing what reason the noble Lord may find to refuse this amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this to the attention of the House. I assure him that the amendment as drafted is not necessary. It seeks to bring in another reference to the Secretary of State and the Treasury in relation to the determination of compensation when the director ceases to hold office. But this is already provided for by the reference to
"as may be so determined",
which he seeks to delete and which refers back to the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury earlier in the paragraph. The additional reference is,
244
therefore, unnecessary, as I think anyone looking more closely at it will agree. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Diamond: I say as kindly as I can that the noble Lord has failed completely to take on board the point of the amendment. We are not in conflict on the substance of it. There is no issue between us on what is proposed. It is merely the way that it is described. I repeat that it is not a question of anything additional being said. It is nothing to do with that. The whole thing has to be taken together so that it will read, as I have already indicated:
"If … it appears to the Secretary of State … that there are special circumstances … there may be paid … a sum by way of compensation of such amount as the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury may determine".
The Secretary of State determines it. That is what is intended when the paragraph says,
"it appears to the Secretary of State".
The Treasury has to approve it. That is what the paragraph intends when it says,
"with the approval of the Treasury",
but it has placed those words,
"with the approval of the Treasury"
alongside,
"appears to the Secretary of State".
I can only repeat that that is sheer nonsense:
"if … it appears to the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury".
It is not the appearance that the Treasury needs to approve; it is the payment that the Treasury needs to approve.
I hope that the noble Lord, if he has not fully understood what I have said (it is rather late in the evening) will at all events look into this matter and in order to draft an intelligent paragraph give it full consideration, take advice and come back on it at a later stage.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will do that. If the noble Lord will depart from his brief and look at it from a commonsense point of view, and listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said, he will see the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has put forward. Logically the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, must be right. There can be no other explanation.
We do not want to hold up the proceedings on the Bill, but this is really inviting a continued argument over what has now become a matter of pure semantics so far as the noble Lord is concerned. Quite clearly the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is absolutely right, and it would be correct for the Government to be graceful in these circumstances and acknowledge that the wording of this particular paragraph is a considerable mistake and is, in fact, meaningless.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I certainly do not agree that the paragraph is meaningless. I find myself in a certain amount of confusion over the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, because the noble Lord has just read out to the Committee how he would see the

245
paragraph if we agreed to his amendment. It appears to me that in the second line of paragraph 3 he would leave out the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury".
Nowhere does it say that in Amendment No. 16, which is what we are presently discussing. He goes on to the end of paragraph 3 and leaves out,
"as may be so determined"
and inserts the words,
"the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury".
That is the amendment to which I have just spoken. I cannot see where, in his Amendment No. 16, he leaves out the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury"
in the second line of the paragraph. Perhaps he can put me right.
Lord Diamond: I am grateful. I shall certainly respond to that invitation. I hope that the noble Lord has the same Marshalled List as I have. The amendment which I read out is No. 16:
"Page 64, line 16, leave out from ("as") to end of line".
I do not know, but I think this is one of the amendments about which I was advised there was a misprint and it was not put forward as I drafted it. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear—it is clear from my own copy of the Bill—that in paragraph 3 I have eliminated the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury"
from line 2 and put them in where they properly belong, as the amendment indicates. This amendment has to be taken together with Amendment No. 15. If the noble Lord will look at Amendment No. 15 it says:
"Page 64, line 13, leave out from ("State") to end of line".
That is to say, leave out the words:
"with the approval of the Treasury".
The two go together in that sense. That is the answer to the noble Lord's question. That is where it says: "Leave out the words".
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I find myself in a little difficulty. We have already discussed Amendment No. 15 and the noble Lord has withdrawn it. We had a discussion on the aspect about consultation with the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament. I must suggest to the noble Lord that I have answered Amendment No. 16, as I see it on the Marshalled List. If the noble Lord wishes to come back with an amendment at a later date in the form in which he would like to see it, then perhaps we can have the opportunity of discussing that amendment then.
