Sitting of 30 April 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ULLAPOOL HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    British Leyland Bathgate
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance he is making available to the area of employment covered by British Leyland, Bathgate.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alan Stewart): The Bathgate travel-to-work area is a development area, and assistance to industry there is at the highest available levels. Good progress is being made in giving effect to the special programme of measures recommended in 1984 by the Bathgate working party.
    Mr. Dalyell: How is good progress defined? What new money and new initiatives are available?
    Mr. Stewart: The Scottish Development Agency has recently committed £7 million to the Bathgate area. That involves environmental improvements, business development and better communications through the new passenger rail link between Bathgate and Edinburgh, which was opened by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 24 March. That is a sign of our commitment to the area.
    Mr. Ewing: We saw the Secretary of State with his green flag waving the train away from Bathgate, just as during the past six years we have seen the Conservative Government wave away industry and employment from the Bathgate area. Does the Under-Secretary understand that the best thing that could happen to Bathgate, the entire Lothian region, Central region, Fife, Strathclyde and all the regions would be for the people of Scotland to vote in large numbers for Labour candidates next Thursday and get rid of every last vestige of Conservative administration, which has done so much damage to Bathgate and the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friends and I were wearily aware that we would hear that speech at some time during this week. A feature of the past six years is that the Labour party has waved away reality, the ability to face the facts and the ability to recognise the industrial successes that are increasingly obvious throughout Scotland.

    AIDS
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is being done in Scotland to control the spread of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): In the blood transfusion service we are screening all blood donations and are heat treating blood products needed by haemophiliacs. We are supporting epidemiological research, providing testing facilities, promoting a press publication campaign to advise people about the disease and what can be done to avoid infection.
    Mr. McKelvey: Nevertheless, the Minister must be seriously worried about the spread of the AIDS virus among heroin addicts, especially in Edinburgh, and more recently, in Dundee. The habit of intravenous injections is creating the problem. Will the Minister seriously consider making brand new needles more readily available in the rest of Scotland so that we may stem the flow of AIDS?
    Mr. MacKay: I am afraid that there is no guarantee that making needles available to drug abusers would prevent drug misusers from sharing the needles in an even wider circle. There is evidence from some drug misusers that they would do that. My Department's chief medical officer has appointed a committee of experts to advise on this aspect and on other methods of controlling the spread of infection among drug misusers. However, the message is simple and clear: do not misuse drugs.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to control drugs and the spread of AIDS would be to encourage more self-discipline and higher moral standards among the population at large? Is he surprised that he has not heard more from the Churches on this subject?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. AIDS is a totally self-inflicted illness, and it is so much more morally reprehensible when it is inflicted on children. It is wrong that some people are inflicting AIDS on their unborn children—[Interruption.] I agree with hon. Members that this is serious. It is a moral question, which comes down to people reviewing their living habits.
    Mr. Maxton: That is a most remarkable statement and a major condemnation of large numbers of people who just happen to have a life style different from that of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Will he ensure that the committee of investigation reconsiders the use of clean needles by drug users? If the Minister is so sure, will he say today that he will provide the Greater Glasgow health board with sufficient funds to ensure that there is no threat whatever to the Ruchill laboratory, which does the testing for the disease?
    Mr. MacKay: I made it quite clear in my initial answer that the committee of experts is considering the matter. I shall take advice from it. I find it quite amazing that the hon. Member has just condemned me for condemning certain life styles. Does that mean that he condones drug abuse?

    Strathclyde (Manufacturing Industry)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet Strathclyde regional council to discuss the prospects for manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to meet Strathclyde regional council specifically to discuss this issue.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware—everybody else is—that there has been a drastic decline in manufacturing industry since the Government took office in 1979? Is he also aware that 57,000 people in Strathclyde region have been unemployed for two years or more and that there is 27 per cent. unemployment in the region? Will he do something drastic to get people back to work and give them what they are entitled to—the right to work and the right to live?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman must realise that manufacturing output in Scotland rose by 5·75 per cent. to the third quarter of 1985. Those are the most recent figures available. Opposition Members should recognise that manufacturing productivity in Scotland rose by more than 8 per cent. in 1984 and 6·8 per cent. to the third quarter of 1985. Both those figures are higher than the United Kingdom average. It is on the basis of such achievement that we can look forward to competitive and successful manufacturing industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Fletcher: As low-cost energy is vital to manufacturing industry, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the South of Scotland Electricity Board on its excellent safety record at AGR power stations in Strathclyde and on completing the AGR at Torness on time and on budget?
    Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. All hon. Members will recognise the outstanding safety record of the nuclear energy industry in Scotland. It is therefore astonishing that the Scottish Labour party is committed to closing Hunterston and refusing to open Torness. I notice that the Scottish Trades Union Congress, at least, had rather more sense than that at its recent congress.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the implications of the figures that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) is that, despite, and perhaps because of, the increase in productivity, the Government have taken out the benefits for themselves rather than allow them to help employment in Scotland? Is he aware that the implication of his figures is a further reduction in employment in manufacturing? Does he not intend to do anything about unemployment?
    Mr. Stewart: The implication of the figures that I gave is that Scottish manufacturing industry is becoming more productive and therefore more competitive. That is the only basis on which a secure future can be built. I must emphasise that the total number of jobs in Scotland has been rising steadily. It is true that in Scotland, as throughout the industrial world, most of those jobs are coming in expanding service industries.
    Mr. Henderson: As many of the hon. Members who represent Strathclyde are Labour Members, was my hon. Friend not surprised that none of them came forward when the Ministry of Defence announced the Harland and Wolff
    920
    order, one third of the value of which is to be spent in Strathclyde? Is that not an excellent example of how employment in that area is being helped?
    Mr. Stewart: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that that order was a tribute to the design excellence of the Yarrow yard, which was involved with Harland and Wolff in that contract.
    Mr. Ewing: I would have thought that the Minister would be more concerned about Tory party policy, which will cost his councillors dearly at the elections next Thursday and will cost him dearly at the general election. When it comes to the nuclear industry, does the Minister not understand that there is debate in the country about the safety and future of nuclear energy? He seems to be the only person who is deaf to that debate. The best thing that he can do, without listening to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to prompt him in his reply, is to open his ears and listen to the debate on people's concern about the future of the nuclear industry.
    Mr. Stewart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an absurd debate taking place within the Labour party on that issue. I suggest that he is doing nobody any good by failing to dissociate himself from the totally absurd statements that have been made about the real role of the nuclear energy industry in Scotland. It is estimated that Labour party policy towards that industry in Scotland would result in an increase of around 25 per cent. in electricity prices.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to all concerned if we stuck to the question.

    Unemployment (West of Scotland)
    Mr. MacKenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for reducing the number of people unemployed in the west of Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The Government's strategy is keeping inflation down, stimulating enterprise and restoring competitiveness to industry. This is the best means of improving employment prospects in the west of Scotland. In addition, the full range of the Manpower Services Commission's special employment and training measures is available in the west of Scotland as elsewhere.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that we have been hearing that answer for the past seven years? If he cannot change his policy, will he ask somebody in the office to change the words in the answer? We keep hearing from the Prime Minister and others about the number of new jobs being created throughout the country. All that we want to know is whether we in the Glasgow travel-to-work-area may have a wee shot at getting some of them too.
    Mr. Rifkind: Over the past two and a half years there has been a net increase of 27,00 in the number of people employed in Scotland. Therefore, it would be right for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to acknowledge that the total number of those employed in Scotland over the past couple of years has been rising, not falling.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in some non-assisted areas in the west of Scotland there are pockets of high male unemployment?

    921
    Will he give an assurance that in such towns as Annan the Scottish Development Agency has the initiative to build advance factories and has enough resources to promote development in those circumstances?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend raises a fair point. Clearly, although significant parts of Scotland benefit from regional assistance, there are other localities, such as the kind to which my hon. Friend referred, which do not come within those regions. It is part of the responsibility of the Scottish Development Agency to take account of the needs, not just of those areas with regional status, but of any part of Scotland which can benefit from the facilities that it provides.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Highlands and Islands Development Board had more money it could create more long-term jobs at a lower cost than keeping people on the dole? Will he speak to his reactionary accountant friends in the Treasury about that.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Highlands and Islands Development Board already receives substantial resources, which are available for the benefit of the Highlands. The suggestion that one can somehow cure unemployment simply by pumping more resources into public expenditure may be a view held by the hon Gentleman, but it is not a view which even his party believes can solve the problem of unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he worst thing that Scots can do is to continue to talk down their country? Will he take this opportunity of reminding the Opposition of the recent optimistic business survey and of the hundreds of jobs which have come to my constituency so far this year, thanks to the Government's encouragement? Does he further agree that if the Labour party had its way and got rid of the nuclear deterrent, thousands of jobs in the west of Scotland would be destroyed?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that defence-related employment provides jobs for many tens of thousands of people in Scotland. Undoubtedly those jobs would be jeopardised if ever Labour policy were to be implemented. Indeed, whenever one is in a locality where there are either defence or nuclear-related employment prospects, one finds that sometimes that has an educational effect even on the local Labour party. One has only to look at the views of the Caithness Labour party on nuclear energy to see proof of that point.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Secretary of State aware that British Oxygen recently announced 100 new jobs in my constituency? Is he further aware that in the town centre of Cumbernauld, 4,000 people queued to apply for those jobs? Does he understand that that was a queue of real people, not just a creation of Saatchi and Saatchi? What positive steps will he take to provide employment in Cumbernauld, which is faced with such a situation, where 4,000 people queue for 100 jobs?
    Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that Cumbernauld has been the recipient of several announcements bringing new jobs there over the past few months. For example, Isola will bring between 100 and 200 jobs to Cumbernauld. The hon.
    922
    Gentleman should acknowledge that it is the work of the Government, both directly and through the Scottish Development Agency, which has helped to persuade such companies either to put new investment in Cumbernauld or to increase investment that they already have there.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that if Edinburgh's multicultural centre closes, thanks to the maladministration of the Scottish Office, the employees will be forced to go to the west, thereby forcing up—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would say something about the west of Scotland.
    Mr. Foulkes: I shall say something about the west of Scotland, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Douglas.
    Mr. Douglas: While addressing the issue of the west of Scotland, the Secretary of State gave statistics for Scotland as a whole for the increase in the numbers employed. How many of those jobs are in oil-related activities? Does he expect that level of activity to persist in the west of Scotland and in Scotland as a whole, in view of the decline in the oil price?
    Mr. Rifkind: In Scotland as a whole, about 60,000 jobs have been provided as a result of oil-related activities. It is impossible to predict with any certainty what the effect will be of the recent fall in oil prices. One knows that certain oil companies are reconsidering their investment decisions. I hope that, in coming to a view on those matters, they will take into account the likely development in the oil price, not over the next six or 12 months, but over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. That is the likely length of any investment that they may contemplate. If they use that sensible time scale, there is a powerful case for substantial investment in future.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Foulkes.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker.
    Does the Secretary of State recall that I wrote to him pointing out that unemployment in Cumnock and Doon Valley is the second highest in the country, not just in the west of Scotland, and that it is due principally to the loss of 3,000 jobs in the mining industry which, in Cumnock and Doon Valley, is the equivalent of the closure of Ravenscraig in Lanarkshire? Will the Secretary of State say exactly what the Government will do about that? In particular, will he support the proposals in the Coopers and Lybrand report and make the necessary resources available?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are considering various ideas and proposals. Naturally, one is concerned about the high unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He will be aware that regional assistance is available, given the nature of the unemployment level. We shall also be prepared to look at any other sensible and constructive ways in which those problems can be ameliorated. However, I cannot suggest, nor do I think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to suggest, that somehow there is a magic formula that will solve the problem in the way which, theoretically, we would all like to see.

    Maternity Services (Greater Glasgow)
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the provision of maternity services in the Greater Glasgow health board area.
    Mr. John MacKay: Glasgow health board is currently reviewing its future plans for maternity services, including its earlier proposal to close the maternity unit at the Stobhill general hospital. Any such proposal would require the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Hirst: While I accept that in Glasgow there is over-provision of maternity beds, may I remind my hon. Friend of the concern among my constituents about the future of maternity services in their area, although they are greatly encouraged by talk of a new maternity unit for the north and north-east of Glasgow? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is an excellent green field site at Stobhill hospital where such a new unit could be sited? Can he hold out any prospect that that unit may come to Stobhill?
    Mr. MacKay: As my hon. Friend knows, the board has considered a number of responses received as a result of the consultative exercise, including his comments and observations. A final decision must be set in the context of the review of maternity services for the whole of the Greater Glasgow area, which is being undertaken by the board's general manager. One of the options may well be to build a new unit on a green field site at Stobhill, but that matter is principally for the board. If it decides to opt for closure, it will then have to come to me and my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Maxton: Why does the Minister not admit that the reason why the Greater Glasgow health board, is threatening Stobhill or any other hospital in Glasgow is simply that he has failed to provide proper financing for the Greater Glasgow health board, as this year he has left it with a minimum £6 million deficit which it must find? Will he come clean and give the Greater Glasgow health board the finance that it needs?
    Mr. MacKay: The Greater Glasgow health board is the best funded health board in Scotland. If it were to receive more resources, it would be at the expense of other Scottish health boards. Moreover, the simple fact is that there are more available staffed maternity beds in Greater Glasgow than are needed, even on the busiest day. It must make sense, even to the hon. Gentleman, that the Greater Glasgow health board should make the best use of its resources, and that does not mean keeping staffed beds which it knows will never be used.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase employment in the Scottish construction industry.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am confident that the best prospects for increasing employment in the construction industry lie in the continuation of this Government's policies of reducing inflation and creating real economic growth. In addition, public expenditure which will benefit the construction industry in Scotland will be higher this year than in previous years.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware that since his Government took office there has been a drop in
    924
    employment in the construction industry of 26·2 per cent. year on year, and that the number inexorably falls? Is he further aware that local authorities, especially regional councils, are having to watch our fundament and roads declining and becoming inadequate to support the industry that we seek to promote because of the stringent curbs on their capital expenditure? What will the Government do about that? The measure lies in their hands.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman is a Member for a Highland constituency when he implies that during the past few years contruction on road development has been poor or inadequate. He need only travel on the A9 and compare his journey with a similar one a few years ago to find out how absurd that allegation is. He will also be aware of the proposal to build a bridge across the Dornoch firth in his constituency, and he might have taken that into account before making those rather silly remarks.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there would be a great deal more work for the construction industry if many local authorities, especially Labour ones, would release more of their land banks to developers for houses and buildings? In that way many people would be employed directly in the construction industry.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Certain authorities have tended to hold on to land within their locality unnecessarily, and clearly that can be a needless curb on useful development for the construction industry.

    Unemployment (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
    Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he proposes to take to deal with the social problems arising from unemployment in the Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The Government's policies are to build a strong competitive economy to tackle directly the root causes of unemployment. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will benefit from the expansion of the special employment measures announced in the Budget and from the Inverclyde initiative funded by the Government through the Scottish Development Agency. Indeed, £4 million has already been committed to an initial programme, with more to follow as suitable projects come forward.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that unemployment will worsen, especially in Port Glasgow, if Ferguson-Ailsa is not awarded the contract for the fisheries protection vessel to replace the Norna? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recommendation of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which is contained in its report on the fisheries protection service, to the effect that that vessel should be built in Scotland? Will he give an assurance that the order will go to a Scottish yard, and more particularly, to Ferguson-Ailsa?
    Mr. Stewart: I am fully aware of the importance of orders for Ferguson-Ailsa. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that during the debate on shipbuilding on Monday. Six firms were asked to tender for the fisheries protection vessel. The tenders are currently being evaluated. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that is a technical process that will take some time.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister realise that the problems facing the lower part of Renfrewshire are compounded by three major events that have occurred largely because of the Government's inadequacy? I refer to the collapse of Linwood, the collapse of the shipbuilding industry and the collapse of the textile industry. They are all the result of the Government's failures. When will the Minister tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop his arrant nonsense about tax relief for the rich somehow giving employment to the poor? When will he take action, as he can do in the case of the fisheries protection vessel, and give some heart to an area that his Government have thoroughly devastated?
    Mr. Stewart: As an hon. Member who also represents part of Renfrew district, I can say that the hon. Gentleman has uttered a lot of nonsense, even by his standards. I know that he could not be at the meeting that the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) and I had with Renfrew district council on the general position, but the consultant's report on a possible initiative for the district is being considered at a meeting tomorrow. I hope that that will be followed by positive initiatives. We are certainly committed to the development of Renfrew district. In my part of Renfrew district we have recently seen the announcement of 180 new jobs at Fine Fare and the expansion of English Sewing at Neilston in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman should portray a more balanced picture.

    Scottish Motor Trade Association Ltd.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the correspondence he has received recently from the Scottish Motor Trade Association Ltd. on matters of consumer interest.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be replying shortly.
    Mr. Eadie: The Minister must be aware that recent figures show that it is 18p more expensive to buy petrol in Scotland than it is to buy it in some parts of England. Did he see the recent STV programme which showed that there was a gross difference of between 40p and 50p per gallon between the price of petrol in parts of Scotland and England? As the Scottish Motor Association has written to me saying that it does not accept the Government's policy that market forces will resolve the problem of the consumer being exploited, what does the Minister intend to do so that the consumer can be protected from the exploitation of oil companies?
    Mr. Stewart: I read the recent article in the Petroleum Times. As the hon. Gentleman may know, that journal regularly publishes a report on local prices. The article showed that the average price for four star petrol was 177·7p in Edinburgh and 177·3p in London. I understand that the edition coming out later this week will show further reductions. The areas of greatest demand inevitably experience the greatest competition, and that is reflected in a relatively speedy reduction in prices. It is clear that that process invariably takes longer in less populated areas, where competition is not at the same level. The figures do not substantiate the hon. Gentleman's generalisation.
    Sir Hector Monro: Has my hon. Friend had a discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the changed date for the vehicle registration letter next year? Is he aware that almost every motoring association in Scotland and motor dealer has written to say that the change to October is wrong and will have a serious and detrimental effect, not only on the sale of motor cars, but on the secondhand value that the public would expect? Will my hon. Friend hold discussions on this matter, because at present everything is being done purely for the benefit of the DVLC in Swansea?
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport gave a written answer on 28 April which stated that on 24 April he told the Motor Agents Association that he would be prepared to consider an alternative if the weight of opinion in the motor industry as a whole changed, and provided it was acceptable to the police. If that is not the case, the change will go ahead as planned in October 1987.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anger in Scotland about high petrol prices? Is he aware also that the Director General of Fair Trading has stated that one problem may be that too few petrol forecourts are owned by independents and too many are owned by big combines? In those circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to instruct the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to conduct an inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the MMC prepared a report on the industry in 1979. The OFT conducts an annual review of the petrol retail industry. I have no doubt that, in the course of that review, it will pay special attention to the degree of competition.
    Mr. Ewing: I urge the hon. Gentleman not to be complacent about this matter, because there is serious disquiet not only in Scotland but in other parts of Great Britain. Evidence is emerging that the oil companies, the suppliers, are selecting certain areas in Great Britain to subsidise at a much higher level than other areas, especially in Scotland. There is clear evidence that there is a difference of about 50p a gallon in the price of petrol in one area compared with another. That evidence has been put forward by the Scottish Motor Trade Association. Based on the hon. Gentleman's figures, I can produce evidence showing that there is an 18p a gallon difference between the price in Edinburgh and the price in parts of my constituency.
    Mr. Stewart: Prices vary considerably. I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly where the biggest price differential occurs, according to the figures that are available. The price is as low as 154.7p in south Wales and as high as 205p in London. That does not suggest any bias against Scotland.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in the Highlands and Islands there have been persisent problems of differential regarding petrol pices? Car and haulage travel there is not a luxury but an absolute necessity to the whole of the economy because of the way of life. The Highlands and Islands are suffering badly, as I know the hon. Gentleman appreciates, through falling oil prices following the contraction of the North sea exploration market. Will we see some advantage from falling oil prices, such as cheaper costs of derv, haulage

    927
    costs and prices at the petrol pumps? At the moment we are seeing nothing. We are getting the worst of both worlds.
    Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are very conscious of the price variations. We have vigorously reminded the oil companies of the need to ensure that rural areas, such as the Highlands, derive adequate benefit from lower oil prices.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency since its inception.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Scottish Development Agency has spent a total of over £940 million in the period since it was formed in 1975 up to 31 March 1986.
    Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what the agency has spent, a year on average, under the Government and how it compares with the average spent each year under the Labour Government?
    Mr. Rifkind: The average annual spend of the SDA under the present Government is £109 million, against a figure of £44 million under the previous Government.
    Mr. Millan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity to correct the impression, which seems to be prevalent in many parts of Scotland, that other worthwhile projects are being abandoned because of expenditure on the Glasgow garden festival? Is it not true that the SDA's allocation is not adequate to enable it to take up all the worthwhile projects put to it? That problem has nothing to do with the festival. An increased allocation is needed for the SDA.
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is half right and half wrong. He is correct in that the SDA has emphasised that the garden festival is in no way interfering with its allocation of expenditure. The SDA has expressed that view more than once. This year the agency will be able to spend more than £136 million, which is more than in any previous year.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that a substantial part of the vast sums which the SDA has been authorised to spend have been spent in the Dundee area? Is he aware that one of my constituents, who runs a large timber, haulage and carpentry business, recently advertised twice in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser for joiners but was unable to get a single applicant?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the remit of the Scottish Development Agency extends throughout Scotland and includes Dundee and rural areas, both in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Why have the Government rejected the call by COSLA and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs for an SDA rural development fund? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the urgent need for the development of jobs and services in rural areas in Scotland? As the Tory Government evidently know little and care less about the rural areas in Scotland, I take this opportunity to give the Secretary of State a copy of Labour's new charter for rural areas.
    Mr. Rifkind: We did not accept the proposal for a rural fund for the simple reason that we already spend in Scottish rural areas over 10 times more than the size of the proposed rural fund. Frankly, although it is easy to talk in terms of funds, the resources available to the farming community and those elsewhere in the rural areas are much more important. The hon. Gentleman should be the first to appreciate how well farmers do as a result of the Government's decisions.
    Sir Russell Johnston: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman essentially the same question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) about the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which he failed to answer. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us a clear yes or no? Is he, or is he not, in favour of expanding the activities of the state funding of enterprise through the SDA and the HIDB?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have already pointed out that the SDA has received more funds under this Government than under their predecessors. The HIDB has also received substantial resources. The hon. Gentleman should draw his own conclusion from the facts.
    Mr. Forth: Given my right hon. and learned Friend's confidence in the SDA's success, is he prepared to recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that we set up similar bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom, starting, I hope, with the west midlands? Is he prepared to recommend that resources similar to those given to the SDA are given to all such similar bodies, to give every region a fair crack of the whip?
    Mr. Rifkind: The SDA's successful achievements have been recognised not simply by Scottish Members but by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan)—and other hon. Members. It is for Members representing other constituencies to put the views that they think appropriate.

    Agriculture Industry
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to provide further financial relief for the livestock sector of the agriculture industry in Scotland.
    Mr. MacKay: In the six months to the end of April, Scotland's 20,000 beef and sheep producers have received direct Government support in adverse weather aid and headage and variable premiums of over £95 million, compared to £72 million in the equivalent six months of 1984–85. A further £10 million in hill subsidies will be paid out by the end of June.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that from the Scottish borders, and indeed from the whole of the south of Scotland, reports are coming through that this year's lambings are substantially down on previous years because of the mortality rate of the lambs? Is he aware of that taking place in other parts of the country? Will he take steps to see that the people who are suffering these losses receive more support, bearing in mind the difficulties that they experienced last summer and the bad lambing conditions this year?
    Mr. MacKay: The lambings this spring will be one of the factors taken into account in the autumn in the annual

    929
    review of farming in relation to HLCAs and the like. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this year HLCAs were increased by 14 per cent. on average and by no less than 22 per cent. on hill cows. The right time to review the livestock position for the year is at the annual review in the autumn.
    Mr. Pollock: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the welcome news of the extension of the Highland and Islands Development Board boundaries into the Forres and Tomintoul areas of my constituency, livestock there will qualify for enhanced rates of payment of HLCAs? That will represent significant support for those hard-pressed sectors.
    Mr. MacKay: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the extension of the boundary of the Highland and Islands Development Board's area into parts of his constituency will mean that the people there, whether they are farmers or small business men, will have available to them the same payments as are available in the rest of the board's area.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's contribution to the European development programme proposed for the islands of Scotland—which has a certain potential to help the livestock industry in the islands—will be new money?
    Mr. MacKay: If my memory serves me right, on all these proposals, the current one for the Western Isles and the one proposed for other islands, 60 per cent. of the input comes from the Government and 40 per cent. from the European Community.
    Mr. Holt: While my hon. Friend is looking at the possibility of extra money for Scotland, will he tell his right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture where Cleveland is, so that it can have some money?
    Mr. MacKay: I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister accept that it would be intolerable if the Government were to use the House of Lords to introduce an amendment into the Agriculture Bill that would penalise Scottish tenant dairy farmers, on the same basis as has been done in England and Wales over milk quotas? Will he give an undertaking that any decision on that matter that affects livestock farmers in Scotland will be taken in this elected House of Commons?
    Mr. MacKay: Although the hon. Gentleman is a farmer, I am not sure whether he understands the livestock and milk sector of the industry. If the Government do not take action on this front, tenants will remain in the position that they are at the moment, which is that they have no right to any money or compensation.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Will my hon. Friend take account of the problems arising in the rural areas about the less-favoured area designation? In a considerable number of cases one farmer is designated as being in a less-favoured area for livestock while the next farmer is not. That causes considerable anxiety as well as problems for the farmer who does not happen to be in the less-favoured rural area.
    Mr. MacKay: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's point. There is a well-rehearsed procedure for reviewing
    930
    the position of a farm where the farmer feels he ought to be in the less-favoured area and is not. If any of my hon. Friend's constituents feel so aggrieved, they should make the necessary application for a review.

    GEAR Project
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider continuing the Glasgow eastern area renewal project in Glasgow for another three to five-year period beyond 31 March 1987 to enable it to complete the final one third of the job which it was set up to do.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The present phase of the project will come to an end in March 1987. Discussions are now under way on the future management arrangements for a continuing commitment to the east end of Glasgow after that date.
    Mr. Marshall: As usual, the Minister has dodged the question. Is he not aware that unless this project is extended everything will go tragically wrong? Has he not been in the area recently to see for himself how much has still to be done and how far from completion the project is? Does he want to see much of the investment already made going to waste, or will he reconsider the position and agree to extend the project to enable it to be completed for the benefit of everyone involved, not least his own Government?
    Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made several visits to the area in the past two or three years and I am well aware of the kind of work that has been done. He should not underestimate the gains that have been made so far in the area, or the achievements of GEAR since its launch in 1976, which have often been very considerable and clearly evident in the progress that has been made towards tackling the problems that exist in the east end of Glasgow. The project has lasted 10 years and it is right that now, at the end of 10 years, the project should be ended and that there should be an evaluation of its successes so that similar projects may be used in other parts of Scotland.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Allen Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the increase in numbers of unemployed persons in the Paisley travel-to-work area in the first quarter of 1986, compared with the first quarter of 1985.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: On 9 January and 6 March 1986 the numbers of unemployed people claiming benefit in the Paisley, North parliamentary constituency—there is no Paisley travel-to-work area as such—were respectively 5,854 and 5,596. On 10 January and 14 March 1985 the corresponding figures were 5,695 and 5,571. The figures for March 1986 are not comparable with earlier figures because of the change in the compilation of the unemployment statistics announced on 19 February.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware of the real anger and dismay that is felt in the Paisley and Renfrew areas over the Government's failure to provide jobs since the closure of Talbot? Can he name a single major employer that he has attracted into the Renfrew district in the past five years? Will he speak to the Scottish Development Agency

    931
    and take along with him a map of west Scotland to show the agency where Renfrew and Paisley are, as the SDA does not appear to know?
    Mr. Stewart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to ask his question. Unfortunately, he was not listening earlier during Question Time when I said that there would be a meeting tomorrow involving the SDA about a possible initiative for Renfrew. I also named earlier two companies in my part of Renfrew district which have expanded under the Government's policy. I know that the SDA is committed to ensuring that Renfrew district gets its share of the resources that are available.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Local Authority Services
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland in what sectors he has instituted prosecutions against local authorities in relation to failure to achieve a statutory defined level or standard of service or provision.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I do not entirely understand what the hon. Gentleman means by "sectors" in this context, but so far as I am aware no such prosecutions have been instructed recently.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am surprised that there are no prosecutions, in view of the cuts that are taking place. The regional councils in a number of areas are failing to carry out their statutory duties for children, the disabled, the elderly and young offenders under the social work and education legislation. Will the Solicitor-General and his colleague, the Lord Advocate, have another look at this and decide whether some prosecutions could be instituted? Instead of instituting prosecutions against local authorities, should they not be instituted against the real villain, the man behind it all, the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In common with the rest of the House, I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's question. However, if there is a sector where he believes that prosecutions should be taken against local authorities, which was the basis of his original question, I hope that he will tell me where he believes abuses are taking place.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that it would assist decisions about prosecutions if local authorities were required to keep separately their expenditure on statutory duties as opposed to their expenditure on other matters? For example, Fife regional council has spent more per head on education than any other education authority in Scotland and it claims that it is short of money for desirable projects within its statutory responsibilities, yet it has spent a lot of money on other things, such as giving holiday meals to striking miners' families.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, all that I am asked to do is to look at those circumstances where prosecutions might be moved against local authorities. It might be that in certain circumstances authorities are in breach of the duties imposed on them by the House of Commons, but there is a clear distinction between that and having the opportunity
    932
    to mount a prosecution. However, if there are specific areas where that is necessary, I hope that they will be brought to my attention.
    Mr. Ewing: In order to get some balance into the question and answer, instead of considering the possibility of prosecuting some local authorities, will the Solicitor-General consider an alternative form of treatment by holding up as an example of a good council the Angus district council, which is SNP-controlled, and puts the rents up and cuts public spending when it is told to do so by the Secretary of State? Indeed, it does everything that it is told to do by the Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland and has never been in any danger of falling foul of the law in order to defend its ratepayers.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With an eye to next Thursday, the hon. Gentleman has made his point well.
    Mr. Bruce: Would Grampian regional council be open to prosecution, given that within Aberdeen 45 per cent. of eligible children can go to nursery school, whereas within Gordon district fewer than 5 per cent. can go to nursery school? Should not such a wide variation within the same local authority area lead to a prosecution for under-provision in part of the area for which the authority is responsible?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is some failing there, that is a matter for local control and discretion. Again, I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman has his eye to rather than any particular prosecution which he seriously thinks I might mount.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Are local authorities ever at risk from prosecution as a result of strikes by their employees?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: So far as I am aware, no.

    Police Misconduct
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will instruct regional procurators fiscal to give more comprehensive replies to people who have formally submitted a complaint about criminal misconduct by the police.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not consider it necessary to give any such instruction. All persons who make a complaint of criminal conduct by a police officer are precognosced by the procurator fiscal. With the request to attend for precognition there is sent a note which explains in detail the procedures followed and the considerations taken into account in deciding whether criminal proceedings should be instituted.
    Mr. Canavan: What advice would the Solicitor-General give to somebody who lodges such a complaint, has to resist considerable police pressure to withdraw the complaint and spends considerable time and effort obtaining legal advice to pursue the complaint, getting the names and addresses of witnesses and being cross-examined by a senior police officer and the procurator fiscal, only to receive a curt, two-sentence letter months later from the regional procurator fiscal saying that no action is to be taken? If the regional procurator fiscal cannot even be bothered to try to give an explanation of

    933
    why no action has been taken, is it any wonder that many people consider that it is almost a complete waste of time lodging a complaint against the police because the system is biased in favour of the establishment and against the complainant?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Anyone who makes a complaint against the police, as I have already said, is given a full explanation of the procedures that will be followed through and what might have happened if at the end of the day there are to be no proceedings. One reason, which the hon. Gentleman might appreciate, why that note is, as he describes it, curt, is that it might be that in the circumstances, as in other cases, the procurator fiscal has given a warning to the person involved. As the hon. Gentleman may well recall from a debate that we had some time ago in the Scottish Grand Committee, it was clearly his view and that of his hon. Friends that where a warning was to be given by a procurator fiscal it should not be widely divulged.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will list the subjects about which he has transferred questions for oral answer from himself to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the current Session of Parliament.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have transferred questions on legal aid; tape recording of police interviews; the reprimand of a sheriff; private legislation procedures; justice of the peace courts; fisheries offences; and statistics on drunk-driving and orders made under section 18(2) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.
    Mr. McKelvey: I am sure the House thinks that that is disgraceful. Does the Solicitor-General not realise that the Secretary of State has enough troubles in Scotland at the moment without the hon. and learned Gentleman passing the buck and transferring those questions? Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman not stand at the Dispatch Box, stop passing the buck and answer those questions himself?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Simply because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not entrusted those responsibilities to me.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: To whom should I address a question brought to my notice by a constituent in Yorkshire about the standard of service in a sheriff court in Scotland?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It depends on whether the right hon. Gentleman's complaint has to do with criminal proceedings or civil proceedings. If he would care to write to me, I shall make sure that if I cannot answer it myself I shall transfer it.

    Firearms
    Sir Hector Monroasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions for firearms offences have been instituted in the last convenient year; and how many alleged offenders held firearms certificates.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Five hundred and fifty four prosecutions in respect of offences involving
    934
    firearms took place in 1984. The provisional figure for 1985 is 555. Statistics relating to the number of those prosecuted who held firearms certificates are not held centrally.
    Sir Hector Monro: Since the security of firearms is of first importance, does not the fact that my hon. and learned Friend does not keep statistics for those who hold firearms certificates show that additional pressure for the imposition of greater restrictions on those who hold firearms certificates may be misplaced?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about this, and I may take the opportunity to discuss it with him further. All I can say at the moment is that I do not know the figures for offences by those who hold firearms certificates, but if my hon. Friend feels that there is a particular abuse, or that a particular identification is necessary in the classification of these offences, I shall certainly look at that.

    Fraud
    Mr. Hirstasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether the Crown Office follows any special procedures in prosecuting serious cases of fraud in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In June 1984 a fraud unit, comprising both legal staff and precognition officers, was established in the Crown Office in coordination with the police to investigate and prepare major fraud cases referred to it by procurators fiscal. The unit, with direct access to Crown counsel, has brought about a concentration of effort on and expertise to such cases and already has a number of very successful prosecutions to its credit. It is the intention of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to reinforce it.
    Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Bearing in mind the complexity of major fraud cases and the inevitable problems confronting juries in trying to assess the evidence, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it might be preferable to have a skilled assessor to assist the judge, rather than entrust this matter to a jury?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a matter that was suggested by Lord Roskill. However, our experience in Scotland to date has not made me want to question the jury system for fraud trials. I have considerable sympathy with juries who have to sit through such trials for anything up to six or eight weeks. I am not aware of any major fraud cases in Scotland where it could be said, as a matter of objective assessment, that the jury had come to the wrong verdict.
    Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions?
    Mr. Maxton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. During the answer that he gave to me on question No. 2, concerning AIDS in Scotland, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) made the accusation that I was condoning a criminal offence, in that I was condoning drug misuse. That is a very serious accusation which I hope the hon. Member will take the opportunity to withdraw, because when he reads the answer that he gave me—or, rather, the answer that he gave to the

    935
    question put by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson)—he will appreciate that he was not condemning drug misuse, he was condemning people who were at risk from AIDS.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is going into the question again. I am sure that the point has been well taken by the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Order. If the Minister made that accusation, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw it—but I did not hear that.
    Mr. John MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall read carefully the record of what I said, but my recollection is that I did not suggest that the hon. Member was condoning illegal activities. I did suggest that he was condoning drug abuse. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I hope that the hon. Member will also read what he said, because I suspect that he went a great deal further than he intended.
    Mr. Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has just compounded the felony by admitting that he had accused my hon. Friend of condoning drug misuse. In its widest possible sense, drug misuse is a criminal offence and the Minister ought to be man enough to withdraw. Perhaps we are expecting far too much of the Minister in expecting him to rise above his usual standards, but he has an obligation to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House at least to accept the standards of the House of Commons and to withdraw that very serious and scurrilous allegation.
    Mr. Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), has the advantage of sitting beside his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, perhaps the Solicitor-General could advise him whether there are any drug abuses that are not illegal. What he said appeared to imply that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) condones illegality.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this matter. May I say that in the House of Commons very rough things are occasionally said in answer to questions. I am perfectly certain that if the Minister made an accusation against the honour of any Member, on whatever side of the House, he would wish to withdraw it.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Minister.
    Mr. John MacKay: I have made it quite clear that I shall check the record. If I said anything that I ought not to have said, I shall withdraw it. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ewing rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not had an opportunity to check the record, either. The best thing for the House to do in a situation like this, as the Minister has said that he will check the record—indeed, I shall read these exchanges carefully—is to do that and see what happens tomorrow.
    Mr. Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the record is now to be checked, may we have an assurance that the record will remain as it was when the Minister made his allegations?
    Hon. Members:: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker:: Order. [Interruption.] Order. That will be a matter for me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not make that accusation against me.
    Mr. Maxton: I accept that the Minister may wish to check the record, but may I have his assurance that if he finds that what I have said is correct he will come to the House tomorrow afternoon and ask to withdraw his statement?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is what the Minister said.
    Later—
    Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the statement and the exchanges on it. I reflected on the comments I made during points of order at the end of Scottish Question Time. I realise that what I said about the possible alteration of the record in relation to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may well be taken as a reflection on you, Mr. Speaker. Under no circumstances would I want that to remain on the record. I unreservedly withdraw my remarks and apologise for my intemperate comments.
    Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his typically generous correction. I did not take his comments as a reflection on me. However, I am responsible for Hansard, and I would not allow anything like that to happen.

Soviet Nuclear Accident (British Citizens)
3.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the evacuation of British subjects following the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union.
Following indications from countries bordering the Soviet Union, the Soviet authorities announced late on 28 April that there had been an accident at the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl. This was a full day after radioactivity had first been monitored in Scandinavia. The embassy in Moscow was in touch with the Soviet authorities early the next morning to seek information. The Soviet authorities were unwilling to give any details but assured our embassy that there was no cause for concern over the British citizens in Kiev and Minsk. In the absence of any authoritative information from the Soviet authorities, which sadly continues to be a feature of this crisis, the ambassador was instructed to seek the fullest possible details. He was only able to talk to the Soviet authorities this morning.
During the course of yesterday afternoon I took the decision, in the light of the continuing uncertainty and lack of authoritative information, that it would not be right for British citizens to visit the western Soviet Union unless absolutely necessary. As regards those already there, we requested the fullest co-operation of the Soviet authorities in assisting any who decided to leave to do so. The embassy was instructed to offer every help in this respect, including repatriation.
I reviewed the situation again this morning. Despite the inadequate information from the Soviet Union, it was evident, particularly from reports based on United States satellite observations and from Swedish scientific sources, that the situation at Chernobyl was such that it was necessary to advise British citizens in Kiev and Minsk to leave. We have also decided to extend to north-east Poland the advice already given to intending travellers to the western Soviet Union. We are in touch with the Polish Government to identify which areas they consider to be at risk.
Our embassy is in continuing contact with the Soviet authorities about the practical arrangements for evacuation. That will probably mean that the students from Kiev and Minsk should travel to Moscow for evacuation from Moscow. Our ambassador has been told that the Soviet authorities will be of assistance. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be seeing the Soviet ambassador this afternoon and impressing on him the need for the fullest practical co-operation.
There are still many unanswered questions. We urge the Soviet authorities to release the fullest possible information immediately. We have established an expert working group in order to monitor the situation on an hourly basis and advise Ministers on appropriate action.
The lesson of this incident is that the openness which Mr. Gorbachev has said is necessary in Soviet society must become a reality.
Mr. George Robertson: The Opposition welcome the swift action which has been taken to bring home the students and teachers in the areas of the Soviet Union affected by this undoubted catastrophe.
We thank those in the British embassy in Moscow, in the British Council and elsewhere who have acted so quickly. Will the Minister reassure us that the evacuated students and teachers will not have to bear additional cost as a result of this sudden departure? Given the cuts which have already been made in the past few years in the British Council's budget, will he ensure that it is recompensed for any additional costs resulting from this emergency, especially if a decision must regrettably be made about the tour of the Soviet Union by the London Festival ballet this weekend?
Have all the bureaucratic restrictions in the Soviet Union on travel and movement been lifted by the Soviet authorities? This is not a time for pretending to play it cool. Rather it is a time for urgent action.
On the wider issues, it is absurd and outrageous that at this late stage we know so little of this cataclysmic disaster. It is completely unacceptable for the Soviet Union's paranoid secrecy to continue to conceal from neighbouring countries the danger facing their peoples. Radioactivity does not respect the lines on any map or national frontiers, and there is a direct and urgent obligation on the Soviet Union and its new leadership to be frank and forthcoming about what is going on.
Can we be assured that the British Government have offered technical help, given the unique knowledge and experience that we have? When was it offered, and can we be assured that the Government will continue to press it? What are the Government doing about demanding better international standards for civil nuclear power and toughening the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency? Is not one lesson of this dreadful incident for both Britain and the Soviet Union that secrecy and civil nuclear power do not go together?
Mr. Eggar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about Foreign Office officials—I shall pass those remarks on—and about the active role that the British Council has played with regard to the students.
I am sure that the Soviet embassy will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said about Soviet secrecy. I simply repeat what I said in my statement: that it would have been much easier had the Soviet Union been more open in the circumstances.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will repeat the assurance that was given this morning by our ambassador that we would be willing to give technical assistance if we were asked. We have not yet been asked. As for strengthening the IAEA rules, it is of course interesting that, when the rules were drafted, it was very much on the initiative of Soviet and British specialists working together. It is unfortunate that the Soviet Union has not at least conformed to the spirit of those rules.
I am told that the students in Minsk will travel on their revalidated air tickets from Moscow to London under arrangements that have been made by the British Council. We understand that those in Kiev, most of whom are there under the arrangement of Progressive Tours, are making similar arrangements for their return.
As for the hon. Gentleman's request for assurances about expenses that are incurred and the Festival ballet being cancelled, I am sure that he is aware that we are in

939
constant touch with the British Council and the company. As yet, no decision has been made to cancel the tour. We shall continue to co-operate.
I am grateful for the tone in which the hon. Gentleman opened his remarks.
Mr. David Maclean: On behalf of my constituents who have young people studying in Minsk, may I thank my hon. Friend for his exceptionally prompt action in getting people evacuated? Will he make it clear to the Soviets that we will not tolerate any hindrance when it comes to getting our students out of Minsk or Kiev to Moscow and thence to London? Have any plans been laid for medical tests of those who have been evacuated?
Mr. Eggar: I thank my hon. Friend. We have had assurances that no hindrance will be put in the way of those who wish to leave. We shall have to see how matters develop, but we have no reason to believe that any bureaucratic delays will be put in people's paths. We are arranging for students and others who are returning to London, immediately to undergo a full medical check at Oxford. We are also making arrangements to fly out monitoring equipment to Moscow, which will be operated by our embassy there so that we can keep an eye on radioactivity levels in Moscow.
Mr. David Alton: May I join the Minister in condemning the unnecessary time lag and secrecy? Will the survey of possible contamination that the students may have suffered be carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board and will they be monitored regularly? Has the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority offered any technical help to the Soviet Union to fight the fire? If not, why not?
Mr. Eggar: As for the survey of the health of those who return, what happens in future will depend on the examination that they will undergo at Oxford. We are considering that matter carefully. No offer has been made by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority directly, but we are making it quite clear to the Soviet authorities that, if a request is made, we will help as best we can.
Mr. David Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have several constituents who are visiting Kiev and Minsk, notably from Surrey university at Guildford? My hon. Friend says that arrangements are being made to evacuate them through Moscow as apparently, the Soviet authorities' normal rules require that all departures from Russia are through Moscow. Will my hon. Friend prevail on the Soviet authorities in this case, as all the trains and airlines from Kiev to Moscow are very heavily booked, to allow my constituents in Kiev and, if necessary, in Minsk to depart through Prague or Budapest instead, where they can get out much more quickly and with much less hassle and difficulty?
Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the representations that my right hon. Friend had made on behalf of his constituents. Our latest information is that it is not possible to get places on the aeroplanes from Kiev to Moscow tonight, but we believe that places will be made available on the overnight train. Our embassy in Moscow is keeping close tabs on that and we shall certainly consider my right hon. Friend's argument should it be necessary.
Mr. Tony Benn: Although I welcome the Minister's statement about the efforts to safeguard British citizens, he will recognise that people who are contaminated could suffer very long-term effects from cancer. It is not infectious like for example, a plague. President Reagan, most generously and completely, has offered the full facilities of the United States to help the Soviet Union for, in a certain area of nuclear technology, there has always been close co-operation between the Americans, the British and the Russians, especially on nuclear safety.
Will the Government go further than indicating a readiness to help? Will they put at the disposal of the Soviet authorities the experts from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels plc, the National Radiological Protection Board and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which have great experience of handling matters of this kind? As this is a major international environmental catastrophe, can it be seen in that light rather than simply as an opportunity to attack secrecy, which I greatly regret, in the Soviet Union, as there have been accidents or near-accidents in Britain and a major effort to cover up what has happened. Such a disaster could happen in any nulcear power station in the world, including ones here.
Mr. Eggar:: The right hon. Gentleman is developing a considerable ability to miss the point. We will of course make assistance available to the Soviet Union when it is requested. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will reiterate that fact to the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon. The Soviets have already been informed by the Swedes and the Germans that they feel that we are the people who have the most likely expertise in this area because of our experience with graphite fires. Our people are standing by to be of assistance if the Soviet Union requests.
Mr. Michael Latham: When the Prime Minister meets the Soviet ambassador this afternoon, will she make it clear to him that, if this dreadful tragedy is to be properly sorted out to prevent such events in the future, it is essential that the Soviet Union gives all the scientific information properly and gives a great deal more information than it has so far chosen to give its own citizens?
Mr. Eggar: I am confident that my right hon. Friend will be making that point.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I thank my hon. Friend and his officials for their advice and assistance during the night to my constituent in Kiev and her parents. In the event of any obstruction to the evacuation, will he immediately acquaint the House with the fact? Our concern is with our constituents, but is it not the case that, despite the attitude of the Soviet authorities and what we may think of that attitude, our sympathy remains with the Ukrainians and other peoples who have been affected by this disaster?
Mr. Eggar: Of course we express a great deal of sympathy for the people who have been killed and for those who may die in the future as a result of this appalling incident. With regard to information to my right hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members who have been in touch with the office, we will continue, so far as we are able, to give an update directly to hon. Members

941
and to the families of those concerned. We do not anticipate any obstruction, but if there should be any I will inform the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that the Minister's statement was concerned with the evacuation of or assistance to British subjects, not with the general principle, which I know is of great concern? We must stick to the statement. Furthermore, we have a heavy day before us. I intend to give precedence to those hon. Members who were not called on the private notice question yesterday. In view of the business before the House, I can only allow the statement to continue for a further 10 minutes.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Minister arrange for those arriving from the Soviet Union to be thoroughly debriefed so that the greatest amount of information is gathered? Will he ensure that there is radiation measuring equipment, not only in Moscow but at all available locations in eastern Europe where it can be placed? Is this not a situation in which our reactor engineers should use all available channels open to them to contact directly their opposite numbers in the Soviet Union and make available all information on fighting fires in graphite-moderated reactors, whether it is asked for or not?
Mr. Eggar: First of all, of course I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be discussing the situation with the people when they return and we will get the maximum amount of information from those sources. I take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's point about radiological monitoring equipment. I will consider it further. As I said, we were able to get the equipment to Moscow quickly and we hope that it will be operating on Thursday evening or Friday. We will do what we can to make information and assistance available, but we must have the avenues opened up to us. It is not a case of our being deaf to them.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on taking such swift action to evacuate British citizens, wherever they may be in the Ukraine or Minsk. It is a tragedy, and it is with sorrow that I speak in the House, having been born in the Ukraine. A month ago, after 44 years' absence, I visited the very' area where the tragedy occurred. I am sorry to say that, unless the Soviet Union co-operates fully with the West to assist it in finding the cause, nothing much will be achieved. How can the Soviet Union ask for help on the one hand, but, on the other, withhold all the information that is required? I sincerely hope that our Government will put all necessary scientific—not political—pressure on the Soviet Union, and Mr. Gorbachev in particular, to ensure that such a tragedy never occurs again, not only in the Soviet Union but anywhere else in the world.
Mr. Eggar: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, particularly because he has such great personal experience of and personal feeling for the Ukraine. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is all very well to ask for a dialogue from us, but there has to be information coming from the Soviet Union. I can assure the House again that we shall give what assistance we can as soon as we see an avenue through which to give it.
Mr. Greville Janner: The Minister rightly said that he has issued warnings to British people visiting north Poland. Has he warned anyone else? Are
942
there any other preparations made for evacuation? What is the hon. Gentleman's information about the movement of the radioactive cloud? Where is it expected to move to and settle, and is it moving in this direction?
Mr. Eggar: The advice that I gave in my statement referred to north-east Poland rather than north Poland. One of the reasons why, this morning, we established a group of experts to advise us on an hourly basis as to exactly what our advice to British citizens should be, was that we needed to know, among other things, the direction of the wind, to make it clear where the danger was likely to be. At the present moment, there is no danger in this country. We are monitoring radioactivity levels, but there has been no increase above the normal levels.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Is there any evidence that there was even a small-scale nuclear explosion, and even if the whole of one of the reactors were to burn out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Evacuation.") All right. Evacuation. There is great danger from the radiation which has come out of the plant. Can my hon. Friend tell the House, assuming that the whole reactor burnt out, how much radiation would be there, and how it would compare with the radiation from a nuclear bomb?
Mr. Speaker: That was very wide.
Mr. Eggar: I thank my hon. Friend for that creative question. In accordance with Mr. Speaker's wishes, I shall not comment in detail on his points.
Mr. Terry Lewis: The whole House and the country will appreciate the speed with which the Foreign Office and the embassy in Moscow have moved on the evacuation and advice to those with immediatly pending travel. May I take the Minister in another direction and remind him that this summer, many thousands of tourists, myself included, will hope to go to Minsk and Kiev? [HON MEMBERS: "Freebie."] When the yobboes on the Conservative Benches have settled down, I shall press on with my question on this serious subject. Will the situation be monitored? What advice will be given to people who are intending to travel in the medium and longer term?
Mr. Eggar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the Foreign Office. I can assure him that we shall continue to monitor the situation not only in Minsk and Kiev, but in other areas of the western Soviet Union. We shall advise travellers accordingly. Again, our job would be made much easier if the Soviet Union made available more information.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Soviet ambassador that, as one of those who is going to the Soviet Union next month under the leadership of Lord Whitelaw, on the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation—[Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. I am sure that all of us would express real concern—
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Cancel the visit.
Mr. Warren: I do not think that this is at all funny. Many millions of Soviet people are now exposed to radiation, which we would not wish on any citizens in the world. I hope that that will be conveyed to the Soviet ambassador in the United Kingdom. During the discussion would it be possible to ask him if he would accept British charter aircraft to carry out the evacuation speedily, and

943
whether he would be so kind as to inform his Government that if they would only tell us all the grades of fallout from that plant, especially in view of the worry about the plutonium weapon-grade material which is produced there, we could probably render assistance to the Soviet people, which we are all eager to do?
Mr. Eggar: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last point. We anticipate that the evacuation from Moscow will take place with charter aircraft. We are considering what we can do direct into Kiev, should it not be possible to make bookings on normal transport in the near future.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I express a minority opinion? What purpose is served by the House of Commons, at this time of acute crisis, lecturing worried people, as the Soviet leadership must be, on secrecy? Will the Minister reflect that in 1957—this has now emerged under the 30-year rule—when there was a graphite fire at Windscale, his Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, decided not even to tell the Irish? As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, are we not more likely to create the conditions for our experts to do something about it if we shut up about secrecy—that goes for the Minister's Front Bench as much as for mine—than if we lecture the Russians on secrecy? Now is the time for help, not hindrance.
Mr. Eggar: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that our primary concern must be for the safety of British citizens. If we do not have the information on which to advise them, how can we be expected to look after their safety?
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Department on the speedy and efficient way in which the matter has been carried out. Will he assure the House that he will ask the Prime Minister to express to the Soviet ambassador this afternoon the wholehearted contempt of the House for the way in which the Soviet Union has behaved towards its neighbours in not informing them of the exact position?
Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the Soviet ambassador will take note of my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. David Winnick: If the Soviet authority took into its confidence not only the international community but its own people, would not one of the virtues be that it would dampen the rumours and speculations? Has the Minister seen the headlines in some newspapers, claiming that there are up to 2,000 victims? Would it not be useful if the Russian ambassador were told that while the British people have every possible sympathy with the Russian people over what has happened, they find it extremely difficult to understand—without using the same words as the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)—why the full truth is not being told?
Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the Soviet embassy will take that point when it reads the Official Report of our discussions this afternoon.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is not the most significant aspect of this tragic affair the woeful lack of information coming from the Soviet Union? Would my
944
hon. Friend be surprised if some people with an insight into the affairs of the Soviet Union in the light of these events were to feel that there has been a woeful disregard for life there?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of the Munro family in my constituency, whose daughter Catriona was one of the student party at Minsk, may I thank the Minister, the private office and the representatives of the Government in the Soviet Union for the first-class help and attention which they gave the families? They have done much to alleviate the obvious concern and distress of the family at home in the Highlands of Scotland. Regarding the travel arrangements, is it intended that the party at Minsk will in all likelihood fly from Moscow tomorrow and arrive at Heathrow tomorrow evening?
Mr. Eggar:: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and I shall see that they are passed on. We understand that on present schedule the party at Minsk is due to arrive at Heathrow tomorrow evening.
Mr. Peter Viggers: As this is a world problem, will the Government raise through the United Nations the need for the Soviet Union to give the fullest information to the United Nations' affiliate—the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Mr. Eggar: That is a point that we shall want to consider. Our immediate concern is to get the necessary information for us to advise our citizens appropriately.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Reverting to an earlier answer about medical tests on students and other evacuees returning in the near future—which I welcome—will the Minister also give an assurance that those who, for one reason or another, are delayed for several weeks, and do not return to the United Kingdom for one or even two months will receive the same medical screening and assistance when they return? Will he persuade his hon. Friends that some of our medical expertise should be issued to the Ukraine Supreme Soviet and the other local hospitals in the affected areas?
Mr. Eggar: We are keeping medical screening under constant review. Obviously, what we do in future will depend greatly on the results of the screening of the first groups to return. Obviously, if medical assistance is requested, we shall make it available.
Mr. Neil Thorne: In facilitating the evacuation of British personnel, can my hon. Friend comment on the effectiveness of the Soviet civil defence and civil defence and protection procedures and say whether they are in any way inhibited by any bogus nuclear-free zone?
Mr. Eggar: I am afraid that I do not have information on that area.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would rather take the point of order after the application under Standing Order No. 10, as there is also another point of order.

Soviet Nuclear Accident
4.6 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that merits urgent consideration, namely,
"the impact of the Soviet nuclear accident on the future of the British nuclear power programme."
As I was unable to notify you before 12 o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I must draw your attention to certain matters which have come to my notice since that deadline. First, a forecast of 20,000 cancer deaths has been made by Greenpeace. Secondly, there has been an explosion in New Delhi in a heavy water factory for the Indian nuclear industry. Thirdly, restrictions have been placed on water, food and milk consumption in neighbouring countries. Fourthly, Representative Edward Markey, an American congressman, has said, properly, that there is a 45 per cent. risk of such an accident occurring in the United States during the next 20 years.
The matter cannot be contained simply by rebuking the Soviet Union for its secrecy, although I greatly regret that it has not given more information. It may not know what has happened; that is always a possibility. However, it is clear that there has been a melt-down and a fire, with added hazard. It is possible that neighbouring reactors will be affected by the fire and that rivers may be contaminated. This is a major international environmental disaster, comparable in the civil sphere to what happened in Hiroshima when the first bomb exploded.
I am asking that we now have an opportunity to discuss fully the whole nature of the problem. Many British people, not only those with relatives in Russia but those who live near our nuclear power stations, want an opportunity to have the matter fully discussed. We should discuss how far it is true that Britain has been candid about its nuclear industry. For eight years I had responsibility as
946
a Minister, and on many occasions information was not made available to me. This is a matter—[Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen. I am talking about our nuclear power programme. When there was a disaster at Kyshtym in 1958, it was known to the atomic energy authority but was not disclosed for 15 years to British Ministers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, when there was a fire at Windscale it was not disclosed to the Irish, who were deeply concerned. When there were leaks at—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only three minutes in which to speak, and he has used up two and a half of them.
Mr. Benn: The point is that nothing could be more misleading than for responsible Ministers to give the impression that such an accident could not happen here. It could. Openness is one thing, and everyone should want it, but the risk of a tragedy is another. I urge the House to take seriously the need for a debate tomorrow on the whole question of nuclear safety in Britain as well as in other countries.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the impact of the Soviet nuclear accident on the future of the British nuclear power programme."
I in no way under-estimate the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman has put to the House and nor do hon. Members, but, as he knows, the only decision I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business already set down for today or tomorrow.
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Channel Tunnel Bill
4.13 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order on the Channel Tunnel Bill, of which I have given you prior notice.
The Government, through the Department of Transport, have recently circulated to Kent district councils on the consultative committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), Minister of State, Department of Transport, a public document entitled, "Channel Tunnel Timetable". That document, of which I have sent you a copy, purports to set out the future parliamentary timetable of the Channel Tunnel Bill in meticulous detail and in a way that has certainly not been disclosed to the House. In particular, that so-called timetable gives several precise dates of legislative events and stages in the House and the other place. For example, it states that the Select Committee will hold its proceedings from Tuesday 17 June until 24 July.
I submit that that is not just a misguided piece of parliamentary clairvoyance, but a display of Government arrogance—it will be interpreted as such—that has already been greeted with consternation in Kent and by Members of Parliament for constituencies there.
I think that the whole House is aware that there is already concern in Kent at the way in which some of the Bill's scrutiny has been rushed through within a short time. As a result, the people of Kent place great reliance on the hybrid Bill procedure, which allows them to petition the House and, for the first time, to obtain a fair hearing for their grievances. They hope that Parliament will do what the Government have so far failed to do, and will scrutinise the Channel tunnel project with thorough and proper procedures.
Unfortunately, the Department of Transport's published timetable may create the impression that the Select Commitee will be yet another fixed rush job and that Parliament will just dance subserviently to the Government's tune and keep to the Government's timetable. As the guardian of the rights of constituents through their elected representatives, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to rule on the following points?
First, is it in order for a Department to issue a public document giving the parliamentary timetable on a Bill that has not yet even had its Second Reading? Surely that is a contempt of the House. Secondly, will you reassure the House and the people of Kent that no timetable has been imposed by the Government on the Channel Tunnel Bill, and that such a power rests only with Parliament? In particular, will you emphasise that the sitting arrangements and timings for a Select Committee are decided by the members of that Committee, and will you take note of the view that any attempt to rush through a Select Committee's hearings on a Bill of this magnitude in six weeks would be highly unusual, if not irregular?
Finally, will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the Channel Tunnel Bill, far from being at full speed ahead, is already marooned by other procedural snags of the Government's own making? Is it not the case that the hybrid parts of the Bill have already been judged out of time by the Examiners, and that the Bill can now proceed only if the Standing Orders Committee takes the controversial step of granting it an official dispensation?
948
Will you use your good offices to ensure that some second thoughts are given to the Bill by the Government and the usual channels in order to ensure that better parliamentary manners and a greater degree of fair play and fair hearing is shown to my constituents and others whose interests are affected?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) for giving me notice of his point of order, as it has enabled me to go into the matter in some detail.
The hon. Gentleman is correct in stating that the Examiners of the Petitions for Private Bills, to whom the House referred the Bill on 18 April, reported on Monday that, in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill, the relevant Standing Orders have not been complied with. The Examiners' report has therefore been referred in the usual way to the Standing Orders Committee.
As to the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I need say only that progress on the Bill, and the time spent on it, are entirely matters for the House, not for me.
Any informal timetable or other document circulated by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill must be a matter for him. A formal timetable or guillotine could be imposed only by the House.
As the House knows, this Bill is a hybrid Bill, and will follow well-established procedures. If the Standing Orders Committee allows the Bill to proceed, and if the House decides to give the Bill a Second Reading and commits it to a Select Committee, it will be for the Chairman and members of that Committee to decide on the times and duration of its sittings.
Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be grateful to you for that ruling, which meets some of the anxieties raised quite properly by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). But the matter goes a bit further than that. All hon. Members will want to know where on earth the document came from and what involvement the Secretary of State for Transport had in its preparation. Such timetables are not simply manufactured out of thin air. If the Secretary of State for Transport has been involved, I very much hope that the Leader of the House, who is in his place, will convey to him the anger felt on both sides of the House over his consent to its publication. If the Secretary of State is involved, we expect an early statement from him on the matter.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank you for clarifying the position? The position of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) in relation to the Channel Tunnel Bill is well known. I support the concept of the tunnel and the Government's approach, but I also share the concerns aired by my hon. Friend, as it is essential that my Kent constituents should feel that their very real concerns will be properly considered by the House, as you have outlined, Mr. Speaker, and by, in particular, the members of the Select Committee.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need add anything to what I have said. I hope that I have made the position clear.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the document has been referred to, will it be made available

949
to the rest of the House, so that hon. Members may see the wording used and whether the interpretation put on it by hon. Members fits with the actual wording?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know anything about the document. It is a matter for the Government. I understand that it is an unofficial timetable from some hon. Member concerned with the Bill, but I do not know anything about it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 16 MAY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Heddle

Mr. James Wallace

Mr. Cecil Franks

BILL PRESENTED
  DOG FIGHTING (PENALTIES) (No. 2)
  Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to increase the penalties for causing or procuring, or assisting at, the fighting or baiting of any animal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 May and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of the Welsh Development Agency, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grant Committee for its consideration—[Mr. Durant.]

Air Navigation Orders Amendment
4.21 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make Air Navigation Orders subject to negative resolution procedure.
Section 60 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 gives the Secretary of State for Transport the power, by statutory instrument, to regulate air navigation through air navigation orders. On 30 October 1985, Air Navigation Order No. 1643 was made. It was laid before Parliament on 7 November 1985, and came into operation on 1 December 1985. That statutory instrument contains 139 pages, 10 parts, 98 sections and 13 schedules. It is a complex and formidable instrument.
At the time it was laid before Parliament it was subject to the negative resolution, and it would have been possible for hon. Members to pray against it. In theory at least, there was a form of parliamentary scrutiny and control. I say "in theory" because the instrument is so long and complex and contains sections which, when examined carefully, disclose that it gives huge powers to the Secretary of State for Transport, powers over which Parliament no longer has any say or control. For example, article 64(1) in part VIII, which concerns the control of air traffic, states:
"Without prejudice to any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of State may make regulations (referred to in this Order as the Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control) prescribing—
(a) the manner in which aircraft may move or fly including in particular provision for requiring aircraft to give way to military aircraft."
Subparagraph (e) states:
"any other provisions for securing the safety of aircraft in flight and in movement and the safety of persons and property on the surface."
Article 69(1) states:
"Where the Secretary of State deems it necessary in the public interest to restrict or prohibit flying by reason of—…
(iii) national defence or any other reason affecting the public interest".
That is a sweeping and all-embracing power. Article 69(1) (b) states:
"Regulations made under this article may apply either generally or in relation to any class of aircraft."
That is another catch-all power vested in the Secretary of State. I submit that those are wide-ranging and sweeping powers. Not surprisingly, air space users have, in different ways, registered their concern.
My right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers at the Department of Transport are aware of the concern. I have attended meetings with Ministers at which representatives of the independent airlines have voiced their concern about Air Navigation Order 1985, No. 1643. I have also attended meetings at which Ministers have been made aware of defects concerning the legal aspects of a number of the articles and schedules on Air Navigation Order No. 1643.
When Parliament gave the Civil Aviation Authority the power to advise Ministers and Ministers the right to introduce rules of the air with no further reference to Parliament, it did so because it believed that those matters should be handled by experts. The first group of experts was the staff of National Air Traffic Services. National Air Traffic Services is a joint body which is responsible to the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport. It comprises civil servants experienced in air traffic control and serving Royal Air Force officers also experienced in air traffic control. The present controller of NATS is a civil

951
servant. The previous controller was a serving Royal Air Force air marshal. The present deputy controller is a serving Royal Air Force air vice-marshal. The previous deputy controller was a civil servant.
The experts from National Air Traffic Services were required to consult the experts representing all the interested bodies who use the air space. Recommendations which emerged from the consultations regarding the introduction of regulations affecting air space were to be made to the Secretary of State for Transport. The experts were required to consult a body called NATMAC. The chairman of this body is a serving Royal Air Force air commodore.
If the consultations between the experts had worked effectively and the users of the air space had been confident that discussions were not just ritual or, as some have said, a sham, the fact that Parliament has no say in the introduction of new air space regulations would not have mattered. Sadly, I have to report that new regulated air space has been introduced. Evidence claiming to support the need has, upon examination, in more than one instance, been found to be flawed.
I cite the example of Blue 22, the airway between Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. It took me many years to have the airway moved. It was moved to the position where I suggested it should and could have been when it was first proposed. I thank my hon. Frind the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—the Member for Worcester, North (Mr. Spicer)—and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the other place for making the change possible. We remain deeply indebted to them.
Recently, we have seen the introduction of special air space rules at Royal Air Force Brize Norton and the 200 square mile rule 36a mandatory radiocall air space at the United States Air Force base at Upper Heyford. I know that hon. Members are aware of other reasons for it being reported. I shall make my position quite clear. I fully support the decision on the use of that base, and nothing that I have to say is in condemnation of that act. I would support it a second time.
I understand that hon. Members have been advised that microlight balloonists, hang gliders, parachutists and other recreational flying organisations support the measures that have been taken and are happy with the arrangements concerning Brize Norton and Upper Heyford.
Hon. Members have been advised that local gliding clubs are happy with the arrangements on a trial period
952
basis—an arrangement which was made by a working group which was asked to look into the problems that were claimed to exist. In my view, those claims have not been proven. I believe that the near-miss statistics are flawed.
I have been advised by the air space user bodies that, contrary to what hon. Members have been told, none of the bodies is happy. I shall be writing to my hon. Friend at the Department of Transport and will provide evidence that they are not happy. I shall provide him with all the details.
It was not acceptable for a senior RAF officer to advise the air space users' experts at the NATMAC meetings that they should not lobby hon. Members—however well-intentioned that advice was and however it was given. He was not qualified to do so. That was unwise and probably naive.
No one denies that we must have safe air space. No one denies that some controls are essential. I claim that the system of checks and balances which is required in a democracy has broken down. At present, the system is fundamentally flawed.
Regarding the trial at Upper Heyford, the evidence suggests that the air traffic controllers will be unable to handle the radio traffic. In my view, the trial will not produce any reliable evidence on which decisions can be taken. The airlines are unhappy. Commercial and recreational fliers are unhappy. Aviation legislation is in a confused state. The system used to create the legislation is not adequately scrutinised by Parliament. The body responsible for introducing the legislation is supervised by two Ministers—two bosses—which is a most unhappy situation. That is why urgent action is needed. The present policy has structural defects which will lead to management and operational problems. My Bill will make a small contribution towards rectifying the situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Air Navigation Orders Amendment
  AIR NAVIGATION ORDERS AMENDMENT
  Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to make Air Navigation Orders subject to negative resolution procedure: 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 152.]
Orders of the Day
  Public Order Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  OFFENCES OF HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS
  '(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

  (a) he uses words which are threatening, abusive or insulting or behaviour which is threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly, and

  (b) those words or that behaviour cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person, or

  (c) such words or behaviour are likely to harass, alarm or distress another person.

  (2) Offences under this section may be committed in private as well as in public places, but a person using words or behaviour inside a dwelling does not commit such an offence unless the use is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to persons outside that and any other dwelling.
  (3) In subsection (2) "dwelling" has the same meaning as in section 4(2).
  'he—

  (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

  (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

  within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
  (2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
  (3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

  (a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

  (b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

  (c) that his conduct was reasonable.'.

  and amendment (a) thereto, in line 6, at end insert—
  '(c) causes a noise or noises which is or are likely to harass, alarm or distress another person and he has reason to believe that such noise or noises is or are likely to cause such harassment, alarm or distress.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17, and 19 and 22.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: The new clause and the amendments arise from the debris of the late and unlamented clause 5. The Police Federation said:
  "Clause 5 we regard in its present form as a legislative nightmare. We do not regard it as practicable in its present form and its present potential to do that which it is apparently intended to do is close to nil."
  When I arrived somewhat late in Committee, I was delighted to hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) quoting those wise words. Although I would never accuse him of being a born again Christian, I was delighted to find that, in the intervening period between consideration of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and the consideration of this legislation, he had come a long way towards accepting at least the occasional wisdom of the police service. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the group of supporters of the Police Federation and hope that he will long continue to adopt that posture.
  It would be wrong to rehearse in detail my new clause 1, because the House will wish most to hear the
  (4) It is a defence for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.
  (5) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he finds committing an offence under this section.
  (6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  (7) A person is guilty of an offence under this section only if he uses words which are threatening, abusive or insulting or behaviour which is threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly and he intends his words or behaviour to cause alarm, harassment or distress or is reckless as to the consequences of his words or behaviour.'.—[Sir Eldon Griffiths.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.30 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 12.
  Government amendment No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 32 leave out from 'if' to end of line 7 on page 4 and insert
  Government's explanation of their amendments, which, broadly speaking, traverse the same territory as the new clause. In the interests of starting this long Report stage at a good pace, the best thing that I can do is to allow my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office to explain the Government's amendments.
  Clauses 4 and 5, with which this series of amendments deal, are among the most important in the Bill. For a long time we have been conscious of the threat to our people from violent crimes—for example, rape, burglary, vandalism and assaults. We have been less conscious of that which affects large numbers of ordinary people but rarely gets into the headlines—the insults and harassment which distress the elderly, the poor and the lonely in the neighbourhoods of our cities, especially in high-rise buildings. Too often such crimes and harassment are ignored by the media. They are rarely tackled in the House because they do not have the political sex appeal of the larger crimes. The House will be going to the rescue of a large number of ordinary people if it passes the amendments.
  We should be concerned primarily with the victims—the elderly, the pregnant women wheeling their prams in areas where they are set upon by hooligans, the black people in white neighbourhoods and, sometimes, the white

  955
  people in black neighbourhoods, who are confronted by gangs of youngsters who behave in a fashion with which we must deal.
  I am glad that the Government's amendments, with the Opposition's support, have included the offensive literature, signs and other graffiti that can be used to cause distress and to harass.
  I have just returned from Northern Ireland. I know, of course, that that region is not covered by the Bill. This morning I saw a sign which almost precisely illustrated the types of signs with which we should deal. After the petrol bombing of the homes of a large number of Northern Ireland police officers, especially three women police officers who were intimidated out of their flat by petrol bombs, signs were held up saying, in the language of the National Coal Board, "Go home to a nice warm fire. Join the RUC." By any measure that is insulting, but I am not certain that a court of law would necessarily, under the terms of the amendments, bring in a finding of guilty in such cases.
  There is no doubt that the intention behind a sign which says, "Go home to a nice warm fire. Join the RUC" and which is held up in the neighbourhoods in which police officers live is crystal clear. Also crystal clear is the literature put out, I regret to say, by the GLC and some of the London boroughs in their attempts to insult, harass and cause distress to the police service.
  I shall not argue the case for my new clause. I look forward instead to hearing the explanation of my hon. Friend the Minister of State of the Government's amendments, which more or less traverse the same ground as new clause 1.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The greatest environmental nuisance from which our people suffer is noise caused by their fellow citizens. The law is inadequate. The police and environmental health officers believe that it is inadequate. Large numbers of people in the inner cities whose life is made hell by noise from their neighbours certainly know that the law is inadequate.
  The environmental health officer who deals with all the problems of pollution would be able to tell us that the greatest number of complaints that he receives on pollution concern noise and noise nuisance. It is a striking fact that in the past two years the number of complaints concerning noise has increased by about 25 per cent. each year.
  I should like to give two examples. I remember coming up to London one evening at 8 o'clock. I got out of my car and heard the noise of a pop concert. It was the loudest noise in the vicinity. If I had tried to talk to someone on the street, I would have found it difficult because of the noise. I found out later that the pop concert was a third of a mile away from where I was standing. There must have been 250,000 people within earshot of that din. The concert had started at half-past 2 in the afternoon. No doubt the police had received countless complaints. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the police could do nothing about it. There was, of course, always the possibility of going to the environmental health officer, but, because it was Lambeth, no such officer was on duty at that time. Of course, he could have done little about the problem.
  My second example concerns a letter from Mr. Bailey, a constituent of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
  956
  Mr. Bailey kindly sent me a copy of a letter that he sent to his Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is not here, but I hope that he will not mind if I read a short extract. The letter stated:
  "as I am writing this letter, there is music playing from a flat loud enough to drown the television in my own flat … The particular flat in question had a party last night … and after a sleepless night … at 7.30 the music was still blasting out. This was Sunday evening. On Saturday evening there were five all night parties, so that evening was sleepless. Last Wednesday the flat that is making the noise tonight had had another all night party … All this … takes place in one section, one of the quadrangles of the estate on which I live, to say nothing of the fact that there are also parties being organised in other sections …
  These are not simply parties, a large number of them are paying businesses brought about by tickets being printed and issued in public houses … charges being made … the printed tickets advertise 'the blues party sounds' disco equipment, lights, DJs etc … Add to this you get a great movement of people wandering, running and shouting round the balconies, knocking doors at all hours, going from one party to another and back again, shouting across from one walkway to another at each other, bottles are broken on the walkways—milk bottles, wine bottles etc., walls are urinated on and to have to use the lifts in the morning is foul as you literally stand in pools of urine where the lifts are used as a public convenience.
  The position at present is that all that can be done by the police is that they can ask for the noise to be turned down, but it rarely has any effect as they have no power to reinforce this. The environmental health officer can be informed though cannot be called out at the necessary times".
  Mr. Bailey and the people who live near him, and the many thousands of other people in our inner cities, have a real problem to live with. It is time that we stopped tolerating the intolerant making life intolerable for many of our citizens.
  As a result of the experience that I had with the pop concert, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister and asked what the Government could do about it. He kindly wrote back to me and said:
  "Experience suggests that Part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 offers considerable scope for action against environmental noise … However, I agree that it does not always provide the perfect solution."
  We are not looking for the perfect solution, but we are looking for a solution. The letter continued:
  "There can be a problem where the objective is to stop the noise, rather than prevent recurrence".
  I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he is in the vicinity of the noise he will find that it is a big problem. My hon. Friend's letter went on:
  "successful action usually depends on the availability of the EHO to act during the night, during the holidays or at weekends and this unfortunately is not always possible. Enforcing a notice through the courts would, of course, take time."
  I have just proved to my hon. Friend that that is a great underestimate and is a problem as well.
  A number of local authorities are anxious to take action to deal with this problem, but many of them are less aggressive in their supervision of this issue. In that context, one has only to look at the local authority run by that seminal influence on the philosophy of the Labour party, Mr. Bernard Grant—Haringey—to answer the question about whether the law is effectively applied there. My hon. Friend said in his letter:
  "the Public Order Bill currently before Parliament includes a provision for the creation of a new offence of disorderly conduct, which in certain circumstances could apply to the nuisance caused by noisy parties."

  957
  That is this Bill. I welcome that provision and regard it as an invitation to help to reinforce the Bill by bringing forward my amendment. I may well seek to press it to a Division, but we shall see how we go.
  A short article was published not long ago in Environmental Health. Opposition Members may be every bit as interested in that article as are Government Members, because many of their constituents suffer the same problem. The article stated:
  "Early in 1983 the London Borough of Waltham Forest received a complaint about noise nuisance being caused by loud music, live and recorded, being played by a young couple (with two children and pregnant with a third), in a tower block. The nuisance was confirmed by an environmental health officer and despite verbal warnings it continued. In August"—
  hon. Members should bear in mind that the nuisance started early in 1983–
  "a Section 58 notice was served on them both. Ten days later a contravention was witnessed by an environmental health officer. Legal proceedings were instituted and came to Court on the 8th November."
  The section 58 notice was served in August and legal proceedings did not come to court until 8 November. The article continued:
  "The case was adjourned and there followed two more adjournments. The music at this time was still continuing to such an extent that one complainant took his family into bed and breadfast accommodation and another slept on a park bench.
  The Council then decided to seek an injunction which was granted on the 19th December. On the 23rd December the Section 58 case came to Court and the defendants were found guilty, and each fined £200 with £100 costs.
  They appealed against conviction and sentence but failed to attend the Crown Court hearing in May 1984."
  —the original nuisance having started well over a year before—
  "In July the music started again, intermittently at first but then more persistently. On the 1st October a warning letter was sent and apparently ignored. The Council then reluctantly took action under the injunction and on the 4th December 1984"—
  nearly two years after the original offence—
  "the case appeared in the High Court.
  The Judge found in the Council's favour but due to the now three children did not sentence the woman defendant. The man, however, was given 7 days imprisonment, suspended for 3 months. The Judge further ordered that the music should never again be a nuisance and after 10 pm should not even be audible anywhere outside their flat."
  I wonder whether the people have had even that success. That was two years of hell for all the people living in that neighbourhood and that was all that could be done under the law as it exists.
  My hon. Friend is bringing forward his amendment which will make it an offence if anybody indulges in disorderly behaviour
  "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
  If such an offence occurs, a police constable will be able to ask the offender to desist and, if noise is the offence, to turn down the noise. If the offender does not do so, in the final event arrest will ensue. We need to know whether this will apply if a noise case is taken to court. Will the court interpret my hon. Friend's amendment as applying to noise?
  4.45 pm
  We are anxious to know whether the law is wide enough and whether it can be applied. Many of the people who suffer are the weak, like the little old lady who has to put up with this din week in and week out. Under the present law, if the case is taken to court, the probability is that such a lady will have to go to court and testify. I ask the House
  958
  to think of the potential harassment, victimisation and intimidation she would have to consider. She would not go to court because it would not be worth her life to do so. To go to court is not a realistic alternative for her.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: My hon. Friend is right, but does he agree that the problem is even worse than he has outlined? There is a civil remedy, but no legal aid is available for those who take that sort of action. Because of the time-wasting tactics in such a case, the person that my hon. Friend describes would find herself with enormous court bills and no remedy at the end of the day.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters, and I accept his advice. That is the reality of the problem, and the experience of many unfortunate people has taught them that they have no real remedy.
  I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about his amendment. Will it remedy the situation? My amendment seeks to give the police powers which will be sensibly used, because the police are always cognisant of the overall necessity of maintaining public order. If this nuisance occurs and many people in the neighbourhood complain, the police will be empowered to go and tell the offender to desist. If he does not desist, the police will be able to take further action. Short of such powers, I do not know how we are to rid our neighbourhoods of this nuisance. I am sure that my hon. Friend will look at the matter as carefully as he can and, hopefully, will see what the Government can do to help.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am slightly puzzled by the part of Government amendment No. 12 which reads:
  "except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.'."
  However, having seen such an incident once, a passerby would be less likely to do anything or become annoyed than someone in a house across the road who must look at an offending sign day in and day out. I should like to know why the amendment has been so worded.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I support amendment (a) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to Government amendment No. 13. He has hit on an issue important to those of us who represent inner-city constituencies. Not a surgery of mine passes by without someone complaining about noise nuisance from above them or to the side of them. Such noise arises from parties of various kinds and ranges from guitars to bongo drums, all of which causes immense unhappiness. I suggested that such occurrences are not the everyday life of parliamentary draftsmen or Ministers' advisers. Consequently, they may not realise the problems faced by ordinary people who live in blocks of flats in inner cities.
  The Minister is a robust Yorkshireman who comes from a part of the world that used to provide superb cricketers. He is therefore able to knock odd advice away from him and to say, "They may be right in detail, but I want this done. Find a form of words that will do it." I am sure that that is the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, whose amendment I was delighted to sign, and that is what I certainly want. I do not want to be told, "We think that it is covered by the Bill, but it will

  959
  have to be tested in the courts." We do not want to be told, "It is rather difficult and we are not sure whether it can be done."
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said that he might have to force this issue to a Division, there was laughter from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not find this a funny matter, nor do my constituents who have come to me with very real problems and who have been unable to sleep for weekend after weekend.
  I do not expect the Minister to say that he accepts the amendment, because I know that no drafting by Back Benchers ever satisfies the rigid criteria of parliamentary draftsmen—and understandably so. I hope that he will accept that there is a real problem in this regard and say that if the amendment is not pressed he will return at a later stage with a form of wording that will cover the important issues that we are seeking to raise.
  I hope that the Minister will understand that this is one of the two most frustrating types of case with which we must deal. At present we cannot help people. We can tell them to use the byelaws and to get three people to sign, but then those who have signed are subjected to unpleasant threats.
  There is a case in my constituency at present of people who have done immense service for charity in London and overseas. One is now sick with heart trouble. The council moved those people to a quiet flat, but they are being harassed by a group of young 12-year-olds who constantly skateboard outside, thus making it difficult for them to sleep. When the woman remonstrates gently—and she is a gentle woman—with some of the parents, she is verbally harassed and told to mind her own business. That was not the phrase that was used, but I doubt whether the House would wish to hear the filthy language that exists even in Hampstead. The following night, until dusk, these skateboarding youngsters made life for my constituents utter hell.
  That is also a form of noise, and while it may not be possible to bring it within the scope of the amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, it illustrates the point that a citizen should not be obliged to get the support of other citizens who are then exposed to the verbal harassment and intimidation that might follow.
  The intervention of the police under reasonable circumstances would be a more pleasant way of proceeding for the innocent victims of extremely unpleasant circumstances. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort to our constituents who are so disturbed by all this.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): In responding to my hon. Friends, I wish also to speak to the Government amendments that have been grouped with the new clause. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) for having the generosity to move his new clause in such a rapid and courteous way. I shall attempt to deal with the subject of the new clause in my comments on the Government's amendments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) asked about the purpose of amendment No. 12. That relates to clause 4, which replaces the
  960
  existing offence of threatening behaviour in section 5 of the Public Order Act. Although the amendments propose a complete redraft of sections 1 and 2, they contain only two changes. The first was a point put to us by the police to reformulate the test of conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, and clause 4 specifies parties to the conduct. However, in making the offence more specific, we unintentionally lost some of the conduct currently caught by section 5. In particular, clause 4 would not catch the situation where the defendant used threats towards one person in a way that was likely to provoke a violent response by someone else—for example, the victim's parent or spouse.
  There was doubt whether certain other triangular conflicts would be covered. Amendment No. 12 puts this beyond doubt by inserting "or another" in the appropriate place in clause 4(1). In this respect it brings it into line with section 5 of the Public Order Act. That is why the amendment is so drafted.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: In my new clause and in the Government amendment, the offence is not committed where one person is inside a building and the other person is inside that or another dwelling. The problem is that if two flats are adjacent to each other and a vile notice in the window is visible to a person living in an adjoining flat, the other person is aggravated, annoyed, harassed and insulted, but the police can do nothing about it because the person who is harassed is in another dwelling.
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will recall that in Committee we spent a substantial time discussing the extent to which the offence should extend to individuals within private dwellings. He will also be aware that the other part of our amendment refers to the display or writing of visible representation
  "which is threatening, abusive or insulting."
  We made it quite clear that that does not have the same impact as words or behaviour outside. My hon. Friend is therefore right to say that in this case we are constrained by the privacy of separate homes. He will recall that if a person made an insulting remark or displayed a sign for the benefit of outsiders, that would be covered. But it would not be covered if it was within the same private dwelling. If that does not satisfy my hon. Friend, I shall take the matter up separately with him.
  The main amendment is No. 13, which reflects the redrafting to clause 5. There are three changes of substance to which I should draw attention. Much the most important is the introduction of a victim. We said in Committee that we hoped to introduce such a requirement, but without going so far that the victim would be required to give evidence in every case. Some doubt was expressed as to whether we could square the circle in that way, but we believe that we have managed to do that by importing into clause 5(1) the additional requirement that the defendant's behaviour should be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
  5 pm
  The victim need not be someone who was alarmed, harassed or distressed, but someone who saw or heard the defendant's conduct and was likely to be alarmed by it. The prosecution will not necessarily have to produce the victim in court, but it will have to identify in each case who it was who was likely to be alarmed and so on. The

  961
  court's mind will thus be concentrated on the impact, or likely impact, of the defendant's behaviour on those who were around at that time.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I well understand the basis upon which the changes have been made, and, of course, I welcome the concessions that have been made, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the form of the amendment dealing with the likelihood of someone being affected is yet another example of the law paying slavish adherence to the hearsay rule? Does he not think that it is high time that the hearsay rule was re-examined in respect of offences such as this? Does he not think that it would have been far better to require there to be somebody who was actually harassed, alarmed or distressed, but to permit hearsay evidence to be given in court as to the fact that that person had been harassed, alarmed or distressed? I make the suggestion particularly in the light of the White Paper on criminal justice which was recently published in which the Government appear to accept the principle that we must re-examine the hearsay rule to see whether we need to adhere to it as tightly as we have.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman would have witnessed, if he had been a member of the Standing Committee, the substantial discussions that took place on how far we should go to provide an offence which would protect although it would identify those persons on whom a mischief was committed and which did not require such persons to face the defendant. The Committee was also concerned about the court relying solely on the evidence of the arresting officer or the officer bringing the charge.
  The points made that convinced us that we were going in the right direction were, firstly, that there was a real need to protect the vulnerable members of society and not to require, in every case, the victims to be produced in court. We believed equally that it was necessary to remove as far as possible the accusation that there was a revival of the sus law and that it was not simply a matter of hearsay or suspicion. We believe that we have gone some way in the drafting of this amendment to achieving those aims.
  Where an offence is committed a person must be within sight or hearing whom the officer can claim would have been likely to have been harassed, alarmed or distressed. The amendment still provides for more direct evidence to be produced, but if we are to protect the vulnerable from giving evidence in cases involving disorderly conduct from young hooligans we would not want that to happen in every case.
  The victim must certainly be proved to be someone who had been alarmed, harassed or distressed or that the defendant's conduct was at least likely to alarm. The prosecution will not necessarily have to produce the victim, though it must identify who it was who was likely to be alarmed or distressed. In that way, the amendment will have the desired effect.
  It is not enough for magistrates to feel that the person would have been alarmed or distressed, or that someone might have been so if present at the scene. They must ascertain who was there and whether that person was likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed by the defendant's conduct. We believe that that is an important new safeguard which should help to quell any remaining fears that the disorderly conduct provision is a revival of sus.
  The next change that we have made to clause 5(1) has been to delete the requirement that the defendant must
  962
  have reasonable cause to believe that his words or behaviour are likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress. That reflected the views expressed in Committee that we wanted to provide a defence for the defendant who was not aware and had no reason to be aware that his behaviour was likely to cause alarm and so on and that this safeguard might perhaps be achieved by reinserting "reasonable grounds to believe" as a defence. Clause 5(3)(a) of the amendment does that by providing a defence that the defendant had no reasonable cause to believe that anyone was likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed by his behaviour. Clause 5(3)(b) provides a similar defence for a defendant inside a dwelling.
  Finally, amendment No. 13 deals with a consequential amendment to clause 5 flowing from the deletion of clause 8(5). We initially considered an amendment similar to that I described earlier to clause 4 which would have brought within the offence the distribution or display of any writing and so on. However, if clause 5 were recast to catch the distribution of written matter, letters would come within its scope. That would go potentially very wide if the offence extended to all insulting or abusive correspondence which was likely to alarm, harass or distress. It would cut across the work on poison pen letters currently being done by the Law Commission. For that reason we decided to restrict clause 5 to the display of any writing, sign arid so on.
  Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19 are minor and consequential amendments to the amendment I have been discussing. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) draws attention to a very distressing position which he amplified in the examples he gave. It is his intention that we should add a new sub-paragraph to clause 5(1) which specifically penalises the causing of noise which is likely to harass, alarm or distress another person. I must tell my hon. Friend that we cannot accept his amendment as it stands because we have now deleted from the offence the phrase "reasonable cause to believe". However, I hope that I might persuade him that at least some of the examples that he has cited would be covered by the offence that we have revised. In introducing a requirement of a victim we deliberately provided that it should be someone within hearing or sight of the defendant so that noise alone is not excluded from disorderly conduct. Blowing whistles, banging dustbin lids and shouting obscenities would all come within the scope of the offence, as would some of the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North as they are examples of disorderly behaviour. Using insulting or abusive words likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress will also come within the scope of the offence.
  Disorderly conduct may well be appropriate to prosecute people who use noise to harass others, but it would still have to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that that was the intention of the use of the noise, or that the person was simply paying no heed to the consequences of using excessive noise in the street. Where there is persistent noise nuisance a special procedure under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 may well be appropriate and may well be a more appropriate channel to follow.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North drew particular attention to the problem caused by long and noisy parties which remain a persistent nuisance and cause distress and harassment to other residents in the area. Section 58 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 enables

  963
  an officer of the local authority to serve a notice on the person causing the noise. My hon. Friend is well aware of the responsibilities which lie in those areas. If the recipient fails to comply with the notice, criminal proceedings may be instituted, although I accept that that does not bring swift satisfaction.
  My hon. Friend must realise that if the new powers are not sufficient we must look again at the position to ensure that we have available the primary powers to deal with the nuisance caused by constant music noise. That power will be found within the Control of Pollution Act; music noise is not, of itself, disorderly conduct.
  Of course, this is the first time that we have discussed this issue in the Bill. I therefore tell my hon. Friend that I am persuaded from what he has said that we should take more time to examine the problem and perhaps to enter into discussions with the police about it so that we do not take precipitate action. If my hon. Friend can supply me with further examples of the kind of problems he has addressed in his remarks and if there are gaps in the law, we shall see what we can do to fill them.
  However, the extension of clause 5 in the way proposed by my hon. Friend's amendment will not help to ease the distress felt by neighbours as a result of noisy parties. I shall want to examine that point further and, as the Bill proceeds, we may wish to come back to that matter. I would be grateful to have the assistance of further examples from my hon. Friend or from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), and I shall enter into discussions with the police on those issues.
  In the light of those assurances, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will withdraw his clause and allow us to examine the procedure further.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Amendment No. 13 is a major improvement. We welcome the steps which the Government have taken to change the clause in the course of redrafting. However, we still have a number of doubts.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends know only too well from everyday experience the difficulties which face many people, particularly in inner city areas, as a result of people who gather in some numbers and cause harassment, alarm or distress. On some of the council estates in my constituency youngsters gather at the bottom of staircases, around blocks or in dark corners and make a considerable amount of noise, frequently late into the evening. Many people, particularly single elderly people living on their own, go in some considerable fear of the activities of such people.
  The answer to that problem lies in good sensible practical policing. Again, there are examples to be found in my constituency of tenants sitting down with council officers, counsellors and the local police to work out a programme of action to improve the physical fabric of such estates in order to reduce the opportunities for such gatherings and to discuss with the police how to patrol and deal with such action. In the cases where that solution has been tried it has worked and there has been much improvement.
  The major practical response to such problems and difficulties, which all of us recognise exist, certainly all of us who represent inner city areas, must lie in
  964
  improvements to the fabric of our neighbourhoods and estates and in good sensible patrolling by police officers on the beat who know their local patch and the local people.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman is describing a situation that we all know. Does he agree that, in addition to what he has said, it would also be helpful to allow the police on to the estates, where they can be of direct assistance to the people living there?
  Mr. Smith: I would certainly agree that beat policing by police officers on council estates, and indeed in council blocks, is to be welcomed. In my area the local authority has issued a standing invitation to the police to do so. I particularly welcome close and careful discussion between tenants, the council which owns the property and the police to ensure that concerted action is taken to deal with such problems.
  We still have some disquiet about amendment No. 13 and the new offence of disorderly conduct which the Government have brought forward in response to the acknowledged difficulty. First and foremost, we welcome the fact that the Government wish to include the presence of a potential victim. I stress the word "potential" because the amendment does not make the presence of a victim a necessity. Opposition Members would have preferred to see an actual victim and actual distress and harm having been caused for an offence to be committed. Indeed, we would have welcomed the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about the kind of evidence that might well be permissible in order to prove that actual harm, distress or alarm was caused.
  5.15 pm
  Let me give one obvious example. If, on a council estate, an elderly tenant went in fear because of a gathering of youngsters and fear was caused, but the elderly tenant was reluctant, for understandable reasons, to give evidence in court, it should surely be possible, for example, for the tenants association on that estate to give evidence on that person's behalf. That would be a sensible way to approach the matter. However, the Government have come up with the formula of the presence of a person having to be demonstrated, but that the distress, alarm or harassment must simply be likely to be caused, rather than actually caused. We are worried about that, because it leaves us with a hypothetical action being the subject of an offence, rather than an actual action being the subject of an offence.
  Secondly, we are worried that the Government have not seen fit to include, as they would have done if they had followed the advice of their own White Paper, the word "substantial" as a clarifying definition in the nature of the offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress. It would have brought back a distinction between inconvenience being caused and fear being generated, which is the nub of the problem in attempting to define an offence of this kind. We should have preferred to see the word "substantial".
  Thirdly, we are worried that the burden of proof appears to have been changed in the amendment—the change which the Minister described—from the prosecution having to prove that someone had reasonable cause to believe that the use of the words or behaviour was likely to harass, alarm or distress, to the defendant having

  965
  to prove that he had no reason so to believe. That changes the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence, and we are worried about the impact of that.
  Those are our three major concerns about the clause as it would stand if the amendment were accepted. We are even more deeply worried about amendment (a) to the proposed amendment No. 13. We would not wish to see this amendment accepted, and we warn the Minister against too ready an ear being given by him to his Back Benchers. We are especially worried about the difficulty of definition. All of us who represent inner city areas, where people live close together, accept and acknowledge that there is a noise problem. However, we do not believe that inserting noise into the list of potential offences in the clause would present a solution to that problem.
  Mr. Marlow: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that action of some sort needs to be taken to reinforce the law with regard to the noise nuisance which he has been discussing?
  Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, I shall answer his point. It is difficult to distinguish between the noise which is an inconvenience to others but which would not, in all reasonableness, be described as a criminal offence, and the noise which, because of its loudness, persistence and close proximity to others, should become subject to the criminal law. We are worried because, if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted, it would be difficult for the courts to know where to draw the line.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment might have a deterrent effect if it were put on the statute book? People might think twice before acting in such an inconsiderate manner.
  Mr. Smith: I am always doubtful about legislating for reasons other than to create an offence. It is not sensible to legislate to give messages to the general public. However, action can be taken, and I would welcome any moves to make a civil proceeding on issues of noise easier for the public to undertake. At present, it is a daunting and difficult process for ordinary members of the public to undertake.
  Mr. Marlow: If there is a robust group of young people who consistently make a lot of loud noise, and if there is an elderly, relatively defenceless citizen in proximity who is persistently and consistently abused by this noise, how can the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be possible to take a civil remedy? How could that person, with all the potential intimidation that would be present, pursue a civil case through the courts—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: And the expense.
  Mr. Marlow: —let alone the expense.
  Mr. Smith: Many suggestions could be made, including making it much easier to use the local authority environmental health service to assist in such action. The Opposition would prefer such a procedure to be examined, rather than the Government seeking to put a sweeping power on to the statute book which could be open to wide misinterpretation.
  The Opposition would also say—this is a crucial matter—that it is much better to endeavour to prevent such distress, alarm and noise from taking place than to attempt to create offences after the event. We must enable
  966
  local authorities to improve the standards of their estates and neighbourhoods. We should pursue that route vigorously.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman has tried to find a way through a difficult problem. Does he accept that the majority of environmental health authorities are open only during normal working hours and that much of the trouble occurs outside those hours? Does he also accept that much of the noise nuisance occurs in purpose-built blocks of council flats which have not been affected by a lack of money for maintenance? Even if they were superbly improved as the hon. Gentleman wishes, doors and windows would unfortunately still be left open arid the noise would pour out. Does he accept that changing the civil law to make it easier and quicker to obtain redress will not help those whom he and I wish to help?
  Mr. Smith: I did not wish to turn this into a party political debate, but it grieves me to hear a Member who supports a Government who have withdrawn rate support grant from local authorities and rate capped authorities in inner cities say that environmental health offices are not open for long enough, and that environmental health officers are not available in sufficient numbers or at the right times to assist tenants in such circumstances.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: They never have been.
  Mr. Smith: It also grieves me to hear from a Member who supports a Government who have cut housing investment allocations to local authorities by two thirds during the past seven years that there are problems in the standards of construction and maintenance on council estates.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill.
  Mr. Smith: I am not straying from the Bill. I am identifying a major problem in the prevention of crime, and the distress, alarm and harassment caused to individuals who live in inadequate accommodation.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: We are talking about windows being open.
  Mr. Smith: That is a major problem, and cuts in resources available to local authorities are a major cause of that problem.
  We are considerably worried about some aspects of the Government's amendment. We are especially worried about the absence of a victim, and the fact that the victim need only be a potential or likely victim. Some aspects of the offence are similar to the sus law, which is bad for those who must be protected from such behaviour and bad for the police.
  Although the Opposition have that major reservation, we shall not divide the House on the amendment, because major advances have been made on the original clause in the Bill that we debated on Second Reading. We are worried that the delicate balance between protecting the peace and quiet of individual citizens and protecting the civil liberties of other citizens, which the Bill is all about, has not yet been struck by the Government. Despite our worries, we welcome the improvements which were won in Committee and which the Government have introduced in the amendment.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the Government's attempt to meet what was

  967
  undoubtedly the most serious matter debated in Committee on clause 5 and its ambit. The Minister will agree that no issue exercised more hon. Members from different parties. It was recognised that the Government's Bill was quite out of line with their own White Paper and that the new offence which was being created would not require the presence of a victim or that the victim should have suffered serious harassment, alarm or distress. The Government have made an important amendment, broadly in line with what the Minister promised in Committee. He has, therefore, made a measurable improvement to the Bill.
  I still have doubts as to whether the Minister has wholly squared the circle, as I think he put it in Committee, in that I suppose it will still be necessary to demonstrate by evidence that there was such a victim. That will place upon the police some requirement to prove that there was somebody there and that the somebody was not just a figment of an overheated imagination. So the presence of the victim in court may on occasion be a necessary part of the process of obtaining a conviction under the clause as amended. I am bound to say that I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing. There will be many cases where evidence of this kind which obtains convictions will act as a strong deterrent to behaviour of the kind that the clause is designed to catch.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has a very good point. I am sure that he will accept that where the police can find a suitable person to come forward, a robust person who is not likely to be intimated by others, they will wish to produce such a person to the court. The point that we are really getting at here is that some people are fearful of the consequences of giving evidence. That is the heart of the matter.
  Mr. Maclennan: That is right. That is why the Minister was sensitive to the need to try to avoid a situation in which a conviction could not be obtained without the evidence of the victim. The Minister has made an appreciable move. I welcome it, and I do not propose to seek to divide the House on the amendment.
  Mr. William Cash: Having had experience of a peace convoy and its activities in and around my constituency in Stafford, where a considerable amount of alarm was caused to the local community and to individuals, I strongly welcome this amendment, which has been given careful consideration by the Government. I am sure that the chief constable of Staffordshire, who has helped to work out proposals which would enable these measures to go through, will be equally pleased, as will my constituents.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: It falls to me now to propose whether new clause 1 be pressed. Perhaps I can comment very briefly on what my hon. Friend has had to say.
  I cannot see that the Government's amendments are vastly better than new clause 1, but I accept, of course, that, with the benefit of parliamentary counsel, which was not available to the Police Federation when I drafted new clause 1, the Minister is likely to be better advised.
  I was for my sins chairman of the Noise Council while Minister at the Department of the Environment, a task that I think my hon. Friend took on himself somewhat later.
  968
  I also drafted, or was the Minister responsible for drafting, much of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, carried through by the successor Government when we lost office. I am conscious of the limitations that it imposes on those who wish to bring actions for noise nuisance. I subsequently became president of the Association of Environmental Health Inspectors and discussed with its members on many occasions their difficulty in enforcing that law. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) was quite right in saying that it is sometimes very difficult to find an environmental health inspector on a Saturday evening when much of the nuisance occurs.
  There is a problem here, and my hon. Friend the Minister genuinely accepted it. I understood the reservation expressed from the Opposition Front Bench about it. I would have thought, however, that at least in some cases the phrase "disorderly behaviour within the hearing"—the words in this clause—would catch at least some of the worst forms of musical noise that are persistently directed at people and cause distress.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will look into the matter seriously. I think that I can say that the police service will be anxious to co-operate with him, because one is conscious of the fact that there is unlikely to be legislation of this scope again for some years. We might as well deal with it now as wait for what could be a decade or more to have another vehicle as apt as this one to tackle the problem. So I hope that my hon. Friend will press on seriously with his consultations with the police to see if he can produce a solution before the Bill goes to another place.
  Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend agree that the very last thing that the police—or, for that matter, the public—want is for the police to be embroiled in neighbours' disputes and that this is to be avoided at all costs?
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I was going to say that at the end of my remarks but my hon. Friend allows me to say it now. The police dislike being dragged into arguments about whether music is noise or music. Some may think that Beethoven is noise; others may think that bop is noise. There is a problem here, and definition is a tricky matter. However, it may be possible for the Minister to come up with some solution before the Bill concludes its processes through the House.
  I have one technical point to make to my hon. Friend in respect of Government amendment No. 12. He sought to deal with my intervention and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). May I try again to explain what is bothering us? If I were to put up in my back window a most offensive notice which was provocative to my immediate neighbour looking through his back window, that could certainly qualify as behaviour which was caught by this clause.
  The note that my hon. Friend very courteously passed to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and me contained the advice that all the affronted person had to do was to step outside his house. Then, if he could see the notice displayed in his neighbour's window, the offence would have been created. Alas, with back-to-back houses, particularly when one is ten storeys up, if I were to step outside my house in such a fashion as to be able to see that offensive notice, I would immediately fall a considerable distance and break my neck in the process. The only way

  969
  that I can step outside is through my front door, and from my front door, by definition, I cannot see what is visible through my back window.
  This is a simple practical problem. I know that my hon. Friend, in his diligent manner, will address it, and I look forward to his taking care of it in another place.
  The Government have the balance right between not reintroducing sus and avoiding the practical problems of the police being unable in all circumstances to provide a victim who is willing to come to court. It is because I think that the Government have the balance right that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause in favour of the amendment of the Government.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Marlow: May I say a few words on my amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. We will come to the hon. Member's amendment in due course. We have already discussed it.