Lord Diamond: I see the difficulty that the noble Lord is in. I think that it is perfectly plain what amendment is required. I think that it is perfectly plain from the Marshalled List which words are to be left out, which correspond exactly with the argument that I have put before the Committee as to how this paragraph should read. I think it would be infinitely better if the words are so set out. I should be grateful if, in the meantime, the Minister would be good enough to consult his advisers as to how this paragraph
246
3 should be re-drafted. Certainly on my part I shall come back to it if necessary if the Government do not wish to put down an amendment. Meanwhile, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 16A:
Page 64, line 16, at end insert—
("In the event however that such determination has taken place without consulting the appropriate Committee of each House of Parliament then the amount of such compensation shall be such as Parliament, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, shall approve by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether it is the desire of the Committee that I should move this amendment at this late hour but I am very happy to do so. This amendment strengthens the position which we have previously discussed. I had hoped in moving an earlier amendment that the Government would see the wisdom of suggesting that the Secretary of State, before arriving at a very difficult decision—namely, the amount of compensation payable in undefined circumstances—should consult the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament. The Government have not thought fit to accept that amendment. Therefore, this particular amendment takes that unfortunate eventuality into account and says:
"In the event however that such determination",—
that is, the determination of the compensation.—
"has taken place without consulting the appropriate Committee of each House of Parliament"—
which is the position that we have now reached—
"then the amount of such compensation shall be such as Parliament, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, shall approve by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament."
The Minister will notice that the recommendation is the recommendation of the Secretary of State. Therefore there cannot be, and there would not be by the rules of the other place, any question of either House approving expenditure unless it had been initiated by the Government. There it is, the Secretary of State recommending to Parliament what the amount of the compensation should be. Normally, once that has been done Parliament is then asked to approve by an affirmative resolution of each House.
The wording, as indeed may be the case with the wording of all my humble amendments, may be totally inadequate for the purposes of the statute, but it can easily be put right. The meaning of it is, I hope, perfectly clear: that, in the situation we have now reached on this Bill at the Committee stage, the compensation shall be decided upon by a recommendation of the Secretary of State himself, with his knowledge of all the circumstances, and shall be approved by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament, and of course each House would have to be made aware of the circumstances before it decided on that approval. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I do not think any of us would really be surprised to see this amendment, following the debate on the earlier amendments to Clause 1 on 24th April; but we have already established in the

247
earlier debate that the appropriate involvement for Parliament is in the principles of the Bill's provisions rather than in the details of their execution.
Thus, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to establish a mechanism for consultation with the appropriate committee of each House of Parliament on matters such as the compensation to be paid in the event of the director ceasing to hold office, with all the delays which the affirmative resolution procedure would entail. The Secretary of State will be responsible for the director's appointment and it is appropriate that he should make a recommendation as to the level of compensation to be paid should the need arise.
Since the approval of the Treasury must be obtained, the appropriate restraining influences will be at work, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will well recall from his days at the Treasury.
Mention has already been made of the heavy workload of Parliament, particularly in another place, and, in my view, it would be foolish to add to it where that is clearly unnecessary. I have been consistent, as has the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in my opposition to the methods which he has suggested in several amendments about the appropriate committees in Parliament being involved in this procedure. I cannot accept the amendment and I suggest to the noble Lord that he should withdraw it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord has been a little churlish about his rejection of this particular amendment. He must be aware, even though it does not apply in your Lordships' Chamber, that normally speaking a debate in another place does take place on the Vote and there are a certain number of Supply Days allocated, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, for the debating of specific subjects. I would not go along, and I told the noble Lord so quite frankly, with the application of this amendment to both Houses of Parliament. I would myself confine it to the other place only, rather than to both Houses; but the noble Lord will understand that the submission of this determination to another place would give the other place an opportunity to ventilate the whole question of the compensation and the circumstances in which it was awarded. I should have thought that the noble Lord would not have found that altogether unreasonable. I repeat that, from my own standpoint, I should prefer it to apply exclusively to the other place, but I support completely the concept that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
11 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I was not, if I may say so, wholly persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, in his speech a few moments ago. Perhaps he will not be surprised to hear that: nevertheless I do not really think that we finally determined the question of the position of Parliament on this matter. We discussed the narrow issue on a previous, quite important, debate about whether in fact Parliament should be in some way involved in the appointment process. We are talking here of something wholly different. And when the noble Lord, Lord Gray of
248
Contin, rests his argument on the terrible weight of business in the House of Commons in particular, I should perhaps like to remind him—he was not a Member of this Chamber at the time—of a speech which I remember well, made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, then in opposition. He spent an immense amount of time, rightly in my view, telling us of the number of pages of the statute book that had been filled during successive Sessions of Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord's argument was that Parliament was being given far too much to do. I thought that what he said had substantial support on both sides of the House. I do not think that the argument adduced by the noble Lord—that at the moment the House of Commons has an immense amount of business before it—is an argument in principle against this amendment. It is an argument that can be used in the Home Affairs Committee or the Legislation Committee to reduce the amount of legislation (some of it favoured by departments) which hangs around year after year. If some of that legislation were not introduced, the public interest would probably be safeguarded. I cannot see any reason of substance constantly to oppose proposals of this kind merely on the grounds of the weight of legislation which the Government wish to introduce in the House of Commons.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am interested in the noble Lord's participation in our debate. I remind him that that was not the only reason that I gave for rejecting the amendment. I do not think that he has been present throughout our proceedings and therefore he would not have heard the various arguments that I deployed on different occasions when we were discussing amendments similar to this one. I do not take issue with him. I agree that the House of Commons is overworked, but much of that is self-inflicted, just as to a large extent our work here is self-inflicted when we spend nearly two days discussing Clause 1 of a Bill. But that is a matter for the Committee.