New Clause 3

  ABUSE OF UNION FLAGS
  'Any person who uses the union flag in any procession or demonstration the purpose of which is to stir up hatred against a racial group in Great Britain or at which such hatred is likely to be stirred up shall be guilty of an offence.'.—[Mr. Lawrence.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in clause 12, in page 8, line 4, at end insert
  'or if its intention is to incite racial hatred'.
  Mr. Lawrence: The name of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) ought also to appear as supporting new clause 3, but by a printing error his name appears on the marshalled list as supporting amendment No. 1.
  One of the most pernicious and objectionable kinds of public disorder that is too often perpetrated today is public disorder connected with racial hatred. This is particularly objectionable, because in our multiracial society an increasing number of people who come from races not indigenous to the United Kingdom are easly offended, hurt and distressed by manifestations of this kind. It is to deal with that matter that part III of the Bill has been particularly and importantly created. It deals with a whole range of despicable offences that cause racial hatred.
  One of the most sickening and offensive manifestations of racial hatred is when the National Front and its satellite organisations march through the streets carrying the Union flag, as though the people of Great Britain approve of that kind of racialism, or any racialism, as though the people who gallantly fought under the Union flag in the second world war against fascism have relented of their activity and now favour what some of them laid down their lives to oppose.
  It is difficult to think of a more insulting abuse of decent society than to have racially hateful processions being swathed in the honour and dignity of the Union flag. In order to avoid the kind of distress that is caused not only to racial minorities but to every decent citizen in this
  970
  country, it is necessary to take more action than is available under part III of the Bill. Unfortunately, we do not seem now to respect the flag, or to encourage respect for it, as we ought to do. Those of us who have the privilege from time to time of going to the United States cannot help but notice that every office of state and that every office of public administration has, by the desk, the United States flag. Hardly any activity of a public kind in the United States takes place without some reference to, or some prayer directed to, their union flag.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: They do not have a queen.
  Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend points out that they do not have a queen, but makes the fact that we do not have such respect even worse because, in a sense, the Union flag is an embodiment of the monarchy and a manifestation of the monarchy, for which we in this country have so much respect.
  As long as there is no special provision to deal with abuse of the flag, such abuse will continue. So will the dissatisfaction and distress of decent British citizens and racial minorities whom we in this place have to protect. As long as no offence arises from such abuse, distress will needlessly be caused. My amendment will remedy that defect in our law. It will encourage respect for the Union flag. It will restore some degree of decency to political demonstrations, which we must, of course, tolerate and perhaps encourage in this country, but which often get out of hand.
  Manifestations of public disorder are dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. A provision that specifically makes it an offence to abuse the Union flag will have the additional virtue of weakening the public persona of that most repulsive of all political groups, the National Front, and its satellite organisations.
  5.45 pm
  As for amendment No. 28, under the Bill, conditions on public processions can be imposed by a senior police officer in certain circumstances. He can do so if he reasonably believes, first, that a procession may result in serious public disorder; secondly, if it may result in serious damage to property; thirdly, if it will cause serious disruption to the life of the community; and, fourthly, where the purpose of the organisers is the intimidation of others. That is all very praiseworthy and welcome, and sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will support provisions that deal with matters of that kind, but my complaint is that the line has been unnecessarily drawn at that point.
  Where the purpose of the organisers is the intimidation of others, it is most sensible that a limitation should be placed upon processions, in certain circumstances, by senior police officers but, alas, that restriction is limited to two kinds: intimidation that compels somebody not to do something that he has a right to do, such as going to work, and intimidation that compels others to do something that they have a right not to do, such as not to go to work. However, the amendment does not deal with intimidation for the purposes of inciting racial hatred, which is a particularly unpleasant form of intimidation. Why is it not dealt with? Racial hatred is dealt with in part III of the Bill. Racially insulting matter may not be published or distributed, or possessed with a view to publication, and words or gestures that are racially hurtful may not be used in a public place. However, one cannot

  971
  stop a procession or impose conditions upon a procession whose purpose is to incite racial hatred. That is quite an important and glaring hole in the Bill.
  Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that on two occasions during the 1970s under the existing law conditions were attached to marches of the National Front through the Highfields area, an area where many Asian people live? Under the existing law, therefore, there is a measure of control that will be extended by the Bill. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that that is sufficient, or would he go even further?
  Mr. Lawrence: I am pleased to hear from my hon. and learned Friend that from time to time such a limitation is indeed imposed. Clause 12 either consolidates and clarifies the existing law, which is one of the purposes of the Bill, or it adds something to the existing law. It contains no mention of the very power to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred. If there is no mention in this consolidating, explanatory and extending measure of a power that already exists, it might be taken that that power no longer exists. That seems to me to present some kind of danger.
  Irrespective of whether my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) is right, the fact remains that clause 12 gives senior police officers powers to impose conditions on public processions when there is intimidation. However, it makes no sense to restrict the kind of intimidation which can be limited, or to exclude an especially repulsive form of intimidation—intimidation which is intended to incite racial hatred. Therefore, for clarification and simplication, if not for the extension of the existing law, all senior police officers in any threatened part of the country should have clearly in mind what the law is. The law should be extended so that all of the examples referred to by my hon. and learned Friend will apply generally throughout the country and not just within the police authority to which he referred.
  It appears eminently sensible to extend clause 12(1)(b) to read:
  "the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do or if its intention is to incite racial hatred."
  For that sensible reason, I hope that I have the support of all hon. Members.
  Mr. Greville Janner: First, may I draw attention to the misprint on the Amendment Paper. I had intended that my name should appear under that of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and not under that of "Mr. Secretary Hurd" as he is described in the amendment underneath. That is entirely due to a printing error.
  Happily, there are occasions when hon. Members, who disagree profoundly on many issues, come together in an attempt to preserve and extend those basic decencies which lie at the root of democracy and which allow us to disagree as freely as we do without violence and usually without ill will. I am pleased to support the efforts of the hon. and learned Gentleman both in connection with new clause 3 and amendment No. 28.
  New clause 3 deals with the Union flag. It is an obscenity that those who would stir up racial hatred and ill-will, who are basically devoted to the philosophy of
  972
  Hitler and Mussolini, who regard fascism as their creed and "Mein Kampf" as their bible, should wrap themselves up in the Union flag as the symbol of their despicable organisations.
  The campaign of fascists and Nazis—whether they call themselves the National Front or the National party—is aimed against blacks, Asians, Jews or any other minority. It is wrong that, in our law, they can freely use the Union flag, the symbol of our democracy and our decency, to precede them in their parades.
  Some of us remember the Mosley marches in Ridley road. Some of us emerged from the armed forces to find that the philosophy which we had been rallied to fight against was using the Union flag as its banner. I served as a war crimes investigator in Germany and came back to find fascists using the Union flag in their parades. It is undoubtedly a source of great unhappiness to those who are proud of our democracy and to whom the flag is a symbol to defend.
  I hope that new clause 3 will be accepted. It does not represent a new effort by the hon. and learned Gentleman or me. I have before me a copy of Hansard for 3 February 1982. Similar discussions took place then, but unfortunately the Government declined to accept the amendment. There was no vote on it and it faded into the mists of the past as one of those worthy motions which did not receive the assent of the House. I hope that will not happen again.
  Amendment No. 28 is allied to new clause 3 and it is a happy decision to take them together. The amendment is specifically aimed at making clear beyond doubt, manifest beyond peradventure, that those who march with the intention of inciting racial hatred will be in breach of the law and should be dealt with by the authorities. Unfortunately, the freedom which we cherish and which we do not like to impede in any way is used too often by those who would destroy it and attack the decent and happy lives of our citizens. We are concerned only with the prevention of the abuse of freedom. It is a poignant, vicious and too common evil to use the freedom in our decent democracy deliberately to stir up racial hatred. That is the intention of marches and demonstrations in areas where black people live or, as in Leicester, where Asian people live.
  I remember a march one Saint George's day during a general election campaign. The candidates of all of the decent parties—which means all parties other than the National Front and the National party—went to the chief constable and asked him to place a restriction on a march which would clearly cause ill-will, unrest and no small danger to the police whose unhappy job it was to try to preserve the peace of a city in the face of deliberate disruption.
  When the chief constable decided to allow the march to continue, I concluded that the law was too weak and that it was wrong to leave such a decision in the hands of the chief constable. There was, inevitably, a battle and the police were in the centre. A vast number of police were doing their best to preserve the safety of our citizens at great cost and risk to themselves and at great cost and risk to ratepayers. A breach of the peace, which should never have been permitted, occurred.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) said that it is possible to place restrictions or bans on such demonstrations under the existing law. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton that the law

  973
  is not clear enough and that the guidance given to chief constables is not manifest. It would be wrong to amend the existing law without specifically including the intention to incite racial hatred.
  I hope that that proposition will unite the House and that the discussions which are going on on the Government Front Bench are intended to ensure that the Government agree to the amendment so that there is no need to rally the troops and press it to a Division. I anticipate that all of the Opposition parties who sit on this side of the House will agree to the amendment. I know that the Government willingly adhere to the principle and hope that they will accept the amendment.
  In advance of the attacks, which I know will be made on those of us who support the new clause and the amendment, by the National Front and other fascist and Nazi organisations, may I say that there is no desire to restrict the decent expression of free speech. There are, however, certain restrictions in any society. We are not allowed to engage in defamation, libel or slander. We are not allowed to speak treason or to incite violence. There are limits on our freedoms so that we may live together in decency and dignity.
  At present, the restrictions are not great enough when applied to those who would remove the freedom of others to live in equality, irrespective of their race, creed or ethnic origin. We are here concerned only to restrict the freedom of fascist and Nazi organisations and racist bodies to stir up hatred in demonstration, march and by use of the Union flag. I strongly hope that the Government will accept the new clause and the amendment.
  6 pm
  Mr. Spencer: I hope that the Government will be able to consider amendment No. 28 further. The lesson to be learnt from a study of public order in the past few years is that what is tolerable at one time is utterly intolerable a few years later and justifies the intervention of the criminal law. Recognition of that fact has led to the Bill, and the extension of police powers to attach conditions to marches which were not to be found in the Public Order Act 1936.
  We must ask whether the Bill goes far enough. The Select Committee said that an amendment such as amendment No. 28 had two faults—first, that it was impracticable because it introduced a test which did not raise a justifiable issue and, secondly, that it would lead to the prohibition of marches by certain political groups. Those objections seemed valid to the Select Committee at the time, but I should like to consider them in turn.
  Does anybody think that the test would be impracticable? Does anybody think that a National Front march through the Highfields area should not attract the intervention of the criminal law? What is so fine and nice about the application of the test in Highfields and countless other areas in large cities? I do not regard it as a matter of nicety—I regard it as being as plain as a pikestaff.
  Mr. Lawrence: My hon. and learned Friend's argument is extremely valid and is surely answered in clause 17 and, no doubt, others. In clause 17, precisely the type of judgment which was previously objected to is required. It requires somebody to decide whether the publishing and distribution of written matter is intended to cause or provoke racial hatred. There seems therefore to
  974
  have been a shift in the approach to practicability since the Select Committee reported, and I am grateful to the Government for it.
  Mr. Spencer: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. The existing law requires that there is a reasonable belief that serious public disorder will ensue. Acting under that provision, the police in Leicester have twice attached conditions to marches. That shows how closely linked are the concept of causing serious public disorder and the intention to cause racial hatred. In practice, it is almost impossible to isolate the two. We must now recognise that the law should be specific.
  The Select Committee's argument that an amendment such as is proposed might prohibit marches by certain political groups is invalid. It said that the amendment would automatically prohibit certain political parties from processing publicly because of their notoriety and because their views constitute an insult and a provocation to various communities. It is quite right—their views do constitute an insult and a provocation, and their very presence inspires such feelings. If marches have that effect, the matter must require further consideration. I invite the Government to say that, upon better reflection, the reasons which seemed good to the Select Committee have at best worn thin and at worst should be rejected.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: The anomaly of my speaking as a representative of Northern Ireland on a Bill which does not apply to the north of Ireland is that, if ever there were two amendments or new clauses which should apply to Northern Ireland, these are them.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) spoke emotively and effectively of the Mosley marches in Ridley road. I ask him to remember that I have such experiences nightly as, where I live, there are people who engage in fascist activities each night. From 1 to 26 April, 79 people who happened by birth to be Catholic by religion were burnt out of their homes simply because they were Catholic. Over the same period 50 policemen were burned out of their homes by those same people because they earned their living as policemen.
  That, in any man's language, is fascism. It is fascism equal to that referred to in the Mosley marches. We could coin a phrase in relation to the type of fascism we see in the north of Ireland, to which this legislation does not apply. We could see a new type of fascism emerging which could best be described by saying that it is accompanied by a bible in one hand and a petrol bomb in the other.
  Mr. Reg Freeson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the links are even closer than that? There is evidence of links between the National Front and associated groups in this country and certain extremist Protestant groups in Northern Ireland. In some instances those links lead to suspected gun and ammunition running from this country to Northern Ireland to assist extremist groups such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I can confirm his point.
  Court records, show that members of the National Front have appeared before the courts in Northern Ireland charged with this type of fascist activity, centring on threatening people in their own homes, backed up in a

  975
  cowardly fashion by petrol bombs. They are also accused of attacks upon the families of police officers in their own homes. The irony and ambiguity are there. This legislation is very much needed within Northern Ireland, yet it does not apply there. Indeed, as someone who wishes to see the peaceful reunification of the Irish nation I would be tempted to ask for a definition of "Great Britain" in this new clause. If ever an amendment were needed in the part of Ireland where I live, it is this.
  It is sad and tragic when, from the hour one is born, and as one grows up, one sees the flag that most hon. Members and I would look upon with respect—the Union flag—hoisted on broomsticks and used as a means of incitement and intimidation against another section of the community for seven months of the year.
  There is a mirror image of fascism in Northern Ireland. On one side we have that which avows its loyalty to this Parliament, this Government and the British Crown. They used to call themselves Unionists. I do not know what they will call themselves in the future. Every time they hoist the Union flag on a broomstick and use it as a means of incitement within my community they are behaving in a fascist way and in a way which should come under the influence of this new clause. That is also reflected by another section of the community. As someone who honestly wishes to see the reunification of Ireland, when I see the Irish flag used to insult those who are Unionist and Protestant, my blood boils. That is the type of racial incitement covered by this new clause. That is the type of fascist problem we are dealing with in Northern Ireland.
  It is an anomaly that I, as a Northern Ireland representative, am debating something which does not apply to Northern Ireland, where it is most needed. On the Benches behind me we should have those who represent the Unionists, but they dare not come here even to hear the debate.
  On amendment No. 28, anyone who has been following the problems in Northern Ireland would realise that the prohibition of marches is very relevant. For the next three or four months, until the end of October, Ministers who represent the Government in Northern Ireland, I as a Northern Ireland representative, and every person living in Northern Ireland face 2,000 more marches. One hundred and eighty six of those marches are controversial. We have seen what has happened in two of them. Is it not time that we started to look at the problem in Northern Ireland and at the way in which the marching season is allowed to dominate not just the lives of the ordinary people but the whole political process. One could almost say that for seven months of the year politics goes into abeyance while everyone—Unionist, Nationalist or whatever creed—is allowed to trail his coat up and down the streets of Northern Ireland causing inconvenience to everyone, enormous expense to the taxpayer and great danger to everybody who lives in those areas and to the people who have to police them.
  It would be remiss of me if I allowed the debate to continue without reminding the House of the anomaly that new clause 3, amendment No. 28 and the Bill do not apply to Northern Ireland. The things I have mentioned are happening in Northern Ireland. The term "Great Britain" is used in an anomalous way in new clause 3. Is it not time that we looked at that type of developing and rampant fascism? There is no means of dealing with it. Those
  976
  marches continue year after year, costing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, yet we bring down the blinkers. The usual type of myopia creeps in and we put it to one side by saying, "It is only Northern Ireland." The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister once reminded people under questioning that the north of Ireland was as British as Finchley. God help Finchley.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I wish that the Bill applied to Northern Ireland, but it does not. This morning in a police station in Northern Ireland, which shall be nameless, I saw what was left of the possessions of three young policewomen who had been subjected to petrol bombing. Those possessions were gathered in half a dozen black plastic bags. There were photographs of their loved ones, a charred badminton racket, a couple of pairs of gym shoes and all the artefacts of the life of those young women, as they had been living peacefully in their flat doing their duty as police officers. Of course, those who threw the petrol bomb which intimidated those women out of their homes were the same people who carry the Union flag. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is right to make his protest against that.
  I am glad that the leaders of the other Northern Ireland parties, who unhappily are not here, have very responsibly denounced the attacks on the homes of the police. I am pleased to say that there is some evidence that those attacks are diminishing.
  I understand very well what the hon. Gentleman has said about the marches still to come. However, he illustrated the problem of the amendment. No one could claim that the use of the Union flag in Northern Ireland, in the distressing circumstances I have just described, is strictly directed to the incitement of racial hatred. It may be religious or political, but I doubt whether it is strictly racial and that is the purport of the new clause and the amendment.
  The hon. Gentleman illustrated another problem. He knows, as well as I do, that occasionally the tricolour of the Irish Republic is used—I will not say in an equally repugnant fashion, but in a manner which certainly incites other people in Northern Ireland. I have had the distressing personal experience of knowing that one man, carried to his funeral in a coffin which bore the flag of southern Ireland—although within our own country—accompanied by hooded men who were members of Sinn Fein or worse, carrying weapons and firing them into the air, said that his aim in life was "killing Protestants". The flag of the Irish Republic was used in just as obnoxious a fashion as the Union flag is used.
  That is the technical problem that I face. If the new clause were passed, it would have all my sympathetic support, but I am not sure whether we would be right to say that only one flag should be banned from use in a demonstration. All flags, whatever they are—American or German flags, swastikas, fascist or Communist flags—if they are used to incite the hatred and harassment that we seek to deal with, are the artefacts of violence, irrespective of whether they are the Union flag or any other.
  Therefore, the House must be careful before it imputes an intention to the flag itself. The intention lies in the hearts and minds of the people, not in the piece of cloth. Although I understand—I am sure that the House will,

  977
  too—and largely support the intentions of the new clause, technically there are many problems in passing it as it stands.
  Mr. Clive Soley: It is helpful to have the benefit of a speaker from the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) always speaks powerfully. Those who remember his maiden speech will recall the eloquence and force with which he made his remarks, and he did so again today. We must be grateful to him for that.
  I think—indeed, I hope—that everyone in the House will be sympathetic to the ideas and intentions behind the new clause and the amendment. I suspect that I can say with certainty that the Minister will be, too, because, to be fair to him, in Committee, particularly on part III of the Bill, on racial hatred, he was very good and showed his willingness to accept amendments from us and to insert some himself, which strengthened the offences that most of us are anxious to stamp out.
  There is a problem of definition. For example, the Conservative party uses the Union flag at its conferences from time to time. Although a conference is not a demonstration, if a person used a Union flag outside and made comments that were seen as racialist, that party or organisation would be in trouble. I take the view that no political party should ever use the flag of the country because, in doing so, it tries to take unto that party the national identity of the country. I do not believe that one can legitimately do so. I can see that there is a problem of definition, but I ask the Minister to take away and look at the two amendments to see whether they can be incorporated in the Bill. There is a powerful argument for the wording and intentions behind them.
  I remember, as many of us will, how, in the 1950s and 1960s, many black people from the Caribbean used to put, with pride, the Union flag on their cars, carry the Union flag, and speak highly of it. It was only after the flag was taken over by various racialist organisations and used to flaunt in their face in an offensive manner that that practice began to fade out among the ethnic minority groups, especially black people from the Caribbean.
  As I suspect the Minister will tell us, some aspects of the problem are already covered by part III. Clause 19 says:
  "A person who uses in a public place or at a public meeting words or gestures which are threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if he intends hatred against a racial group in Great Britain".
  If a person carrying a flag was doing other things, in words or gestures, which showed racial hatred, one could argue that the two points that the amendments seek to deal with are already dealt with in that clause.
  Amendment No. 28, in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), changes the position inasmuch as it applies to processions. The Minister might like to tell us whether he thinks that the wording of clause 19 covers the circumstances referred to by my hon. and learned Friend and perhaps also by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
  I ask the Minister not to reject the amendments out of hand. They put powerful arguments, which we touched on in Committee. If the Minister argues that the matter is already covered by the Bill, he will have to demonstrate to the House that clause 19 does the job. If he says that
  978
  that is not so, there is a strong argument for him to look at the amendments while the Bill is going through the House of Lords, and perhaps table amendments later if he feels that that is appropriate.
  Mr. Cash: I share many of the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House about this provision. I await with interest what the Minister has to say on the subject.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, there is no doubt that no flag should be used to incite racial hatred of any description. I would consider voting for the new clause in a Division if what the Minister said did not satisfy us and matched up to the sentiments that have been eloquently expressed on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: The debate initiated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has taken, for me at any rate, a substantial turn. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will recall that we debated such issues in Committee. We debated an amendment that was akin to amendment No. 28, grouped with new clause 3, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. We negatived the amendment after a fairly full discussion of the complexities involved in inviting the police service to seek to interpret the situation in which they become involved in making such a judgment.
  I remind my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton that this is the nexus of the public order problem, where the police are seeking to take a view on a situation that could be fluid, and have to decide whether it would be wise to intervene for this or that reason to prevent greater mischief. This is an emotive and powerful issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with feeling. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) all did so. The contribution by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was relevant to the discussions that we are having, although the Bill does not apply to the Province that he so proudly represents. It is vital to hear a point of view that is as cogent as his.
  In dealing with these matters, we are seeking, at the extremity, to avoid the major provocation, which, collectively, we all seek to prevent. In Committee, we tried to improve and tighten the conditions under which we are taking action on public order.
  There is a significant difference between new clause 3 and amendment No. 28. New clause 3 requires that the Union flag should be a provocation. I hate to say "provocation", but that is the impression that is given. I suspect that that is a broader concept. On the other hand, amendment No. 28 appears to include major mischief that is the consequence of action being taken which could result in racial difficulties of one sort or another—intimidation, the creation of racial hatred and so on.
  I must remind the House—this was touched on by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer)—that this issue was substantially discussed both in the Select Committee's report and in the Government's White Paper published last year. The report states:
  "Assessment of the likelihood of a breakdown in public order remains a relatively technical matter upon which the chief officer of police may pronounce. The likelihood of a procession stirring up racial hatred or intolerance is a more difficult test to apply.

  979
  A measure which rested on the judgment that incitement or intolerance was likely to be caused would present insuperable problems of enforcement and could easily backfire by creating martyrs for free speech out of groups whose policies and activities, having been subjected without hindrance to the judgment of the electorate have been decisively rejected."
  That is the type of problem to which the Select Committee drew our attention, and we reflected that concern in the preparation of the Bill.
  6.30 pm
  Likewise, in our White Paper on the review of public order law, paragraph 6.4 on the Union flag states:
  "In the course of the review of public order law it has been suggested to the Government that the use of the Union Flag should in some way be restricted. This suggestion reflects concern at the use of the national flag by extremist right-wing groups. The Government considers this use of the flag deeply offensive, and believes that most people share this view. But it has proved impossible to devise a provision which defines satisfactorily those organisations or individuals who should be allowed to use the flag or those occasions on which its use would be permitted. Accordingly the Government has concluded that it is not practicable to try to legislate to control the use of the flag."
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton seeks primarily to deal with that particular provision through new clause 3. It is probably not as significant in terms of public order, of controlling racial incitement and racial difficulties as amendment No. 28.
  The substantive mischief seems to be addressed by amendment No. 28. I recognise the concern felt on both sides of the House about marches where the intention is to intimidate others, especially ethnic minorities, and that, perhaps, in clause 12 our definition of "intimidation" may be unduly tied to the concept of coercion, as, indeed, it is. We talked a great deal about that in Committee. That limitation is perhaps something which we should be prepared to reconsider and, in particular, to discuss with the police.
  I cannot be so welcoming to new clause 3 about the use of the Union flag. I suspect that an amendment penalising the use of the flag in a procession the purpose of which is to stir up racial hatred would probably already be subordinate to amendment No. 28. The real mischief is not the misuse of the flag, but marching to stir up hatred or deliberately to put whole communities in fear. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend also considers that to be the problem.
  I shall certainly reconsider the issue in relation to amendment No. 28, despite the fact that it was talked out in Committee where we felt that we had reached a consensus. I am minded to do so because of the range of expressions put to the House, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would agree to accept that advice in relation to his amendment.
  Mr. Lawrence: To some extent I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his undertaking, which will be most welcome, but may I take the opportunity to say that this might not have happened had it not been for the enthusiastic support for the new clause and amendment which has been voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those representing Leicester constituencies. I am grateful for that.
  Perhaps I might be permitted to attempt to strengthen the Minister's elbow with the following observations when he tries to imbue those who are about to reconsider the
  980
  matter with the good sense behind the inclusion of amendment No. 28. The objection raised by the Select Committee to such provisions because they might automatically prohibit political groups cannot possibly apply where we are merely giving a power to a senior police officer to consider whether it is appropriate to impose a condition on a march. That is not automatic prohibition of political marches or political parties. Therefore, that criticism falls.
  The second criticism is that the measures are impracticable. Clearly that objection has now been superseded by the completely new approach which the Government have adopted, and which is welcome. In clause 17 they see no practical difficulty in creating an offence for:
  "A person who publishes or distributes written matter which … intends hatred against a racial group in Great Britain".
  There is no impracticability about that measure. If there had been, it would not have been included.
  In clause 18 the Government see no impracticability in applying such a restriction to the possession of racially inflammatory matter where a person intends
  "hatred against a racial group in Great Britain to be stirred up as a result of the publication".
  The same applies to clause 19, where "words or gestures" create an offence if a person
  "intends hatred against a racial group in Great Britain to be stirred up".
  It is nonsense for the Government to say that there is some impracticability about using the test in new clause 3 when they have said that there is no such impracticability about using it in those three provisions which relate directly to the same intention—to stir up racial hatred.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: My hon. and learned Friend is stretching my credulity a bit far when he examines the judgments that can be arrived at in printed material on the one hand and a fluid public assembly on the other. The problem is the practicability of the fluidity of a situation.
  Mr. Lawrence: It must be manifest to anyone with even the meanest of intelligence whether a publication is intended to stir up racial hatred, that a gesture or action is intended to stir up racial hatred, or that a march or procession is intended to stir up racial hatred. Those matters are not subtle. They do not require close attention with a magnifying glass or weighing up with scales. They are blatant, open perversions of what people consider to be ordinary decencies. To march past the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day with the Union flag, boasting about fascism and the National Front is a manifest perversion to which nobody should have the least difficulty in applying a practical test.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. and learned Friend may care to draw the Minister's attention to the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, which has been a source of considerable controversy. Does he recall that serious questions arise in relation to that Act, which may have implications in this context for the rest of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the Minister's attention to that point. However, until I have studied it, I have nothing useful to add.
  Mr. Soley: To assist the House, will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Minister to clarify his commitment? We understand that the Minister will

  981
  reconsider the words in amendment No. 28 and will, at some stage, insert them into the Bill. On the other hand, the Minister may just be reconsidering the matter. At some point the House will surely want to insert those words into the Bill.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Of course I assume that when my hon. Friend the Minister says that he is taking away an amendment to reconsider it, he intends to do something constructive and not just talk about it. It would be churlish to come to any other assumption. Certainly nothing that my hon. Friend the Minister has ever done would lead me to suppose that he intends to do nothing.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: Perhaps I can respond to the invitation that has been conveyed to me by my hon. and learned Friend on behalf of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I said that if my hon. and learned Friend was good enough to withdraw amendment No. 28 we would take it away and discuss it with the police in the context of the Bill, as drafted, to see whether the Bill is adequate. If it is not, we will introduce an amendment. There will be a discussion about the amendment in relation to the conditions contained in clause 12, and we shall have to see whether the latter are adequate to deal with the problem highlighted by the amendment.
  Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he thought there might be a problem of definition. There might be a problem if one accepts what my hon. Friend the Minister says about the difficulties of amendment No. 28, but of course I do not accept what he says. However, there can be no problem of definition with regard to new clause 3, because there is only one Union flag. I refer to the national flag, which is commonly, but wrongly, known as the Union Jack. Moreover, "Any person" means any person. If someone comes out of the Conservative party conference waving a flag in a despicable way, he should be as subject to the restrictions of the law as anyone else who does something grossly offensive with the Union flag. Whether the person involved is a Conservative does not matter; the same rule must apply. There is obviously no problem of definition, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not be unnecessarily deterred from considering the issue more fully.
  Mr. Mallon: Is there not something slightly contradictory in restricting the terms of the amendment and the clause to racial hatred? For 65 years the same sort of hatred has been expressed in violence year after year in Northern Ireland. That hatred could not, strictly speaking, be defined as racial hatred. It could be defined as religious or political hatred, but the net result is the same. Such dangerous hatred results in great violence and bloodshed.
  In Northern Ireland the concentration of violence and hatred that has gone on for 65 years has culminated in the past 17 years of extensive violence. Almost 3,000 people have died. That seems to be excluded from the Bill, and there is something contradictory about that. From Northern Ireland's point of view, it seems cynical to exclude all that on the ground that it does not come within the definition of racial hatred.
  Mr. Lawrence: There may be something contradictory about it, but I have enough problems trying to get the Government to accept my limited and less all-pervasive proposal.
  Mr. Janner: Perhaps I can ease one of the problems facing the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister. If amendment No. 28 is withdrawn on the basis that the Minister has implied, that he will positively reconsider it, and that reconsideration does not lead to the Government's acceptance of it, there is a distinct likelihood that a further effort will be made to reintroduce it in the other place. If the hon. and learned Gentleman saw fit not to press his amendment, we would not press it either.
  Mr. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that there is no question of amendment No. 28 being withdrawn. It has not been moved, but is being discussed with new clause 3.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Lawrence: I had hoped that when my hon. Friend the Minister reconsidered amendment No. 28 he would not exclude the possibility of reconsidering new clause 3. I would feel happier about accepting his undertaking if he could give the tiniest sign that the abuse of the Union flag will also be reconsidered. I have no doubt that that issue will also arouse the concern of those in the other place. If that happens, it may well increase the amount of activity when the Bill returns to this House.
  Mr. Mallon rose—
  Mr. Lawrence: I shall not give way, as there are many other important matters to consider. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  The House has discussed this issue several times, and most recently on 3 February 1982, when it debated the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. On that occasion we were again told that the Government were sumpathetic but that it would be premature to introduce such a measure into the Bill because a Public Order Bill would be presented to the House in due course. It was said that the matter was being considered in a much wider review and that instead of pre-empting any discussions on the point it would be better to leave it until later and not adopt a piecemeal approach towards improving the law. That time has now come. If that improvement is not made now, when will it be made, so that the ethnic minorities can be protected against such indecent activities? The excuses are getting a little thin. The objections raised hitherto seem to have even less foundation now.
  I do not wish to be churlish, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his undertaking. However, if he could move just a little, almost imperceptibly, so that those of us who are very careful to discern movement can see some, and if he would agree to reconsider the Union flag issue, I should be most grateful. Its use is very hurtful and offensive to many people. On the basis of that most welcome undertaking, I shall not press the amendment or the new clause. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  RIOT
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after 'threaten', insert 'unlawful'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 20 and 21.
  Mr. Shaw: The amendments flow from undertakings we gave in Committee to look further at the definition of violence in clause 8. Two criticisms were made of the definition—first, that it was wrong to refer to "violence justified by law", which appears in clause 8(2) and, secondly, that the definition of violence in clause 8(3) was rather cumbersome. We have moved to discharge our obligation fully under the first head. Under the second head, despite my best endeavours to find a more elegant phraseology, we have not been able to satisfy the recommendation. I hope that the House will regard the changes that we have made as suitable.
  Mr. Cash: I believe, as I have done for a long time, that, to deal with violence during a riot, we need a provision analogous to section 24 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which deals with dispersal when requested by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary whose rank is not below that of chief inspector. However, in this context I state specifically that I would not expect the military to be involved, as they are in Northern Ireland. We face a potentially serious situation. Plastic bullets and so on may be used and innocent children may get caught up in a riot.
  If a power of dispersal were made available which enabled people to take responsibility upon themselves to disperse—when a warning had been given, or when the police knew the framework within which they were operating when an incident appeared riotous—the public would have greater safeguards than they do at present. That power would provide an opportunity for a person to take a moment to reflect on the position and would provide a cooling-down period.
  I hope that, when the Bill reaches another place, those matters will be taken on board. There are serious deficiencies in the law which will become apparent sooner or later, such as when an innocent person gets caught up in a riot but could have avoided it if a warning system were available, during the night or during the day, to allow him to get off the streets before the police moved in.
  I received a lengthy letter from the Prime Minister on this point. I understand that some chief constables have reservations about it. The matter is by no means as clear-cut as has been thought. Some chief constables would favour such a provision and others would not. I should be grateful if the matter could be given further consideration as the Bill proceeds. I believe that the Riot Act 1714, which was repealed about 10 years ago, should have been replaced by a provision along the lines suggested.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the Minister of State, Home Office for fulfilling the undertakings he gave in Standing Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 2, in page 1, line 11, after `using', insert 'unlawful'.
  No. 3, in page 2, line 2, after 'threaten' insert `unlawful'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'life' and insert '7 years'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, leave out '5' and insert '3'.
  No. 11 in clause 3, page 3, line 4, leave out '3' and insert '2'.
  Mr. Carlile: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee—a pleasure I missed with some disappointment—but I did follow its proceedings with awe, if not with total admiration. I know that the matters which I am about to raise were discussed then to some extent, so I propose to be brief.
  The offence of riot provided for in clause 1 is subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, or a fine, or both. When the Bill's proposals were first mooted by the Government, we were told that it was intended to provide a scale of offences dealing with public order—a scale of decreasing seriousness, starting with riot, moving on to violent disorder, which was the next offence down, affray, and so on. One can understand the good sense of introducing a scale of offences to deal with a problem, but one would expect, reasonably and logically, a corresponding scale of sentences to deal with those offences. One would expect that the maximum sentence for the most serious offence would be the highest, that the sentence for the second most serious offence would be lower but in proportion, and so on.
  The Bill provides for a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence of riot. There is an enormous drop to imprisonment for five years for violent disorder and for three years for affray. The relationship between the maximum sentence for riot and the maximum sentence for violent disorder—offences which may arise on the same set of facts—is distant indeed.
  I recognise that we have already, at least in part, an independent Crown prosecution service and that within a few months the whole of England and Wales will be covered by an independent prosecution service. Hopefully, we can count on the good sense of the Crown prosecution service not to prosecute people for riot when they have not done something terribly serious. On the other hand, despite the good work that was done in Committee and particularly the concessions which the Government have been prepared to make on the definition of "violence", in respect of the definition of riot one is left with the possibility—this was canvassed widely in Committee—of relatively trivial behaviour falling within the offence of riot. In my view—it is also the view of many others—it is important that maximum sentences are proportionate to the conduct which is described in the offence.
  If a riot takes place, and if a group of people acting either separately or together commit serious offences of personal violence against others, they can be charged with substantive offences of violence. We are used to heavy sentences, indeed life sentences, being available for offences including murder, rape, robbery, arson with intent to endanger life, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

  985
  If people are to be subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, they should be charged with a specific offence of personal violence which might justify a sentence of life imprisonment. Riot, as defined by the Bill, could not strictly be described as an inchoate offence, but it is an unspecific offence. I suspect that juries, being members of the public and knowing perhaps that the maximum sentence for riot is life imprisonment, would be extremely reluctant to convict people of such an unspecific offence as riot.
  Will the Government consider whether it might be right to introduce a much lower maximum sentence than life imprisonment for the offence of riot? I believe that few judges would be tempted in any circumstances to pass a sentence of more than seven years imprisonment for an offence of riot. A seven-year sentence would be a proper maximum.
  7 pm
  Mr. Spencer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have evidence that juries have been loth to convict at common law for the offences of affray, unlawful assembly and riot where the maximum sentence is life imprisonment?
  Mr. Carlile: The three offences which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned are ancient common law offences. They were developed by the common law over the centuries to deal with the changing exigencies of life. Juries on the whole have little knowledge of maximum sentences, especially for offences the origins of which are found deep in history. This offence of riot has been very much in the public gaze in recent months—indeed, in the past couple of years. I believe that someone on the jury will be bound to know what the maximum sentence is.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) knows that sometimes a little knowledge can be very dangerous, especially with juries. I fear for the efficacy of this offence before juries if the maximum sentence of life is retained.
  Surely seven years is a perfectly proper and realistic maximum for this type of offence. If we are to have realistic maxima as a general principle, let us start with new offences which we lay down in Parliament. If in so doing we reduce the maximum sentence for riot from life to the right level of seven years, we still will not have the right sort of scale if we leave five years as the maximum for violent disorder and three years as the maximum for affray. A much more realistic scale which would meet the requirements of sentencing and what the judge has to do in court would be provided if the maximum sentence were three years for violent disorder and two years for affray.
  I urge upon the Minister and the Government an important principle which I believe the judges share and in which the Government too should believe. Generally today, the sentence passed by the judge often bears little resemblance to the sentence to be served by the defendant. We should use the Bill as part of our journey along the road to a much more realistic and common-sense policy on sentencing, under which we should introduce maxima and judges should pass sentences which bear a much closer relationship to the reality of what happens to the prisoner after he walks down the step from the dock. I therefore urge the Minister to accept these amendments as reflecting a realistic and common sense view.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: A good deal of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was persuasive. My difficulty is that, on convicting a person, the only choice for the court is life imprisonment or a fine. That is what clause 1(6) says.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: It is not really for me to correct the hon. Gentleman. It is, in fact, a maximum of life.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: Anything up to life.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: That is not what the Bill says. I am glad to hear that confirmation from my hon. Friend the Minister. Despite the fact that clause 1(6) states
  "liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life or a fine or both"
  the word "liable" presumably covers the gradations.
  I shall make only one other comment because I suspect that when the Bill goes before another place some of the judges will weigh in on this matter. My hon. Friend is conscious of that. Does it not follow that, if a court concludes that a life sentence is appropriate, at least 12 people will be liable to be given that sentence? The definition of riot is that 12 people must have been involved. No doubt a court could start off with a life sentence for the most serious rioter and go down through the gradations. However, I think that their lordships may well consider that point.
  I do not share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that the jury would be less liable to convict if the maximum sentence was life. For all that, bearing in mind our experience over the years of the other place, it might be a good idea for my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that our amendments are not overturned in the other place.
  Mr. Spencer: We now see the limp wrist of the alliance drooping pathetically in the breeze of public misgiving about public disorder. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) suggested that the maximum sentence for the new offence of violent disorder should be three years. That proposal is totally out of touch with the real world. In practical terms, any judge approaching the task of sentencing a person who commits that offence would have to regard the maximum as two years. It is rare that a judge is driven to conclude that the case with which he is dealing is the worst one possible to imagine and therefore justifies the maximum sentence.
  As for affray, the proposal is even more absurd A maximum of two years is proposed, which, in practical politics, would give rise to a maximum sentence of about 18 months. Recently, we have had a number of cases of affray in which the sentences passed by the courts have been measured at between six and eight years. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery should be ashamed of himself—
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Spencer: —for putting his name to the amendment.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I endorse the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). Again we see the alliance being soft on law and order. We must reject the amendment. If the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has any argument about scale,

  987
  he should argue that the sentence for violent disorder should be seven years and the sentence for affray five years.
  What about juries who are afraid to convict a person for riot because a life sentence may be passed? There is no respectable academic evidence that juries have ever been afraid to convict in such cases, except when the death penalty was the result. In the multitudinous offences in the English system in which life imprisonment is the maximum sentence, no one has ever claimed that such a sentence has deterred juries from carrying out their duty. That argument does not hold water.
  It is an insult to juries to suggest that they will somehow evade their responsibility because the maximum sentence for riot is life imprisonment. That suggestion is an insult also to the judges who examine the involvement of the accused, consider the degree of fault under the charge of riot referred to in clause 1 and set appropriate sentences. The purpose of a maximum sentence of life imprisonment is to give the judge the necessary flexibility to reflect, as he sees fit, on the degree of culpability of the person who breeches the law. It also reflects the feelings of horror and opprobrium attached to this offence by the general public. The maximum sentence should stay.
  If the hon. and learned Gentleman has an argument, it is that the alternative to five years' imprisonment for violent disorder should be seven years and for affray it should be three years. The matter has been fully discussed in Committee, and I am sure that the public will join with Government Members in recognising that public order offences must be dealt with firmly and that judges should have the option to impose lengthy sentences of imprisonment. I oppose this silly amendment.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has reminded the House, this matter was fully discussed in Committee. I remind the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that we spent a lot of time debating the matter. The Law Commission recommended 10 years as the maximum sentence for riot, and in the White Paper published in May the Government reflected the Law Commission's view.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, a life sentence was passed at the Old Bailey which suggested that the 10-year maximum might not be sufficient for the worst cases. That case is now the subject of an appeal which is to be heard on 19 May, and the Government think it right to keep the position open until the appeal is heard. We shall, of course, study with care any judgment by the Court of Appeal and we will also listen carefully to the views expressed in Parliament. I note the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will not divide the House on his amendment because we still have an open mind and a decision will depend on the Court of Appeal judgment.
  On the other two amendments, the Law Commission recommended maximum sentences for violent disorder and affray of five and three years respectively, and those are the maxima in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. The invitation that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes to
  988
  us to reduce those is not an invitation that I could ask the House to accept because I know the views of my hon. Friends on the matter.
  In its working paper the Law Commission originally suggested 10 years for affray and five years for unlawful assembly. The sentences recommended in its final report are a considerable reduction on the working paper proposals. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are dealing with major public order offences of great gravity. They are offences that give rise to anxiety and it is right that in the Bill there should be a significant tariff of sentences available so that the courts may offer the public the protection that they deserve.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was not with us in Standing Committee. He knows that we debated these matters at length and that the amendment that he has moved follows the spirit of the arguments put forward by me and by my hon. Friends. I would certainly not wish the Bill to reach the statute book with a life sentence for the offence of riot, especially the offence of riot as it is defined in this Bill. I might as well say it now, although I will say it later, that when this Minister of State makes a statement in good faith it is just that and I certainly accept it in that spirit.
  In Standing Committee the Minister said that it was necessary from the point of view of the Government not to alter the Bill at this stage in the light of the sentence to which he referred. That was taken by us as meaning that once that matter—now very close—was out of the way, the Government would make a change. My hope and expectation is that when the Bill goes to the House of Lords an amendment will be moved from our Benches and I hope from the Government Benches to deal with this matter. I cannot say that I am happy to leave it like that, but I am content to do so in this case because the Government have got themselves on a hook.
  I concur with the general drift of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. We said the same thing during the debates in the Standing Committee, that we regard this as unique and not something to be repeated in any circumstances. Statutory sentences must be decided by Parliament for judges to follow, rather than decided by judges for Parliament to follow.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing in a serious way with what was intended to be, and is, a serious matter. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) and his junior thought this to be a matter upon which they could indulge in a little by-electioneering. That comes ill from two hon. Members, one of whom is an hon. and learned Member, from a party which has seen crime increase out of all recognition during its period of office; who cannot even keep the prisons in order, including prisons in the constituency, to my knowledge, of at least one of those hon. Members; and which cannot present the people of our towns and villages with a policeman on foot walking up and down the streets as part of their community. I could continue at some length to deal with the matter in the vein that they adopted. However, I shall not do that because I realise the importance of staying in order during this part of the debate.
  7.15 pm
  I share with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) the understanding that the Minister

  989
  of State says what he means and means what he says. I see a chink of light, in that this matter may be reconsidered in another place, especially after the case to which the Minister referred has been decided.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  VIOLENT DISORDER
  Amendments made: No. 5, in page 2, line 11, after 'threaten', insert 'unlawful'.
  No. 6, in page 2, line 14, after 'threatening', insert 'unlawful'.
  No. 7, in page 2, line 16, after 'threaten', insert 'unlawful'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 3

  AFFRAY
  Amendments made: No. 9, in page 2, line 26, after 'threatens', insert 'unlawful'.
  No. 10, in page 2, line 30, after 'the', insert 'unlawful'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 4

  FEAR OR PROVOCATION OF VIOLENCE
  Amendment made: No. 12, in page 3, line 8, leave out from 'if' to end of line 25 and insert
  'he—

  (a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

  (b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visiable representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

  with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 5

  HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS
  Amendment made: No. 13, in page 3, line 32, leave out from 'if' to end of line 7 on page 4 and insert
  'he—

  (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

  (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

  within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
  (2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign of other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
  (3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

  (a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

  (b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

  990

  (c) that his conduct was reasonable.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
  '(8) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice in connection with the exercise of the power of arrest under subsection (5) of this section.
  (9) Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall have effect as if references to a code of practice included references to a code of practice to which subsection (8) above applies.'.
  Many of the arguments about the offence of disorderly conduct and the now amended clause 5 have already been rehearsed. Our major anxiety is about the manner in which the offence will be policed. There is the possibility that a mistaken interpretation of the offence and the way in which it should be dealt with could in some circumstances lead to another sus law. We have been worried about that all along in connection with this new offence and clause 5. Accordingly, we suggest in this amendment that the Secretary of State, in exactly the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, should issue a code of practice to the police to ensure that they are made extremely well aware by the Government and by the Home Office of the manner in which the Government intend them to police this offence and about the way in which they conduct themselves.
  I hope the Government will see the advantage of issuing a clear statement of guidance to the police that that code of practice would enshrine. In those terms I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
  Mr. Shaw: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) moved this amendment. I fully understand the interest that is aroused about the use of the arrest powers in clause 5. We had substantial discussions about that in Committee. It is not our intention to publish a code of practice about this arrest power, because such a single arrest power does not justify such a code. It is our intention to issue guidance about its interpretation in the circular that we send to police forces about the workings of Acts, if and when the Bill becomes an Act.
  If the hon. Gentleman withdraws the amendment, I shall write to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and set out the guidance contained in the general circular on the arrest powers. That will have the full description of the arrest power element that he wishes to be discussed, and it will be placed in the Library so that it becomes a published document. I will do that rather than publish the circular itself, as that will deal with many other issues that it would not be sensible to publish.
  Mr. Smith: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what he said. It is an extremely helpful compromise that guidance should be given to protect the public and to facilitate the job that the police must do. There is considerable public concern about this, and the Opposition are also concerned. It is therefore right that such guidance should be made public in the way that the Minister has suggested.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in inviting the Minister to be sure that the document is placed in the Library before the Bill is considered in another place, just in case some people wish to comment upon it?
  Mr. Smith: I echo the hon. Gentleman's anxiety and his keenness to ensure that the matter is available for public consideration by both Houses in advance of discussion in the other place. However, the Government may find that the timetable does not permit such a rapid placing of the document in the Library.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I fear that it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to expect that we should be able to give this guidance prior to the matter coming before the other place. The circular will be in draft before we are ready to issue it, and we shall have to bear in mind possible changes as the Bill goes through.
  Mr. Smith: I accept the practical problems that face the Minister, but I also expect that their Lordships might wish to consider these matters during their consideration of the Bill. In the light of what the Minister has said, and given the extremely helpful content of his contribution, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 15, in page 4, line 26 leave out from 'behaviour' to 'may' in line 27 and insert
  ', or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it'.
  No. 16, in page 4, line 29 leave out from 'words' to 'may' and insert
  'or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it'.
  No. 17, in page 4, line 31 leave out 'threatening, abusive, insulting or'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 7

  PROCEDURE: MISCELLANEOUS
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 9 leave out '2 to 4' and insert '1 to 5'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 66 to 68.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed that there is a curious smell in the Chamber which seems to be associated with food that has somehow wafted through the air-conditioning system. Can that be looked into, because if it persists it will be most unpleasant?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have detected it myself, and I shall have inquiries made.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I rise in an aroma of take-away.
  These amendments are relatively straightforward. Clause 7(2) as drafted provides that clauses 2 to 4 create only one offence for the purpose of the rules against charging more than one offence in the same count or information. The offence in clause 5 can be committed either by using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or by the use of disorderly behaviour.
  It is possible that a court will decide that two offences are thereby created and that an information charging someone with an offence would be bad for duplicity if it did not clearly indicate which conduct it was alleged the accused had committed. To guard against that eventuality amendment No. 18 extends clause 7(2) to clause 5 and also to clause 1 to avoid unnecessary argument in relation to any alternative element in the offence. The other amendments are similar and consequential.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendments made: No. 19, in page 5, leave out line 19 and insert
  'In this Part—
  "dwelling" means any structure or part of a structure occupied as a person's home or as other living accommodation (whether the occupation is separate or shared with others) but does not include any part not so occupied, and for this purpose "structure" includes a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or movable structure;'.
  No. 20, in page 5, line 20, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 27 and insert—
  '"violence" means any violent conduct, so that—
  (a) except in the context of affray, it includes violent conduct towards property as well as violent conduct towards persons,'.
  No. 21, in page 5, leave out lines 33 and 34.
  No. 22, in page 5, leave out lines 35 to 38.

Clause 11

  ADVANCE NOTICE OF PUBLIC PROCESSIONS
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 37, leave out from 'notice' to 'notice' in line 39 and insert
  'shall be given in accordance with this section of any proposal to hold a public procession intended—

  (a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons,

  (b) to publicise a cause or campaign, or

  (c) to mark or commemorate an event,

  unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession.
  (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply where the procession is one commonly or customarily held in the police area (or areas) in which it is proposed to be held or is a funeral procession organised by a funeral director acting in the normal course of his business.
  (2) The'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can take amendment (a) thereto, leave out
  '(c) to mark or commemorate an event.'.
  and Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
  Mr. Shaw: The requirement to give advance notice under clause 11 as drafted applies to every procession unless, under clause 11(5), it is exempt because it is a procession commonly or customarily held or it is a funeral procession.
  We had a full and interesting debate in Committee on whether clause 11 was too wide, and we undertook to consider whether we might redefine this requirement in such way as to exclude processions of no interest to the police, such as school crocodiles. That is the main effect of these amendments.
  Instead of advance notice being required of all processions—except those caught by subsection (5)—advance notice will be required only of those types of procession set out in the amendment—namely, those intended to demonstrate support for, or opposition to, the views or actions of any person or body of persons; those publicising a cause or campaign; or those marking or commemorating some event. Consequently, organisers of any procession that has the sole aim of getting from A to B, such as crocodiles of schoolchildren or tourists following a guide, will not be required to give advance

  993
  notice. But those organising demonstrations of a political nature or processions with a wider purpose than movement from A to B will need to give notice.
  The existing exemption for processions commonly or customarily held and funeral processions will be retained by virtue of the new subsection (1A) which replaces subsection (5). The reason for this is quite straightforward. If a procession is commonly or customarily held, the police will already be aware of it and have no need of advance notice. If the event is likely to give rise to problems, or the police want an update about this year's arrangements, they will get in touch with the organisers near the time.
  These amendments also help to clarify that where a procession arises spontaneously in response to some event—I recall discussion of demonstrations arising out of a sense of grief or loss—no advance notice of it is required. This is achieved by the addition of the phrase
  "unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession."
  at the end of subsection (1). Amendment No. 26 is consequential. This represents substantially the views that were expressed in Committee, and I commend the amendments to the House.
  Mr. Soley: I acknowledge that to some extent the Government have moved, but we are still unhappy about the clause and the amendments that the Government have proposed. There are a number of reasons for that. We feel yet again the Government are making the mistake of having far too wide catch-all phrases in the Bill. For example, notice will be required if the object is
  "to mark or commemorate an event".
  That is wide open and could catch just about anything.
  If people choose to celebrate another person's birthday down the road by marching together as a group to award a bouquet of flowers, that would be caught by the Bill. I am puzzled as to why the Government have decided to introduce this in the manner that they have. It is an unnecessary extra catch-all phrase that is too wide to be justified.
  Originally, it seems that the Government intended to get information about those processions that they thought would cause difficulty for the police and so on. They were really thinking about the 15 per cent. or so of processions that cause such problems. I am sure that the Government accept that the other 85 per cent. cause no problems of any kind. Even by their own standard, I am surprised that they find it necessary to introduce a phrase so wide as
  "to mark or commemorate an event",
  as that is a catch-all phrase.
  The Opposition are far from convinced that the case for giving notice has been made. We made the point in Committee that there was real doubt as to whether it was desirable for notice to have to be given. There is little evidence that such notice changes behaviour. In fact, most of the assemblies and processions pass off peacefully without trouble. Most people who organise processions give notice to the police. Even if we accept the case for giving notice, as we said in Committee, there is a strong argument that notice should be given not to the police but to the local authority.
  7.30 pm
  I do not wish to weary the House by going over the ground that was covered in Committee. However, I shall quote from the annual report of the Chief Constable of the
  994
  Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, Sir John Hermon. It will speed matters up if I simply quote from the relevant passages in that report. The Chief Constable states:
  "Earlier I referred to the grievous casualties suffered through acts of terrorism. I regret to report that 1985 was also a year in which the RUC experienced substantial public order problems. This subject is dealt with at some length in the body of my Report and I recommend its study to all interested organisations and individuals."
  As an aside, I would hope that the Minister and his Department will consider this specific part of the annual report in some detail.
  "I wish to emphasise that the policy of the police in respect of parades and demonstrations is to seek responsibility and co-operation and to encourage dialogue and agreement with parade organisers."
  That actually happens in most of the areas, most of the time.
  "Furthermore, despite impressions created to the contrary, I would point out that of the 1,897 loyalist parades and demonstrations policed by the RUC in 1985, only 2 were banned and 15 re-routed after unsuccessful attempts to reach agreement through negotiation."
  I stress that only 15 marches were re-routed, because this is where the crunch comes in the chief constable's report in relation to the Bill. The Chief Constable continued:
  "The police are faced with making difficult judgements in sensitive situations. The decisions taken are genuine, professional police decisions and the law ought to be respected.
  Whilst the police will always be responsible for the actual enforcement of the law in public order situations on the streets, it may perhaps be worth considering if responsibility for decisions on the holding and routing of parades should rest with an independent public tribunal."
  I must stress here that the Chief Constable's report came out after we had passed the relevant amendments in Committee. The report is especially relevant to the Government's drafting of the Bill. The Government are still asking the police to take what the Opposition have always said would be seen as political judgments. That is precisely what has happened in Northern Ireland. It is precisely because the RUC was asked to take such judgments that it came into the front line. Although I am not suggesting that the problems in Northern Ireland will be repeated here, I would say that people will increasingly see the police as making political judgments concerning the route, the numbers and the timing of assemblies.
  In such circumstances, I would warn the Government to listen carefully to what the Chief Constable of the RUC said. That difficulty does not exist here, but the Government should not continue to duck the point about the position in Scotland, where notice is given to a local authority. That process has worked very well and nobody has criticised that co-operation. Notice is given to the local authority and the authority seeks the co-operation of the police. The Government must realise that, at a time when the police are already being drawn into the party political debate, Ministers have come forward with an amendment which keeps the police in that position. I acknowledge the changes made in Committee, but I must say that these changes are not good for the police or for the public.
  The Government have written into the amendment, because of the concern expressed by the Opposition and by the Minister during the Committee stage, that there is a need to give advance notice. The Government have added the words to amendment No. 23—and the Minister correctly stressed this—
  "Unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession."

  995
  I am a little worried about the word "any". That word could be interpreted in a court of law in a number of different ways. It may be interpreted in a loose manner, that it was not possible to give any notice, or it could be interpreted more tightly, that only 10 minutes' notice should be given. It may be said that someone should have telephoned or handed a notice to a police station only 10 minutes before the event.
  As an example, I quote the case of the American bombing of Libya, which took place in the early hours of the morning. People feeling strongly about that event the next day, marched and demonstrated in many towns. It would be possible, as the Minister would argue, that the event was of considerable emotional importance and people should be allowed to demonstrate without notice being given. Yet, as I understand it under the amendment, it could be interpreted by a court that those people could not demonstrate as seven days' notice had not been given of the demonstration. The demonstration was not planned seven days in advance, but some notice could have been given. The trouble with the word "any" is that it could be anything between seven days and a couple of minutes.
  I am sure that lawyers would be able to argue for a long time in courts of law as to the use of the word "any". It could mean that they were not required to give notice if the demonstration had not been planned seven days in advance. Whatever is regarded as reasonable in these circumstances becomes a matter for interpretation, whether it be three days, seven days or 10 minutes' notice. There seems to be a curious use of the phrase "any advance notice" and I would welcome the Minister's comments on that part of the amendment.
  I am also a little unsure about the question of the posting of notice in the amendment. I do not wish to go ahead of matters now, but we must take account of the way in which notice must be given and that raises the question of notice posted in advance and what happens if that does not get to the police station.
  I conclude by saying that the dangerous part of the Bill and the reason why we are still so unhappy with the new Government amendment is that we still do not think that the Government have correctly addressed the problem of achieving a balance between the democratic rights of the people to express their views on political, social, economic and other matters, and the need to keep public order. It seems that the Government are under-estimating the extent to which they are forcing the police into political decisions. The police are being forced into making political decisions and this only makes the waters less clear.
  At times of acute economic and social distress—as today — when there is mass unemployment and uncertainty, there will always be demonstrations and assemblies as a means of expressing the anger and anxiety in society. If we try to deal with that by amending the clauses to the Bill which are as widely drawn as they are in paragraph (c) of amendment No. 23 or as loosely drawn in the amendment which includes the words "any advance notice", we will be creating powers which will not only cause problems for the police but will create problems of public order for the nation. At the end of the day, if the police try to exercise these powers, we cannot be sure that they will not trigger off the public order disturbances that people are seeking to avoid.
  996
  I would like the Minister to address us about the use of the word "any" in paragraph (c) of amendment No. 23 and to explain the line—
  "to mark or commemorate an event."
  I would also ask him if he will at least guarantee to the House that he will take a long, hard look at the evidence given by the Chief Constable of the RUC so that the police in this country should have the same kind of powers as those enjoyed by the police in Northern Ireland.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I, too, read with great interest Sir John Hermon's report when it came out, and I have had the opportunity of discussing his thoughts with police officers in Northern Ireland and here. In a word, I think that he is mistaken.
  I understand, of course, that in the peculiarly sensitive circumstances of Northern Ireland today, where for one reason or another there are attempts to embroil the police in the politics of the Anglo-Irish agreement, the police face some difficult dilemmas. It is interesting that the Chief Constable's report, which was written before the most poignant of those dilemmas arose, addresses a proper matter. I respect Sir John Hermon for having put his finger on the problem, but that is not to say that I agree with his conclusion.
  I can only ask the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to accept—he has the advantage of having the report with him and I do not—that Sir John Hermon does not suggest that the matter should be put in the hands of a local authority. He is, as I understand it, suggesting some outside body. In present circumstances in Northern Ireland I cannot imagine anything worse than placing the responsibility to allow or not to allow marches in the hands of local authorities which are at one another's throats. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not trying to imply that the Chief Constable's report gives any support for the notion of local authorities being the arbiters.
  Mr. Soley: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my quotation properly, he would know that I said that responsibility should be given to an independent body. He should bear in mind that I also said that Northern Ireland was not Britain. The system is working well in Scotland, and that is what he needs to address himself to, along with the fact that the police in Northern Ireland have been dragged into the party political arena.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: In the spirit in which we have addressed the Bill, I was seeking only to make sure that the hon. Gentleman was drawing no inference from Sir John Hermon's report that that responsibility should be a local authority function, although he properly cited the Scottish example in support of his proposition.
  The police, with all their problems and difficulties, are by far the best people to make that decision. They are completely objective, impartial and experienced. Therefore, the responsibility should remain with them.
  Let me say one further word about amendment (a). The Opposition seek to leave out paragraph (c). I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about birthday parties, and so on, but I do not think that he was pressing that seriously. It is precisely the events that we have seen commemorated in Northern Ireland which can frequently cause the problem. I notice that in the following paragraph (1A) the Government say:
  "Subsection (1) does not apply where the procession is one commonly or customarily held".

  997
  That opens the door to a wide number—probably the majority—of innocent processions of the kind about which the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee were concerned.
  The Government have achieved a better balance in amendment No. 23 than they did in the original Bill. Indeed, they have got it just about right.
  Mr. Hind: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on finding a good solution to a difficult problem. I must disagree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) for a number of reasons. First, the clause is designed to prevent public disruption arising for political reasons. In the majority of cases they are matters which are likely to raise temperatures in our society and cause trouble. It places a requirement on organisers of such political demonstrations to give notice to the police in their district. That is all that it is doing.
  To suggest that an event which is
  "to mark or commemorate an event"
  should not be included in this definition would surely create a lawyer's paradise. My hon. Friend has set out to make sure that no lawyer's paradise is created by extensively defining the criteria under which notice of a demonstration or procession should be handed in to the police.
  Paragraph (c) clearly covers the sort of situation where, for example, the National Front would wish to march through Brixton to celebrate the birthday of Adolf Hitler. That is surely something that we would wish the police to know about and, accordingly, be able to take action to prevent any attendant rioting or public disorder. There are other obvious examples of a more Left-wing nature, such as a march to celebrate the birthday of Karl Marx. Such matters all lead to considerations of public order. People who violently oppose a point of view may wish to demonstrate that on the streets with violence or other breaches of public order.
  This is a sensible clause, tackling a difficult problem, and I commend it to my hon. Friends as one for which we should vote and give our full support to this evening.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I should like, with the leave of the House, to deal briefly with the points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) gave the clue to why we are seeking still to include commemorative events. Any regular commemorative event, such as an Easter or Christmas procession or May day parade, will be exempted because customarily held processions are exempt, but to go further would create the loophole to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
  Supporters here of Sinn Fein may call a procession and claim that rather than seeking support for their views they were merely commemorating Bloody Sunday or some other event. Loyalist marchers might claim that the purpose of their procession was merely to commemorate the Battle of the Boyne, and so on. A commemorative occasion as such cannot be divorced from the possible consequences to public order that would occur. Therefore, there is a case for including it and that is why I cannot favour amendment (a).
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point about "any" notice. It is clearly a fact that under the clause, as he will know, such notice as would in the circumstances be practicable
  998
  should be given. Ultimately, if would be for the court to decide whether, under the circumstances, a day's notice could have been given. The importance of including this is that we have asked that, if possible, notice should be given. The hon. Gentleman has frequently and rightly drawn attention to the fact that for the vast majority of processions the police have been provided with full notice, after full discussions and arrangements are made in full agreement. That is the ideal situation.
  There is a requirement here to allow for the spontaneous procession as a result of an accident or some other Tragedy which, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, could give rise to such a procession. That is certainly acceptable. We have no intention to resile from that. But if it is practicable to give any notice which is commensurate with the circumstances, that notice should be given.
  Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the House and people outside whether, in the case of the American raid on Libya, a procession held the following day, say 12 hours after the event, would be a circumstance in which he would expect the law to say that notice must have been given, or is he saying that that would be a spontaneous event?
  Mr. Shaw: I cannot hypothecate, but that is the kind of event giving rise to public opinion which is designed to be acceptable under the arrangements that we have proposed. We have provided for a response which is virtually immediate, and a matter of hours is virtually immediate. I would suggest that that would come within the definition of a spontaneous procession when notice cannot be given. But if the procession were a day and a half after the event, I would conclude that some notice should be given. I am sure that most organisers would wish that.
  With regard to the hon. Gentleman's third point about local authorities, we have already discussed this with the Association of District Councils, which objected strongly to it and wanted to have nothing to do with it at one time. It would have preferred the police to take that burden off the collective shoulders of the district councils. Wisdom would lie in that direction, but I am sensitive to the hon. Gentleman's point that the police should not be dragged in to make political decisions. Their responsibility is the public order consequence of what has been proposed, and that must be a decision for them.
  Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 243.

  Division No. 163]

  [7.50 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Alton, David

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Caborn, Richard

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Barnett, Guy

  Campbell, Ian

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beith, A. J.

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Bell, Stuart

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clay, Robert

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Blair, Anthony

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  999

  Coleman, Donald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  McTaggart, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McWilliam, John

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Madden, Max

  Craigen, J. M.

  Marek, Dr John

  Crowther, Stan

  Martin, Michael

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Maxton, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dixon, Donald

  Michie, William

  Dormand, Jack

  Mikardo, Ian

  Douglas, Dick

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby,)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Eadie, Alex

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Eastham, Ken

  Nellist, David

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Ewing, Harry

  O'Brien, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Park, George

  Fisher, Mark

  Parry, Robert

  Flannery, Martin

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  Forrester, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Foster, Derek

  Pike, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Prescott, John

  Freud, Clement

  Randall, Stuart

  Garrett, W. E.

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  George, Bruce

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Robertson, George

  Golding, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Gourlay, Harry

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hancock, Michael

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Haynes, Frank

  Sheerman, Barry

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Home Robertson, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Snape, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Stott, Roger

  John, Brynmor

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Tinn, James

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wainwright, R.

  Lambie, David

  Wallace, James

  Lamond, James

  Wareing, Robert

  Leighton, Ronald

  Weetch, Ken

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  White, James

  Litherland, Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Livsey, Richard

  Wilson, Gordon

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Woodall, Alec

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McCartney, Hugh

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  McKelvey, William

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Alexander, Richard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Ancram, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Bright, Graham

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Brinton, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Baldry, Tony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Browne, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  1000

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Budgen, Nick

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Burt, Alistair

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Butterfill, John

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Key, Robert

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Cash, William

  Knowles, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knox, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lamont, Norman

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lang, Ian

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Latham, Michael

  Coombs, Simon

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Cope, John

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Couchman, James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Critchley, Julian

  Lester, Jim

  Crouch, David

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Dicks, Terry

  Lightbown, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lilley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lord, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Forth, Eric

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fox, Marcus

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Franks, Cecil

  Maclean, David John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Freeman, Roger

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

  Fry, Peter

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Madel, David

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Major, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Malone, Gerald

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maples, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Gow, Ian

  Marlow, Antony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mates, Michael

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Mather, Carol

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Grist, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Ground, Patrick

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Mellor, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hannam, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Harvey, Robert

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hayes, J.

  Mudd, David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayward, Robert

  Needham, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Newton, Tony

  Heddle, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Henderson, Barry

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hickmet, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hirst, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Holt, Richard

  Porter, Barry

  Howard, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Powley, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Price, Sir David

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Irving, Charles

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  1001

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rost, Peter

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ryder, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waddington, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Sims, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Watson, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Speed, Keith

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Spencer, Derek

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Wheeler, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Woodcock, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.
  8 pm
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 7, leave out lines 3 to 10 and insert—
  '(3) Notice must be delivered—

  (a) to a police station in the police area in which the procession is intended to be held, or

  (b) where the procession is intended to be held in more than one police area, to a police station in each area.

  (4) If delivered not less than 6 clear days before the date when the procession is intended to be held, the notice may be delivered by post by the recorded delivery service; but section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (under which a document sent by post is deemed to have been served when posted and to have been delivered in the ordinary course of post) does not apply.
  (5) If not delivered in accordance with subsection (4), the notice must be delivered by hand not less that 6 clear days before the date when the procession is intended to be held or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as delivery is reasonably practicable.'.
  Clause 11 as drafted allows advance notice only to be given by hand. I undertook in Committee to bring forward an amendment to provide for advance notice to be given by recorded delivery post. This amendment makes good that commitment. It provides that, where advance notice is given not less than six clear days in advance, delivery may be effected either by hand, or by post by recorded delivery. If an organiser wishes to take advantage of this facility, it is his responsibility that the notice arrives at least six clear days in advance of the procession being held. That is the effect of disapplying section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
  Where it is not practicable to give six clear days' notice of a procession because it is called at short notice, notice must be delivered by hand. In such cases, it is important that the organisers get together with the police as soon as possible. So we did not think it right to allow service by post except when the notice reaches the police at least six clear days before the procession.
  Mr. Kaufman: As the Minister will know, we are not in the least happy about the notice provisions of this Bill. Nevertheless, what the Minister has just moved is the fulfilment of a concession that he made to us in Committee, and we thank him for that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 25, in page 7, leave out lines 11 to 15.
  No. 26, in page 7, leave out line 22 and insert 'the notice'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 12

  IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON PUBLIC PROCESSIONS
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 7, line 35 leave out 'This section applies'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.
  Mr. Shaw: Again these amendments respond to amendments moved in Committee, in particular the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). I agreed to bring forward amendments to provide that, where the chief officer of police gave directions imposing conditions in advance of an assembly, these should be given in writing. Amendment No. 45 makes good that commitment. Amendment No. 34 makes similar provision in respect of processions.
  In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) tabled amendment No. 54, which would have had the effect that directions imposed by the police on an assembly could prescribe the place at which an assembly either might or might not be held. The intention behind the amendment was to ensure that, where an officer imposed conditions as to the place where an assembly might be held, he would not be obliged to specify an alternative site. He could simply say that the assembly could not take place there. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated that we would bring forward an amendment to give effect to this intention, and that is the effect of amendment No. 43.
  Mr. Cash: I am advised, by the tone of your voice in calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak very briefly. I hope to do so, as I have indeed done so far in this debate, as hon. Members who have been present throughout will testify.
  My concern is with a constituency matter, namely the peace convoy which has been descending on my constituency and its vicinity from time to time. It has also moved from the place where it had settled down, on Cannock Chase, to invade parts of my constituency and to cause a great deal of harassment and concern.
  The chief constable of Staffordshire has been extremely helpful in putting together a detailed case to illustrate the way in which the people in my area have been affected. The total cost incurred by the county council ratepayers is as much as £85,000, a considerable amount of money, and this expenditure has been caused by the disruption of the lawful enjoyment of Cannock Chase. These people were leaving Cannock Chase and were going into gardens arid other parts of my constituency, thereby causing a great deal of concern. I hope, therefore, that this provision, in conjunction with clause 5, will do the trick.

  1003
  We have a serious situation on our hands. The peace convoy is rolling all over the country. It splits up into sections. I hope that the provisions of the clause will go some way towards helping to deal with this matter which is so worrying to my constituents.
  That is all that I wish to say. I hope that I have gained your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the brevity of my speech. I beg to ask leave to sit down.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has, in my view, rather spun it out. I trust that he will take warning from the way in which you called him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should he deem it necessary to intervene again.
  All that I would like to do is to thank the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking that he gave in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 8, line 5, leave out '(2) The senior police officer' and insert 'he'.
  No. 30, in page 8, line 6, leave out 'any conditions which' and insert 'such conditions as'.
  No. 31, in page 8, line 9, leave out 'prescribing' and insert 'as to'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]
  Mr. Lawrence: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 10, at end insert—
  '(2A) For the avoidance of doubt subsection (2) above shall not apply notwithstanding any conventions or regulation which may otherwise permit such procession to approach the close vicinity of the premises of any foreign mission provided that the senior police officer shall have reason to believe that the procession may lead to a disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity in accordance with Article 22, section 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1946).'.
  There is a printing error—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I should have pointed out the error to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman is, I am sure, about to point out to the House that in line I the word "not" is a printer's error and should not be included. I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will proceed with the amendment as corrected.
  I am concerned about processions to foreign embassies of the kind that resulted in the tragic death of WPC Fletcher on 17 April—
  Mr. Kaufman: It was not a procession; it was an assembly.
  Mr. Lawrence: It was an assembly that was the conclusion of a procession of sorts, and it resulted in the tragic death of WPC Fletcher on 17 April 1984. I am concerned that such a tragedy should never be allowed to happen again. It happened because the police authorities, although the Foreign Office was apparently alerted to the likelihood of trouble from the Libyan people's bureau, allowed the movement towards the square—which to some degree was a procession, if not to a complete degree a procession—to take place close to the front of the Libyan people's bureau. Obviously the police authorities considered that either the threat was not serious enough or that the police did not have the power to stop such a procession.
  I am delighted and relieved to see that clause 12(1) provides for such a general power to stop or limit
  1004
  processions, but I am not satisfied that it will be used to stop dangerous processions to embassies. My fear is caused by views expressed when the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs considered the abuse of diplomatic immunities and privileges that arose out of the St. James's square event on 17 April 1984. That Committee reported in December 1984. It was the view of witnesses, some officials and Ministers and also of the Committee, with the exception of myself—my proposal appears in the report and it was negatived—that it was so important that embassies should not be insulated from expressions of public opinion within the receiving state that, provided that work at the embassy could continue normally, there ought to be no restriction upon processions or demonstrations other than those that are already imposed by the existing laws. The tragedy of the existing laws is that they did not prevent the tragedy of WPC Fletcher, although trouble was expected.
  If that view, arising from an interpretation of the Vienna convention, or of less official conventions and regulations, were to prevail in future, following the introduction of clause 12 of the Bill a senior police officer might be advised, when a procession approaches an embassy, not to restrict the procession, and it is possible that another police constable will then be shot. At any rate, if it were to happen that processions were to be more freely allowed to approach embassies, considerable danger might still exist in future, as it has existed in the past. It is to remove that potential limitation upon the powers of senior police officers, as set out in clause 12(2), that I move this amendment.
  In further support of my proposition, may I add that it was the view of Professor Draper, one of the United Kingdom's leading authorities on international law, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee that a receiving state owes a wider duty to a guest mission than to preserving the Queen's peace. He pointed out that the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 contains no special powers for police commissioners to prevent processions at or near diplomatic premises and that section 3 of the Public Order Act 1934 does not provide sufficient control, although in relation to other processions there is such control. In Professor Draper's view, article 22 of the Vienna convention, which was given the force of law in the United Kingdom by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, places a greater, not a lesser, duty on the Government to protect embassies. That article imposes an additional obligation, as a special duty, to prevent "impairment of a mission's "dignity." Professor Draper's view to the Select Committee was that:
  "allowing demonstrators to form up behind barriers placed for the purpose in the immediate frontage of the Libyan mission premises"
  was such an impairment of dignity and therefore it was incompatible with article 22 of the convention.
  Professor Draper's view, which I supported in the Committee, was rejected by the majority of the Committee—I believe with insufficient reason. The view prevailed in the Committee that embassies should not be insulated and that perhaps they should even be encouraged to be subjected to processions and demonstrations so that they could see and understand what feeling there is against the activities of another country in the host country. Therefore, it is sad to relate, WPC Fletcher died. That was not the fault of the British. The murder was by the

  1005
  Libyans, but the fact remains that it would not have happened if the procession and the demonstration had not been allowed to take place near the mission.
  8.15 pm
  I have tabled this amendment so that any temptation that there might be by the authorities to say, "Yes, the senior police officer has the power to say that the procession which will lead to a demonstration shall not be allowed to go as close as this, or shall not be allowed to go into St. James's square" shall not be restricted in any way by any argument advanced by any authority that, because it is a diplomatic mission, the caution that he would otherwise impose to restrict a procession shall not apply.
  If my hon. Friend the Minister of State will assure me that, as far as the Home Office is concerned, no such advice will be given to a senior police officer that he should, at the margin, allow a procession to take place to an embassy, because it is an embassy, when he would have stopped it if it had been going anywhere else, I shall be satisfied. However, if he is not in a position to give such an assurance, I ask the House to consider the addition of amendment No. 32 in order to make sure that processions that look as though they may be dangerous and that are going in the direction of an embassy shall not be allowed where others would not be allowed, for the very simple reason that the last time that this happened somebody died and this House must make sure that that never happens again to any of our policemen or to any citizen of this country.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: In moving his amendment my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) deleted the negative which inadvertently appeared on the marshalled list, and I am grateful to him for doing so. As my hon. and learned Friend said, under article 22(2) of the Vienna convention the United Kingdom is under a duty:
  "To protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity."
  I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the fact that the United Kingdom is under a duty to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or the impairment of its dignity. Over the years we have more than fully discharged that duty effectively in this capital city. Most of the credit for that, if not all of it, rests with the Metropolitan police, who have the onerous task of providing protection for the embassies in London.
  As my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, the Vienna convention does not ban demonstrations and marches outside embassies. That would be contrary to our traditional freedoms of assembly and demonstration, and would not be acceptable. On occasion—and we can all think of different occasions—it is right that our citizens should be able peacefully to demonstrate their views to the representatives of foreign Governments here. What the Vienna convention does do is to say that we should take all appropriate steps to prevent intrusion or damage or any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. The police, and only the police, have the task of discharging that responsibility and they strive to do so without unduly infringing the right of peaceful protest and freedom of assembly. On occasion, no doubt, some of those in foreign missions would have wished the police to
  1006
  do more, and on occasions demonstrators and protestors would no doubt have wished them to do less, but in general they seem to have got the balance about right.
  During our review of public order law we considered whether any special controls were necessary for demonstrations outside embassies. Paragraph 5.12 of the White Paper which preceded the Bill stated:
  "The police's existing statutory and common law powers, together with the new controls which are proposed in relation to static demonstrations, should provide the police with all the powers which they need to maintain order outside embassies, and to fulfil their special duty under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964."
  The Bill contains provisions which may assist in three particular respects to ensure that our obligations under the Vienna convention can be carried out. First, the police will be able to impose conditions on static demonstrations as well as on processions. Secondly, the ability of the police to impose conditions will be extended from the present sole test of serious public disorder to cover demonstrations which threaten serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community or the intimidation of individuals. Thirdly, the offence of disorderly conduct in clause 5 can be deployed where the offending conduct is likely to harass, alarm or distress the people going to and from or working inside an embassy as well as any other person. My hon. and learned Friend will recognise that these are the conditions which are available in the Bill, which covers all citizens for all events of this character. Subject to the House passing the legislation, there is no change in the rules or conditions which will be imposed on citizens or any person.
  There is no special arrangement in the conditions which apply to embassies. On the contrary, the conditions will be identical. Those imposed on demonstrations outside embassies will be the same as elsewhere. The use of the powers will depend on the circumstances. I certainly do not claim that they are likely to lead to a fundamental change in the policing of demonstrations outside embassies. In our view that would neither be right nor necessary to comply with the Vienna convention.
  The theme of the Bill is that we should bring the law relating to public order up to date and ensure that the police have the power to prevent and deal with disorder without infringing the right of peaceful protest. Even without our international obligations, it is right that those working in embassies should have the same protection as our own citizens. We continue to take the view, as we did in the White Paper, that additional specific controls are not required and that, with the existing law, the current Bill will confirm that the police have the powers that they need to ensure that our obligations under the Vienna convention are discharged.
  The same criteria on public order will apply. The House will take note of the tragedy which occurred as a result of the assembly outside the Libyan people's bureau. I am convinced that the police, who have the right to impose conditions, will take note of that in ensuring that citizens of whatever country, at whatever place—certainly not just our own citizens—are not put at risk by any misapplication of the conditions pertaining to public order.
  I trust that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that, in setting out the conditions in this way, the provisions for dealing with the matters which he rightly raised are adequately contained in the Bill. The powers that the police will have will ensure that the conditions are applied outside embassies as they are applied anywhere else.
  Mr. Lawrence: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and that no instructions will be given by the Home Office or anybody else. In the case of a procession to an embassy, any doubts concerning the dangers of the procession will be suspended because of the supreme importance of a demonstration appearing in front of an embassy. That being so, I am satisfied, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 33, in page 8, line 11, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
  No. 34, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
  '(3A) A direction given by a chief police officer by virtue of subsection (3)(b) shall be given in writing.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 8, line 29, after 'constable', insert 'in uniform'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 39 and 46.
  Mr. Shaw: In Committee I undertook to bring forward amendments to provide that the power of arrest in clauses 12 and 14 would be exercised only by a constable in uniform. That is the effect of these amendments.
  Mr. Kaufman: I thank the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking that he gave in Committee. I am especially pleased that the Government are making this point in statute, in the light of the disquieting reports that come to us from Wapping.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (11).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 51, in clause 16, in page 11, line 35, leave out from 'highway' to 'and' in line 36.
  No. 54, in clause 17, in page 12, line 5, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'England and Wales'.
  No. 58, in clause 18, in page 12, line 27, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'England and Wales'.
  No. 62, in clause 19, in page 13, line 11, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'England and Wales'.
  No. 70, in clause 22, in page 13, line 40, leave out subsection (1).
  No. 71, in page 14, line 7, leave out 'a sheriff or'.
  No. 72, in page 14, line 10, leave out 'sheriff or'.
  No. 73, in clause 23, in page 14, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
  No. 78, in clause 24, in page 15, line 11, leave out from 'highway' to 'and' in line 12.
  No. 83, in clause 33, in page 19, line 22, leave out from '1985' to 'shall' in line 23.
  No. 84, in clause 35, in page 20, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  '(1)This Act shall extend to England and Wales only.'
  No. 85, in page 20, line 7, leave out '12, 14' and insert '17'.
  No. 86, in page 20, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).
  No. 89, in schedule 1, in page 24, line 11, leave out Part II.
  Mr. Ewing: Amendment No. 36 and the large group of associated amendments are not as forbidding as they might appear. The only purpose of these amendments is to remove Scotland from the terms of the Bill.
  1008
  I am sure the Solicitor-General has heard the arguments before. The Solicitor-General has failed to convince public opinion and the local authorities of Scotland—I am not sure whether he has convinced the police authorities—that there is a need for Scotland to be included in the Bill. There are two good reasons for that submission.
  First, the Solicitor-General will be aware that we have sufficient powers under common law in Scotland. The Scottish position is radically different from the position in England and Wales. The Scottish common law covers any situation which may arise in England and Wales and which will be subsequently covered by legislation contained in the Bill. If the Solicitor-General is not convinced of that argument, he need look no further back than three weeks ago. In central Scotland there was a demonstration which had been properly organised and properly authorised. It certainly did not appear to have the portent of trouble. However, under Scottish common law, those organising the demonstration were persuaded not to go ahead with the demonstration in the interests of the community in which the demonstration was to be held.
  That is a recent example of a demonstration being cancelled at the last minute without the existence of this proposed legislation. All those concerned were aware that there were sufficient powers in Scottish common law to deal with that situation.
  The second good reason for excluding Scotland from the Bill is the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. That Act gave responsibility to regional councils and all-purpose island authorities to authorise any public assembly, a march or merely static demonstration. So great is that responsibility and so great is their authority that the regions and all-purpose island authorities can decide the route, the number of people who may attend and the duration of the demonstration. I should stress that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 was put through largely with the agreement of my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. I would not want anybody to think that it was a party political Act. What makes the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill so surprising and unnecessary is the fact that we spent so much time in 1981–82 getting that Act right so that it would cover assemblies such as are addressed by the Bill.
  We believe that people have a right to demonstrate within the law. Nobody is trying to justify unlawful assemblies. Our argument is that an organisation could have made all of the necessary arrangements with the regional council or island authority, only to turn up on the day to be confronted by the most senior police officer present and be told that it cannot go ahead.
  8.30 pm
  All of the briefing notes and other literature that has been provided refers to a sergeant being the most senior officer present, but I am sure that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will concede that there are remote areas of Scotland where the only police officer present could well be a constable. A constable, albeit in uniform, might cancel all of the arrangements that have been authorised by the regional council or island authority. The police officer might be acting with the best possible intentions. I am not criticising the police—I am criticising the Solicitor-General and his Scottish Office colleagues for putting Scottish police forces in a difficult, if not impossible, position.

  1009
  The regional councils and island authorities are responsible for administering the 1982 Act and are the police authorities. Central regional council could authorise a demonstration which was cancelled by one of its employees at the last minute. That is ludicrous, but police officers are ultimately employees of the regional police authorities. By including Scotland in the Bill, the Government are putting Scottish police forces in an impossible position. I have yet to hear any justification for including Scotland.
  I do not see the need for a review of the legislation, but that does not mean that no need exists. If it is necessary to consider the 1982 Act and common law on demonstrations, however, this is not the way in which to go about it. We should be much more thorough than include a small section—with major implications—on Scotland in a United Kingdom Bill. I must plead with the Solicitor-General to exclude Scotland. If a review is needed, we should have properly thought-out and structured legislation which meets our needs. I am sure that the House agrees with that proposition, bearing in mind the differences between English and Scottish law. Our needs and circumstances are often different. I hope that the Solicitor-General will respond positively.
  Mr. James Wallace: I must endorse much of what the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) said. Those of us who represent Scottish constituencies are generally anxious about how Scottish reforms are dealt with. Many of us would prefer that these debates took place in a devolved Scottish parliament.
  This is another example of Scots legislation being tacked on to a substantially English Bill. Much the same happened in 1982, when there was an English Criminal Justice Bill with one or two Scottish speckles. Lord McCluskey described it as somewhat akin to a Yorkshire pudding with porridge oats in it. The Bill does not have regard to the long and separate traditions of the Scottish common law.
  Scotland also has very different statutory provisions, especially as regards the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. That Act puts emphasis on the regional council or island authority to determine whether processions should take place. It empowers them to specify the date and time of a procession, its route, the number of people who can take part, arrangements for its control and to impose certain conditions on it. An applicant for a procession who believes that the council has not fulfilled its statutory duties can appeal to the sheriff. The Bill, however, gives power to a police officer to stop a procession. It is unlikely but, as has been said, that police officer could be a constable. He might overturn provisions that have been considered by a local authority and been subject to considerable debate.
  There is one matter on which I take small issue with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East. He referred to processions and assemblies. It is my understanding that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 does not cover assemblies. In fact, what we have is a totally new provision in relation to assemblies. Therefore, we shall have an entirely separate means of controlling and dealing with assemblies compared with processions. That is illustrative of the anomalous position one can get into by such piecemeal legislation.
  Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, it is my understanding that on at least one
  1010
  occasion hon. Members suggested a Scottish-type solution for some of the English problems. They were told that that was not appropriate because conditions, circumstances and the tradition of law are different in Scotland. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Because this legislation is thought appropriate for England, it does not follow that it is appropriate for Scotland.
  Reference was made to the fact that the Bill brings the police into circumstances where they might not wish to become too deeply involved. If the Government are to make a case for this legislation applying to Scotland they should show that there are circumstances in Scotland which are crying out for this type of reform. They should show that there are circumstances in which there is an absence of the law as it stands in England.
  I am advised from a reasonably reliable authority that on one day in December of last year there were a series of incidents in Glasgow. One of them involved the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who had gone to Glasgow to address a rally. On the same day there was a protest march against strip searching in Armagh gaol. There was a counter-march by Ulster loyalists, who sought to intercept those who were protesting against strip searches. That protest was taking place in the City halls. The Loyalists were milling around George square in Glasgow. Those who know the geography of Glasgow will know that Buchanan street underground station is not far away and the National Front was holding a rally there. The Strathclyde community relations council held a multiracial festival in the City chambers and the Scottish Asian advisory committee was involved in another demonstration nearby. That demonstration was held at short notice and the committee was given permission to waive the necessary 24 hours notice. The National Front attempted to disrupt that demonstration.
  I am told by someone who observed all of that that the police handled it brilliantly and that they coped particularly well. That is because they had to use the common law tools available to them. They had to show their policing skills and they did so. The amount of trouble involved was minimal. I fear that if the police have the powers that will be available under this Bill it would not encourage the best policing. There would, perhaps, be an early resort to using the powers and that would lead to lax policing and could cause trouble where, at the moment, more sensitive policing has managed to avoid it.
  I do not think that there have been incidents in Scotland which would have given rise to these powers being given to officers of as low a rank as constable. For those reasons I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to consider whether Scotland needs the legislation. It will not put a hole through the Government's legislative programme or substantially diminish the effect of the Bill if, even at this late stage, he was to reconsider the position and take out the provisions relating to Scotland. If he feels that there is a need for a broad overhaul and review of the law in Scotland relating to public order and mobbing and rioting that could take place, we would be prepared to consider that if it was brought forward in a specifically Scottish Bill. Once again, law reform for Scotland in this halfhearted, piecemeal and tacked-on fashion is not in the best interest of Scottish law or the Scottish people.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I support this series of amendments. I am sorry that I was not able to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). I had understood that the debate would take place later. Nevertheless, without having heard the hon. Gentleman, my views on this matter are fairly clear.
  I am against Scotland being included in the Bill—for two reasons. The first is that to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has already referred. We are dealing with Scottish provisions tacked on to an English measure. I am told that Scotland is included because the Bill was produced in panic by the Government and the police in England because during the miners' strike and on other occasions they found that the English legal system was not capable, in their view, of dealing with some of the difficulties which ensued. Even if there were a case for action in relation to Scotland, it is wholly wrong that the Government should have produced this Bill with Scottish provisions tacked on.
  I believe that the Committee had only one or two Scottish members—I do not know the exact composition—and I would not be pleased to have legislation changing Scottish law in a major way in relation to demonstrations and assemblies from a Committee largely composed of members representing constituencies in England and Wales. There is no way in which Scottish Members could hope to give any input from our Scottish experience in that context. Therefore, I reiterate the case which has been made within Scotland on many occasions by the Law Society and many others, that where a substantial change in Scottish law is called for, it should be done by separate legislation. I cannot see any reason why there should not have been a separate Bill for Scotland if it is argued that the changes are justifiable.
  I now move from my first objection, which is one of principle, to my second objection. I am not convinced that any real change is required in the arrangements for dealing with public assembly, demonstrations and processions in Scotland. Despite all the difficult factors which can arise—the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to an intelligent system operating in Glasgow—we have not had many inflammable situations which have not been dealt with by the police using common sense, and the laws as they already exist in Scotland.
  It is for the Government to persuade the House that Scotland should be included in the Bill. I await the arguments, but I think that the Solicitor-General for Scotland may be hard pressed to produce arguments which will be acceptable to me. I agree with many of the arguments adopted by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I do not intend to go over the same ground again. However, as a matter of general principle it should be for the local authority—the democratically elected body—to have a say in these matters as we have now.
  It seems strange that, only a few years after the Government produced the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, we have to have such a major reshaping of the arrangements for dealing with processions and assemblies. I do not know what has conditioned the Government to do it, but it seems that they have joined the stampede in favour of a change in the law, without having done their homework. A major change of this kind, which takes
  1012
  responsibility from a democratically elected authority and gives it to the police, should not be done within a time span of two or three years.
  An element of civil liberty is involved. It is always easier to erode civil liberties than to establish them. By taking responsibility from the elected authorities and giving it to the police, the Government are not helping either civil liberties in Scotland or, I suspect, the police themselves. The police will look askance at the powers that they have been given. When they take decisions on their own authority, they will become involved in political activity, which is wrong. The police should be shielded from that wherever possible, in the interests not just of the citizens but of the police themselves.
  Respect for the police comes from the way in which they enforce the law, but that is not so if people suspect that politcal bias might creep in. I am not saying that the police would adopt a politically biased attitude, but if a demonstration or assembly is stopped or interfered with under the Act, the blame will be placed on the police, when they may not be guilty of anything. It is much better that the responsibility for such decisions is taken by elected politicians who have, in turn, to answer to their electorate for the way in which the powers of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act are enforced.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): This debate is about the disapplication of the Bill to Scotland. The objective of the official Opposition is to disapply all the provisions of the Bill. I am a little surprised that there is not an amendment on the Scottish provisions in schedule 2, which amends the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. I think that the basic intention of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) is that it is wrong to legislate for Scotland in what he sees as an English and Welsh Bill.
  While I understand that argument—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am making a cheap political point—I am to some extent surprised that it was only in Committee that, for the first time, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) advanced the argument. No Scottish Labour Member spoke on Second Reading. While the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke, I understand that he did so in his capacity as law and order spokesman for the alliance, and he made no specific reference to the disapplication to Scotland.
  This matter was not suddenly sprung on Scottish Members of Parliament. As hon. Members who are interested in these areas of the law will appreciate, in the White Paper of May 1985, we set out in a paragraph that related solely to Scotland exactly what is now included in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East wishes to disapply the whole Bill. As I understand it, the objective of the amendment tabled by the alliance is more limited. It is to disapply only clauses 12 and 14. It is identical to the amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland in Committee.
  It might be useful if I looked at the effect of the group of amendments tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I am concerned that, although the broad point of opposition has been stated, some of the consequences of what is proposed might not be appreciated. Most particularly, although the hon. Member for Falkirk, East did not include this in his

  1013
  remarks, what concerns me is that part III of the Bill would be disapplied to Scotland. The measures in that part of the Bill are essentially a modernisation of the present law on racial hatred, now contained in section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936, which was inserted by section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976, at a time when the hon. Member for Falkirk, East was a member of the Government.
  Section 5A of the 1936 Act applies both north and south of the border. I see no reason why this attempt to update and extend the statutory protection offered by the new measures should not do so. Indeed, if the measures did not apply in Scotland, following the repeal of section 5A we would be left without statutory powers in that area, where we cannot confidently rely on the adequacy of Scots common law to come to our aid in every instance involving incitement to racial hatred.
  Mr. Ewing: The Solicitor-General is making a valid point, which I accept. In the spirit of negotiation and good will that we are now enjoying, I am prepared to drop the amendments in exchange for the hon. and learned Gentleman accepting the rest of my amendments.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. I appreciate that he sees the importance of having the provisions in Scotland. However, the interesting thing about the argument is that his Government, when he was a member of it, saw that some parts of public order should be legislated for on a United Kingdom basis. After the Race Relations Act 1976, the process of legislation was to bring that into the Public Order Act 1936, which applied on a Great Britain basis. Therefore, the idea that for the first time we are legislating on public order on a Great Britain basis, when previously we had done it separately for England and Wales and Scotland, is not true.
  I do not need to labour that point. I am relieved, as I am sure every other hon. Member is, that in Scotland we have had fewer racial hatred problems than elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman seems to appreciate that it would be wrong to give a signal to any racial minority, wherever it was in Great Britain, that it is not to enjoy the statutory protection of the law.
  Mr. Soley: It would be a little disingenuous to imply that that was the main problem. The Solicitor-General will remember that more than once in Committee I raised the fact that the system in Scotland, leaving aside the racial hatred part of the Bill, was working very well. Time and again, I challenged the Government to say why they felt it necessary to impose on Scotland something which we felt in England and Wales was not necessary. The Solicitor-General never answered that point in Committee, and he is not answering Scottish Members tonight.
  The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am still dealing with part III and racial hatred. I understood that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East recognised what I was trying to say.
  The substance of both sets of amendments concerns processions, covered in part II of the Bill. Both the official Opposition and the alliance seek to remove clause 12(11) from the Bill. I remind hon. Members of the purpose of the clause. It is to give the police at the scene the power to impose conditions on a procession—provided the statutory criteria are met—when the procession is in progress or when the marchers are assembling. It is essentially an on-the-spot power for the police.
  1014
  This point was picked up by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The hon. Member for Falkirk, East referred to the powers under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act. However, the difference is this. We have to deal with circumstances that may emerge after the local authority, given the regulatory power that it has under the 1982 Act, has taken its decision. The 1982 Act establishes that regulatory framework, allowing for the imposition of conditions in advance of the march taking place.
  Having introduced the measure with the agreement of all parties in Scotland, I would be the first to recognise that it has worked well. Apart from the minor changes in schedule 2, I have no desire to change it. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, East will appreciate, when we introduced the 1982 Act, the powers at present contained in section 3 of the 1936 Act and which continue to give the police power on the spot in relation to processions in Scotland were still in being. They apply with equal force north and south of the border.
  9 pm
  During the debate on the Queen's Speech last year, the hon. Member for Garscadden argued for the need to withdraw section 3 of the 1936 Act from Scotland, on the basis that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 was sufficient to deal with all the problems that might arise. I am surprised at that stance and at the line that is being followed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East. Hon. Members will recollect that two years ago I was regularly questioned about the way in which the police were exercising their common law powers in relation to the unhappy circumstances of the miners' dispute. At that time, the hon. Member for Garscadden expressed his concern about what he called the extraordinary wide use of powers under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and asked of me:
  "Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not worried … that … the police will be able to ban any rally, demonstration or meeting without recourse to public order legislation? Is that now wrong?"—[Official Report, 16 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 360.]
  It is precisely because we think that it is important for police powers in relation to processions to be expressly defined that clause 12(11) has been inserted in the Bill. Its removal would give rise to the very fears that the hon. Gentleman expressed then.
  I find it curious that in Strathclyde, which includes more than half the population of Scotland, the regional authority imposed conditions on allowing exemption from the notification requirements under section 62 of the 1982 Act. One of its standard conditions is that police instructions shall be obeyed. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East would have thought that that power was not clearly defined. If, for example, that were to be the Bill's provision for the way in which those participating in a procession should act, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others would undoubtedly say that it wholly lacked any specification.
  I am puzzled why the hon. Member for Falkirk, East takes such exception to setting out clearly in Scotland, subject to the stern criteria of serious public disorder, serious damage to property or intimidation, the powers of the police on the spot to regulate the circumstances. He made some play of the fact that the police have common law powers in Scotland, and I do not dissent from that observation. However, I remember equally well that

  1015
  during the miners' dispute he and some of his colleagues went to see the Secretary of State, and openly and clearly expressed their anxiety that the police were resorting to common law powers in those difficult and delicate circumstances. What is wrong with taking the opportunity to set out clearly, subject to those stern criteria, how the police should be able to impose their conditions on a procession or assembly, instead of leaving it to the less clearly defined powers of common law which the police have?
  The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that it is undesirable for the police to be intimately involved when members of the public are exercising their democratic right either to assemble or to engage in a procession. I hope that the circumstances of such assemblies or processions are such that the powers under clauses 12 to 14 would rarely be used. Indeed, I would consider the management of our affairs in Scotland a success, if the powers were never relied on. Essentially, these powers are to be held in reserve.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the regional authority in Scotland was the police authority. He made the fair point that it might seem slightly odd that if that authority gave a group of people permission to process, it might find that a police officer wanted to impose conditions on the exercise of that right. I recognise that possible difficulty, but the criteria are stern. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's Labour colleagues on Central region would be somewhat alarmed if police officers employed by them, under the direction of the chief constable, would not take the necessary action if there was serious public disorder, intimidation or serious damage to property.
  I hope that we will not have another miners' strike in Scotland. But the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will certainly remember that at the time of the strike, several people came up from south of the border to express their views about the dispute. There is a good argument for saying that the powers that the police can take to themselves in such circumstances are widely known and that if they are widely known on a Great Britain basis that is all the more to the good.
  My final point may prove unnecessary. The amendment to disapply would also disapply several changes made in the Bill in relation to alcohol at sporting events, as contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East seemed to address his remarks primarily to part II and not to any changes that might be included in relation to alcohol at football grounds. But, as he knows, those measures have operated successfully in Scotland for more than five years. I hope that he will accept that the law could be updated and improved, just as it will be elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Although the argument for disapplying has been put, the Government believe that we are talking about desirable reserve powers that fall into the pattern that has existed successully in Scotland for some time. Although anxieties have been expressed, those powers are not in any way at variance with what is contained in the civic government code. They merely provide useful complementary provisions where on-the-spot difficulties might arise.
  Mr. Ewing: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I accept what the Solicitor-General says about the safety of sports grounds and the provision of alcohol there.
  But on the whole the Solicitor-General's argument is based on the fact that the amendment will somehow damage the Bill. He has singularly failed to convince me and my right hon. and hon. Friends of that. The Government will have an opportunity in the other place to reinsert anything taken out of the Bill, and so I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment so that the Bill is disapplied in the case of Scotland.
  Mr. Maclennan: One thing missing from the Solicitor-General's speech on the proposed disapplication of the public order provisions was any justification, based on evidence, that the law in Scotland does not work. When we debated the subject in Committee, he relied on arguments of tidiness and on ex hypothesi arguments that carried no weight with the Committee. He dismissed the views of the Law Society of Scotland, which complained that the Scottish Office had dreamt up this matter, hanging on to the coat tails of the Home Office.
  The arguments have been well made about the procedural objections to reforming the law of Scotland via a side wind. I realise that some hon. Members from Labour constituencies in England are not concerned about this measure. Fortunately, they do not represent the views of the majority of the Opposition. [Interruption.] Hon. Members would be wise not to provoke me. If they do, I cannot guarantee that this important matter will be dealt with expeditiously.
  The arguments which the Solicitor-General deployed were the best that could be made. He made the typically persuasive speech of an advocate. The fact remains that there is no mischief to be remedied. The law in Scotland is working well. We are being dragged along for reasons of tidiness alone. I regret that the Solicitor-General has seen fit to kowtow to the Home Office. He would be better advised in future to make major changes in Scots law by means of a Scottish Bill. The participation of Scottish Members would therefore be greater at all stages than it has been during this legislation. It is highly unsatisfactory that it is possible only at the concluding stages of the Bill for Labour Members to define their arguments. They are, for understandable reasons, terribly anxious to do so. We cannot proceed in that way.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 229.