If I were in charge of business in this House—I hope that my noble friend is listening—I should be sitting here until six o'clock tomorrow morning and I should do so every time until we made progress on the Bill. I belive that—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will the noble Lord—
Lord Gray of Contin: I shall give way to the noble Lord in a moment. There are so many Members of this House who are former Members of another place and I believe that it is the only thing they understand. It is the way that we were brought up. If we have to resort to such tactics now and again to discipline ourselves to argue our case more succinctly, it is no bad thing. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, nodding his head. I always find him persuasive in his argument, but on this occasion I do not.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I noted what the noble Lord said. He told us that in the sad event of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, no longer being the Government Chief Whip in this House he, as his replacement,

249
would be an enthusiast for a series of all-night sittings. We take note of his view. But I am sure that when he occupies, as clearly it is his ambition so to do, the position in this House of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, he will at the same time ensure that the Government keep a quorum here, because last Thursday night they were saved by the Opposition. We did not have the good fortune to have the noble Lord, Lord Denham, with us on that occasion. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, was with us and he will recall that we kept the Bill going. If we had kept our Members out of the Division Lobby, the Committee would have been adjourned automatically. So, when we have these all-night sittings for which the noble Lord is apparently hungering, perhaps he will ensure at the same time that when those sittings take place he will have at least 30 of his own supporters in the Chamber.
Lord Gray of Contin: I acknowledge what the noble Lord has said. Thirty all!
Lord Diamond: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the attention he has given to this amendment and I am sorry that he has not been able to meet us further than he has done. Perhaps I may first say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that of course I understand his reason for preferring the affirmative resolution of the other place to the affirmative resolution of both Houses, because it is the other place that is primarily concerned with a financial matter of this kind. Nevertheless, it would be breaking very new ground indeed to have an affirmative resolution made by one House alone, and I suspect that many Members of the Committee would feel that it was not paying sufficient regard to the experience and wisdom of your Lordships' House, which has a special position with regard to affirmative resolutions, which, as we know, are not covered by the Parliament Act. So that is the reason why as a first shot, but only as a first shot, I drafted the amendment on the lines that the Secretary of State would recommend and that an affirmative resolution of each House would approve.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, is relying very strongly on the situation, which is undoubtedly the case, that the other place has more to do than it can do effectively, but we should not lose hope. The other place has recently adopted the best possible method of giving itself more time by throwing out a Government Bill on Second Reading. That relieves it of the necessity of covering the Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading—the lot. I do not know how much time the other place has saved itself in that way. If the Government had had a little prescience, a little judgment and a little wisdom and had not brought in the Bill at all, it would have saved this House an enormous amount of time as well, and in addition it would have saved the Government's nerves and their own time.
So we must not lose hope. There are ways, which may not always prove acceptable, in which they could achieve a greater saving of time. In fact, if this Bill were to meet the same fate as the Shops Bill has done, there would be rejoicing all over the country. But as there is no chance of that, and as the Minister has not been
250
able to give us any hope at all on this amendment, to which we shall clearly want to come back, I had better safeguard the position by seeking the Committee's permission to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Dyfed Bill [H.L.]
Referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eleven o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: PURCHASE OF EVACUATED DWELLINGS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PURCHASE OF EVACUATED DWELLINGS
  FISH FARMING, ACHNACREE BAY, LOCH ETIVE
  FISH FARMING, ACHNACREE BAY, LOCH ETIVE