  Division No. 164]

  [9.13 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

  Alton, David

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Anderson, Donald

  Buchan, Norman

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Campbell, Ian

  Barnett, Guy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Barron, Kevin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Beith, A. J.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

  Clay, Robert

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Boyes, Roland

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Coleman, Donald

  1017

  Conlan, Bernard

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Martin, Michael

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Maxton, John

  Craigen, J. M.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Crowther, Stan

  Meacher, Michael

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Meadowcroft, Michael

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

  Michie, William

  Deakins, Eric

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dixon, Donald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dormand, Jack

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Douglas, Dick

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Nellist, David

  Eadie, Alex

  O'Brien, William

  Eastham, Ken

  O'Neill, Martin

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Park, George

  Ewing, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Faulds, Andrew

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Penhaligon, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Pike, Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Forrester, John

  Prescott, John

  Foster, Derek

  Randall, Stuart

  Foulkes, George

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Freud, Clement

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Robertson, George

  George, Bruce

  Rogers, Allan

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Rooker, J. W.

  Golding, John

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hancock, Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Haynes, Frank

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

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

  Home Robertson, John

  Snape, Peter

  Howells, Geraint

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Stott, Roger

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Straw, Jack

  John, Brynmor

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tinn, James

  Lambie, David

  Torney, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Wallace, James

  Leighton, Ronald

  Wareing, Robert

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Weetch, Ken

  Litherland, Robert

  White, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Wilson, Gordon

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Woodall, Alec

  McKelvey, William

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McTaggart, Robert

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Madden, Max

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Best, Keith

  Amess, David

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Ancram, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brinton, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  1018

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Key, Robert

  Budgen, Nick

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Burt, Alistair

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Butterfill, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Knox, David

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

  Lang, Ian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Cash, William

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Coombs, Simon

  Lightbown, David

  Cope, John

  Lilley, Peter

  Couchman, James

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Critchley, Julian

  Lord, Michael

  Crouch, David

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Durant, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Evennett, David

  Maclean, David John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

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

  Forman, Nigel

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Madel, David

  Forth, Eric

  Major, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Malins, Humfrey

  Franks, Cecil

  Malone, Gerald

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Maples, John

  Fry, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marlow, Antony

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Mates, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mather, Carol

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Gow, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Ground, Patrick

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Neale, Gerrard

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Harvey, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Newton, Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, J.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayward, Robert

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Heddle, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Henderson, Barry

  Pawsey, James

  Hickmet, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert

  Pollock, Alexander

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Porter, Barry

  Hind, Kenneth

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hirst, Michael

  Powley, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Price, Sir David

  Holt, Richard

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Howard, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

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

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Rost, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Ryder, Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  1019

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waddington, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Walden, George

  Sims, Roger

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waller, Gary

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Speed, Keith

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Spencer, Derek

  Watson, John

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Squire, Robin

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wheeler, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Sumberg, David

  Woodcock, Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Mr. Donald Thompson and

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that tonight there has been a riot at Northeye prison near Bexhill, that the prison is on fire, that a number of prisoners have escaped and that what has happened may well have been partly caused by the problems arising from the prison officers' dispute. I ask that the Home Secretary or a relevant Home Office Minister should come to the House tonight to make a statement on what has happened at Northeye prison, which appears to be extremely serious and ought to be dealt with urgently.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Subject to the proceedings and courtesies of the House, I understand that my right hon. Friend intends to make a statement at 10 o'clock.

Clause 13

  PROHIBITING PUBLIC PROCESSIONS
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 9, line 5, after 'police', insert 'reasonably'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 38.
  Mr. Shaw: In Committee I undertook to look at aspects of the judicial review procedure—namely, the insertion of "reasonably" in two places in clause 13 which reflects the power to ban. I did so in response to amendments moved by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). These amendments give effect to that undertaking and add a requirement of reasonableness to the chief officer's belief, for the purposes of clause 13, and therefore bring the clause into line with clauses 12(1) and 14(1).
  Mr. Kaufman: If it were not so pleasant, it would become monotonous, but I thank the Minister for fulfilling his undertaking.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 38, in page 9, line 22, after 'Metropolis', insert 'reasonably'.
  No. 39, in page 9, line 42, after 'constable', insert 'in uniform'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 14

  IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES
  Mr. David Clelland: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 10, line 13, leave out clause 14.
  We now come to what is probably the most contentious clause in the Bill, in so far as it proposes the introduction of restrictions on traditional liberties and freedoms. Our intention is to oppose the inclusion of clause 14, and to this end we have tabled the amendment.
  This part of the Bill threatens to introduce the criminal law into picketing, and in so doing it presents the distinct possibility—indeed, probability—that that other forms of assembly will also fall foul of its provisions. The fact that the Bill defines an assembly as being constituted by as few as three people reveals the extent to which the Government have been taken over by their more extreme element, and how much of an influence it has within the Conservative party. It also says much about the Government's policies and proposals as they affect other sections of our society.
  I do not have the experience to recall the progress of other Bills, but the number of amendments that the Government have had to accept as a result of the force of argument from the Labour party reveals a carelessness in drafting that must be horrifying to all thinking people who live in the realisation of the power that the Government wield and the extent to which that power can affect their everyday lives and freedoms.
  In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) attempted to persuade the Government that to define a group of only three persons as an assembly, which could thereby make them liable to be in conflict with the criminal law, was an act of the utmost folly that threatened to be a more serious erosion of traditional liberties. Thankfully, the Minister, who evidently does not share the extremist views of some of his colleagues, accepted the strength of the arguments of my hon. Friends and agreed to an increase in the number to 10. That was an improvement on the proposal in the Bill, but it was still short of our perception of what was reasonable if such a provision had to be included at all. I am pleased to learn that the Government, having thought more seriously about the matter, may now be disposed to accept the amendment tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends proposing that if the clause is to be included in the Bill the number constituting an assembly for the purposes of the Act should be increased to 20.
  9.30 pm
  Notwithstanding this and other amendments tabled by the Government following arguments advanced in Committee by Opposition Members, it remains our contention that clause 14 constitutes a major change in the right of ordinary citizens to demonstrate their discontent.
  Much has been said about the rights of individuals, as though there was some doubt whether the Labour party believes that the rights of individuals deserve protection. It appears that some Conservative Members are under the impression that if an individual seeks support from a number of his fellow citizens—only two originally, but now 19—to protect or advance these rights, he ceases to

  1021
  be an individual and becomes a mob, and as such his rights become less important than they were when he was an individual. What nonsense that is. That defies the traditions and principles of democracy.
  On Monday I visited a voluntary group in my constituency called the Riverside Child Health Project. This project brings together mostly young mothers and one-parent families to discuss health and other problems which they have to face—problems of which my constituency has more than its fair share.
  In discussions with one young mother, who was extremely concerned about the implications of the Government's proposals for the social services system, I was asked what can these young mothers do but demonstrate to illustrate their opposition? What struck me as significant and cruel is that this week, while the Government continue to progress their proposals for further eroding the standard of living of that young woman and her family, we will have to listen to the Government putting up arguments as to why her one direct avenue of protest should be restricted. Conservative Members may say that that will not happen and that it is not the purpose of the Bill to do that. How do they know that that will not happen? There is nothing in the Bill which says that it cannot happen, although there is plenty that says it can.
  The clause reveals that it can happen, and the police will make it happen. A policeman must decide whether an assembly can be effective or not by imposing the conditions laid down in the Bill as to time, place, numbers and so on. In some cases a single police officer must believe that an assembly will result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. He must decide whether the purpose of the persons organising the assembly is to intimidate others with a view to compelling them not to do something they have a right to do or to do something they must not do. There is too much scope for interpretation within the clause.
  What is
  "serious disruption to the life of the community"
  which a policeman must decide in advance may occur? As the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) said in Committee:
  "what may be serious disruption to my tranquil village of Wendons Ambo will not have the same effect on a street in Islington?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee, G, 13 March 1986; c. 744.]
  What is intimidation? As we saw in the case of Thomas v. The National Union of Mineworkers, at least one judge, Mr. Justice Scott, believes that simply standing glowering can be highly intimidating.
  The clause does not say that the participants in the assembly must cause disruption in order to trigger this legislation. Therefore, the opponents of an entirely peaceful demonstration could, by threatening disruption, without necessarily having the intention to do so, cause a demonstration to be moved on by the police and even broken up. We can all think of organisations or individuals who would take great delight in such activity.
  Some Conservative Members may still insist that that will not happen, but there is another law which says that if it can happen, it will happen. Even the most ardent supporters of the Bill cannot deny that under these proposals it is possible for a demonstration to be inhibited for reasons entirely within the personal prejudices of an individual police officer.
  1022
  I am not suggesting that police officers will deliberately set out to act in such a way, but the fact that it is in their power to do so is as worrying to many of them as it is to anyone else. Senior police officers have said that the police should not be thrust into the arena of political decision making. Indeed, the Home Secretary said as much. Under the Bill and this clause they will be, or at best, they may be, thrust into that arena. Because so much will depend upon the judgment and discretion of the police, even when demonstrators act reasonably and genuinely fear the consequences set out in the Bill, they will always have the suspicion that the police are biased against them and that they are making decisions of a political nature. That will cause a further deterioration in relations between the police and the public, and that is why some senior police officers are worried and do not want to be put in that position.
  The clause is designed to be restrictive. Therefore, in carrying out the law, as it is their duty to do, police officers will be viewed as acting in a restrictive manner. They will be seen to be against the demonstrators and so, by implication, for the subject of the demonstration. That is why it was argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the Bill should contain some positive measures to balance the negative elements; that the Bill should recognise the rights of individuals to the right to protest and demonstrate, rather than deal entirely with restrictions on such activities.
  The Minister has agreed, again after strong argument by Opposition Members, to issue a circular to the police reminding them of the right of people to assemble and demonstrate peacefully, but a golden opportunity has been missed to win back the confidence of the vast majority of people who will be directly affected by the legislation—the opportunity to give something rather than once again be taking more away.
  It is perhaps a measure of the distaste which the Government have for those traditional rights that, while they are willing to issue a circular, they could not bring themselves to incorporate in legislation the right to protest. In Committee the Home Secretary said:
  "We have no desire to heap powers on the police for some political purpose. The sole test should be the better protection of the public."
  I certainly agree with that, but the public whom I represent want protection against burglars, muggers, rapists and vandals. Not one constituent has asked me for protection against a May day rally or students' rag week parade.
  Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who had the greatest possible success with his amendments in Committee, which is no doubt why he is proposing this amendment. But should not the public who wish to go to work at least have protection from those who mob around the gates in that the police can ask them to stand back? All right, they may demonstrate, but the man who does not wish to be stopped, even by menaces, should be able to walk through to work. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in the case of Mr. Justice Scott, to which he referred, some 50 people sought, by much more than glowering, to try to intimidate people from exercising their lawful rights?
  Mr. Clelland: The hon. and learned Gentleman ignores the fact that the police already have considerable powers to make way for people going to work, as was done

  1023
  during the miners' strike. This is an additional power which is designed to restrict not only that activity but some other peaceful activities, as I have described. I am sure that we shall see examples of that as time goes on. This further restriction is an infringement of individual liberties and that is why we shall oppose the clause.
  What are we to read into the Home Secretary's words? They reveal to me that the right hon. Gentleman identifies three groups of people—the police, the public and the demonstrators. The job of the police, as he sees it, is to protect the public against the demonstrators. This was confirmed, to my mind at least, when he went on to say:
  "I think that we all agree that a balance must be struck between the rights of those who organise and attend assemblies and the rights of other people who are going about their lawful occasions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 March 1986; c. 729–30.]
  I could not help noticing that the word "lawful" is used of one group but not of the other. It may be a bit Freudian of me, but the right hon. Gentleman's words reveal to me a bias, perhaps subconscious, against those who wish to demonstrate. I must not, however, be too disparaging. The decision to issue the circular is welcome and will, no doubt, have an influence over the practical operation of the proposals, if enacted.
  In the Government's whole approach to this matter, we perceive a desire to curtail the freedom of groups and individuals to protest and to dissent. While the amendments which have been accepted have gone some way towards tempering the original proposals, the clause remains too restrictive, potentially too damaging to police-public relations, and too intolerant of traditional rights and liberties. It is good news for Rupert Murdoch, but it threatens to weaken even further the position of those who find themselves in conflict with the rich and powerful.
  We spent about 80 hours in Committee on this Bill. When we spend that much time discussing how we may correct the social conditions which have led to so much crime and unrest in our country over the past seven years, that will be when the House really begins to tackle the problem of public order.
  Mr. Hind: If this clause is removed from the Bill, we may as well not have a Public Order Bill at all. Nobody who realises the problems of public order today and who is responsible for organising demonstrations will doubt that this Bill will affect in any way the control and administration of demonstrations and processions that are properly organised and responsibly carried out. Those organisers have nothing to fear. What this clause strikes at is the problem outside the print works in Warrington and Wapping, outside Orgreave coke works, outside Nottingham pits. Those are the problems that the public look to us to solve, and this is one of the ways in which we do it.
  If we vote against this clause, we fail in our duty to the public—and they are not expecting us to do that tonight. I ask that the amendment be rejected.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Clause 14 demonstrates not only the Government's failure to understand what is required in the situations with which they are attempting to deal but, far more fundamental and disturbing, the Government's continued failure to recognise their international obligations as regards the right of peaceful assembly.
  1024
  This is a failure not only of the present Government but of successive Governments over many years. It is my view, a view that I urge the House to take, that it is wrong to enact a further series of prohibitions dealing with assemblies without at the same time attempting at long last to enact some positive legislation which gives and defines the right to protest and of peaceful assembly. We tend to assume that, in common with some other countries, we have a right to make peaceful protest, and to assemble to make that protest, but, of course, that is not the case. As Lord Hewart said in the case of Duncan v. Jones:
  "English law does not recognise any special right of public meeting for political or other purposes. The right of assembly … is nothing more than a view taken by the court of the individual liberty of the subject".
  This Government, like all Governments since Lord Hewart spoke those words many years ago, should have brought into domestic law the obligations to which we as a nation have assented in more than one international agreement.
  9.45 pm
  Pursuant to article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, we as a nation have agreed that
  "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others",
  subject to restrictions which, in my view, do not go as far as those in the present clause 14. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that
  "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."
  The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that
  "The Right of Peaceful Assembly shall be recognised."
  It is worth bearing in mind, too, the first amendment of the United States constitution which provides that
  "Congress shall make no law … prohibiting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."
  The word "right" is repeated again and again in those international declarations. It must be within a framework that includes a clear statement of what our rights are that prohibitions such as those that are contained in clause 14 should be enacted, and then only if they are absolutely necessary.
  Mr. Cash: There seems to be something slightly wrong with the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. All right hon. and hon. Members would subscribe to the idea of peaceful assembly, but clause 14 deals with a completely different situation where a senior police officer reasonably believes that it may result in serious public disorder, et cetera. That is the precise opposite of the hon. and learned Gentleman's case.
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It is the use of the phrase "et cetera" that gives away where he is wrong, because "et cetera" includes the right of a senior police officer to order an assembly to move if he believes that there will be "serious disruption to the life of the community". Quite apart from involving a very subjective judgment or belief, it also involves the police officer in an interpretation of what will be serious disruption to the life of the community. In my constituency in mid-Wales, which is not, on the whole, prone to demonstrations and assemblies, on the day following the American bombing of Libya there were two peaceful assemblies, one in the country town of Welshpool, the other in the country town of Newtown. It was a very unusual occurrence in each of those towns. They were peaceful assemblies and, judging

  1025
  by the newspaper photographs, extremely respectable and respected citizens took part. They assembled to protest against the British Government's error of judgment, as they perceived it, in allowing American F111s to fly from bases in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I think that he wants to intervene.
  Mr. Cash: I intervene briefly only to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman may remember that Welshpool is where Llewelyn died.
  Mr. Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more straightforward with us, he would have repeated what he said earlier from a sedentary position and I should have asked him to withdraw it.
  It would be quite wrong for a police officer to be empowered to tell an assembly like that which, legitimately in my view, is protesting publicly and seeking signatures for a petition, to go into a hall or back street because it happens to be holding up the traffic. On one occasion I saw a demonstration in a village by ladies with prams and pushchairs, who, because a child had been injured the day before in a road traffic accident, were protesting about the lack of a pedestrian crossing. They could have been caught by clause 14 merely because they were holding up the traffic on the main road. It is outrageous for hon. Members to seek to give police officers a discretion which, as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said, will often be severely misunderstood—a discretion to intervene in such assemblies and to try to move them on. Many police officers—indeed, most police officers—are unhappy about the discretion which is invested in them in the clause. That is a discretion which they would be willing to undertake, as opposed to compelled to undertake if this clause is enacted, only if it was set out in a much clearer framework which enabled them to know what the rights of the public are, not just giving them a discretionary slate of prohibitions.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: On what authority does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that most police officers are opposed to this provision?
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman talks to some police officers, just as I talk to some police officers. From the conversations that I have had with police officers—not union officials but ordinary bobbies—I understand that they are unhappy about this provision. The hon. Gentleman appears to have a slightly different opinion. No doubt we shall hear from him in due course.
  The clause as it stands imposes no duty on the police to recognise that the purpose of an assembly should be taken into account. It does not require the police to consider, for example, whether the purpose of an assembly relates to the affairs of the community, such as the pedestrian crossing protest to which I referred. It gives what some regard—perhaps it is slightly overstating the case—as draconian powers to the police. It gives them the ability to say, on the widest grounds of alleged "disruption", that a meeting must take place elsewhere.
  The clause as it appears in this Bill is outside what would be its proper context. Of course, if one set out in positive form the right of peaceful assembly—I and my colleagues would say that it should be, as part of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated in
  1026
  our domestic law—one would be entitled under article 11(2) of the convention to set out a lawful series of prohibitions within the terms of the convention. That is the proper context for provisions of this general nature. This Bill is not.
  Mr. Lyell: I speak in strong support of the clause as an important part of the Public Order Bill. I was not surprised that it was opposed by the Labour party, but I was interested that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, should also oppose it. If one considers the major public disorder that can be caused not only by the enormous demonstrations which we saw at Orgreave, Wapping or Warrington, but the way in which ruffians can describe themselves as a peace convoy and descend on a whole community, the way in which the villagers of Molesworth can be completely swamped by people, albeit most of them thoroughly sincere, the way that militant animal rights protestors can sometimes descend on farms and homesteads, the way in which the "Stop the City" campaign or a major demonstration on Oxford street can bring the life of a community into serious disruption, is it unreasonable for the police to have powers, when they fear serious disruption to the life of the community, serious public disorder or serious damage to property, to say, "Stand back. Move on. Demonstrate, but go to some more suitable place"? That is not preventing peaceful demonstration but preventing what should be a peaceful demonstration from turning into a riot or a rowdy mob, which is the denial rather than the protection of liberty. That is the essence of the clause and why, reasonably interpreted, as it will be, and checked by the courts, as it can be, it is central and important to the Bill and should be supported.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: It should be said that the police service was not happy at the task that it had to undertake last year during the miners' strike. The police found the duties that fell upon them distasteful, damaging to their relations with the community and a heavy burden on them individually. They nevertheless carried out their duties effectively. In no way did they allow the distinction between their duties under the criminal law to be confused with the Government's trade union legislation, which is an entirely separate matter.
  After the scenes that we all saw on television and many of which I saw personally, it would be outrageous if a Bill which purported to deal with public order did not contain a clause such as this. I appreciate the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). I congratulate him on his appearance at the Dispatch Box and on his contribution to the Committee. I hope that he will accept, however, that, taking account of the problems confronted by the police, and which the public observed, it would be nothing less than a dereliction of duty if the House failed to tackle the problem of serious disruption.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) in congratulating the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) on speaking from the Dispatch Box so soon after arriving in the House. I am sure that he has deserved that promotion, to say nothing of his contribution to the Standing Committee. Although his speech might have been

  1027
  excellent in rhetorical content and in terms of mastery of brief, I cannot share much joy or rapture at it because he elected to argue that we should have deleted clause 14.
  At least the hon. Member was at the Committee when we last debated the inclusion of clause 14. He was present with three other Labour Members when the Committee decided, by four votes to 10, that the clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill. I make that observation because no vote was cast by the representative of the Social Democratic party/Liberal alliance, who was absent then, as he often was. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) tried to make good that omission in his speech tonight. He does himself no credit when he suggests that the clause has no place in a public order Bill. It is essential that there are changes in the public order law governing static assemblies.
  I remind the hon. and learned Member, because he was not a member of the Committee, that, in the Metropolitan police district, of the incidents of severe public disorder, eight involved processions, three involved meetings and six involved assemblies. Since 1980 we have witnessed serious disturbances on the picket lines during the miners' dispute, at Warrington during an industrial dispute and now at Wapping. Those are examples of serious disorders resulting from static assemblies. I have to remind the House in firm tones that the requirement to trigger conditions imposed on assemblies—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Prisons
  10 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the situation in the prisons. There have been a number of serious developments during the course of the evening. At Northeye prison near Bexhill-on-Sea, prisoners this evening set fire to an office, the kitchen, the library and some other wooden structure. There have been no reported casualties. The staff on duty were obliged to withdraw to the gates for their own safety and some prisoners went on the rampage. Parts of the prison have been burnt out. The governor established a command post in the officers' club and, on my latest information, it is still unsafe for the fire brigade to enter the premises.
  Off-duty staff have returned to the prison indicating that they are anxious to help restore the situation, irrespective of the present industrial action. The police are at the perimeter of the prison, although it appears that some prisoners have escaped. Some 60 prisoners at Lewes prison in Sussex are out of their cells in one wing and probably seven are on the roof.
  In Bristol prison there is a serious situation. Prisoners have broken out of their cells. The governor has felt obliged to call in the police in order to maintain control of the prison. There are reports of minor trouble at three other prisons.
  Hon. Members: Resign.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This is a very serious statement. I make it clear right away that we shall expect another statement from the Home Secretary tomorrow afternoon and, if the situation is not in hand by them, we shall expect the Government to bring about another debate right away. If the Government do not do that, we shall be seeking your agreement for such a debate, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 10.
  This is a very grave situation and it is right that the Home Secretary has given this statement this evening. It is on the record that we warned the Government—[Interruption.]—we warned the Government as recently as yesterday about the delicate and dangerous nature of this crisis, and we spoke of the nation's prisons as a tinder box. Yesterday, the Home Secretary saw fit to dismiss the warnings that we gave. We now face a position the consequences of which cannot be calculated or forecast. The decline of law and order has spread to the prisons themselves.
  Yesterday I drew attention to the contingency plans for this dispute at the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Home Secretary responded by saying that it was right that there should be contingency plans. However, Mr. Jarman of the executive of the Prison Officers' Association said this evening that at Northeye prison contingency plans were not brought into operation. Can the Home Secretary confirm that, and can he explain it?
  Before there are further disturbing developments, I appeal to the Home Secretary to abandon the preconditions for talks that he laid down yesterday. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That's right—give in to anarchy."] Give in to anarchy? The anarchy has been created by the

  1029
  intransigence of the Home Secretary—anarchy which I warned the Home Secretary about yesterday and which the Home Secretary rejected with disdain.
  The prison officers at Northeye prison this evening have shown their sense of duty by returning to duty, to try to remedy the situation despite the dispute. Let the Home Secretary respond in the same spirit by accepting the offer of the Prison Officers Association, to suspend industrial action while talks take place. That would be the proper response in this dangerous situation. [AN HON. MEMBER : "It is called blackmail".] This dispute must be solved quickly. Let action be taken now to bring that about, or the responsibility will rest plainly with the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Hurd: The only factual question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me was about the Sussex police. As I said in my statement, they have been in action in support of the prison authorities at Northeye through the evening, so their role in the matter has already proved extremely helpful. I think that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman tonight into the rigmarole of contentious statements with which he finished.
  My information is incomplete, but I thought it right to come to the House and say what I knew without embroidery and without any allocation of responsibility. There will and must be an opportunity to discuss these matters. It will be necessary for me to report again to the House tomorrow afternoon. I rejected no warnings, and I yield to no one in my desire, as I made clear yesterday, to bring this unnecessary dispute to an end at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend urge the leaders of the Prison Officers Association to follow the example set this evening by their members at Northeye, who were off duty and who all came in to see what they could do to help in this difficult situation? When it is under control, will my right hon. Friend immediately instigate an inquiry, bearing in mind the considerable anxiety that will be felt in the Bexhill community? Will he bear it in mind that for the past two years, concern has been expressed about staffing ratios at Northeye? In view of what has happened, will he include that aspect in the inquiry?
  Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend, and join him in the tribute that he paid. The format of the inquiry into these events, which have been not just at one prison, is one of the things that I shall consider swiftly, as well as its scope.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: In commending the Home Secretary on coming to the House so promptly to make his statement, may I ask him, when he comes to the House again tomorrow, to explain why the Government have not heeded warnings given by the noble Lord Whitelaw when he was Home Secretary some five years ago about the dangerous situation that was being created by overcrowding in the prisons? Will he tell the House tomorrow why the Government did not take action to resolve the manning issues giving rise to the present dispute long ago? Will he confirm tomorrow that it is now recognised that the time has come for the dispute to be settled, and settled quickly on the basis of discussions without any preconditions on either side?
  Mr. Hurd: My noble Friend not only realised the dangers of overcrowding but acted to prevent and cure
  1030
  them. That was the origin of the prison building programme that is now under way. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the sooner this dispute is brought to an end, the better. I believe that the offer that I made on 22 April provides a basis for a fair resolution of the dispute.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept praise from this side of the House for coming so quickly to the House, making a straightforward, honest statement, and giving a commitment to return tomorrow to elaborate on it? Will he also accept that there seems to be little link in Lewes between the prison officers' dispute and the illegal actions taken by the prisoners, which are all the more sad because of the recategorisation of many of the prisoners and the reorganisation of the regimes and of the staffing to meet those new regimes there? Therefore, when he institutes an inquiry, as I am sure he will, will my right hon. Friend please bring it clearly to the notice of the officers and everybody else concerned that this seems to be an illegal uprising which should be treated as such and no more?
  Mr. Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for his first remarks. I am aware, as he is, of the excellent work which has been done over the years at Lewes prison.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the face of this further breakdown in law and order and this dangerous state of affairs, may I say from past experience that in no way should any hon. Member support insurrection, arson and what has just gone on? My party does not do that. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Rees: But we are not prepared to take this stuff about the Conservative party being the only party concerned about law and order. The House is concerned, and we support the Home Secretary. But tonight he should call the POA into his office and should say, "Suspend your action. Come back in the morning and talk." Otherwise, the breakdown in law and order will become worse, and no amount of Saatchi and Saatchi words will deal with it.
  Mr. Hurd: I am not dealing with the matter with Saatchi and Saatchi words, and I hope that the House will not do so either. My information is as yet incomplete, so tonight I do not want to enter much further into the details of what has occurred, or into the right steps to be taken in future. Tomorrow there will certainly be an opportunity to do that, but tonight I would rather not say things which in the light of fuller information may look odd or foolish.
  Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Although I congratulate those prison officers who have rallied round, is it not the case that the average earnings of a prison officer are £15,000 a year, of which some 30 per cent. is overtime? Is the country not entitled to ask that such officers should be prepared to negotiate without preconditions?
  Mr. Hurd: I confirm that figure.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are in the middle of debate on an important Bill, and that the statement concerns insurrections in three prisons, not the general position.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: When was the last occasion that the prison officers of this country were in such bitter conflict with the Government of the day?
  Mr. Hurd: There has been a history of discussion, disturbance and conflict. The House will remember the dispute five or six years ago. However, that is not relevant to the immediate problem before us, which is how to resolve the present position.
  Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the governor of Bristol prison has had to call in the police will inevitably lead to a disastrous decline in morale in that prison, whatever the outcome of the dispute? I hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage the governor of the prison to look not only to the POA but to individual members of staff, who may well hold different views, inresolving the dispute. Does he agree that the most immediate action necessary to ensure that Bristol prison once again works as a prison is to re-establish the morale that has clearly broken down?
  Mr. Hurd: We need first to re-establish control in the prisons. After that, the question of morale becomes very important.
  Mr. Eric S. Hafer: I know prison officers well, because there are many of them in my constituency, which has one of the biggest prisons in the country. Does not the Home Secretary agree that they play an important role in maintaining law and order, and are dedicated to doing their job in the interest of the community as a whole? Should not the Home Secretary and the Government listen to what they say? They are on the spot, and have full responsibility for looking after the prisoners. Over the years, particularly in the past few years, they have warned that the situation was becoming critical. Is it not time that the Government decided to begin serious discussions with them instead of adopting the rather arrogant attitude that some Ministers have taken on the radio? Will the Government conduct their discussions properly so that a settlement can be reached and the problem can be solved as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Hurd: I have twice had serious discussions with the POA. I agree about the importance of the work that prison officers do.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the vast majority of prison officers are honourable and decent men and women who are deeply shocked by what has happened this evening. I suspect that they will be utterly horrified to learn of the Opposition's cynical manipulation of events for party political reasons.
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should not have leapt into his usual act without being in full possession of the facts.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, he is the Minister responsible. When something for which he is responsible goes wrong, we are entitled to question and criticise him, if that criticism is justified. Given all that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and their colleagues have said over the years about law and order, did he ever think that he would be standing at the Dispatch Box at 10 pm on a Wednesday
  1032
  night to tell the people of this country that the prisons are on fire and the prisoners are running riot? What sort of law and order society are the Government trying to cultivate?
  Mr. Hurd: Of course I accept that I am the Minister responsible. If I did not accept that, I would not be standing here or volunteering a statement. If this debate is to do any of us any credit, its level must rise above that of rhetorical questions.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are faced with the difficult task of restoring order in the prisons will not thank any hon. Member for making their task more difficult by stoking up the emotions? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: In so far as the police become involved, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they have all the necessary resources of mutual aid if that becomes necessary? Would not the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) have done better to appeal to that small minority of prison officers who are taking industrial action to go back and do their work quickly?
  Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am in touch with the Sussex police about mutual aid.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: While in no way wishing to endorse the policies, some of the working practices or actions of the POA, is it not true that if the Home Secretary and some of his immediate predecessors had heeded the sensible and serious proposals put forward for some years by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by members of the public for a substantial reducion in the prison population without endangering the public, we would not be in such a dangerous position? Inmates, staff and the public are all in danger. In that sense at least, are not the Home Secretary and the Government fully culpable for the crisis that now exists?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the subject and has consistently advanced the view that, in some way which is not clearly specified, we should prevent the courts from sending to prison people whom they think should be sent there. [Interruption.] That is a fair summary of the hon. Gentleman's clearly held and consistently expressed view. I understand the reasoning behind it, as he has expressed his view clearly, but I do not think that that is a possible course.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: To the extent that the present problems are created by overcrowding in our prisons, does my right hon. Friend agree that the answer is not to change our penal policy but to accept that much of the responsibility falls on the Opposition because of their cut in the prison building programme?
  Mr. Hurd: The fact is that there was no prison building programme when the Conservative party came to power. My predecessor before last instituted a programme which has been carried on steadily ever since.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Does not the gravity of the situation demonstrate all too clearly how dangerous and foolish it was for the Government to break off negotiations this weekend in the face of an offer from the Prison Officers Association to suspend its action?
  Mr. Hurd: That offer was not honoured. The industrial action continued. I gave an account of those proceedings to the House yesterday. I believe that the stance I took at that time was reasonable.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary said that he would make a further statement tomorrow. I shall endeavour tomorrow to call those hon. Members who rose this evening but were not called.

  Public Order Bill
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Giles Shaw: In responding to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge, I was making the point that, in the Metropolitan police district, static assemblies and meetings contributed substantially to the severe public disorders between 1974 and 1980. I deduce from that that the House would be extremely foolish to accept the advice of the Opposition that clause 14 should be deleted from the Bill.
  I remind the House that, in extending to assemblies the proposals contained in the 1936 Act, the Government did not act in a fit of pique or a sudden thirst for additional powers. We acted on the advice of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We acted with care and had discussions. We acted in a way that was consistent with the Government's purposes without ensuring that an advance notice requirement in respect of assemblies should be undertaken, but that a power to ban should not.
  The police already maintain a presence at most demonstrations or pickets. They do so to fulfil their paramount duty in maintaining the Queen's peace. Clause 14 will not require the deployment of more officers or the wasteful use of police resources which might he more profitably employed in fighting crime. It will give the police effective powers to prevent crime by preventing disorder.
  The rights to assemble, to picket and to demonstrate are not absolute rights. They should never be an excuse for intimidation or disorder. Every citizen has a right to live his life in peace and the right to protection under the law.
  I said in Committee and to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge, who referred to it in his opening address, that I would advise police officers, in the circular on the Bills provisions, that they should bear in mind the traditional rights of protest and the traditional freedom of assembly which have been so widely observed for many years when they interpret their obligations under the provisions of clause 14. I should like to place that undertaking which I gave in Committee on the record.
  In part answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I must say that there will be, although not in the statute, a clear expression of the rights to protest which people have traditionally enjoyed conveyed to officers as part of the context in which they execute their duties.
  Clause 14 confers no power to ban assemblies. That is a most important point for the House to recognise. The Clause contains powers to enable major mischiefs to he avoided—to avoid serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community and intimidation of individuals. Do the Opposition seriously believe that the civil liberties of pickets and the right to demonstrate include the right to cause such evils? Surely not. Do they believe that the police should have powers to prevent these evils? Surely they do. Or is the Opposition's new-found, late interest in the problems of crime and of law and order, which is of such concern to the people we serve, a vote-catching operation, carefully timed for individual elections?
  The Government believe that the merits of the clause and the bankruptcy of the Opposition's argument are in

  1035
  complete contrast. The Government believe in a balance between the right to assemble and the right of the individual to go about his business in peace, and so do the British people. They will take note of the Opposition's claim that to question the rights of a picket to intimidate or cause disorder is authoritarianism, and they will support our attempts to provide additional protection for the individual citizen from the bully boys and the thugs on the picket lines or elsewhere. I commend the clause. It should remain in the Bill as a cardinal principle of public order.
  Mr. Clelland: I remind the Minister that we have seen more lawlessness and disorder under this Government than under any other Government in living memory. The clause does not seek to improve law and order. It will not prevent one riot or many of the problems to which the Minister drew attention. It will restrict the individual liberty and freedoms of people who want to protest against the type of policies pursued by the Government. We shall vote against the clause.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 225.

  Division No. 165]

  [10.30 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Alton, David

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Eadie, Alex

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Eastham, Ken

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Barnett, Guy

  Ewing, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beith, A. J.

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Bell, Stuart

  Fisher, Mark

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flannery, Martin

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

  Forrester, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Derek

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foulkes, George

  Blair, Anthony

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Boyes, Roland

  Freud, Clement

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Buchan, Norman

  Golding, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Gould, Bryan

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hancock, Michael

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Haynes, Frank

  Clay, Robert

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Home Robertson, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Howells, Geraint

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Corbett, Robin

  John, Brynmor

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Craigen, J. M.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Crowther, Stan

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Lambie, David

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamond, James

  Dixon, Donald

  Leighton, Ronald

  Dormand, Jack

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Douglas, Dick

  Litherland, Robert

  1036

  Livsey, Richard

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Robertson, George

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rogers, Allan

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Rooker, J. W.

  McKelvey, William

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McTaggart, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  McWilliam, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Madden, Max

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Marek, Dr John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Martin, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Maxton, John

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

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Michie, William

  Stott, Roger

  Mikardo, Ian

  Straw, Jack

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Nellist, David

  Tinn, James

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Torney, Tom

  O'Brien, William

  Wallace, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert

  Park, George

  White, James

  Parry, Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Gordon

  Penhaligon, David

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter

  Woodall, Alec

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prescott, John

  Randall, Stuart

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Raynsford, Nick

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Amess, David

  Evennett, David

  Ancram, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

  Forth, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Franks, Cecil

  Baldry, Tony

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fry, Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Best, Keith

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gow, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Greenway, Harry

  Bright, Graham

  Gregory, Conal

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Ground, Patrick

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

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

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harvey, Robert

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hayes, J.

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hayward, Robert

  Coombs, Simon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cope, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Couchman, James

  Hickmet, Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Hicks, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Dicks, Terry

  Hind, Kenneth

  1037

  Hirst, Michael

  Major, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Malone, Gerald

  Holt, Richard

  Maples, John

  Howard, Michael

  Marland, Paul

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

  Marlow, Antony

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Mates, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Mather, Carol

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Mellor, David

  Jackson, Robert

  Merchant, Piers

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Key, Robert

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Mudd, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Knowles, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Knox, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Lamont, Norman

  Newton, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Latham, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Pawsey, James

  Lightbown, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lilley, Peter

  Pollock, Alexander

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lord, Michael

  Powley, John

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Price, Sir David

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Raffan, Keith

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Maclean, David John

  Rathbone, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  1038

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Ryder, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waddington, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walden, George

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waller, Gary

  Silvester, Fred

  Ward, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Watson, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Speed, Keith

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Spencer, Derek

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Wheeler, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Timothy

  Stern, Michael

  Woodcock, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Sumberg, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mr. Peter Lloyd.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 43, in page 10, line 25 leave out 'any conditions which prescribe' and insert 'such conditions as to'.
  No. 46, in page 11, line 3 after 'constable', insert 'in uniform'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 16

  INTERPRETATION
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 47 in page 11, leave out line 26 and insert 'In this Part'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider also the following: Amendment No. 49, in page 11, line 32, leave out 'a public' and insert 'any'.
  Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52.
  Mr. Shaw: I should like to deal briefly with the Government amendments before considering amendment No. 49. Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52 bring the definition of "Public place" in clause 16 into line with the wording of section 1(1)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The other amendment makes minor drafting changes.
  Mr. Lyell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendment No. 49 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.
  The purpose of the amendment is to extend the provisions of the Bill from public places as defined in the Bill to any place which is open to the air. The sound reasons for doing that become immediately apparent. We agreed when we discussed the previous clause, and the House decided, that it would be a valuable power for the police to be able to get a demonstration likely to cause serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community or intimidation to people, to move to a more suitable location, or to stand back from the gates of the work place where the demonstration may have arisen, or to stop blocking the highway or snarling up the centre of the community in which it was taking place. Unfortunately, as the clause and the Bill are drafted, that applies only to what is a public place within the definition of the Bill. In a great many communities, public places and private land are almost inextricably inter-mixed. Therefore, the good effects of the clause could be made unworkable.
  I should like to explain that in relation to the problems that arise in rural communities. These problems can be categorised as those involving the so-called "Peace Convoy"; and the problems caused by the large numbers of albeit sincere people who descend on communities like Greenham common and Molesworth. There are also problems involving animal protesters, some of whom are sincere and who arrive in large numbers but who are all too often accompanied by militant animal rights protesters who might invade a factory farm. There are also problems with the large demonstrations of the type witnessed at Orgrave or Wapping, involving industrial disputes.
  It is important that the police should have effective powers, and not powers the ambit of which depends on whether the public assembly takes place on a highway or in a public place, which is defined in the Bill as land to which the public have access either on payment or by express or implied permission. The powers of the police must not be frustrated by the public being allowed to move on to what becomes the Tom Tiddler's ground of private land.
  I can illustrate the point by citing Molesworth or some factory farm. For example, a large number of people may
  1040
  have appeared to demonstrate in a narrow country lane near to Molesworth. These people may have snarled up the entrance to the village or completely swamped the local community, who all too often regard themselves as second-class citizens in their own homes. The police may want the demonstrators to move to the village green or to an open space which is more suitable for the demonstration, but some of the demonstrators may decide, because they know the law—and that is a good thing—to cross a fence into a farmer's field. As soon as they do that, the excellent power provided by clause 14 immediately disappears, as the assembly ceases to be in a public place in the context of the Bill.
  Let us consider the case of a large number of demonstrators arriving at a factory farm—say a broiler house farm—demonstrating against the treatment of the chickens that we eat in such large numbers. The demonstrators may get on to the farmyard, and some of them who are of violent intent will use the presence of the others to provide cover enabling them to commit criminal damage, or to terrorise the people on the farm. One of the examples given by Ministers of the good sense of the clause is that the police will be able to tell the demonstrators to stand back by the farm gate if the demonstration is blocking the road. However, as soon as the people get on to the farmyard, or the farmer's land around the buildings, the powers under the clause disappear, and the ability of the police to make good use of these preventive powers has gone.
  The powers under the clause can be considered in the wider context of the serious problems of the peace convoys and of major, and perhaps hippy-type, demonstrations which I know are a matter of great interest to many of my hon. Friends, who may catch your eye in this short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), whose constituency includes Glastonbury, and for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), who is with me on this clause, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
  The peace convoy, which has little or nothing to do with peace, tends to descend on a whole community—in the case of Salisbury, in several hundreds—and completely disrupt the life of the area. Immediately round Stonehenge, to which the public have access as of right or invitation, these powers will apply, but as soon as large groups spill over on to farm land or private land, the powers of the police to say, "Move on", or, "Stand back" disappear.
  This is illogical in the context of the Bill, because the other useful powers of this valuable Bill—whether the major powers on riot, unlawful assembly and affray under clauses 1, 2 and 3, or the other powers under clauses 4 and 5, on what used to be called conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, and is now conduct likely to cause violence and disorderly conduct—apply both to public and private land regardless, and rightly so. There is no logical distinction that should prevent these prophylactic powers from also so applying. The object of the powers under clause 14 is to be able to say to the demonstrators in number, "Stand back" and to prevent a clash from happening in the first place. Although it would not solve the peace convoy or the Molesworth problems, that is a valuable power in the hands of the police.
  I thank the Association of Chief Police Officers for its helpful discussions, but I disagree with its objections to

  1041
  this extension. The police are anxious that they should not become the bailiffs of every private landlord, a point with which I wholly agree, but there is no real danger that they will. The powers in clause 14 are wholly discretionary, at the instance of the senior police officer present, and can only be exercised, quite rightly, in the circumstances of serious disruption of the community, serious public disorder or serious damage to property. I can say with confidence that there would be no question of the operational decision of a senior police officer as to whether or not to use such powers being capable of being challenged by mandamus in the High Court. There is no question of the courts forcing a police officer to use his powers in a particular instance, and I can say that with some confidence as a matter of the law.
  Nor do I believe that there is any danger of chief constables being browbeaten into using these powers. I have the highest respect for the chief constables with whom I have had the privilege of working as a Member of Parliament, and I have not found them to be men who were likely to be browbeaten by any landowner or farmer if they believed that the course of action which they were invited to take was unwise. They are, on the contrary, strong and robust men, as we would expect them to be, and they are well capable of protecting themselves against undue pressure.
  I test this valuable power against what happened at Orgreave. Let us suppose that there is a large crowd of demonstrators, most of whom wish to be peaceful, but some of whom might be militant and might be jostling and pushing, and the police can see that there is likely to be major turmoil outside the gates of a workplace, preventing those who, in the normal life of the community, wish to pass and repass to go to work, from doing so. If, as I believe happened at Orgreave, and certainly happens at other work premises, the road that leads to the gate passes through private land as opposed to a public place, the prophylactic powers of the police to say, "Stand back", would not apply, and they would have to fall back on common law powers or into that difficult area where sometimes the police are forced to stretch their powers, albeit with the right motives, to achieve the right solution.
  It is wrong to put the police into that position. The extension of the powers to public and private land without distinction, simply on the basis that they are properly to be used for public order purposes, would be the wiser way to proceed, and I commend that route to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I recognise that it may not be easy to deal with the amendment tonight, but I ask them to discuss the matter further before the Bill concludes its passage in another place.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment and urge the Minister not to accept it too readily. Although I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's motives, the effect of his amendment would be to create a criminal offence of trespass in the open air for persons entering private land for purposes completely other than those which he mentioned when introducing the amendment. My anxiety relates to groups of people out for a country walk, who could be caught under the clause if the amendment were accepted. I know that that is not the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention, but it would undoubtedly be a potential effect of the clause
  1042
  if the amendment was accepted. I am worried that legitimate purposes of open-air recreation might be endangered if the clause was amended.
  The anxiety of many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, about what happened with the so-called peace convoy last year—the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is in the chamber—is beginning to resurface as we approach consideration of what might happen this year. With or without the Bill and the amendment, unless sensible and practical discussions continue about what is likely to occur when the convoy attempts to hold a festival at Stonehenge, I fear that there is likely to be trouble. That is something that we would all wish to avoid.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment would run the risk of turning the police into the patrolling bailiffs of privately owned land. That is not something that Opposition Members wish to see.
  Mr. Robert Key: This amendment, so eloquently moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), which I support, addresses itself to the false distinction between public and private land for the purposes of public order. In general, the civil law is powerless to deal with incursions on to private land before they have happened, where there is no event or festival to ban and where no one knows the identity or whereabouts of the potential trespassers. This is deeply unsatisfactory. The landowner, whether public or private, simply has to wait for trespass to occur before being able to act. The number of trespassers can grow by many hundreds in the course of a day, so, however speedy the lawyers or the courts, the problem by then has become severe, something that we all wish to avoid.
  Although the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which came into force on 1 January this year will make any mass invasion of, for instance, my constituency by the peace convoy and others quite different from last year, this Bill, unless it is amended, will do little to remedy the defects in the law which make flaming June such a misery for so many in south Wiltshire. It will, however, I suspect, help with the problem of illegal hare coursing.
  For example, the National Trust and English Heritage and most local farmers will seek injunctions in the High Court, banning the so-called Stonehenge free festival. An injunction is a fine remedy, but one must be able to identify the trespasser in advance, be able to serve him with proceedings and have enough evidence that he intends to trespass. Furthermore, summary possession procedure—that is, order 113—is slow and cumbersome, and will always suffer from the disadvantage that plaintiffs are usually too late to prevent damage and to stop large numbers arriving, as at the white horse in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters).
  Also the procedure takes at least a week. It is very expensive. It allows defendants to take advantage of their wrongful possession by dreaming up technical points of law. And, of course, judges are ever vigilant on behalf of unrepresented defendants, many of whom are intelligent and well educated but whose case has no legal merit whatever. The judge is assiduous to make sure that the landowner has dotted the i's and crossed the t's, to the extent that the lawful owners of the land are frustrated.

  1043
  This means that in too many cases unmeritorious and unwelcome squatters can stay beyond any reasonable time, and trade on it. In short, the law is not simply an ass, it is ridden on by such people, who plan their activities accordingly.
  This amendment also addresses itself to a consequence of the false distinction between public and private land, the problem of criminal trespass, referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The whole matter was lengthily debated by the Law Commission and the Law Reform Committee before the passing of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Section 7 of the Act brings residential premises into the ambit of the criminal offence but omits non-residential premises. If trespass were a criminal offence, the concept of deterrence would be introduced.
  It could be fairly argued that Stonehenge, the white horse, Savernake and all squatting activities of a similar kind in recent years demonstrate how unfortunate it was that in 1977 Parliament, against the Law Commission's recommendations, decided to exclude non-residential premises from section 7.
  The amendment has deterrence value. The whole country is anxious to avoid scenes such as those witnessed at Cholderton near Stonehenge last year when about 500 hippies, determined to break a High Court injunction, chose to confront the police and precipitated the much-reported fight that led to mass arrests. We all wish to avoid a repetition of such scenes. By amending the clause to include an assembly in any place, whether publicly owned or privately owned, we shall remove a contentious distinction that perpetuates the notion that public order should be different on opposite sides of the same fence.
  11 pm
  The Bill is about preventing violent clashes and violent behaviour and about coping with disorders, but there is also an important moral dimension to it, which I draw to the attention of the House in support of the amendment. Without the amendment, those wishing to hold an assembly in a private place will continue to exert some kind of moral blackmail over those who wish to enjoy their own land in peace. This will focus, in my constituency, on Stonehenge. However, the Bishop of Salisbury, Bishop John Baker, a former chaplain to Mr. Speaker and best known, perhaps, for his moral judgments on nuclear issues, said, with reference to the so-called Stonehenge free festival and the mass trespass by those assembled there:
  "The experience of years proved that the event was a major social and human evil. The great majority of people living in nearby communities hated the event, and wish it to cease. The Church cannot and must not support such an event in any way … it does not. We do support the local communities in their desire to go about their lives in peace. We do support landowners, both private and corporate, in their legal right to refuse the use of their land, and in their moral right not to be pressured into conceding it. We do support the police in their duty to uphold the law of the country. The way to prevent violence and confrontation this summer is for those who are thinking of defying that law to stay away … They have no encouragement of any kind from our Church to do otherwise."
  I support the amendment, which would contribute to the peace of our community.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I shall be brief, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) have already gone over the course. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that one of the grounds upon which he would object to the amendment was that it could catch those people who went out for a country walk. Before any offence would be committed under clause 14, the police officer must reasonably believe that what is happening may result in serious public disorder, or serious damage to property, et cetera. I do not believe for one moment that by blurring the distinction between public and private property, as the amendment tries to do, we should catch those people who go out for a country walk.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman conveniently omitted from his list of reasonable grounds that a police officer might have the crucial phrase
  "serious disruption to the life of the community."
  That is the contentious point, as we saw in our debate on the clause relating to assemblies, and it might well form a point of contention between a group of people with legitimate open air interests and a landowner.
  Mr. Alexander: I did not refer to those words, because I was absolutely certain that no couple who went out for a private walk could possibly come within the hon. Gentleman's description.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will accept the amendment. If it is not accepted, there will be a loophole in the law and we shall do a disservice to those innocent people whose lives over so many years have been disrupted by protesters and disrupters who care nothing for other people's property. Those innocent people expect this Bill to protect them. As it stands, all it does is to provide a loophole for sophisticated protesters who know what they are doing, and it leads the police to pass by on the other side. I urge seriously a change of heart on this amendment.
  Sir Hector Monro: I also would like to bring home to Home Office Ministers just how strongly we feel about this issue in the countryside. The improved definition offered by amendment No. 49 would be beneficial and strengthen the arm of the law in maintaining the peace and quiet that we expect. We believe in harmony in the countryside, not confrontation.
  I am a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, so it is obvious that I am keen on conservation and the use of the countryside for formal and informal recreation. It is time that we tried to limit the disruption which sometimes occurs. The militant demonstrator and other protestor is quite out of place in the countryside, and the sooner that there is more discipline so that everyone can enjoy the countryside, the better. This small but important amendment would be a major step in the right direction.
  The amendment would be especially helpful to some farms that have been attacked by those who want to release animals. Sometimes, they are foolish enough to release mink, which cause infinitely more damage and cruelty to other animals than they suffer in farms. Such people's objectives are ill thought out. The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association are anxious that we should strengthen the law in the interests of their members.

  1045
  Farmers, whether they be owner-occupiers or tenants, and landlords would feel that they were getting support from a Conservative Government if the Home Office felt able to accept the amendment. I give it my warm support.
  Mr. Warren Hawksley: I support amendment No. 49. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) covered most of the ground, but my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned Stonehenge. The peace convoy decided to separate and go north, and it has caused great problems in other parts of the country. I feel sorry for my constituents in Shropshire who have suffered the problems caused by people who have moved into the area, and continue to move from site to site to keep ahead of the landowner, whether it be the National Coal Board or the district council. They seem determined to keep one step ahead of the law.
  I hope that the amendment will be accepted. I believe that our constituents expect us to deal with a problem that is causing them great anxiety. They are entitled to peace and quiet at home. They should not be subjected to such noise and disturbance. They are confused, to say the least—they cannot understand why the police, to whom they turn, are powerless.
  Is it possible to speed up the procedure of getting orders? One of my parish councils has suggested that registrars might be allowed to deal with such requests. That council, the district council and the development corporation find that it takes a long time to get the necessary orders. Meanwhile, the people concerned have moved to other land. I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot accept the amendment, he will at least be able to offer the possibility of registrars issuing orders, so that the problems can be dealt with. If he cannot do that, I shall feel inclined to support the amendment.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I rise to support the amendment. My constituency includes Glastonbury, which is famous for its Arthurian legends and, like Stonehenge, attracts an annual influx of hippies, itinerants, travellers, whatever one may like to call them. Some of those groups pose a serious threat to public order. I know that I am not alone in this, because similar problems are encountered by my other hon. Friends in Somerset and Avon, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), who is in his place tonight. He is urgently dealing with a number of constituency cases now.
  Those problems are becoming more difficult because of the attitude of the alliance, which is not represented in the Chamber at present. Somerset is temporarily controlled by a Lib-Lab pact, and there is no doubt that the alliance opposition to the Bill is sending entirely the wrong signals to potential troublemakers who are now making their summer plans about whether to visit Somerset and create local disorder.
  I am not saying that the majority of visitors are necessarily violent and unwelcome. The majority are peaceful. They may create an annoyance, but it is part of the English tradition to deal with them in a spirit of give and take, live and let live. However, there is a minority of people, who should be dealt with by this clause, who take drugs and drive vehicles which are untaxed and unlicensed. They are not all from the same group; they are certainly not all members of the peace convoy. They go
  1046
  by a number of different names. In my constituency we have had the mutants and the chaotics and a number of other anarchist groups who think that they are outside the law and outside society, except when it comes to drawing social security. That creates local resentment. Those people are prepared to take social security, clothes, food and medicine from society when they need them, but they put very little back into society.
  It is when large numbers of that significant minority camp and gather in Somerset that they can be a real threat to the local community. I have witnessed some of the incidents. Hedges can be pulled up for firewood or used as public lavatories, which creates a health hazard, roads and lanes can be blocked, buildings can be vandalised and residents and shopkeepers can be threatened. There is a general feeling among my constituents that the existing, powers in the law are inadequate to cope with the growing problem.
  We have the law of trespass. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) pointed out, that can be extremely slow and cumbersome. Many members of these groups know how to circumvent the law and move down the road to different land if faced with a possession order where they are camped. Many of them have access to very good legal advice. Perhaps some of them are lawyers who put on their beads and headbands when they go on holiday, who knows. I know that I have spoken to many of them who are far from being poor and in need of these camps. It is a summer activity and we should have much less sympathy for them than is sometimes shown by the Opposition.
  All I want to do is give the police additional reserve powers that could be used if necessary. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) is right to say that this is not a bailiffs' charter. The police are reluctant to move or evict people unless there is a serious disruption and that may be the basis of their opposition to this amendment.
  However, there is a growing problem. The Bill provides an opportunity, perhaps the last opportunity for some years, to respond to this problem. Certainly large numbers of people in the Wells division are looking for a positive response from my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Cash: I wish to endorse most of my hon. Friends' comments. Together we have managed consistently to fight the battle against the peace convoy over a period of months, since the peace convoy came to our respective constituencies. I would like to thank the Home Secretary and the Minister for the courtesy and time they have given to us on a number of occasions and the good advice they have been able to offer. I would also like to mention the Association of Chief Police Officers which has also given its time and has provided advice while we have been discussing this matter. The Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union have been equally helpful.
  The peace convoy arrived in Staffordshire and caused £85,000 of damage. That was an intolerable incursion. The anxiety and fear that were caused to my constituents, and the damage, dereliction and chaos that those people left behind, were intolerable. I cannot believe that the Labour party can resist this proposal, which would deal effectively with the problem. I would go further and say that, to its credit, Staffordshire county council, which is Labour controlled, did what it could to impress upon

  1047
  Labour Members the fact that it wanted their help. The council is not receiving it, so Labour Members should be condemned by their own people.
  The lawful enjoyment of rights by all is the essence of proper public order policy. The peace convoy and similar people operate in an environment and in a way that is totally contrary to the reasonable behaviour of ordinary civilised people.
  We have to deal with the problem. It is a serious matter. The problem is escalating, and I thoroughly support the Government's efforts to deal with it in the Bill. Clause 14, in conjuction with clause 5 and other provisions, go a long way in dealing with that serious problem.
  11.15 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: The police have raised some objections to what is proposed. They do not want to criminalise trespass. They do not want to be turned into the surrogate gamekeepers of private landowners. They feel that clause 14 is quite a lot to swallow and that adding this amendment to it would make it even more difficult But in this case, I believe that the police are wrong. It is best that I say so plainly.
  There is a tendency to think that the public disorder problems are an urban phenomenon. Of course, most of them take place in the big cities, but the fact is that we are in the presence of increasing public disorder problems in the rural areas. My hon. Friends have all mentioned examples in their constituenies. The Committee discussed the matters in detail. In my constituency this summer, when it is proposed to hold the annual Mildenhall air show, there is not the slightest doubt that large numbers of people, peaceniks or others, will gather on private land. They will cause immense problems. There will be great concern among my constituents, and among the supporters of my party, if we say that we have put on the statute book a new Public Order Bill, yet it becomes clear that we have done nothing effective to deal with the problem. If that happens, I have fear that there will be considerable disenchantment with what we have done.
  When he replies, my hon. Friend the Minister will fairly say that just as clause 5 as redrafted and agreed to by the House earlier can apply in a number of circumstances, for example in dealing with noise, so too, it can apply in this case. I agree that there is some evidence that it might, but it will be marginal. It will not tackle the problem. It will not prevent large hordes of troublemakers proceeding to occupy private land. It will not help the police get them off without pitched battles. None of us wants that to happen.
  Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend, who has been so resaonable and sweet a Minister throughout the Committee and Report, to listen to the views of the House. With the exception of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), whose arguments I understand, we are in possession of a virtually unanimous request to the Government.
  Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we discuss issues of police manpower and police budgets in counties, and when many of the counties about which we are speaking are controlled by a Liberal-SDP faction, it is intolerable that not one alliance Member has been present to debate this particularly important matter?
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Alliance Members are undoubtedly absent proclaiming their commitment to rural policy in west Derbyshire. We also encountered that phenomenon in Committee.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was most unfair to give that description to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). I apologise to the House for my temporary absence, but I can assure the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, as he should know from reading our Committee proceedings, that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) shares our great interest in the affairs of rural areas. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problems to which the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) eloquently adverted are not only encountered in Shropshire, which the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) mentioned, but across the Shropshire-Welsh border, and that I share the concern expressed?
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Sometimes we extend the courtesies of the House too far.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has heard what has been said. He knows, as I know, the technical problems and the reservations of the police. It remains his job as a Minister to overcome them. I hope that he will take account of what has been said, and one way or another give hon. Members, who have spoken with experience, knowledge and foreboding of the consequences, if we fail to act, the comfort of words that will at least open the door to some action being taken in the other place on what is a genuinely serious problem.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: The amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has provided a debate of some significance. I am not a bit surprised at that because in Committee, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) knows, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire gave us a substantial piece of his substantial mind on the issues relating to the law on trespass and the inadequacies of this clause.
  All hon. Members, whether in government, on the Back Benches or, I suspect, in Opposition, share the feeling that the problems caused by groups, such as the peace convoy, have brought great distress and misfortune to our rural communities. There is no question but that we wish to find ways and mans of reducing that distress and misfortune.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my hon. Friend include the actions of Hells Angels, who have been of considerable inconvenience in Windsor, as he knows, and of whom Mrs. McSorley is the victim?
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. Other groups, of which Hells Angels are one, cause substantial distress.
  In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that such groups were the equivalent of mediaeval brigands. Wherever they have gone, they have shown a blatant disregard for the rights and the peace of the local inhabitants. We may also add to our condemnation of such activity those groups of so-called

  1049
  animal rights protesters who, by trespassing on farm land and engaging in violent and threatening behaviour towards farmers and their families, are of genuine public concern.
  In considering in Committee what best we might do, we undertook to have further discussions with the police and other interested parties. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and other hon. Friends have had similar discussions, which have been referred to this evening. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, although chief constables are not unanimous, the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers are such that it is clear that it is not persuaded of the need for an extension of the new powers under clause 14 in the way that my hon. and learned Friend proposes. The police remain of the view that their existing powers to deal with criminal damage and breach of the peace, together with the offences in clauses 1 to 5, should be sufficient to cope with any real mischief that is likely to arise.
  I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire underestimates the powers that will be available to the police. I remind him that the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were not available during the disturbances which occurred with the peace convoy a year ago. Those powers came into force on 1 January.
  Under the existing law, under the new offences and wider powers that are proposed in the Bill, and under the PACE powers, the police have power to enter private land and make arrests if there is a breach of the peace. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, they have powers to arrest anyone who has committed an offence if service of a summons is impracticable because of difficulties in establishing name and address. The Act gives the police powers to enter land to prevent serious damage to property. Under the Bill, all the public order offences which the House has been considering tonight will apply to both public and private land. We have deliberately extended the scope of clauses 4 and 5 to private land to catch the sort of behaviour in which peace convoys and other such groups indulge. Once the Bill is in force, anyone on private land who threatens violence or who behaves in a disorderly manner, or who is likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress, will commit an offence under sections 4 or 5, as they will become.
  It follows that with this wide range of powers—the police have told us that this will follow—the police should be able to deal with the real mischief, which lies in criminal damage, threatening behaviour and intimidation by those who happen to be trespassers. The only offence that they will not have the power to deal with is simple trespass. The police are most emphatic that they do not want to become involved in the enforcement of private rights. I recognise the overall conclusion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that the police are wrong in the general stance that they have taken, but my hon. Friend recognised that involving the police in a greater extension of services to private landlords might well cause them substantial difficulty.
  I think that we all recognise that the complaint of simple trespass remains a matter for the civil law. Equally, I think that we all recognise that the root of the problem facing landowners whose land is invaded by the peace convoy is the slow enforcement process of the civil law. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, who raised the matter specifically, that discussions that we have had with
  1050
  colleagues recently have convinced us that we should seek to make representations to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to ensure that he is fully aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. I remind my hon. Friends that in discussions previously the Country Landowners Association agreed to provide further information of instances where it has found the enforcement of the civil process both slow and inadequate to deal with the offences with which it has been concerned. I hope that it will respond and provide all possible evidence to enable us to discuss with the Lord Chancellor's Department what might be done to speed up and improve the process.
  I reassure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my hon. Friends generally that we do not have a closed mind about the adequacy of the law to deal with groups like the peace convoy. All we are saying is that we should not rush into further legislation until the new police powers to which I have referred have been tried and tested. The police believe that the totality of powers available to them will be sufficient. We are not in the business of heaping extra powers on the police, for their own sake. We have been concerned throughout the discussion on the Bill to identify the powers that will be of practical value to the police.
  11.30 pm
  I must take note of the strength of feeling which hon. Members have expressed. I shall discuss the debate's conclusions and the unanimous view expressed by Conservative Members that further action is required in this direction. I shall consider the requests put to me by my hon. Friends, which were summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, for further action during the passage of the Bill.
  However, I stress that a major change to the law on trespass is not something which we are presently minded to contemplate. We are prepared to consider the views expressed by hon. Members about their constituents' fears and their doubts that the laws we have already enacted and those we are in the process of enacting may not be sufficient. That is a state of mind which my hon. Friends have made very clear. I trust that it is not a state of the law which we can allow to remain for much longer.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 50, in page 11, line 34, leave out 'includes' and insert 'means'.
  No. 52, in page 11, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert—
  (b) any place to which the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 17

  PUBLISHING OR DISTRIBUTING
  Amendment made: No. 53, in page 12, line 5, leave out from 'if' to end of line 7 and insert '—

  (a) he intends by the publication or distribution of the matter to stir up racial hatred, or

  (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result of the publication or distribution.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

  Mr. Lawrence: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 12, line 7, at end insert—
  '(1A) The authority responsible for maintaining any public highway or passageway shall remove any such written matter

  1051
  from the public highway or passageway or the curtilages adjacent thereto within fourteen days of receiving notice of the existence of such matter'.
  Clause 17(1) makes it an offence for a person to make a threatening sign, writing or visual representation. I take it—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the use of devices such as spray paint and graffiti is threatening, abusive and insulting if the user intends hatred against a racial group. There is no point in making that an offence if the writing remains on the wall. If the person responsible is charged, convicted, fined or sent to prison, but what he wrote on the wall is still there and will be there until the cows come home, we will not have achieved a great deal.
  My amendment would place on the local authority responsible for the highway, the passageway, the curtilage, the fence or the wall abutting the highway, the duty to remove the offensive material within 14 days. The suggestion is so eminently sensible that my only surprise is that it is not already in the Bill. I ask my hon. Friends to support me. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note the strength of that support and acceded to my sensible amendment.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I recognise, and welcome, the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that local authorities should remove graffiti. I think that even he would argue that it would hardly be right to enter a new phase of conferring further statutory duties on local authorities, however admirable his amendment might be. Local authorities already have many statutory duties, and it is not part of our policy to create new ones, unless it is absolutely necessary. I do not see that the imposition of such a duty is a necessity. I hope that all local authorities, as a sensible part of good housing management policy, could be persuaded to take the kind of action that my hon. and learned Friend seeks. If such a duty were imposed, there must be some doubt whether it would be enforceable. I am not minded to ask the House to accept my hon. and learned Friend's amendment, but I understand why he proposed it.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is right. It does not do the Government any credit to say that they are not prepared to impose these extra duties on local authorities. They spend so much time taking away duties and powers from local authorities that it is no wonder that racialist graffiti is left in decaying urban areas. The Government ramble on about law and order policies, but they cannot keep areas, especially inner-city areas, clean and decent places in which people can live and walk. The Government have no right to talk about law and order, even if one ignores the mess that they have made of it generally.
  There is a strong case for imposing on local authorities a duty to clear up racialist graffiti, precisely because we know that it is given such a low priority by so many local authorities. The Government have said that part III is an important part of the Bill, and I agree. I have already commented on the Minister's abilities—he has been very good in this respect. The Government give part III a high priority but say that is does not matter if the offending words and phrases remain. Such words and phrases are sufficient reason to bring a person before a court and, in
  1052
  certain circumstances, to send him to prison. The Government say that we need not do anything about it. That is virtually a contradiction.
  Why do we take such action against the individuals who write that graffiti if we are not prepared to ensure that it is cleared up when the culprit cannot be found? Are we just to leave the graffiti there to be offensive? The Government have a double standard on law and order. They want all the good things. They go on about law and order being necessary, but take all the action that makes a breakdown in law and order highly likely. This is yet another example in which the Government make no effort to maintain standards in decaying and rundown areas where racialist graffiti is a major problem and in other areas where it offends the many people against whom it is directed. The hon. and learned Member for Burton was right to draw our attention to it.
  Mr. Lawrence: Although I reject the intemperate accusations of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) against the Government's law and order policy, I am grateful to him for his support for my amendment. I am not pleased with my hon. Friend the Minister. He said how sympathetic he was, but talked of how impossible it was to do anything about the problem.
  If the Home Office is not minded to put some pressure on a department somewhere to do something about the problem, nothing will be done. I should like to be able to say that the writing is on the wall if the writing is not taken off the wall by the Government. Some action is necessary. My hon. Friend's answer was not, with the greatest respect, convincing or satisfactory.
  Of course I appreciate the difficulties involved in pressing the amendment, but I should like my hon. Friend to reconsider. I hope that the other place will see fit to put more pressure on the Government than I have managed to do, with the welcome assistance of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

  INTERPRETATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise to the House for missing out amendment No. 48. We shall take it now.
  Mr. Clelland: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 11, line 31, leave out '3' and insert '20'.
  In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) argued, strongly and with his usual eloquence, that three was far too small a figure to define an assembly for the purposes of the Bill. The Minister said that he agreed that the base should be shifted upwards. He said:
  "I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's arguments with care and I shall consult further on the matter. I accept that, if a number can be found that is sensible in terms both of policing and of definition for the kind of offences that we are discussing, that number should be in the clause. I have accepted the principle and indicated at least that my starter is for 10."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 13 March 1986; c. 789.]
  As no Government amendment to increase the number has been tabled and as the Minister has said that he accepts the principle that the number should be increased, I am left with the assumption that he looks favourably on the

  1053
  amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Therefore, I shall waste no more time but shall await the Minister's favourable response.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) has chosen his moment and his amendment well and has presented a good case for excluding small assemblies of fewer than 20 persons from the scope of the clause 14 provision. The case is of such quality that its author must be a great man. We discussed this matter at some length in Committee and I accepted then that there was a case in principle for excluding small assemblies. We consulted the police and they are content with a cut-off point of 20 and I am happy to say that the Government are prepared to accept the amendment and I advise the House so to do.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

  PUBLISHING OR DISTRIBUTING
  Amendment made: No. 56, in page 12, line 19, leave out
  'It is a defence for the accused' and insert 'In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who did not intend to stir up racial hatred'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 18

  POSSESSION OF RACIALLY INFLAMMATORY MATTER
  Amendments made: No. 57, in page 12, leave out lines 26 to 35 and insert
  'if—

  (a) he intends racial hatred to be stirred up by the publication or distribution of the matter, or

  (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result of the publication or distribution of the matter;

  and for this purpose regard shall be had to such publication or distribution as he has, or it may reasonably be inferred that he has, in view.'.
  No. 59, in page 13, line 4, leave out
  'It is a defence for the accused' and insert 'In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who did not intend to stir up racial hatred'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 19

  WORDS OR GESTURES
  Amendments made: No. 60, in page 13, line 8, leave out from 'uses' to 'words' in line 9.
  No. 61, in page 13, line 10, leave out from 'if' to end of line 12 and insert '—

  (a) he intends by the use of the words or gestures to stir up racial hatred, or

  (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely, as a result of the use of the words or gestures, to be stirred up.'.

  No. 62, in page 13, line 11, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'England and Wales'.
  No. 63, in page 13, line 12, at end insert—
  '(1A) An offence under this section may be committed in a private or public place, except that no offence is committed by the use of words or gestures by a person inside a dwelling which are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.'.
  No. 64, in page 13, in line 13, after 'person', insert
  'who does not intend to stir up racial hatred'.
  No. 65, in page 13, line 15 at end insert—
  1054
  '(2A) It is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his words or gestures would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.'.
  No. 66, in clause 20, page 13, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'may' in line 20 and insert
  '(1) No prosecution for an offence under this Part'.
  No. 67, in page 13, line 22, at end insert—
  '(2A) For the purposes of the rules in England and Wales against charging more than one offence in the same count or information, each of sections 17, 18 and 19 creates one offence.'.
  No. 68, in page 13, line 23, leave out 'such an offence' and insert
  'an offence under this Part'.
  No. 69, in clause 21, page 13, line 30, leave out from 'of' to 'any' in line 31.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 24

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendments made: No. 74, in page 15, leave out line 1 and insert 'In this Part—'.
  No. 75, in page 15, line 5, at end insert—
  '"dwelling" means any structure or part of a structure occupied as a person's home or as other living accommodation (whether the occupation is separate or shared with others) but does not include any part not so occupied, and for this purpose "structure" includes a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or moveable structure;'.
  No. 76, in page 15, leave out line 6 and insert—
  '"premises" includes any place and, in particular, includes—

  (a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft,

  (b) any offshore installation, as defined in section 1(3)(b) of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, and

  (c) any tent or moveable structure;'.

  No. 77, in page 15, leave out lines 7 to 15.
  No. 78, in page 15, line 18, at end insert—
  '"racial hatred" means hatred against a racial group in Great Britain.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 26
  OFFENCES CONNECTED WITH FOOTBALL
  Amendment made: No. 80, in page 16, line 16 [Clause 26], after '5', insert 'or Part III'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]
Clause 27

  EFFECT OF ORDER
  Mr. Giles Shaw: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 17, line 6, leave out from 'may' to end of line 8 and insert 'arrest him without warrant'.
  May I suggest that with this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 82, in page 17, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
  We are minded to accept the amendments. They have the effect of substituting a power of arrest for the power of expulsion presently in the Bill, which is exercisable when a constable reasonably suspects that a person is in breach of an exclusion order. Representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers pressed for a power of arrest when I saw them a month or so ago. I am willing to accept the amendments and commend them to the House. In most circumstances, the power of expulsion together with the power of arrest under the Police and

  1055
  Criminal Evidence Act would suffice. Under section 25 of that Act the police can arrest a person who is in breach of an exclusion order if, for example, service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate, because the police have grounds to believe he may cause injury to others or damage to property after being expelled from the football ground, or because the name and address of the suspected offender is not known and cannot readily be ascertained.
  These powers would suffice in most cases, but I accept that there may be cases in which an offender is apprehended at a match and the police have no grounds for believing he will cause injury or damage, but believe that he will attempt to re-enter the ground. That is the point I undertook to cover and which it is correct to present to the House in the form of an amendment. I hope the House will agree to accept it.
  Mr. Hayes: May I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to the House for not being present when these important amendments were put to the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his swiftness of foot and for the co-operation of Opposition Members. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government have taken a sensible approach to the Bill. Clearly, the Government understand, in the way that we in Committee, in a sensible and amicable way, understood, that the most important point is that football must be a decent family game, and one in which we want to prevent the thuggery and the violence that takes place. We must give the police the proper powers to enforce the exclusion orders. I am most grateful to the Minister for adopting this sensible and reasonable approach.
  11.45 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend, because this will avoid obstreperous football fans who have been expelled making a fool of policemen who are trying to do their job properly. This is a good example of the Government listening to the views of the police service, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting the amendment.
  Mr. Kaufman: Brisk and bizarre proceedings have been known in the House of Commons before, but this beats a lot that I have seen in 16 years. For an hon. Member to fail to move an amendment, and for a Minister to accept it in the absence of that hon. Gentleman, is a new level in the responsiveness and accountability of Her Majesty's Administration to the House of Commons. I very much trust that it will set a precedent for the future, based on telepathy.
  The Opposition will not oppose the amendment. After reasonably assiduous attendance in Committee, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has now managed to get a bit on to the statute book. Without in any way detracting from his moment of glory, I must tell him that I believe that the use of this power will be extremely rare, for the very reasons that we gave when we discussed the exclusion order procedure in Committee. In our view—and also in the view of the Police Federation—the exclusion order procedure will be difficult to assert. I do not believe that adding a power of arrest to something that is very difficult to enforce will make it any easier.
  The Opposition have made it clear throughout that, despite our doubts about the efficacy of this procedure
  1056
  —which doubts are shared by the police themselves—we hope that it works. We believe that stringent action to deal with hooliganism at football matches will, provided it works, can only be to good of the public order and the game itself. Now that those who are subject to exclusion orders—thanks to the responsiveness of the Government—include racists, we hope that they will be caught by this as well.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 82, in page 17, line 9, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Schedule 1
  SPORTING EVENTS
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 22, line 29, at end insert—

  'Private facilities for viewing events
  5AA.—(1) In relation to a room in a designated sports ground—

  (a) from which designated sporting events may be directly viewed, and

  (b) to which the general public are not admitted,

  sections 2(1)(a) and 3(1)(a) of this Act have effect with the substitution for the reference to the period of a designated sporting event of a reference to the restricted period defined below.
  (2) Subject to any order under subsection (3) below, the restricted period of a designated sporting event for the purposes of this section is the period beginning 15 minutes before the start of the event or (if earlier) 15 minutes before the time at which it is advertised to start and ending 15 minutes after the end of the event, but—

  (a) where an event advertised to start at a particular time on a particular day is postponed to a later day, the restricted period includes the period in the day on which it is advertised to take place beginning 15 minutes before and ending 15 minutes after that time, and

  (b) where an event advertised to start at a particular time on a particular day does not take place, the period is the period referred to in paragraph (a) above.

  (3) The Secretary of State may by order provide, in relation to all designated sporting events or in relation to such descriptions of event as are specified in the order—

  (a) that the restricted period shall be such period, shorter than that mentioned in subsection (2) above, as may be specified in the order, or

  (b) that there shall be no restricted period.

  (4) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 88.
  Mr. Shaw: We now come to a significant amendment, which has been pressed upon me by both sides of the House. It relates to the exemption included in the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act, which was passed last summer and applies to all parts of grounds which have bars, with the exception of the sponsored boxes which were built facing the pitch. I am glad to say that in general—I hope that the House will concur—the police believe that the Act, as well as other things that have taken place since last season, is helping them to combat hooliganism.
  During the proceedings on the Bill considerable concern was expressed about the effect of the Act on the revenue that clubs derived from the leasing of executive boxes. I therefore undertook to monitor the situation, and the Football League has supplied us with information that shows that clubs are projecting considerable losses. In

  1057
  Committee I said that the Government would be working on an amendment to relax the controls without abandoning them altogether, and the result is before the House this evening.
  The amendments establish a new regime for the sale and possession of alcohol in executive boxes and restaurants. The sale and possession of alcohol in such rooms will continue to be prohibited for a period lasting from 15 minutes before a match until 15 minutes after a match. Outside that dry period, box occupants will be able to possess alcohol, and it can be sold to them as long as a normal justice's licence has been obtained.
  The amendments also make provision for the dry period to be reduced, or indeed removed altogether, by order. I should make it clear that we have an open mind on whether, and if so when, that power should be exercised, and we certainly do not intend that it should be exercised before the 1987–88 season, at the very earliest.
  Under the arrangements, the role of the magistrate will be limited to the usual licensing role. We concluded that it would not be appropriate or sensible to attempt to devise a new form of procedure for boxes similar to the exemption order arrangements under the 1985 Act. Many boxes are paid for by companies, which take clients to matches and provide them with drinks at no charge. We could not easily extend the present exemption order scheme, which applies only to sale, to those cases. It would be equally difficult to graft on to the 1985 Act a new exemption order scheme which applied to possession as well as to sale. Accordingly, the amendments are formulated on a different basis, with a central dry period, but with a substantial reduction in the period of control.
  I know that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was especially concerned about the equity of the whole operation of the 1985 Act, and about the equity to be included in any amendments that we brought forward. I believe that we have incorporated as much equity as is reasonably possible in the circumstances, without undermining the controls generally. Clearly, during the period when clubs are not enabled to serve or to sell alcohol in boxes they will be in the same position as people on the terraces and in the stands, who will not be able to possess alcohol in any place from which the pitch may be viewed direct. They can go to behind the stands areas to buy a drink if an exemption order for sale has been granted by a local magistrate.
  We have initially set the dry period to cover the period of the match and 15 minutes on either side and I would judge that that 15 minutes on either side is the time when the vast majority of spectators enter or leave matches and is accordingly the period when the need for equity is at its greatest.
  In addition, the relaxation is framed in terms of rooms from which the pitch may be directly viewed and to which the general public are not admitted. The relaxation would therefore apply to any room (for example a supporters' club clubhouse) to which the general public are not admitted. There is nothing to prevent a club from developing such a facility and thereby taking advantage of the relaxation that we have in mind. In many ways we would welcome developments of membership card schemes in this way to provide facilities which are not for general public use but which are for club members only.
  These proposals represent a significant degree of relaxation for the clubs, while keeping intact the general thrust of the 1985 Act. Under the present controls, alcohol
  1058
  may neither be sold nor purchased in boxes for a period lasting from two hours before a match until one hour afterwards, a total period of four hours 40 minutes. Under these proposals this "dry period" will be reduced to two hours 10 minutes. Sponsors will be able to entertain clients for a meal with a drink before the match, and if developments in the game are encouraging there is provision for further relaxation in subsequent seasons.
  I conclude by saying that in dealing with the issues of football hooliganism and the management of clubs we have provided arrangements for an exclusion order scheme and for an arrest power to go with that. We have provided proposals for containment of the sale of alcohol, yet with a relaxation, significantly, for the provision of alcohol in sponsored boxes.
  I wish that clubs would give more commitment to installing membership schemes in order to control those whom they wish to attend their games, and in that way do more to fulfil their side of the bargain, because I believe that if the House accepts these amendments we shall be delivering our side of it.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry that the Government felt compelled to make these further concessions to those who want to earn the money for football from booze. It is a pity that our national game is so unimaginative in its approach to fund raising that it has to persuade the House that football will not be able to survive unless drinking in directors' boxes is allowed. That is a shameful admission.
  I have had some responsibility for sport. I have had the opportunity to see how other countries handle the financing of it, and most of the great European football clubs arrange their business rather better. They have multisport facilities. They have arrangements whereby they get income from many activities that attract more customers, including families. Regrettably, in Britain we appear to be accepting the view that unless the directors' guests can do more drinking in the boxes, football will collapse. I do not believe that.
  It would have been far better to make football face up to its responsibilities, widen its market and use its facilities better. It is a national disgrace that we have come to the situation that, although Parliament has had to take action to prevent drink generating violence, we are now under pressure from the clubs who say that we must change what we did. I do not think that the initial Act—the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol, Etc.) Act—was any good, and I do not think that this Bill is any good. We have arrived at this pass. There is nothing to be done, but somebody should have the guts to stand up and say that football does itself no credit if it finances its future on booze.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I declare my interest in that I am chairman of the all-party football committee, and the House may know that, along with my colleagues, I have argued for this change. It is no secret that on the Second Reading of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol, Etc.) Act, I said that I felt that both the Government and my Front Bench had overreacted to the terrible tragedies at Brussels, Birmingham and Luton. The proposed amendment is a recognition by both the Government and the Opposition that my colleagues and I had a rather more valid line of argument than they thought.
  This is not time for self-congratulation. The feeling is probably best summed up by Luke, chapter 15:

  1059
  "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentence."
  In this case we have two, in the shapes of the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I congratulate them because, following the promise that we obtained from the Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill—that he would monitor the effects of the Bill on football clubs—both the Minister and my right hon. Friend took that promise seriously. They both visited football clubs, looked closely at the problems, and monitored the Football League, and the reactions of the all-party football committee. As a result, we have today's amendment.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), because he misunderstood the Act on Second Reading last year, and he still misunderstands it. He spoke about the guests in directors' boxes, but that has always gone on because the boxes do not overlook the pitch. We are not talking about them, although the hon. Gentleman keeps getting this mixed up. I agree with him in part about continental clubs, but they have always had such a facility, for which we have argued, and which is returning through the amendment. His contribution was neither weighty nor relevant.
  There is no doubt—it has been recognised by the Government and by Opposition spokesmen—that clubs such as Manchester United, Spurs, Leicester City and many others would have been hit drastically next season were it not for this proposal. There were signs of that this season. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton asked for equity. Unfortunately, the flow of money from executive box holders, which would enable clubs to do all the things that the Prime Minister and the Minister of State wanted, including improving safety standards, was drying up fast. But at the same time, the person who had his drink out of sight of the pitch could still enjoy that facility. The amendment would make the position more equitable for executive box holders, many of whom may not support the Labour party. But as an egalitarian, I believe that they should be given a fair chance if they are genuine football supporters.
  12 midnight
  I welcome the proposal, as does the Football League. Indeed, Jack Dunnett told me yesterday that he was grateful for small mercies. He hopes that the Minister will widen the concessions, if not next season, the season after. I hope that the Minister will give a guarantee that he will not stop the monitoring exercise. I hope that the Government will continue to examine the effects of the legislation, even as amended, to ensure that football can prosper and do all the things that we wish our national game to do. We must rid ourselves of the hooligan element that has attached itself to our national game. They are not genuine football supporters. I have not argued against membership cards. There is room for an experiment in that area. The committee which examined the matter argued that, given modern technology, football clubs should try to move towards the Government's position and at least conduct an experiment with the object of introducing a membership card system that would go some way to alleviating many of the problems.
  I congratulate the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton on accepting the main thrust of our arguments. They will also wish to thank Paul
  1060
  Bobroff of Tottenham Hotspur, Marting Edwards of Manchester United, Jack Dunnett and many others who participated in the monitoring exercise and turned this proposal into a reality. The Minister would be well advised to continue the monitoring exercise, because it has been a true exercise in democracy. The football clubs must also accept that many hon. Members genuinely feel for the game and wish to assist them to get rid of the problems which neither they nor we want. I welcome this modest move in the direction for which we argued last year.
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: I agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and disagree almost totally with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). Although I had not intended to speak in the debate, in welcoming the Government amendment I declare my interest as a long-standing supporter of Norwich City football club. I recognise that my hon. Friend comes from a county whose football team is not so good on the field, although its supporters' standard of behaviour is equal to that in Norwich. I invite him to visit Norwich City football club next season to see the new stand, erected after the old one was burnt down because of an electrical fault. There he will see the membership card scheme applied to about 2,000 occupants of the stand. Norwich City has made the positive initiatives for which my hon. Friend the Minister of State called. I welcome what the Government have said tonight in respect of this. There is still room for further movement in the direction of relaxation.
  I reject the notion that football is any more dependent on booze than the Barbican theatre, the Royal Opera House, the ballet or any other place where people drink at very high prices, which all helps the profits of those theatres and enables the pastimes to be enjoyed at perhaps a slightly lower cost. There is nothing wrong with drink. It is like everything else—it needs to be done in moderation. The move that the Government have made to relax the controls will be welcomed, will result in a positive approach and, of course, has nothing to do with the provision of hospitality by directors, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde underlined. It has to do with companies ploughing back into sport their funds from their other activities, entertaining their customers, the people with whom they deal throughout the year, and at the same time helping to bring football grounds generally into the 21st century, which many of our Continental neighbours have already done.
  I welcome the amendment. I hope that we shall see an even further relaxation in the season after next, in the light of the experience of the coming season, which I am sure will show football clubs to be responsible in dealing with what I acknowledge to be a complex matter when one talks about equity.
  Mr. Hawksley: I welcome the amendment. It is a response to the long debate in Committee in which I put down an amendment which would have allowed local magistrates to decide what restrictions, if any, they wished to put on such boxes. I still cannot understand why the Minister cannot go the whole way in agreeing to that being enforced because, under this proposal, he is agreeing to a certain relaxation while keeping to himself the possibility of further relaxation later. I hope that he will use that power, because when we debated this we argued that no

  1061
  hooliganism that we had ever heard of had started in or been caused by actions in the boxes. I hope that the Minister will respond to local needs. That is why I argued in Committee that it should be the magistrates, who knew the area, who should decide. I hope that when the Minister replies he will agree to listen to representations made by hon. Members representing areas, when they ask him to relax the order, as this amendment allows him to do.
  Providing the Minister gives the House an assurance that he is prepared to consider such representations, I am very pleased to support the amendment, which goes a long way to meeting the needs expressed to us by the Football League, which envisaged the loss of a large amount of income. We are right to try to help it on this occasion.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Many years ago there was a film in which Charlie Drake took the part of the triangle player in an orchestra, every other member of which he also played. The whole film consisted of his being almost ready to strike the note on the triangle and, in the end, failing to do so at the appropriate time. I wondered whether it would fall to my lot to do that, having sat patiently not just in Committee but also through the whole of today's debate; but at last we arrive at my role in this process.
  I am now a revisionist on the matter of alcohol at football grounds. The Minister has heard me express the view in the past that I did not agree with controls on the introduction of alcohol, because I did not think that they would prove effective. Having taken soundings among those who run football grounds and the police, who have had 12 months' experience of controlling alcohol, I must confess that I have been converted to the view that control has a beneficial effect. There is no doubt that what the police are telling us, not just in my area but up and down the country, is that the crowds have been easier to control. There was a sense of revulsion following the disgraceful and tragic events of 12 months ago. Control over the sale of alcohol at football grounds means that spectators have been more amenable and that the police have been able to persuade them to behave in a manner that is in the interests of all those who are present at football matches.
  The experiment has helped to reduce hooliganism at football grounds. The clubs have put forward very powerful, although self-interested, arguments about the way in which the controls bite. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and the all-party football committee that pressure has been brought to bear upon the Minister and his colleagues to consider a relaxation of the rules.
  During the debate in Committee it was accepted by most of those concerned that the Minister faced a most difficult job in trying to recognise the real needs of football clubs which, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), have suffered financial penalties. I sympathise with his argument that football clubs should not have to depend upon alcohol as a source of club funds. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate part of the social scene in this country.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Why not allow them to sell cocaine?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman seriously advocates the provision of cocaine by football clubs.
  1062
  Inability to sell alcohol in the executive boxes has cost the clubs dearly, not because of the loss of sales but because of the potential loss of users of those boxes. The Minister has gone some way towards meeting the needs of the clubs and has also recognised the need for equity within football grounds. In Committee the Opposition said that it is necessary to recognise that football, as a game, is operated in the interests not just of those who sit in the executive boxes but of all those who go to football matches.
  The amendments go a considerable way towards alleviating the difficulties faced by clubs. However, football clubs and their supporters are still on probation. It is possible that there will be further relaxations if their good record continues during the next and following seasons. Therefore the Opposition give a guarded welcome to the amendments. They try to strike a balance between the conflicting needs of football supporters, whether they sit inside or outside the executive boxes, the more general needs of the public in and around football grounds, and the needs of the football clubs.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 88, in page 23, line 33 at end insert—
  '4A. In sections 2 and 3, after subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) Subsection (1)(a) above has effect subject to section 5AA(1) of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Schedule 2

  OTHER AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 90, in page 29, line 7 leave out from 'up' to end of line 11 and insert
  'racial hatred, or
  (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result of the inclusion of the programme in the cable programme service.'.
  No. 91, in page 29, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—
  '(3) For subsections (3) to (5) substitute—
  "(3) None of those persons commits an offence if he did not intend to stir up racial hatred and did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the offending words were threatening, abusive or insulting.—[Mr. Maude.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]
  12.14 am
  Mr. Kaufman: We have now arrived at the final stage of the Bill, after long consideration. We have had a Second Reading and a Standing Committee stage which lasted 34 sittings and about 80 hours, and we have had another long day today.
  I should like to thank my hon. Friends who have participated in the work of the Standing Committee and who made a significant contribution to our debates. I should also like to thank my hon. Friends who did not take part in those debates but who participated on Second Reading and on Report. It would not be proper for me to allow this final stage to be completed without thanking the Minister of State for the way in which he has responded to our arguments.
  There was a time early on when, for reasons of propriety, we regretted the absence of the Home Secretary. I do not criticise his absence from this debate, as I know the reasons for it. It has to be said that he did not take the role in earlier stages of such a major Bill that we would have expected. We did not miss the Home Secretary,

  1063
  however, because the Minister responded, although not always favourably, to our amendments after proper consideration.
  There is no doubt that the Bill is different in substantial respects from the one which the Opposition opposed on Second Reading. That is not to say for a moment that the Bill is to our liking in several parts. We still dislike some of part I, and especially some of part II, considerably. I give notice to the Minister and his officials that an incoming Labour Government after the general election will repeal most of the cotentious aspects of part II and consider part I.
  I should like to itemise those parts of the Bill which we still strongly dislike. Despite an improvement that was made today, we still believe that the offence of disorderly conduct in part I is too vague and could turn louts and larkers unnecessarily into criminals. We do not believe that it is satisfactory that the use of words alone, even words on a badge, can generate an offence under what will be section 4, with the possibility of six months in prison.
  Despite the considerable changes that we have achieved in part II, the police are being given new and unprecedented powers over marches and open-air meetings. They will be a burden to the police when dealing with the real law and order problems of today. The powers are based on vague and sweeping criteria, especially the criterion of serious disruption to the life of the community, to which we have taken exception throughout.
  There is no recognition in the Bill of the right to demonstrate peacefully. There is no adequate remedy for citizens against mistaken or perverse use of the powers that part II confers on the police. There is still a threat to criminalise demonstrators for failure to comply with the directions of the police.
  In part III, we regret that the Attorney-General's consent for prosecution in race hatred matters is still necessary. We believe that it will weaken the force of the new protections against racial hatred which have been written into the Bill.
  As I said during the debate, we still regard part IV as irrelevant in many ways. We still believe that the exclusion orders, although we hope that they will work, are impractical. The Government have failed to demonstrate how the exclusion orders can work or to satisfy the doubts of the police. We still believe that it would have been a good idea to seek to take action over hooligans who go to matches overseas; therefore, we still have the most serious objections to every single part of the Bill.
  I repeat what I have said throughout, on Second Reading and in Committee, that the Bill brings a new risk of conflict between the police and the community, puts new burdens on the police and is irrelevant to the crime wave we are suffering—3,600,000 serious offences last year and only about 1,000 public order offences. To have spent three months of parliamentary time on a Bill which touches only the edges of the real and frightening law and order problem in this country seems to be a misuse of the time of the House of Commons.
  However, it has to be said that, after these debates, we have achieved considerable and important changes in the Bill. On the public order offences in part I, we have ensured that the use of words alone will not constitute a major offence or riot, violent disorder or affray. The
  1064
  offence of threatening or provoking violence has been made tigher and related more closely to the presence of an intended victim or target. The Government have agreed to reconsider removing the life sentence as a penalty for the technical offence of riot and I hope, after the events of next month, they will move towards that in an amendment in the House of Lords.
  The part of the Bill dealing with racial hatred has always been welcomed by the Opposition. That part of the Bill is now stronger that it was before and in many respects it will provide some of the strongest statutory provisions ever against the promotion of racial hatred. The amendment we proposed and which the Government accepted, whereby for the first time the police are to be given a power of immediate arrest for offences involving racial hatred, will have a real affect on these matters.
  We are pleased that the Government have accepted, within the exclusion order procedure, that the courts will be given power to ban people who commit offences involving racial hatred from attending football matches. I have discussed with the football authorities and with a number of football clubs the ugly presence and menace of racial louts at football matches. It is agreed on all sides that they make a sinister and ugly contribution to hooliganism at football matches. It is satisfactory that, as a result of amendments we tabled and which the Government have accepted, for the first time the law will address itself specifically to the problem of racist troublemakers who attach themselves to sporting events and spoil and make horrible those occasions.
  We are pleased that the Government have accepted our proposition that the stirring up of racial hatred should be a criminal offence, not only in public places but in private places, other than domestic dwellings. We are pleased that we have secured a commitment from the Government to consider urgently the need for new legislation to deal with racist videos; we are also pleased to have secured a commitment from them to hold discussions with us on the case for new legislation to deal with offences of racial harassment. Indeed, only this evening, I received from the Home Secretary a letter inviting Her Majesty's Opposition to take part in discussions with him on the possibility of us agreeing in further legislation to consider an offence of racial harassment.
  There was a great deal of misgiving, after the Bill appeared—and indeed, to be fair, before it appeared—about what would happen under clause 5 as it was originally drafted. We criticised it strongly on Second Reading. The Home Secretary at that time invited us to debate in Committee amendments to the Bill that would seek to negate the possibility of the new offence of disorderly conduct being turned into a resuscitated sus law. The Government acknowledged right away, when we began debating the matters in Committee, that they did not want a resuscitated sus law, and they moved considerably along the road that we asked them to travel along, when they accepted the necessity of a victim for that offence. We believe that the acceptance of a victim assists in transforming the offence from an almost certain resuscitation of the sus law into more of the sort of offence that many of our constituents wish to see when they are harrassed on their estates and in the areas in which they live.
  Although, as I have made clear, we still do not regard the new formulation as entirely satisfactory, and although we believe that there are dangers in it, we also believe that,

  1065
  following the case that we made in Committee, the new clause will be less unsatisfactory and may even be positively of value because a real victim will have to be present, the victim must be one likely to have suffered alarm, distress or harassment from the offenders' words or conduct, and a person will not be guilty if he had no reason to believe that he was being watched or heard by a likely victim.
  When we saw the new clause, we were still worried that it would be usable as a new sus law, and would therefore not only mean harassing youth and possibly particularly black youth, but would bring the police into conflict with the community. We believe that the changes that have been made mean that the new offence is much less likely to be brought into use at pickets or demonstrations. The Government responded to the new amendment that we moved this evening, saying that the Minister will issue guidance to the police on the way in which the offence is enforced, and will write to me and publish that letter so that we can monitor the proper use of the offence and ensure that it is not misused to harass boisterous youth or others whose behaviour should not be turned into criminal offences.
  Of course, the heart of our opposition to the Bill has been that we were extremely concerned, and remain concerned, at the controls that it contains on marches and demonstrations. Here again, we may say that we have achieved major changes, possibly the most important changes in the Bill. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), which the Minister accepted, is perhaps the single most important amendment that has been incorporated in the Bill. It increases the definition of an assembly from three to 20. The idea of an assembly of three not only meant that the police could disperse any group of people numbering more than two on the grounds that they could be a disruptive or disorderly assembly, but that peaceful small-scale picketing, which was not even potentially unlawful under the Employment Act 1980 and which was within the TUC codes of picketing, could have been turned into a criminal offence.
  We were extremely worried about the infringement of the rights to assemble and to picket caused by this narrow definition, and we are gratified that the increase to 20 removes a great many misgivings. Nevertheless, we remain wholly opposed to the provision itself, and a Labour Government will repeal the whole provision relating to the control of and conditions on assemblies.
  Despite that opposition we believe that the change from three to 20 will be of value, and that the Government's agreement to issue a circular reminding the police in considering the use of their powers over assemblies and processions of peoples' rights to assemble and to demonstrate peacefully is an important innovation. It is the Government's public acknowledgement of the right to assemble and picket. The circular will be published, and will be an important document, although we still wish that it was a statutory provision. Nevertheless, we welcome it as likely to have an important influence on the working of the provision.
  We are also pleased that, as a result of our proposals, the six days' notice to the police of any planned procession will not now be required, if it is not reasonably practicable to give advance notice. We are pleased that a procession is more tightly defined, although we are not wholly satisfied with the definition. We are pleased that notice of
  1066
  a procession will be accepted by post, and need not require a personal application, as was originally provided in the Bill.
  We are glad that the Government have acknowledged and accepted amendments to the effect that, regarding assemblies and marches, arrests may by made only be a constable in uniform. The activity of police who did not appear to be police during the miners' strike and some of the events that have taken place at Wapping in recent weeks have caused grave disquiet. This new provision will be an improvement, and will ensure that only acknowledged police are active.
  We are glad that directions regarding conditions on planned assemblies or processions must be given in writing, rather than verbally, by a chief constable or a metropolitan commissioner. We are pleased that the application by the police for banning a procession must now be based on reasonable belief of disorder, rather than merely belief. That change will make it easier to apply for a judicial review of a ban.
  Some of those are small mercies and some are large changes. They do not make the Bill palatable to us in many of its provisions. They do not reduce our utter determination to rid the statute book of all its parts which are objectionable to civil liberties.
  We are able to say, however, that during the months which we have spent considering the Bill, the parliamentary Labour party has been active and vigilant on behalf of the civil liberties of our people. In the House, we are massively out-numbered in voting terms by the Government, but we have been able to make changes which all who care about civil liberties will welcome as progress, although they will not be fully satisfied until we have a Labour Government who reassert in statutory form the right to freedom of expression, assembly and procession of our people.
  12.35 am
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke at length, and I think that on no fewer than 25 occasions he said that he was pleased, which is commendable. I, too, believe that the Bill is a civil liberties measure, for the most important civil liberty of all is the liberty of our people to live in peace; not to be intimidated, not to have their lives disrupted, not to be made the victims of violent men who go rampaging round the country, not to be made the victims of rat packs on our great housing estates, and not to be intimidated, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, by racist gangs. The Bill is indeed a civil liberties measure, in the sense that it provides proper protection for individuals against collective violence.
  I join the right hon. Member in saying that I think that the clause providing exclusion from football clubs is something of an irrelevance. I am with him in welcoming what the Government have been able to do in the interests of racial equality. I hope that it will never be said of the Conservative Government, or the Conservative party, that we have done anything other than massively assist the cause of racial equality. It is much to the credit of the Government that that has been done.
  The main drive of the Bill—this follows from the White Paper and the studies of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—has been to move to the rescue of those who live on our great housing estates and who have been grossly abused. I believe that the Bill will give material

  1067
  assistance to the police in helping the poor, the elderly, the lonely, those who are set upon and those who are assaulted and vandalised. It is to the Government's credit that by the Bill they have gone to the assistance of those people.
  The House has worked hard on the Bill, and the members of the Committee achieved considerable harmony. At the end of the day, I believe that they will wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department. I have had the doubtful pleasure of serving on about 20 Committees which have considered Bills of various sorts, including many which have been directed to the police and public order. I know of no Minister who has brought to a Committee the degree of patience, good humour, sweet temper and constructiveness that has been demonstrated by my hon. Friend. Whenever he undertook to assist the Committee, he did so. He has not delivered in every respect in a manner that has been wholly satisfactory to me, but he has won the great admiration of those who were members of the Committee, both Government and Opposition Members.
  When the House has released the Bill and it has passed through another place, it will fall to the police service to implement it. I hope that no hon. Member who has played his part in getting the Bill through the House will wash his hands, walk away from the problem, and return to the ordinary parliamentary dialectic of bashing the police whenever possible. We lay heavy burdens upon the police. We have asked them to undertake an immensely complicated task and we have not helped them by adding to their paperwork. Nevertheless, I am sure that the police service, as it always does, will do its utmost to make the Bill work. I hope that it will have the practical support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in seeking to do so.
  12.40 am
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We should remember why the Bill is before us and why we have considered it in preceding months. It was born out of industrial chaos caused by the Government. The Government caused chaos by putting millions of people out of work.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Member that on Third Reading the House considers what is in the Bill. The House does not have as wide a debate as is conventional on Second Reading.
  Mr. Skinner: I shall explain why it is important to oppose the Bill.
  The Government chose deliberately to cause chaos. As a result, they had to introduce a Bill to try to remedy that chaos. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on some of the changes that have been made, minor though they were. It is important to remember that the Bill would not have been drafted had it not been for certain incidents, such as the miners' strike and other industrial disputes, which arose because of Government policy. The Bill would not have been introduced had there not been massive cuts in public expenditure. There has been a series of attacks on local government expenditure. Inner city areas have been allowed to run down. There has been a failure to build houses and bungalows for the people who need them.
  1068
  The Government caused chaos in both industrial and economic terms. As a result, they came along with another piece of the jigsaw—in the form of this legislation—to try to control law and order. For those reasons, it is important that the Labour party is seen to be opposing the measure to the bitter end. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said that parts of the legislation will be repealed by a future Labour Government, because the legislation attacks civil liberties.
  In 1979 the Government claimed that they would set the people free. They talked about law and order and said that they would impose a short, sharp shock on those who were supposed to be upsetting society at that time. After seven years, the Government have not set the people free. After all the chaos caused by the Tory Government, we find that today, of all days, on Third Reading, the Government have set the prisoners free. We shall vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for his extremely courteous remarks at the outset of his speech. I recognise, as he does, that during the many sittings of the Committee we endeavoured to achieve major changes in the Bill for the betterment of public order. I thank all my colleagues who served on the Committee and helped to make the Bill possible.
  I refer also to the substantial effort by my staff in the Home Office in helping members of the Committee and helping to maintain an orderly flow of information on this major undertaking. I refer to the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). His benign chairmanship ensured that we did not descend into the acrimony that a topic of this order could easily attract. A number of changes have been made to the legislation. The right hon. Member for Gorton catalogued them for the House.
  This is a major Bill about public order. Its genesis was not the miners' strike, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to make it appear so. Its genesis was a major review of the law on public order based on the 1936 Act undertaken by the Law Commission. It will now stand as a major modernisation and codification of public order law, together with the additional powers it conveys on certain aspects on which the Committee spent much time.
  The Bill's major contribution is in the context of public order law. I dismiss the views of those who seek to belittle the importance of the measure or seek to deny the importance of its roots and antecedents.
  We have worked together in a genuinely constructive spirit in providing a parliamentary process. I suspect that the way in which the Bill has emerged is a credit to that process. Of course there have been profound differences of opinion, and those differences remain, but we respect the views of those whose ideas differ from the Government's. Equally, we are determined to look after the community we serve. It deserves and demands an effective and measured response from the Government to the growth of violence and disorder in society. That is what the Bill sets out to do.
  We have applied a consistent test to our proposals to give the police only such powers as are necessary and effective in helping them to avert disorder and to protect the rights of the citizen. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stressed that it was all too easy to talk of worries in isolation and in absolute terms.

  1069
  The Government staunchly defend and protect the rights of free speech, assembly and demonstration. They are all of fundamental importance in a democratic society. As a member of a Government who have their roots deep in the traditions of our nation and the defence of individual liberty, I take ill lectures from any quarter about the importance of sustaining and nurturing the British people's historic freedoms.
  Where we differ from the Opposition in presentaton and perhaps in substance is that we insist on keeping firmly in view the fact that these rights must always be balanced against the rights of others to live their lives peacefully, free from intimidation and violence and free from deliberate disruption by those who want to force their views upon them.
  We recognise, therefore, only an equality of rights. We reject the notion that, because a person forms part of an organised group—whether a picket, demonstration or protest march—it confers special privileges upon him. It would be wrong for the law to give such a person greater protection than the individual who does not want to picket, demonstrate or do any such thing.
  It is not the Bill that weakens the responsible and peaceful exercise of democratic freedoms—on the contrary, it strengthens them. Rather it is those who misuse and twist such rights and their apologists who hide tyranny behind a mask acclaiming liberty who are the enemies of our traditional freedoms.
  In short, we like to stress that rights carry responsibilities and that the right to demonstrate cannot be used as an excuse to deprive the rest of us of the right to live our lives in peace. A prerequisite for the exercise of rights is the existence of order. Public order is the most fundamental common good and, in helping to prevent disorder and thereby to provide greater protection for the citizen, the Bill is a timely and important piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be read now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 14.

  Division No. 166]

  [12.50 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Amess, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Ancram, Michael

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Best, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bright, Graham

  Gow, Ian

  Brinton, Tim

  Gregory, Conal

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Budgen, Nick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Ground, Patrick

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cope, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Couchman, James

  Hayes, J.

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hickmet, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

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

  Forman, Nigel

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  1070

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Powley, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Raffan, Keith

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Rathbone, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Knowles, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lang, Ian

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lester, Jim

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Squire, Robin

  Maclean, David John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Major, John

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Antony

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mates, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Viggers, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Waddington, David

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mellor, David

  Waller, Gary

  Merchant, Piers

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Watts, John

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Wood, Timothy

  Newton, Tony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes

  Norris, Steven

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. Gerald Malone

  NOES

  Barron, Kevin

  Parry, Robert

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Pendry, Tom

  Clay, Robert

  Pike, Peter

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Madden, Max

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

  Michie, William

  Mr. Dave Nellist.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That, during the proceedings on the matter of the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 67 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the second sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Clelland be added to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  CONSOLIDATION &c., BILLS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Tony Blair be discharged from the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills and Mr. Nick Raynsford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  Rotherham Health Authority (Chairman)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  12.58 am
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I shall not detain the House for too long in discussing the position of the Rotherham health authority. The authority is in perhaps a unique position in Britain in that it does not at present have a chairman.
  Hon. Members will know that the Government introduced new faces into the National Health Service looking for what could be described as the "myth of the market". The Government are trying to create a market, but it is a myth to think that that will be beneficial to the National Health Service.
  The structure of management in the National Health Service has been altered, and hon. Members will recall that that was started by the Griffiths report. At the same time, the Government decided to replace some chairmen of district health authorities. In Rotherham, they decided not to re-appoint Mr. Vernon Thornes who for a long time had been chairman of Rotherham health authority. The decision not to re-appoint Mr. Thornes caused anger and shock in the area. It angered me when I heard about it.
  Vernon Thornes wrote to me and to two other hon. Members in June 1985 a confidential letter in which he said he had heard about some intrigue over the appointment of chairmen of district health authorities. He said why he believed that Rotherham was a target, and that that might mean that the chairman would be replaced. I discussed the matter with a Minister, but he did not agree with my analysis of the non-appointment, or sacking, of Vernon Thornes.
  One of the prime motivations behind the non-appointment of Mr. Thornes is the stand taken by Rotherham health authority against privatisation. The authority has issued tenders and has gone along with Ministers, but it has said on all tenders that the people tendering must fulfil obligations on the protection of earnings of people who work for them. Those obligations are on the hourly rate, the sick payment rates and holiday benefits.
  The Minister knows that his Department has not looked favourably on any health authority that has taken such a stand. For a long time, the Department through the regional office has advised the health authority to withdraw the clause about working conditions on contracts going out to tender. The Department has told the authority to play the game and to stop telling people that they must pay certain wage rates and offer certain protections to people who work for them.
  Rotherham health authority took advice on the matter and found that the requests from the Government, made through the regional office, were not legally binding. The authority's advisers said there was nothing illegal in what the authority was doing. Perhaps the Government thought it was immoral to have such clauses in the tender forms. Wage rates are sometimes less than £2 per hour, and there is nothing immoral in the authority trying to protect people.
  Mr. Thornes appears to have been victimised because of the stand taken by Rotherham health authority on
  1072
  privatisation. If that is the case, it is unfair because, like any good chairman, he was merely carrying out the wishes of the representatives on the health authority. He has an outstanding record in Rotherham in the National Health Service. One of the ironies of the case is that in a letter that he received from the chairman of Trent health authority on 18 March this year, shortly after that chairman had told Vernon Thornes that he would not be re-appointed, he was assured of:
  "our sincere gratitude for all you have done for the Health Service for the last twenty-two years. Your contribution to the development and organisation of Health Services in Rotherham has been exceptional. I can say quite unreservedly that largely due to your decisive leadership, great skill and extensive personal involvement you have been able to carefully and effectively steer the District through two major reorganisations. I know also that your personal initiative and sustained efforts have played a significant part in the development of the District General Hospital."
  That is a glowing tribute and one that most of those who have come in contact with Mr. Thornes would say was well deserved. It seems to many people that what has happened to him recently under the directorship of the Secretary of State has been a shabby farewell. The vast majority of the people in the Rotherham area feel that Vernon Thornes should not have been treated in this way.
  The Minister received a letter dated 13 March 1986, from the Rotherham health authority, signed by Mr. Terry Sharman, who is the vice-chairman of the health authority, and the mayor of the Rotherham borough council. In the letter, which was drawn up after the meeting of the Rotherham health authority, on that day, the council said, for three reasons, that it wanted Vernon Thornes reappointed for the next two years, until someone could be trained into the position of chairman of the health authority. The reasons were:
  "Vernon Thornes has been an outstanding Chairman and has acquired considerable experience of the health care needs of the Rotherham people over the last thirteen years.
  2. He has the total confidence of the professions within the health service in Rotherham and of the Rotherham community.
  3. The Authority has, at the moment, a number of projects that have not yet been brought to fruition that need Mr. Thornes' personal guidance in seeing their successful completion; furthermore, we feel, most strongly, that Mr. Thornes is given an opportunity to see these projects through."
  It is right that that should happen. Mr. Thornes has indeed seen the health authority through two major reorganisations, and the latest is not yet complete.
  The council said that it would like to bring a delegation to see the Minister if it would do any good, to bring further pressure to reinstate Vernon Thornes. I understand that the Secretary of State is about to appoint a local business man to the chair of the area health authority, and if my information is correct, the business man has no dealings with the NHS, and certainly none with the Rotherham health authority. In those circumstances, it would be better all round that Mr. Thornes should be appointed for a further two years, so that, on his retirement, somebody with experience of the NHS in Rotherham can take over.
  I have had conversations with the Minister and the chairman of the Trent regional health authority, both of whom gave different reasons why Vernon Thornes was not reappointed. I still believe that I have been given no good reason why he should be replaced in this way. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to reconsider his position, and reappoint Vernon Thornes. As everyone in the Rotherham area has always said, he has done first-class work for a long time. He has served the NHS 22 years in south

  1073
  Yorkshire, and his reappointment would be the best thing for the Rotherham district health authority, and for all concerned in the area. Of course, in two years' time he will be replaced because Vernon has already said that he wishes to retire after 24 years caring for people in the NHS in our area.
  1.9 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) for giving the House the opportunity to consider this matter—because it caused much anxiety in the Rotherham health authority area—and for the opportunity to put the facts on the record. May I make some general points before dealing with the specific issues relating to Mr. Thornes.
  When talking about the Government's approach to the National Health Service, the hon. Gentleman used the words, "the myth of the market". We are trying to ensure that the huge public resources which are devoted to the Health Service—resources which have been increased by 24 per cent. in real terms since the Government came to office in 1979—are used most effectively. Therefore, we must find every way to ensure that the resources are used to best effect. That is not the myth of the market; it is sheer common sense, and anyone who knows what is happening in the Health Service will accept that that must be the way forward.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the altered structure of management. He is right to do so, because our new approach of focusing responsibility exactly where it should be centred is producing good results in the cost improvement programmes and, therefore, the release of additional resources which can be used for health care and the continuing improvement of the Health Service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts what is happening.
  The appointment of health authority chairmen is an extremely important and difficult exercise, as any issue of this sensitivity must be. District health authorities are an important undertaking. Typically, a district health authority will have a budget of about £50 million and a work force of about 5,000. The provision of the necessary leadership and direction to an undertaking of that size is a considerable task. In making the appointments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must seek candidates of the highest calibre. Not least in the considerations that must weigh with him is the fact that the district health authority is, in many respects, the local face of the NHS, and its members will be drawn from the locality that it serves. This provides the means for local views on the quality and organisation of services to be made known.
  The chairman must be sensitive and responsive to those important matters, as well as having the experience and ability to enable him or her to direct the affairs of an organisation that touches the lives of most people within its boundaries and that is often the largest employer in the district.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the exercise to find the chairmen for most of the 191 district health authorities was launched by an announcement in the House on 18 April last year by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who is now the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. The results
  1074
  were made known on 17 March this year when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced the names of about 170 chairmen appointed to those important posts.
  In launching the exercise in selection, my predecessor invited hon. Members to express any views on existing chairmen and to submit nominations to us by 3 June 1985.
  When we undertook that consultation exercise, we took advice from a number of sectors but, within the National Health Service, the advice of regional chairmen was particularly relevant and valuable. We sought to take account of the advice and views of those hon. Members who responded, and consulted further with them, where necessary, throughout the year-long exercise. There were inevitably some areas where very finely balanced decisions had to be made, and either my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health or in some cases, the regional chairmen on our behalf, approached individual hon. Members to clarify or discuss their views. It is true to say that every effort was made to involve hon. Members in this decision-making process. At the same time, however, it must be made quite clear that these appointments are made at the sole discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that there was no question of clearing these appointments with hon. Members or, for that matter, with anyone else.
  Having said that, I want to stress that in the case not only of Mr. Thornes but of very many others the question of non-reappointment was in no sense a condemnation or an expression of loss of confidence in a particular individual. One of the factors was inevitably the question of age. The average age of the new chairmen appointed in this round is something of the order of 54 years, which compares favourably with the average of 62 of the retiring chairmen.
  I would like to reiterate what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and also by the chairman of the Trent regional health authority, that Mr. Thornes has given exceptional service to the National Health Service. We pay a great tribute to his dedicated service in the Rother Valley district for no less than 22 years. Rather than this being seen as an attack on Mr. Thornes or an attempt to embarrass him, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and everyone else will accept that this was a job well and truly done, and that it was perfectly reasonable, after 22 years, that some new blood here, as in many other districts, should be sought.
  It is always a question in such cases of keeping a balance between the need for stability and continuity and the need to introduce new blood, and to have fresh insights and ideas and continuity in the longer term. For those reasons, something like one third of the appointments that we have made were new ones. That was also the case in Rother Valley.
  As it happens, the decision left Rother Valley without a chairman, due to an unfortunate but unforeseen series of events. A letter of invitation was sent out on 19 February to a new chairman who had, I understand, already indicated his willingness to serve, and a letter accepting the appointment was sent by the prospective chairman on 24 February, only to be followed two weeks later by a further letter, regretfully declining the appointment, due to the already heavy demands on his time. As I am sure the House will appreciate, this further letter coming, as it did, out of the blue meant that we had to reconsider an appointment that we had had every reason to believe had

  1075
  been settled. There may have been other reasons of which we were not aware, but this was accepted by the new appointee.
  I am glad, however, to be able to tell the House that, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, a new appointment has now been made. Mr. A. G. Baker, a local man, has accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to serve as the new chairman of Rotherham health authority. We have every confidence in him and wish him well in this new and challenging post.
  I repeat that there was no question of intrigue—one of the words used by the hon. Gentleman—or of any lack of confidence in Mr. Thornes, and there was certainly no question of what the hon. Gentleman referred to as privatisation but which more correctly should be called competitive tendering. The competitive tendering approach is precisely to ensure that Health Service resources are used in the most economic and effective way. We are looking for laundry, catering and cleaning service arrangements that will provide services of the right standard at the most economical cost. Most of the competitive tendering exercises result in the success of the in-house tender. There was no problem about competitive tendering.
  The position adopted by the district health authority on the fair wages clause was contrary to the advice given by the regional health authority and the Department. By stipulating such matters, the district health authority may find that it results in an effect that is detrimental to the competitive tendering process in general. More specifically, it may deny the district health authority the opportunity to maximise savings in order to provide the maximum resources for health care. My understanding is that the former chairman, Mr. Thornes, advised members of the authority against retaining the fair wages clause. Ministers still hope that the district health authority will remove the clause.
  I emphasise that Mr. Thornes has given very fine service for 22 years to the Health Service. There should be no interpretation of intrigue, or political manoeuvring, or lack of confidence. The decision was taken against the
  1076
  background that I have described. The Government should always be sensitive and responsive to the legitimate interests of hon. Members—
  Mr. Barron: The Minister asks me to believe that, but in reality it is very difficult to make, in relation to Mr. Thornes, the argument about age, since a person of 65 has been reappointed for a two-year period in the neighbouring Sheffield district health authority. I can only assume that the district health authority wants to introduce new blood. The Minister said that a Mr. Baker has been appointed as chairman of the Rotherham health authority. I hope that Mr. Baker will be as successful as Mr. Thornes. The appointment has been made, and we shall all work together with the new chairman of the Rotherham health authority to try to improve the services provided by the National Health Service in the Rotherham area.
  The Minister referred to the fair wages clause that is included in the tenders submitted by the Rotherham health authority. What will happen if the new chairman is instructed, as Mr. Vernon Thornes was instructed, by the health authority to continue to include it in the tenders? I presume that he will be so instructed and that there will, therefore, be no change.
  Mr. Whitney: It would be wrong to go into too much detail about competitive tendering and the fair wages clause now, but the fair wages clause is contrary to the policy of the regional health authority and the Department. We spend £1 billion nationally on catering, cleaning and laundry services, and the objective must be to provide proper levels of service at the proper cost. That is generally accepted. Perhaps only three out of 191 health authorities are having difficulties. The interests of the patients must have priority.
  As for the age of a chairman, it would be wrong for me to go into individual cases, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the general approach of introducing new and younger blood. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the new chairman and I hope that Mr. Baker's stay is profitable and helpful and that it will further promote the development of health care in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty six minutes past One o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Pelican Crossings
  Pelican Crossings
  Orange Badge Scheme
  Orange Badge Scheme
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  "Door to Door"
  "Door to Door"
  Optica Aircraft (Crash Report)
  Optica Aircraft (Crash Report)
  Written-off Vehicles (Resale)
  Written-off Vehicles (Resale)
  Airlines (Change of Gauge Facilities)
  Airlines (Change of Gauge Facilities)
  Vehicle Registration Prefix
  Vehicle Registration Prefix
  Finart Oil Terminal
  Finart Oil Terminal
  Helicopter Rescue Service, Stornoway
  Helicopter Rescue Service, Stornoway
ENVIRONMENT
  Acid Pollution
  Acid Pollution
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Repairs (London)
  Housing Repairs (London)
  Planning Appeal (Decision)
  Planning Appeal (Decision)
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Urban Housing Renewal Unit
  Urban Housing Renewal Unit
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Planning (Consultancy Studies)
  Planning (Consultancy Studies)
  Merit Bonuses
  Merit Bonuses
  Management Objectives
  Management Objectives
  Women's Aid Refuges
  Women's Aid Refuges
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Leicestershire County Council
  Leicestershire County Council
  Land Register
  Land Register
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Agricultural Buildings (Change of Use)
  Agricultural Buildings (Change of Use)
  Residuary Bodies
  Residuary Bodies
WALES
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Verges and Hard Shoulders
  Verges and Hard Shoulders
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Criminal Justice Act 1981
  Criminal Justice Act 1981
  Procurator Fiscal's Office, Kilmarnock
  Procurator Fiscal's Office, Kilmarnock
  Private Landlords
  Private Landlords
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Udal Law (Salmon Fisheries)
  Udal Law (Salmon Fisheries)
  Speeding Offences
  Speeding Offences
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Norman Shaw North (Bomb Blast Curtains)
  Norman Shaw North (Bomb Blast Curtains)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teacher Education Costs
  Teacher Education Costs
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  School Places (Parental Appeals)
  School Places (Parental Appeals)
  Pharmacy (Undergraduates)
  Pharmacy (Undergraduates)
  Lithotripter Machines
  Lithotripter Machines
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Company Returns (Welsh Language)
  Company Returns (Welsh Language)
  Exports (US Controls)
  Exports (US Controls)
  Retail Sector (Competition)
  Retail Sector (Competition)
  Bankruptcy
  Bankruptcy
  Chemical Industry (Exhibition)
  Chemical Industry (Exhibition)
  Securities and Investments Board
  Securities and Investments Board
PRIME MINISTER
  EC (Intergovernmental Agreement)
  EC (Intergovernmental Agreement)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programmes (Environmental Impact)
  Aid Programmes (Environmental Impact)
  St. Vincent
  St. Vincent
  Dominica
  Dominica
  St. Lucia
  St. Lucia
  United Nations General Assembly
  United Nations General Assembly
DEFENCE
  Trident Submarine
  Trident Submarine
  Small Arms and Ammunition
  Small Arms and Ammunition
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Anti-terrorism
  Anti-terrorism
  Rape and Sexual Assault
  Rape and Sexual Assault
  Domestic Violence
  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Gora Ebrahim
  Mr. Gora Ebrahim
SCOTLAND
  New Business
  New Business
  Lowland Airports Policy
  Lowland Airports Policy
  Hospital Provision (Argyll and Clyde)
  Hospital Provision (Argyll and Clyde)
  Company Liquidators
  Company Liquidators
  COSLA (Local Government Services)
  COSLA (Local Government Services)
  Coatbridge (South Circular Road Site)
  Coatbridge (South Circular Road Site)
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Community Charge Register
  Community Charge Register
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Springburn (Job Creation)
  Springburn (Job Creation)
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Private Landlords
  Private Landlords
  Dundee (Employment)
  Dundee (Employment)
  Vale of Leven General Hospital
  Vale of Leven General Hospital
  House Sales (Sitting Tenants)
  House Sales (Sitting Tenants)
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Oil Prices (Employment Implications)
  Oil Prices (Employment Implications)
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Opencast Coal Sites
  Opencast Coal Sites
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Lothian Health Board
  Lothian Health Board
  Mobbing and Rioting (Law)
  Mobbing and Rioting (Law)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Job Release Schemes
  Job Release Schemes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Lithotripter Machine
  Lithotripter Machine
  Hospital Eye Service
  Hospital Eye Service
  Tumour Markers
  Tumour Markers
  Cancer Screening
  Cancer Screening
  Hospital Pharmacists
  Hospital Pharmacists
  Graduate Pharmacists
  Graduate Pharmacists
  Social Services (Leicestershire)
  Social Services (Leicestershire)
  Health Authorities (Vacancies)
  Health Authorities (Vacancies)
  NHS Beds
  NHS Beds
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  North-West RHA (Staff)
  North-West RHA (Staff)
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  NHS (Housing Stock)
  NHS (Housing Stock)
  Desiccated Liver Powder
  Desiccated Liver Powder
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Desiccated Liver Powder
  Desiccated Liver Powder
  Agriculture Production (Expenditure)
  Agriculture Production (Expenditure)
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Animals (Religious Slaughter)
  Animals (Religious Slaughter)
  Trichinenla Spiralis
  Trichinenla Spiralis
  "Diet, Nutrition and Health"
  "Diet, Nutrition and Health"
  Sherry
  Sherry
  Apple Replanting Grant
  Apple Replanting Grant
  Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries
  Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Export Refunds
  Export Refunds
  Food Sales
  Food Sales
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Libya-African National Congress Links
  Libya-African National Congress Links
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Royal Ordnance Companies
  Royal Ordnance Companies

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

Adult Training: UK Companies
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that United Kingdom companies are making adequate provision for adult training.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): No, my Lords. The available evidence suggests that a significant number of United Kingdom companies, large and small, are not investing sufficiently in adult training to meet the needs of constantly changing markets. This is why Her Majesty's Government have initiated measures to encourage companies to increase their investment in adult training.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the Secretary of State for that honest Answer, so far as it goes. However, does he agree that a clear link has been established between industrial training and success, and that adult training in this country has been shown to compare most unfavourably with that of our main competitors? Indeed, is he aware that the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission recently went so far as to say that compared with those competitors our adult workforce emerges as "a bunch of thickies"? Does the noble Lord accept ministerial responsibility for this alarming situation, and, if so, what, beyond the exhortation of which he has just given us a good example, does he actually intend to do about it?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his unsolicited testimonial to my candour and honesty. However, I must tell him that this is not a new problem; it is a problem that has been concerning Her Majesty's Government for many decades. In 1964 we introduced ITBs and they had an effect; but, alas, the effect appeared to be to increase bureaucracy and not to increase the supply of training.
Since then, we have tried other ways. We know that, as a recent survey of about 500 employers who employed more than 25 employees showed, off-the-job training occupied on average just 14 hours, or 1·9 days per year, per employee. The best evidence that we can obtain is that of good West German practice, where it occupies 30 to 40 hours a year; in other words, it is nearly three and a half times as much over there. I hope very much that an increasing awareness of the need for good training will remedy that position.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, following on my noble friend's remarks in answer to the last question, is the Minister aware that when I was director of the Distributive Industry Training Board particular efforts were made to keep the bureaucracy to a minimum and we were largely successful in doing that? But the main question that I want to put to him is this: do his initial remarks about the fact that we are not good enough apply equally to management training?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I regard the responsibility for all training as primarily in the hands of management. The fact is that management should appreciate that having a more professionally trained workforce—and in my book that includes management—can only be to the benefit of their own organisation and to the United Kingdom as well.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has given a very disappointing reply? There are a number of firms involved which are not taking up the opportunities for adult training. Surely the whole key to the training scheme is that after training those who have been trained will in fact get a job. Is it not time for the Government to do more than they are doing at the moment to ensure that firms take advantage of the facilities available in our new technological world in order to obtain the kind of people for whom they are crying out?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure how we define adult training. Of course, this Government are the ones who introduced the two-year YTS and the Government who are giving more training to more people than at any time before in the history of our nation. Moreover, it is training which is essential foundation training, and training for young people which has led to two-thirds of them entering full employment or going back into full-time education or further training. At the moment we are concerned about the general acceptance throughout the whole of industry and commerce of the fact that a better trained workforce is a more efficient workforce and works to the common good. This understanding can only come from employers themselves and not from the Government telling them that it is so.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on reflection, will the Minister agree that his comment on the industrial training boards was certainly less than generous and certainly less than accurate, having regard to the fact that the Engineering Industry Training Board managed to bring about a major modification in engineering training and was responsible for introducing quite revolutionary training for women?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, but I wish to assure the noble Baroness that in fact 16 of the 23 training boards were disbanded some three or four years ago because they were thought to be overly bureaucratic. I am told that the views of the industries were widely canvassed before that decision was taken. The Engineering Industry Training Board of course continues to function to this day, as do the Construction Industry Training Board and five other training boards. Nevertheless, even within the field of engineering training there has been a movement in the

253
past two years that has led to the Vital Skills Agency, which is another training authority that has been set up because of (as it would have it) the lack of ability of the EITB to respond to training for electronic engineering and its commitment to traditional engineering training. Those are its views and not mine.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether there is any sign of improvement in the training of apprentices by self-employed craftsmen? This has very nearly dropped out altogether but it is a vital part of the training of certain types of craftsmen.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the world passes on. Craftsmen are just as necessary as they were in the past, but possibly in lesser numbers. However, one great matter calls for congratulation today. I read that the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers decided yesterday that it would at long last drop time-based apprenticeship and go towards standards. This has been long overdue and I hope that we can now begin to see a revolution in the whole field of apprenticeship.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will my noble friend, if he will allow me to call him so, consider hanging upon his wall a fine Chaucerian quotation which is unfortunately little known? It is this:
"If gold ruste, what shal iren do?".
The day that the boss starts making a muck of it, what sort of muck does he expect lower down the tree? Will my noble friend consider that?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. I have no wish to disappoint the noble Viscount but I have no intention of leaving these Benches for some considerable time!
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that there is another dimension to the problem? Is not one of the frustrations for him, as for me, the fact that those public agencies which have a splendid record on the training of adults—it is the one feature of public enterprises that I am sure he will agree is valuable—are nevertheless funded by major companies which, having no training programmes of their own, rely on taking their educated management and labour from others that do?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, but I think that there is cause for hope and quiet satisfaction about the future. I attended yesterday the "Spring Open", an exhibition at the Novotel Hotel in Hammersmith. I saw there how we had become a world leader in the principle of distant learning covering all sorts of occupations. This affords considerable cause for concern because English is the world's first commercial language and it could be the world's greatest training language as well. This is an area in which we have considerable expertise. I only wish that our own employers used it more.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that the authors of a recent report commissioned jointly by the Manpower Services Commission and the National Economic Development Office put forward a number of proposals aimed at stimulating
254
investment in training? They included improved tax incentives and a statutory requirement that companies should disclose in their annual reports how much they were spending on training. What is his reaction to those specific proposals?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we are examining the proposals. One of the great difficulties in the tax d'apprentissage, which is the French system of the payroll tax—and many similar ingenious ideas have been put forward—is that it says something about the amount of money spent on training but not about quality. One of the problems in our society is the perpetuation of old-fashioned training methods. We must find ways to get our training in the technologies of tomorrow. That is a matter to which we are now giving thought.

American "Workfare" Programme
2.46 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have studied the advantages of the "workfare" programme now operating successfully in the United States, and which was featured in the BBC "Panorama" programme on 7th April, and whether they will initiate an early trial in this country along similar lines.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Government are studying the American experience of "workfare" programmes which was featured in the "Panorama" programme on 7th April. We have already applied some of the lessons of these programmes in the restart programme to help the long-term unemployed. For example, jobclubs have been very successful in a number of states and have proved equally successful here. We are planning to establish 200 jobclubs by the end of this year, and to increase the number to 450 as soon as possible thereafter.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that this "workfare" programme in the United States seems to receive considerable support from all sections of society, including the unions, and that it gives unemployed people a chance of regaining their self-esteem?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this is a matter which must be handled with care. Nevertheless, I am aware of the views of Lord Beveridge. He said in the Beveridge Report:
"The co-relative of the state's undertaking to ensure adequate benefit for unavoidable interruption of earning, however long, is enforcement of the citizen's obligation to seek and accept all reasonable opportunities of work, to co-operate in measures designed to save him from habituation to idleness and to take all proper measures to be well".
I am not sure that the answer is "workfare" on some of the patterns we have seen in the United States of America, but I am sure that some of the "workfare"

255
programmes such as jobclubs and so on will be of the very greatest help to us in helping the long-term unemployed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I, and certainly my colleagues, will be pleased that he said that this needed to be handled with care? He is absolutely right. I saw the "Panorama" programme. Did it not appear to him that the system smacked of cheap labour and in some respects forced labour? It reminded me of the old Soviet Communist view that if you did not work you did not eat. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that we need a much better approach and that the real answer is for the country to co-ordinate the opportunities and its resources to get the 3 million unemployed back to work and into real jobs.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, all sides of your Lordships' House will agree with that. The best thing for everybody is to be back at work. But we are part of Europe and it is a Europe-wide problem and a problem with which we must deal. I agree with the noble Lord that schemes such as those practised in Russia are not what we should contemplate even in our wildest dreams. Nevertheless, we must ensure that people do not become so discouraged that they give up or so determined to live off the work of others that they do not try. We have to find ways in which we can help people to help themselves.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that he will continue to consider all conceivable new ways of creating jobs? As one who saw that programme, I thought that what was remarkable was that it seemed to please the person concerned, his family and the community. Above all, it was safeguarding the position of the trade unions, and therefore was supported by them. Will he bear that in mind if (as I hope will happen) he starts a test programme in one or two places in this country to see how it fares under the different conditions here?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we are investigating the workfare programmes in the United States. We commissioned a report some months ago. I hope that report will be released shortly. There is an essential difference between the United States and this country. The difference is the wholesale co-operation which that programme showed between unions and all parts of society in promoting such a programme. I am not sure that co-operation would necessarily be received here.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, while we would all subscribe to the quotation from Beveridge that the noble Lord gave a moment ago, is he aware that the concept on which workfare is based in the United States is that of welfare—indeed, the noble Lord used the word "welfare" a moment ago—whereas in this country it is based on insurance to which all working people contribute throughout their working lives?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of course; and the insurance element is unemployment benefit which lasts for the 12 months. That is the period of the insurance benefit. We are talking on this matter about supplementary benefit for those people who have been out of work for more than one year. That is the essential difference between the two.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Secretary of State notice one feature of this programme which, I venture to suggest, would be objectionable in this country? That is that young mothers with small children were forced back to work and to put their babies in creches. In any experiments that are undertaken in this country will the noble Lord guarantee that that element of compulsion on young mothers is omitted? Will he also consult with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see whether experiments of the kind that have been suggested might be appropriate in that context where unemployment is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I said that we shall investigate this matter with great care. I cannot see much future for the kind of programme that was seen in Oklahoma, I believe, in which mothers of eight-weeks-old children were forced to put them into day care so that they could go to search for work. On the other hand, I believe that there is something that we possibly could do. The one element which ran through that programme was the apparent approval by those receiving benefit and those giving the work that it was a good scheme. That is worthy of investigation.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister agree that what we need is a fundamental rethink of the problems of keeping 25 million willing workers occupied and out of mischief through idleness, and psychologically satisfied that what they are doing matters because people are prepared to pay for it what it costs? The parameters at our disposal are the number of hours worked per day and the number of years worked per lifetime in relation to the standard of living expected.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful for the suggestion. Only one matter holds me back from this. It seems to me that those parts of the world where unemployment is high and the economy is sluggish consider that these are problems of the future; that there will not be sufficient work to go round. In other parts of the world where the economy is growing fast, the problem is exactly the opposite. They are looking for people to fill the jobs. I do not know how many in your Lordships' House will have noticed that in the United States the debate taking place is on extending the age of retirement. The retirement age is moving up to 67. There is legislation going through in the United States to give people the right to work until 70. The problem seems to be the exact reverse of the problem that appears in Europe.

Oil Prices and Depletion Policy
2.57 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the collapse in oil prices it would be in the country's long-term interests to revise their depletion policy.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, our approach on depletion policy is to leave decisions on production levels to the oil companies, subject to maintenance of good oilfield practice. This is an important factor in creating a climate in which the oil companies are ready to take the major arid high-risk investment decisions necessary to find and develop new oilfields. We see no case for changing this policy.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his Answer. Can he say how the Government intend to ensure that the economy remains energy self-sufficient through the 1990s when an energy shortage is widely predicted, particularly in the light of the implications for the nuclear industry following the recent Soviet disaster?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am quite sure that those who take an interest in energy matters would agree with me that there are many pitfalls involved in energy forecasting. However, I believe that a country such as ours, which is rich in energy availability—being able to call on oil, gas, coal and nuclear power—must remain self-sufficient, or nearly so for some considerable time in the future.
The noble Lord has made mention of the disaster in Russia. Of course, like all other Members, I am sure, I am appalled at what must be a very severe situation with possibly great loss of life. I am also appalled at the lack of information from the Russians in this matter. It seems to me that all countries which have been involved in the nuclear energy field up until now have readily made available, one to the other, as much information as possible. The situation in the case of the Russians seems regrettable.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I agree absolutely with him that it is deplorable that the Russian Government have not made available to the rest of the world the full extent of the catastrophe that occurred, the reasons for it and what is being done to control it? Will he also agree that it has implications for the Government's energy policy? May I ask the noble Lord whether, in the light of the catastrophe in Russia, the Government will be considering their nuclear policy? If they are so doing they will have the support of the Opposition.
In relation to oil, will the noble Lord agree that the price of oil, at 12 dollars a barrel, has implications for exploration and for the coal industry? In spite of what he said about the oil companies and their plans, is it not absurd that we should now be selling oil at 12 dollars a barrel when in the 1990s we shall probably—indeed, almost certainly—be importing oil
258
at 40 dollars a barrel? Does this not require government action on depletion now?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, perhaps I ma' take the first point that the noble Lord raised. I anticipated that he would agree with my remarks about information being made available from country to country in the event of nuclear mishaps or nuclear disasters. I am grateful to have his support on that matter. With regard to the implications for our energy policy, we shall wait and shall assess very carefully whatever report is made known by the Russians as to the causes of the accident. I would point out that there is no direct implication so far as our nuclear industry is concerned, for the simple reason that the type of reactor involved is not a type that is used in this country. In addition to that, our safety requirements with regard to the nuclear industry and the construction of reactors are much more stringent.
Perhaps I may turn to the point raised by the noble Lord on depletion policy. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him. I think he was suggesting that we should be having production cuts for oil. I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that that would have little effect on the oil price. Our contribution in world terms is a mere 5 per cent. of world oil production.
The OPEC countries are still far and away the leaders so far as oil production is concerned, and whatever action they take, either up or down, has a very much greater effect on price than anything that we could do. In addition, as I said in my initial Answer, I believe that we must ensure that those who make massive investment in the exploration and development of oil are left to be the best judge as to how and when that oil is uplifted.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has said, especially as regards the Soviet accident and also policy as regards the production of oil within the United Kingdom. However, I should like to ask him a question. As the oil companies have always had to be conscious of how volatile the world price of crude oil can be and are therefore ready for contingencies, such as the difficult ones produced by the present situation, should not policy also include other energy industries, in particular the coal industry, which may feel most acutely the present collapse in oil prices?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. His experience in these matters is readily available to the House and we always appreciate his views. However, I think that the coal industry is on an upward curve of success. Since the disastrous miners' strike, there has been a complete change of attitude within the industry and happily production is now on the increase. The reports and the outlook for the future are healthy.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, do the Government not have an overall long-term plan for all our energy resources considered together? How can they have such a policy if they do not have a depletion policy such as that which the Labour Government had?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am sorry to say that that was one of the troubles with the Labour Government. They never maximised the potential of the various energy industries. We believe that there is healthy competition among the energy industries and that can only be good for the consumer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Labour Government did, indeed, have a long-term energy strategy and that that strategy made use of all the elements of fuel: coal, oil, gas and, indeed, nuclear generation? It is because the Government have thrown everything to the winds and left it to market forces that their energy policy is now in a mess. Is he absolutely sure about the assurances which he has given regarding nuclear safety and that such an occurrence could not happen here? Is he aware as regards Three Mile Island that the residents of Harrisburg were assured that the accident which occurred could not happen, and that in Russia the residents were given the same assurances? I hope that the noble Lord's assurances are not the same as theirs.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, it would be silly to hide the fact that there is always an element of risk and to be complacent. It is precisely for those reasons that energy policy in connection with the safety of the nuclear industry—which has been wholly supported by successive governments in this country—is of such a high standard. Although we should never dare to suggest that there could not be an accident in this country, we do everything conceivable to ensure that such an accident, if it did happen, would be minimised.
On the question of energy policy, I am afraid that the noble Lord and I will have to disagree. However, I suggest to him that the oil industry, the gas industry, the nuclear industry and the coal industry are all in a much healthier state now than they were before 1979.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the politics of the situation apart, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and ask whether the Minister honestly believes that an international oil price of 10 dollars or less a barrel would make the British coal industry able to support our needs or to continue with its present plans?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I think that the coal industry is revising and has revised a great many of its plans and is now embarking upon a policy which we hope will enable it to compete in the energy world. As far as the price of oil is concerned, whether it be 10 dollars or 20 dollars a barrel, it must be achieved without the Government interfering. It will be taken care of by the market. As far as depletion is concerned, if the price falls to 10 dollars or even less, the companies themselves will regulate the amount of production in which they engage.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I accept that qualification hopefully.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement
260
that is to be made in another place on the evacuation of British subjects following the accident at Chernobyl.
With the leave of the House. I should like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in this afternoon's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the sheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 14 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

Government Policies: Social Effects
3.6 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell Lord Wells-Pestell rose to call attention to the social effects of government policies; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having looked at the list of speakers I could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that there are areas in your Lordships' House which have no interest in what we are about to discuss this afternoon. There is not a single Member from the Cross-Benches participating and there is only one Member participating from the Alliance, but I am glad to say that we probably have the greatest authority in your Lordships' House on insurance matters and supplementary benefit in the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and I am delighted that he is taking part. Of the four Members who will be speaking on behalf of the Government, we at least have two Ministers, so perhaps we ought to be grateful for that.
The purpose of this debate is to draw attention to the kind of life which a large number of people are experiencing at present, due, we believe on this side, in large measure to the present Government's policies. There is no doubt in the minds of my friends and myself that those policies have caused a great deal of misery and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Whether this debate will serve any useful purpose remains to be seen, for we on this side of the House have always felt that there is a wide divide between the philosophy of the Conservative Party and that of the Labour Party. That makes our task all the more difficult, for there must be a number of areas and situations which are familiar to us but which are almost unknown to a large number of noble Lords opposite. I did not say every noble Lord opposite, but a large number. Even if they know about them, they certainly will not have personal knowledge or experience of them.
We on this side of the House feel that it is the quality of human life and values which matter in the long run. One—and in my view the most important—function of government is to provide adequately and effectively for the underprivileged, to ensure that those in need are provided with the means to lead a worthwhile life, free of the anxiety of making ends meet. To put it another way, they should have a secure roof over their heads and sufficicent money coming in each week to pay their way and meet the family's needs. It is a perpetual struggle for a very large number of people.
In this Government's first Budget in June 1979, of the £3,500 million handed out in tax cuts, about 40 per cent. went to 5·5 per cent. of the taxpayers, and no one could agree—not in their right minds—that they really needed any of that money at all. Much the same happened this year, and the rich again came out of it very well. The gap between the rich and the poor was widened even more.
There are far too many people in our society who are not only finding it difficult to make ends meet but who do not succeed in ever overcoming their struggle. Beveridge's aim and principle was that the state should do more than just relieve poverty; it should provide the means to live without the anxiety of making ends meet. This principle, if not lost sight of by this Government. I honestly believe has been undermined by them.
I am not unmindful of the problem facing us, and I appreciate the cost of meeting the numerous benefits. Government expenditure on social security benefits in 1984 to 1985—obviously the last figures available—was £36,882 million. It is a lot of money. It is difficult to get a detailed and accurate breakdown of the figures available, but there are some 30 main social security benefits, including retirement pensions for nearly 10 million persons. In addition, there is supplementary benefit, where it is considered necessary, for the elderly, the sick and disabled, the unemployed, widows and one-parent families; that accounts for another 5 million people. That is not the total number of people who are in receipt of benefits; they were the only ones I was able to identify. Statistics are difficult to separate or get together, but these clearly show that there are millions of people entirely dependent upon the state for their existence. In a television broadcast on behalf of the Child Poverty Action Group on Sunday 20th April the Bishop of Stepney referred to the people's daily struggles to survive. He spoke about children who were inadequately clothed and noted that there were more than twice the number of people in his area on the breadline this year compared with last year. This was a statement made only last Sunday week.
The Government have surely been well aware of the situation of the poor as compared with the better off section of society; yet social security benefits have been cut since 1979, as a result of policy changes, the staggering amount being £11,100 million. In addition, the Government have taxed the unemployed by a total of £3,000 million since that tax was introduced in 1982. It means that the very poorest—pensioners, unemployed families with children, single parents, and the sick and disabled—have lost about £14,100 million since 1979.
Unfortunately pensioners fare the worst. Since 1979 the retirement pensioner has not been fairly treated; and in the recent spell of bad weather the amount of pension was not enough to ensure that there were no cases of pensioners dying. The Government have shown a great lack of concern, for it is certain that if pensioners had had more money, many hundreds of them would not have died during the cold spell.
The tax cuts for those earning over £30,000 a year totalled £4,400 million; an average saving of £2,380 per annum. In other words, the tax cuts recently given to those earning over £30,000 a year were worth about
262
£200 a month. For those earning over £50,000 a year the cut was £12,780, which was over £1,000 a month. We all know that the Government's reply will be, "We could not afford higher benefits". It is always their reply in matters of this kind.
The City of London has done itself extremely well in recent years, though its conduct, I think most of us will agree, leaves much to be desired. Today it is a place where young men in their late 20s can earn £30,000 to £40,000 a year.
Noble Lords: More than that.
Lord Wells-Pestell: One firm—a leading stockbroker—last year doubled its wages bill, paying an average of £47,619 per person. I should like to quote a comment in one of the newspapers, which said:
"At the lower end of the employees' scale 73 people were paid between £35,000 and £120,000 a year".
I understand that the chairman of Jaguar was given a 100 per cent. rise in 1985 from £86,000 a year to £173,000 a year, an increase of £1,673 a week. A press report refers to;
"the latest in a line of privatised company executives to benefit from huge pay rises as soon as they transfer to the private sector"
Frankly, I do not think that the man or woman has yet been born who is worth £186,000 a year either to the community or to any firm employing them. When one considers that there is so much poverty and misery in the country wage rates of that scale and increases of that scale really are quite immoral.
In view of the Government's meanness towards those in real need I should like to ask what has happened to the £53 billion revenues from North Sea oil since 1978, the £7,620 million which so far the Government have received from privatisation, the £3,892 million and the £1,206 million from levies on gas and electricity, and the saving of £4,900 million on rate capping.
It would be interesting to know where that money went. A caring government, aware of the misery and poverty of such a high percentage of people, would have arranged for a part of this vast amount to have been set aside to increase state benefits to a more reasonable level than they are at present.
I understand that the big four banks have between them made a profit—I admit before taxation—of about £2,800 million. But more than half of that amount will remain after taxation, and so they will come out of it very well. Is it beyond the wit of the Government to think up some way of taking a bit of what is left, as they have done from gas and electricity? In view of the conditions in which so many of our fellow beings are living some provision should have been made from this newly-found wealth so as to relieve the misery that exists at present. At least we ought to be doing something along that line.
We have a vast army of lone parents. I wonder how many noble Lords in this House realise that there are about one million lone parents. Their children are permanently clothed in other children's cast-offs. These children are never likely to have the experience during childhood of wearing anything new. Can your Lordships imagine the effect that this has on those children and the contribution it makes to anti-social behaviour? I am astounded that so many people (I am inclined to think that there are some such people in

263
your Lordships' House) who have lived so long, seen so much and heard so much understand so little of the conditions that some people are forced to live under. There is a responsibility on each of us to see that better provision is made in the future for the poor. There ought not to be so much poverty and misery in our society. It is not surprising that anti-social behaviour and crime are on the increase. Most of us know that violence is the language of the deprived.
On Wednesday, 9th April it was announced in the press:
"A suite with a view of the City and the Thames for £350 a night with breakfast is the main feature of Britain's most luxurious private hospital",
which opened in London a few days ago; £350 a night with breakfast! It is immoral. There is no justification for that whatsoever. I admit that it was provided from profits from the Kuwait oil boom. The hospital can provide everything from heart surgery down to mundane tonsillectomy. It is all right if one can afford it. It is stated that Guy's, St. Thomas's, King's College Hospital, Moorfields and Bans are referring parents. That is an example of what can be done if only one can afford it. There is no waiting for weeks, no waiting for months, no being in acute agony and pain. A patient can go in immediately if he can afford that kind of treatment.
But the significant point is that all five hospitals I have mentioned which are sending patients to that hospital are themselves already facing cuts. At Guy's 200 hospital beds have been closed since 1984. St. Thomas's will be closing to all except emergency cases in August and will be carrying out 400 fewer heart operations. King's College has had to close 14 specialist liver transplant and dialysis units and cut back its cancer treatment service. It is also proposing to close 29 surgical beds. What a delight it must be to be rich and what a curse it must be to be poor and have to depend on the National Health Service. Yet on more than one occasion the Prime Minister has stated that the National Health Service is safe with the Conservative Government. Safe for whom?
In Oxford where I live we are witnessing the closure of hospitals and of beds, curtailment of treatment and reduced services, not because they are not needed, but because the money is not there. The authorities have been told that they must make cuts.
Every week I torture myself by reading in local papers that in areas such as Harrow, Stanmore, Finchley, Barnet and other parts of north London houses are selling at between £125,000 and £500,000 each. This is disgraceful. They are not just put up for sale; they are sold. House prices are now tremendous, and yet the money is there. It is not just one or two houses; there are many, advertised not only in one paper but in several.
In last Sunday's Observer Mr. Michael Heseltine presented his plan for a better society. The keynote of this plan was that we must not become a society of two nations. That is precisely what we are, as millions of our citizens are painfully aware. The responsibility of a caring government is adequately to provide for their citizens who are old, infirm and in need of life's essentials and to see that those who are on the bread line, or just below it, are provided with enough food so that they can live a reasonable existence. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for introducing the subject of this debate. Before I say anything further I must apologise to all your Lordships for my inability to remain until the end of the debate. Unfortunately I have a long-standing engagement, but I assure all in your Lordships' House that I shall read with care all the contributions to the debate.
I am very glad that we are having this debate though rarely have I ever heard the politics of envy expounded in such a way. Rarely have I heard such a lack of understanding of the word "morality" and of the way in which the economy works or a clearer exposition of the reasons why this country fell so far. I hope today that our debate will contribute towards our understanding in both a philosophical and a practical way, because in a philosophical vein I believe that it is vital for all in your Lordships' House to understand just how Government policies have an effect, and how they had an effect in the past, on the social fabric of our nation. On a practical plane I hope that all in your Lordships' House, if not the people outside, will recognise the solid achievements of this Government.
I must start by confessing to a sense of uncertainty in approaching the question of the social effects of government policy. I had thought that the age of social engineering was dying in the 1960s and was buried in the 1970s. Of course we can measure the social changes that affect our people in many ways. Government policies have direct effects on people's well-being in such areas as health, education and law and order. But the direct links between social change and Government policies are often hard to identify and I believe dangerous to try to create through deliberate government policy.
Indeed, here lies the essential difference in the policies which different governments have adopted. Socialists believe in putting decision making in the hands of the state. They actually believe that they can legislate and make people good. When they fail they console themselves that if they are not yet good, then against all the evidence they are at least better. They say that the state knows what the individual needs and can best provide it. George Orwell has shown us where this could lead. Eastern Europe provides an object lesson to us in the practical results of the state taking care of the people's social life and welfare.
Our belief is diametrically opposite. Our belief is in personal freedom and personal responsibility, for the two are inseparable. Look at industrial relations. We have restored the trade unions to their rightful owners, their members. They tell the unions what to do. In home ownership, the great strides have been paralleled by a greater control for tenants in their housing estates. In companies, the drive for privatisation has given managers a chance to manage and at the same time the employees have become the real owners of the company.
Some would say that what is important is not these broader philosophical questions but what has actually happened to people's real incomes and how well off they are. We heard much from the noble Lord opposite about what has happened in tax over the last few years. A single person on average earnings has enjoyed a significant increase in real take-home pay under this Government. I will remind your Lordships

265
again and again that the only money that people spend is their take-home pay. The amount of tax they pay is an irrelevance. What really matters to everybody is the size of their pay cheque at the end of the week or at the end of the month.
Under this Government we have seen an increase of over 18 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1986–87. Let us look at the period the noble Lord was extolling between 1973–74 and 1978–79 when for a single person on average earnings the real take-home pay fell by 2·9 per cent.
If your Lordships object that that is just for a single person, then let us look at families between 1978–79 and 1986–87. A family with two children had an increase in real take-home pay—the money they were able to spend themselves—of 17 per cent. Between 1973–74 and 1978–79 that family would, I must confess, have enjoyed an increase. But, my Lords, it would have been an increase of half a per cent.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord's catalogue of statistics. Among them, would he care to add what has happened to the average taxpayer during the period since 1979—namely, whether they have or have not had their tax and national insurance increased or decreased?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, a great gap divides us and I have an enormous task to bring home the economic realities of life. It does not matter two hoots what happens to the level of tax and what happens to the level of national insurance. What does matter is what people spend at the end of the day and how much money they take home. Until we get that understanding of their economics, then I think that I had better pass swiftly on to education because this is a profitless area with noble Lords opposite. All that I can say is that I will gladly swap the tax bill of the noble Lord opposite for his net take-home pay because I think he will find that his net take-home pay and that of any noble Lord is always larger than their tax bill.
In looking at education, it lays the groundwork for a citizen's life. After all, it is education that inculcates society's values as it prepares young people for the future. We are sometimes accused, amid all the sterile accusations about spending cuts, of neglecting education. That is simple nonsense. The key fact is that more money is being spent per pupil in real terms than ever before. Real spending per pupil in primary schools was 17 per cent. higher in 1983–84 than in 1978–79. Pupil-teacher ratios have fallen year by year.
What I want to be careful about is the simple connection that somehow spending more money equals a better output. We all know that higher spending is not the real key to better education. There was a report only last week on ILEA which showed spending above the national average having below average results. A year or two back, there was a famous report on Haringey—the second highest per capita spend in the land and education was, alas! one of the lowest. The key that unlocks and frees the minds of our children is the quality of the education that they receive. It requires a real effort to improve the quality of education to a standard and to get the best possible return for the enormous resources which we invest in education. That is our aim and objective, and one of the ways in which we hope to achieve it is to put more responsibility and more choice in the hands of parents.
266
Parents are those with the first interest in seeing that their children have the best education. Many teachers and many people seem to feel that the dispute between education authorities and teachers over pay indicates the Government's lack of commitment to education. That could not be further from the case. Our concern is to raise standards of teaching. We have looked to better selection of student teachers and more and better in-service training for existing teachers, but we believe above all else that appraisal of the performance of all teachers will identify the help that the less effective ones need and provide the rewards for the most effective teachers.
Of course we have looked at the closer links between education and the world of work. The Technical and Vocational Education Initiative will, I believe, bring into the school system a better appreciation of the opportunities that await our young in the outside world. I hope very much that the new General Certificate of Secondary Education will put a greater emphasis on understanding and a greater emphasis on practical skills. The review of vocational qualifications which has just been made has revealed the need for a clearer structure of qualifications which will enable young people to develop their own pattern of work-related education and to change direction of skill more easily. That is true freedom.
Then we heard reference a few moments ago to health. Health, like education is something on which any Government could and would like to spend ever-increasing amounts; but, as in education, the amount that we can spend is limited by our national wealth. Your Lordships may think that in saying that I am leading up to an explanation of these cuts about which I keep on hearing. What is the actual record? I hate giving statistics but, if noble Lords opposite would drop the word "cuts", I will not give statistics. The simple explanation is that spending in real terms has increased by 24 per cent. since 1979. In the health service today we have 10,000 more doctors and dentists and 63,000 more nurses and midwives. We have more buildings. We have had 58 hospital schemes, each worth over £2 million, started and completed since 1979 and over 150 more hospital schemes worth over a billion pounds being planned, designed or built. I do not see very much in those figures about cuts. When we look at the actual facts, more people are being treated and the average number of patients per family doctor has fallen. Health care has improved under this Government but I have no doubt at all that noble Lords opposite will talk again and again about the existence of cuts.
On the matter of law and order, one of the most basic needs of our society is the safety and security of our people. We have responded to the problems of law and order by increasing police strength by almost 13,000, by putting bobbies where they belong, back on the beat, where they can be fully effective. We provided the pay, the equipment, the technology and the moral support to the police in their difficult and dangerous task. That we shall continue to do.
All these areas—health, education and law and order—are vital parts of the services which government provide for their citizens. There are those who have often confused our concern to limit spending, our concern to increase efficiency, with cuts in people's welfare. That is wrong and irresponsible.

267
Wrong because the facts on such vital services are against them. Irresponsible because we know that the demands for public services are limitless. They are not constrained by the price mechanism which forces those making demands to balance those demands against costs. Encouraging people to think that the well of public money is bottomless only encourages the spend, spend, spend attitude which has brought us steadily higher taxation and lower incentives and, even worse, it encourages people to believe that they can do nothing for themselves.
If noble Lords opposite continue to tell people that they can do nothing for themselves, that they cannot be trusted to look after themselves, that "Big Brother knows best", well, after a while, they may even start to believe it. The real contrast between our policies and those which some other people propose is simply the power of the state. Our concern is to encourage personal responsibility and to roll back the frontiers of the state. Our country was seduced by the welfarism of the 1960s into believing that the state should take care of everything. The beliefs of Beveridge were left far behind in the scramble to provide services.
If we look at what has happened over the last few years and at the way public spending has risen steadily—from 35 per cent. of GDP in the early 1960s to 45 per cent. in the mid-1970s—we find five major changes. People took home less of the money their employers paid them, and employers paid more and more in additional costs to hire labour. The tax structure was so distorted that we subsidised everybody to enable them to buy machinery to take away jobs from people. The worst effect is that we attempted to redistribute wealth through the tax system. We set tax rates at 83 per cent. and at an unbelieveable 98 per cent. Indeed, in one year I remember it was 103 per cent. After 35 years of tax rates at that level, lo and behold, we had not redistributed wealth but, as sure as anything, we had eliminated wealth creation, and we wondered why we got poorer and poorer and poorer!
The achievement of this Government is that we have restored wealth creation and respect for it. What we have achieved and what we shall continue to achieve is a better standard of living for all our citizens. What we must not lose is the quality of life of which our fathers were justifiably proud. What we must give our children is the best possible start in the next century; a chance to grow up and live in a society in which freedom and individuality are cherished, in which wealth creation is respected and in which the less fortunate of our people are safeguarded. Those are the desirable and inevitable social consequences of this Government's policies.

Soviet Nuclear Accident: UK Citizens
3.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the evacuation of British subjects following the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union which is
268
being made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Eggar. The Statement is as follows:
"Following indications from countries bordering the Soviet Union the Soviet authorities announced on 28th April that there had been an accident at the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl. This was a day after radioactivity had first been monitored in Scandinavia. The Embassy in Moscow was in touch with the Soviet authorities early the next morning to seek information. The Soviet authorities were unwilling to give any details, but assured our Embassy that there was no cause for concern over the British citizens in Kiev and Minsk. In the absence of any authoritative information from the Soviet authorities, which continues to be a feature of this crisis, the Ambassador was instructed to seek the fullest possible details. He was only able to talk to the Soviet authorities this morning.
"During the course of yesterday afternoon I took the decision, in the light of the continuing uncertainty and lack of authoritative information, that it would not be right for British citizens to visit the western Soviet Union unless absolutely necessary. As regards those already there, we requested the fullest co-operation of the Soviet authorities in assisting any who decided to leave to do so. The Embassy was instructed to offer every help in this respect including repatriation.
"I reviewed the situation this morning. Despite inadequate information from the Soviet Union, it was evident, particularly from reports based on United States satellite observations and from Swedish scientific sources, that the situation at Chernobyl was such that it was necessary to evacuate British citizens. We have also decided to extend to north east Poland the advice already given to intending travellers to the western Soviet Union. We are in touch with the Polish government to identify which areas they consider are at risk.
"Our Embassy is in continuing contact with the Soviet authorities about the practical arrangements for evacuation. That will probably mean the students from Kiev and Minsk travelling to Moscow for evacuation from there. Our Ambassador has been told that the Soviet authorities will help. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be seeing the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon and impressing on him the need for the fullest practical co-operation.
"There are still many unanswered questions. We urge the Soviet authorities to release the fullest possible information immediately. We have established an expert working group in order to monitor the situation and advise Ministers on appropriate action.
"The lesson of this affair is that the openness which Mr. Gorbachev has said is necessary in Soviet society must become a reality."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and we welcome the action taken by the British Embassy to expedite the students' departure. Can she say

269
whether there are any other British subjects apart from students and teachers in the Kiev and Minsk areas and whether contact has been made with them? Can she also say whether assistance has been given to the students and the teachers in respect of their return fares to this country? We also welcome the action described in the Statement which has been taken in other countries and especially in Poland. Has the noble Baroness any idea how many British subjects are involved there and in neighbouring countries that may be affected by the accident?
May we also ask whether Her Majesty's Government have offered assistance and technical advice to the Soviet Government on this issue, and what, if anything, has been the response to that? We regret this tragic accident and send our sympathies to the people who have been affected, but we must again deplore the failure of the Soviet Government to inform the world of this disaster, especially that part of the world which is affected by the tragedy, and to inform the world immediately so that other countries could take necessary action? Will Her Majesty's Government therefore encourage as soon as possible an exchange of views on the disaster between our country and our partners in the European Community, many of which are affected by it, and the Soviet Union, and also on its long-term implications? Is that not an urgent necessity now?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the Statement made by the noble Baroness this afternoon. We join the Leader of the Opposition in deploring the failure of the Soviet Government to give details, particularly since human life is at stake. I am not talking simply about British lives, but about the lives of others, including the Russians in the vicinity who have obviously been endangered by this explosion.
May I ask the Government whether they will refrain from any propaganda advantage that might be derived from the disaster, though I am not suggesting that they have not refrained so far? In instructing the British Embassy to offer all possible help, including repatriation, will the cost of the fares of students who have been invited to return to this country be met? I heard a young student on the radio this morning say that so far no offer of assistance with the return fare was available. I hope that that will be considered as part of the assistance which is going to be given by the Embassy.
I very much welcome the offer of technical help by Her Majesty's Government and by the American Government. I should be glad if the Minister will confirm this. May I suggest to him that out of tragedy sometimes comes good? Out of this tragedy there may emerge opportunities for co-operation in establishing international standards of safety in nuclear production. Can I ask the Government whether in the circumstances they are prepared to take the initiative in trying to organise international safety standards for nuclear energy which may be accepted by all countries producing energy in this way? The experience of the last war suggests that countries of different ideological backgrounds can work together in the face of tragedy and in case of human need. In this case we must not minimise the extent of the tragedy that has taken place.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for their responses to this Statement. I think we would all join, as the Statement makes clear, in deploring the failure of the Soviet Union to give us the necessary information, not only of course in their own country but particularly in Europe and in the world as a whole.
Both noble Lords asked me several specific questions and both raised the point about the students. The students in Minsk will travel on their revalidated air tickets from Moscow to London under arrangements being made by the British Council and our embassy in Moscow. Those students in Kiev are on a visit organised by Progressive Tours Limited and we understand that the company is making similar arrangements for their return to London. The refunding of costs is something to he taken up in the first place with the tour operator and the sponsors; but our main concern at this stage must be the safety of the students and seeing that they can travel home.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about other British subjects in Kiev. We believe there are a number of short-term visitors both in Minsk and in Kiev, and perhaps also in neighbouring areas in Poland. Of course, we have no firm details of that. They will be advised via the BBC's overseas services what would be best for them. However, we believe that for safety's sake it is right to move our people out of Kiev and Minsk, which means an area of about 200 miles radius from Chernobyl. So far as British citizens in Poland are concerned, we believe they should follow the advice that is provided by the Polish Government, with whom our embassy is in close contact.
Both noble Lords asked about assistance to the Soviet Union. I repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said and will make clear to the Soviet ambassador today, as our ambassador has already made clear to the Russians, that any technical assistance and advice needed will be supplied.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, spoke of the need for an exchange of views between the United Kingdom and the European Community on this disaster and its long-term implications. That is certainly a point which I shall pass on to my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary. As, regards the opportunities for co-operation, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I would only say to him that taking any initiative means that everybody has to co-operate in giving the information. I take note of the point he has raised on this matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, with the present westerly winds over these islands, there is no risk of radiation from this explosion affecting this country? Can she also confirm that if the Soviet Government had promptly informed Her Majesty's Government of this disaster on the day of the disaster it would have been possible to extricate British subjects from the area of radiation earlier than it has proved possible to do now?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the first question about advice to people in Britain is that no special precautions are necessary since radiation levels

271
are normal; but, as I said in the Statement, we are constantly monitoring the situation. On the second point regarding early information, I can only think that must be the case and that, as would have occurred in our own country or in any of the Western countries, the fullest information would have been given immediately.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, Chernobyl means in Russian "black burrow". Will the Government exercise the maximum diplomatic pressure on the Soviets to come out of their black burrow into the light of day and tell us what is going on? There are nine other of these stations potentially capable of exploding in this way. What are they going to do about them to safeguard the world from further incidents of this kind and when are they going to abandon their peasant mentality—sly, suspicious, secretive—and tell us the truth? We already have an international organisation. Why do they not join in?
Lord Parry: My Lords, before the noble Baroness rises to answer the question, does the House accept that we should surely be concentrating on the fact that it appears that a major human tragedy has taken place and that we should be addressing our feelings to that and not to the politics of the situation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the Statement makes quite clear, there has obviously been a very serious nuclear accident. I am sure the whole House would agree that what we need to have is the fullest possible information from the Soviet Union about what has happened. Our ambassador in Moscow is under very detailed instructions to find out as fully as he can what has happened. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is seeing the Russian ambassador this afternoon and will be not only offering assistance to him but seeking to gain the fullest information that we can get. I think that is the most important matter at the present time. We must all hope very much that such an appalling accident does not happen again; but certainly getting the information on the present one would be a help.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as this incident is so important and its effects are likely to last for a long time, is there not a risk in some of the reactions we have heard in the House this afternoon of our giving the appearance of national feelings, as distinct from examining the matter constructively? Apart from the fact that Sweden and neighbouring countries ought to have been warned immediately the accident happened so that precautions could be taken, are we not perhaps being a little too precipitate in suggesting that Russia is not giving all the facts as they are known?
Is it not reasonable to believe that in circumstances as technical as this, they would want time to find out what the facts are before they give them out and not merely attempt to satisfy people by guesswork? It may well be that if we wait we shall get the true facts, and that will be helpful to everybody. But if in the meantime we give the impression of having a doubt about the truthfulness of the facts when they do come it may, as a consequence, not be in the best interests of anybody at all.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think there is any question of doubting the facts when they come. I think our concern has been that we have not had the facts. As the Statement makes clear, the Soviet authorities announced on 28th April that there had been an accident. That was the day after radioactivity had first been monitored in Scandinavia. Therefore there is a presupposition that the accident happened earlier than that, and it is the time-lag that has been of concern. What we now want to have are the fullest possible facts about the situation.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she feels it is enough just to hope that this type of accident will not happen again? Having a little bit of experience of Russian-designed chemical plants, at any rate, I have a great fear that it may well happen again, bearing in mind the age and type of design of the plants I understand they have in Russia. I think that there is an appalling likelihood of its happening again and I do not think it is good enough just to hope that it does not.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I recognise that this is a very serious accident and I would not wish anything that I have said in any way to appear to understimate the seriousness of it. The fact is that Chernobyl is unlike any existing or planned reactors in the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom nuclear authorities rejected its design many years ago as intrinsically unsuitable. As that is a matter for the Soviet Union, we must—I use the verb again—hope that with its co-operation such an accident will not happen again.
Lord Caccia: My Lords, would it be possible to have published the photographs that have been taken of the incident so that we can have some further information which is really already available?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I note the point that the noble Lord has made; I see the point of that.

Government Policies: Social Effects
4 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Banks: My Lords perhaps we may now return to the debate. I should like to begin by saying that I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for providing us with the opportunity to examine the social effects of the Government's policies. Like him, I find them in many ways adverse. I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, say, if I understood him aright, that the Government's policies are not designed to have social effects. If the Government are involved in social security, health, education, housing and the economy, what they do is bound to have a social effect, and we are entitled to review it.
The more I consider the problem the more I am forced to these conclusions. First, as a result of Government policy, there has been a redistribution of income from the poorer to the better off. That was

273
clearly demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. Secondly, the numbers of the poor, though they are a minority within a comparatively affluent society, have considerably increased. Many of them—the noble Lord, Lord Young, may perhaps remember this—do not have any take-home pay at all.
Thirdly, the division between the comfortably off majority and the deprived has become more acute, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool pointed out to us a little while ago. Fourthly, it is not only the poorest but also many in the middle income range who are concerned about the inadequacy of the resources available in the education system, the National Health Service, housing and the maintenance and repair of the infrastructure.
I shall give some of the evidence which has forced me to those four conclusions. There can be no doubt in my mind that part of the blame for the considerable increase in unemployment which has taken place since 1979 lies in Government policies. Unemployment is of course a problem for all similar industrialised countries, but it was exacerbated here by government policies which led to an accentuation of the decline in manufacturing industry, high interest rates, an overvalued pound, and a refusal to embark on a significant programme of redevelopment in mitigation.
There is no need for me to go into the details of the social effects of unemployment—no jobs for the young, and the middle-aged thrown on the scrapheap. The House is familiar with those problems. The House has discussed them many times (rightly) and will undoubtedly do so again. Unemployment has greatly increased the numbers of the poor, as the increase in the numbers on supplementary benefit clearly indicates.
Next, the shift in the burden of taxation has favoured the better off. The numbers caught in the poverty trap have increased fivefold since 1979. The number of families forced to top up their income with family income supplement has trebled in that period.
If we look at income tax and national insurance contributions as a percentage of earnings, we find, for example, that a married couple with two children on half national average earnings are 100 per cent. worse off than they were in 1979; a similar couple on national average earnings are 3 per cent. worse off; on five times national average earnings they are 13 per cent. better off; and on 10 times national earnings they are 22 per cent. better off.
We must bear in mind of course that social security benefits are less than they would have been but for government policies. I think in particular of the cuts to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred, which took place in 1980. At that time the then Secretary of State for Social Services declared that £1,500 million per annum had been cut from the social security budget. Some of those cuts have of course been restored, but many of them have not, such as the break in the link with earnings for pensions, the reduction of 5 per cent. in sickness benefit, and the abolition of the earnings related supplement in relation to sickness and unemployment benefit. More recently we have seen child benefit not uprated fully in line with prices so that its real value has decreased, creating concern about the future of that benefit.
274
There has also been a decline in the education system throughout the country. I recently watched a programme on schools on television and soon after I listened to a programme on the radio which was also about schools. The two programmes were separately produced and yet they had a similar theme, which was that our education system was dividing into three streams—the private schools with adequate resources, the state schools where the parents were able to afford to provide considerable resources, and state schools without any additional funding, which were normally in the more depressed areas where the buildings were likely in many cases to be deteriorating.
The National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations sent a questionnaire to its members covering a great many primary and secondary schools, and among its findings was the fact that 48 per cent. of primary and 82 per cent. of secondary school children are sharing text books. That may not matter so much in primary schools, but one soon realises that it matters a great deal in secondary schools.
That survey also showed that parents are supporting the state system to the extent of 30 per cent. of capitation in primary schools and 9 per cent. in secondary schools where the amounts of money are higher.
There has been a similar decline in the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, said that noble Lords in this House would probably continue to talk about that. He rather suggested that the problem did not really exist, but Mr. Maurice Burrows, the chairman of the British Medical Association central committee for hospital services has told the Secretary of State for Social Services that there is widespread disillusion among senior hospital doctors over the state of the service. Why do those people say those things unless there is some substance in the charge? Mr. Burrows wrote:
"Across the United Kingdom, services are being reduced mainly in terms of ward closures on a temporary or extended basis".
In a report entitled All our Tomorrows which deals with the treatment of the elderly the British Medical Association says:
"The general treatment of the frail elderly by the state' is a scandal".
It goes on to explain why, and one of the reasons is lack of money.
I believe that there is now widespread concern in the country about the future of the education system and the National Health Service.
Let me deal with housing. We find that there is a shortage of houses to rent. I am glad that 63 per cent. of households are now owner-occupiers, but the remainder require rented accommodation, and they include, in the main, the poorest in the community. The amount spent on housing has been reduced drastically by over 50 per cent. during the period that the Government have been in office. There has been a continuing decline in the condition of the housing stock.
We are all aware of the problems of inner cities where unemployment, bad housing, a cumbersome and not always adequate social security system and a crumbling infrastructure combine to create a serious problem.

275
Nearly all these problems are due to shortage of money. Whether we are spending more money than we spent before is not the point. It is clear that we are not spending enough to avoid these problems.
That situation, I suggest, stems from the Government's belief that public expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product should be reduced, and yet if we look at figures issued by the OECD for 1983 we find that the United Kingdom in that year on this calculation took 47·2 per cent. of gross domestic product for Government expenditure, while the percentage figure for West Germany was 48·6, for the Netherlands, 63·6, for Belgium, 56·3 and for France, 51·5—all higher than our own amount of government expenditure.
All the problems that I have mentioned except unemployment, could be solved, at least in the short run, by greater expenditure; and unemployment could be reduced, at least in the short run, by expenditure. The Government say that you cannot solve these problems by throwing money at them, but they do not mind individuals throwing money at their individual problems if they can afford to do so. The trouble is that if you leave too much to individual initiative the poorest go to the wall.
The Government do not mind extra expenditure on health and education so long as it is private. It is not increased expenditure therefore that they are against but increased public expenditure. Why is that? First, it is because they fear that increased public expenditure must be inflationary. Secondly, they seem to believe that money spent in the private sector promotes recovery but expenditure in the public sector does not.
I reject the second argument, because I reject the first. I do not believe that public expenditure is of necessity inflationary. If the Government financed extra expenditure out of taxation, that would surely not be inflationary. Incidentally, my honourable and right honourable friends in another place voted against the cut of 1p in the standard rate which cost £1.2 billion because they felt that with all these problems to be faced it was wrong to be making that cut at the time; and various tax cuts which have favoured the better-off since 1979 have cost over £3 billion. We on these Benches have made clear that we are committed to a measure of redistribution, and, in my view, as I have said many times in this House before, a tax credit scheme would be a suitable mechanism for that.
But what about borrowing? If the extra cost, or part of it, were financed by borrowing, would that be inflationary? We know that there are other countries with a public sector borrowing requirement which constitutes a higher percentage of gross domestic product yet which have a lower rate of inflation. May I just mention the Netherlands as one of those? It has a public sector borrowing requirement almost twice ours and yet the figures for the previous year to last February show an inflation rate of 1.2 per cent. Also, we know that the United States has run up a considerable deficit without any adverse effect on inflation.
How important is a percentage point or two on the public sector borrowing requirement so far as inflation is concerned? How much more important are
276
exchange rates, interest rates and world commodity prices? How much more important than a few points on the public sector borrowing requirement is the price of oil?
I believe that the Government should speak clearly to the country and that they should say something like this: "We have these serious social problems. We propose to forget for the moment privatisation and nationalisation. We wish to concentrate on these social problems. To begin to reduce them, we need to spend more money in the years ahead. We propose to get that money partly by a limited increase in government borrowing, with the safeguard of an incomes policy, and partly by calling on comfortable Britain to make a contribution with a higher proportionate contribution from the most comfortable."
I believe that such an appeal and such a plan, detailed as to figures and proposed expenditure as it would have to be, would evoke a favourable response from the British people and go some way to offset the social effects of the present Government's policies.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate initiated and opened by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. My noble friend delivered an impressive, wide-ranging and deeply-felt speech and proved, in my view, beyond any shadow of a doubt that wide sections of our community are suffering acute hardship primarily as a result of this Government's policies—or lack of policies.
I shall deal with some of these problems in a moment, but I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, that it was unworthy to talk of my noble friend as having reflected "the politics of envy". I thought my noble friend was reflecting the politics of principle and compassion. My noble friend commented on the recently opened private hospital here in London which is charging £350 a night. I did not think that his remarks deserved the noble Lord's description of the politics of envy. It was a reference to what Mr. Edward Heath once described as the unacceptable face of capitalism. The noble Lord should not have dealt in so unworthy a manner with my noble friend's speech. My noble friend, of all Members of this House, is the last to have anything to do with the politics of envy. The Government's defence—
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my reference to the society of envy was in reply to a remark that I did not think was justified about the man who built up Jaguar, taking it from 14,000 units a year to 43,000, and, who knows, many more beyond, and who is giving employment to many people. To say that people who are the leaders of companies that succeed are unworthy of the salaries they draw is only showing envy and is not looking at the achievements.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that is a totally unsatisfactory reply to my charge, and I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree. The Government's case is well known and we have heard it again from the noble Lord, Lord Young, today.

277
Broadly, it is that they are on the right track, that inflation is down, that we are economically healthy and compare well with other developed countries and, finally, that the people of this country must work out their own salvation without government intervention; that is to say, that everybody must stand on his own two feet.
They go on to say, if pressed, that if there are difficulties, such as very high unemployment, these are due partly to the world recession and partly to the inequities of the previous Labour Government. They used to add that the difficulties were also partly due to the high price of oil and the OPEC cartel. I suppose they are now due to the low price of oil. Someone ought to write a book entitled How the Conservative Government took advantage of the great North Sea oil bonanza. It would be a classic on how not to run the economy of Britain.
It is also time that the Government accepted responsibility for their actions. They have been in power now for seven years, with a large majority. After seven years, we should begin to get results and the promises made in 1979 and 1983 should now be seen to fructify. This is what the debate is about. In her speech in the Debate on the Address in 1979, the Prime Minister said:
On restoring the economic balance"—
This was 1979—
"we start from a poor base. For almost four years there have been well over 1 million and sometimes as many as 1½ million unemployed. Recent improvements offer no hope of long-term recovery".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/79; col. 77].
Again, the Conservative Party manifesto of 1979 said:
"We are setting out to rebuild our economy and reunite a divided and disillusioned people".
After seven years of Conservative Government, we have well over three million people out of work—probably nearer four million on the basis of 1979 methods of calculation. Furthermore, I regret to say that we are a more divided and disillusioned community, certainly than at any time since the last war. It is, in my view, a major tragedy. I do not dismiss everything that the Government have done as a failure or as foolish. They have, in fact, brought inflation down, although that has been done at a very high cost. I would pay the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, credit for the work that he is trying to do in providing training opportunities over a wide field. But, broadly, the Government's policies and the quality of their leadership have created an atmosphere of division and hopelessness in many places, and this has bred an unpredictable mood that bodes no good for this country in the longer term.
One must leave the Home Counties and the more prosperous parts of the South to appreciate this properly. The noble Lord referred to the "higher standards of living" that people are enjoying. He should go to the North East; he should come to parts of Wales; he should go to Scotland. He must talk to the people there and learn the facts of life. I do not propose to deal in detail with unemployment in this debate, save to repeat that it remains the greatest problem and the greatest evil. I do not think that anyone in any part of the House will dissent from that. There are some who will seek to minimise it by talking about "moonlighting", about "fiddling" and about "the
278
black economy". I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in an exchange at Question Time a few days ago, referring to the black economy.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I do not defend these practices. But those who practise them are a small percentage of the total out of work. Where these practices do exist, they are the product of high and long-term unemployment. They are men "getting on their bikes" to clean windows on the side. Anyone who wishes to study fiddling and the black economy should not waste his time with the poorer section of the community: he should take a walk to the City of London to see the experts at work. Some of the great men there have not set a good example at times of hardship and of poverty. As my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell said so eloquently, poverty there is in so many areas of our society.
There are some Ministers who appear to resist the facts. They should look at them carefully. I was appalled to read a series of articles that appeared in New Society on 18th April. I hope that noble Lords will study them carefully, if they have not already done so. They are worth careful study indeed. For example, the articles calculate that in 1983—and, certainly, there has been no improvement since then—nine million people, or one-sixth of the population of Britain, lived in poverty. They claim that Government policy has made matters worse. They say:
"The number dependent on low wages has increased sharply in the past five years, a process helped by the weakening or dismantling of protective wage mechanisms such as the fair Wages Resolution or the Wages Council. As a result, the number of families dependent on family income supplement—payable to families with children dependent on low wages—has doubled, increasing by 100,000 since 1981".
We hear a great deal—and we have heard it again today—about tax reliefs that help the poorer section of the community. The fact is that the tax burden on the poorer section of the community has increased. Since 1979, the proportion of income taken in income tax has doubled. The same proportion of tax taken from those earning five times the average has been cut by 13 per cent. I do not accept the definition of the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Education that,
"a family is poor if it cannot afford to eat".
The DHSS itself commissioned a study by the Policy Studies Institute in 1984. It produced a depressing report. Here are a few words from it:
"To run out of money more than occasionally is a pretty miserable life. To run out most weeks must make a lot of people near to desperation. Yet 38 per cent. of non-pensioners, and 51 per cent. of couples with children, reported that near desperate situation and many others were not far from it".
Then there was the survey, "Breadline Britain", to which reference has been made. This found that three million people are unable to heat the living area of their homes and that around six million go without some essential item of clothing, such as a warm waterproof coat, because of lack of money. Three and a half million go without the basic consumer durables such as carpets, a washing machine or a fridge, which most people consider to be necessities.

279
The problem of poverty is vast and painful. Surely, it must be tackled as a matter of urgency by the Government. The welfare state, as we know it, cannot cope with its inequalities. The welfare state was not designed to deal with mass unemployment and poverty. It is true that our benefit system and our taxation methods must be reformed, but unemployment can only be tackled realistically by a new economic policy. This is precisely where the Government fail to act.
Ministers should also study the Gallup Poll, if they want the view of the people, or some of the people, commissioned by New Society. I will quote three conclusions of the poll. The first was that the Government say that they care about poverty: the public disagrees. Secondly, the Government say that they are providing an adequate safety net of income support for the poor: the public disagrees. Thirdly, the Government say that income tax cuts are more important than increasing benefits to the poor: the public disagrees. This should be a salutary warning to the Government. They will ignore it at their peril.
In her introduction to the 1983 manifesto, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher said:
"We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, many of whom contributed to the heritage we now enjoy".
I agree entirely with the Prime Minister. But have the Government really succeeded in doing this? Are the vulnerable members of society better off? Or are they as well off as they were when this Government took office seven years ago?
Let me sum up. I do not think that the elderly are better off. The link between pension increases and the rise in prices or earnings was broken in 1980. What about children—another vulnerable section of society? Here, again, child benefit was kept below its May 1979 value from 1979 to 1983. And it is really worth little more today in real terms. If there is unemployment and if there is poverty, the children of the families affected always suffer. These are "the vulnerable members of our society" to whom the Prime Minister referred—the elderly, the disabled, the children, the unemployed and their families. I regret to say that it is they who are suffering now—suffering from a drop in their standards as a result of Government policies over a period of seven years. Even now we are told that half a million children from low income families may lose free school meals. This is almost unbelievable.
My noble friend Lord Underhill and other noble friends will pursue these matters. They will deal, I know, with the questions of homelessness, shortage of qualified social workers and the problems that exist in the health service and in other areas. But there are, my Lords, other ways of managing this country—and I was impressed with the summing up of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in his excellent speech—that would not lead to the disasters often predicted by some members of the party opposite. That is the view of many distinguished members of the Conservative Party. A good number of them have now indicated that they do not propose to seek re-election to another place although they are not elderly. Why are they opting out? One of the major reasons is that they are profoundly dissatisfied with the policies of Her
280
Majesty's Government at the present time. They could form a very good government in exile if required!
I fear that these are dangerous times, and that if we do not change course very soon we shall be in trouble. Massive long-term unemployment and the levels of poverty I have described, taken side by side with a high crime rate, alcoholism and drug abuse, and a menacing increase in violence, are not to be dismissed lightly. I well remember the 1930s, and I believe that the atmosphere is more highly charged today than it was then.
I know that noble Lords opposite are not without compassion. They will understand me when I say that all this has to do with the future of our country—not only with material standards of living but also with the preservation of parliamentary democracy over the next 50 years; of freedom under the law; of the liberty of the subject; and of the right of the individual to build a good life for himself and for his family and children. The noble Lord must not think that we want the state to intervene at every point. As a Welsh non-conformist radical, I have been in favour of independence for a much longer time than the noble Lord. As we approach the end of the 20th century, those are the matters that we must analyse and ponder over. Again, there are those who would use every opportunity and every grievance to shake the stability of our country, and we must beware of them.
The Government still have time to assess the problems and to introduce new policies. But if they fail, they will carry a very heavy burden of responsibility.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already offered to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on the introduction of his theme and on the magisterial way in which he set the pattern of what I believe to be an accurate and comprehensive view of the kind of society in which we are living today. It was all the more impressive, it seems to me, because of the failure of the immediately succeeding speaker to produce a sermon after he had taken due care to read the collect for the day. I believe that the collect for the day was set forth admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. It is something upon which, as a Methodist preacher, I would humbly suggest that your Lordships should properly listen to my testimony.
I do not believe that one can measure unhappiness or destitution in corporative terms. After all, there is no suffering, no misery and no happiness that is not personal. However, I believe that one can calculate over a period of years what is the general trend of a society; whether it is away from those conditions that add lustre and goodwill, or whether it is to some extent a decadent trend. I have no pleasure in saying to your Lordships that I believe that there is a large measure of decadence in the society that I know today and which I have known in social terms uninterruptedly for the past 50 or 60 years.
I do not believe that the sum total of human wickedness has necessarily increased, but I believe that there are elements in contemporary society that present acute and hitherto unprecedented problems for those who seek the welfare of a society and not

281
merely the aggregation of individuals. I shall select three and speak to them very briefly.
In the first instance, I believe that there has been a marked increase in the scourge of alcoholism, and more contemporaneously still, a very large increase in child abuse. I see no evidence in the social work to which I am committed to suggest that those problems are abating. They are probably increasing in their devastation. It is for me, therefore, a very desolate experience to have to read that the Maudsley Hospital, which has been a pioneer in alcoholic research in its work there, and the Tavistock Clinic and the two Maudsley institutions committed to child care and adolescent care are in peril of having to close a great deal of what they have been trying to do because they do not have the money to continue that work. I regard that as totally scandalous.
In the same area of Camden in which I have been involved in social work for a very long time, I visit from time to time—as no doubt your Lordships do—the great railway stations of Euston, St. Pancras and Kings Cross. I have no doubt that your Lordships have seen some of the young, single and unemployed youths from other parts of the country who have been encouraged to get on their bicycles and venture into London, where they have not been received with any kind of opportunity of a decent place in which to lay their heads and a decent opportunity of establishing themselves but where they have become increasingly dispirited. Should anybody be surprised that they are at the same time less liable to obey a strict moral code, when the very principles of life have been undermined so far as they are concerned?
One has there a situation that has been pinpointed in respect of the curse, as I say, of bed and breakfast hotels. I was associated for many years with Shelter. Your Lordships may allow me to read a very brief statement, for I believe that it is unexceptionable and totally condemnatory of the present indifference that there is in many respects to the need for decent housing and rented accommodation for those who come, with the encouragement of the Government, to seek their fortunes in London and to obtain jobs here. It says:
"The number of families in bed and breakfast hotels is only the tip of an iceberg of London's homelessness crisis. Thousands of other families are dumped in other forms of temporary accommodation like hostels and short life houses. If anything, the position of single people is even worse. They have no rights worthy of the name under the Homeless Persons Act and are increasingly obliged to live in bed and breakfast hotels with no prospect of being rehoused".
It is that situation that prompts me to ask a question that hitherto has not been posed, or which has not been sufficiently dealt with. However, I have no doubt that it will receive adequate treatment in later speeches. My question is this: why is it that the Government are not prepared to pour into those particular vacant opportunities the kind of public money that in the short term at least can relieve a great deal of the misery that is suffered by so many people? The simple answer is that we are committed to a defence programme that absorbs such vast amounts of human and capital expenditure that, according to the Government, we cannot afford to do the things that are immediate and that belong to the nature of a civilised and compassionate society. It is in that regard that I shall venture somewhat wide of what I imagine
282
was the original purpose of this debate and in a few words commit to your Lordships something that is increasingly my conviction.
I believe that we have a society for which there is no precedent and which has characteristics hitherto unknown. Some of them are unpredictable in their future possibilities but many of them require an entirely revolutionary principle if we are to survive the threats of this nuclear age. I say that not from a parsonic point of view, to scare the eternal wits out of anybody, but to say something that is increasingly my conviction.
I believe in the pacifist situation because I am convinced that increasingly the commitment of any country to the use of armed violence is first a danger in itself and then becomes an increasing danger with every new opportunity for increasing the total fire power of that armed society. I do not say that the recent calamity in Russia is primarily concerned with armaments, though I have no doubt that a great deal of it is. What I do say is that from the Christian standpoint that I hope I represent I find an increasing recognition on the part of ordinary people that the society in which we are encouraged to live and privatise into acceptance is a society that is in itself doomed. That society cannot continue to exist The dangers are ever increasing and the threats are ever more momentous. Perhaps what is more significant than anything else is the fact that we progressively lose control of the very means by which in other ages and under other conditions we were able to contain the menaces of even a capitalist regime.
I do not enjoy saying this. I only wish that the Church would say it with greater fortitude and greater clarity. In my judgment there is no way today in which one can baptise the influence and power of a defence mechanism which depends on the use of armed violence (or the threat of it) to deal with the problems which confront a society which is now bereft of the very source that turns a society into a community. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer; and the North is different from the South. If I may be permitted to say so, I found in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young, something which seemed to me to be a thousand miles away from the realities in Tower Hamlets from where I have just come, as I do every Wednesday. It did not seem to me that it corresponded with anything that I have heard in the words or seen in the eyes of those people, some of whom are unemployed, many of whom are cynical, and most of whom are frightened to death.
It is in the light of such conditions that I make this simple plea. We have taken the risk time and again of committing ourselves to the processes of violence in order to correct what we believe to be social evils. I believe that the situation which we have today no longer renders that a viable proposition. In the past we have been prepared to take that risk and now we can see to what extent that policy has failed us.
Would it not be in the interests of our children for us now to be prepared to take a comparable risk with non-violence? We could then direct the kind of resources that now are devoted to this fearsome option into the means by which we might indeed preserve our children from the kind of calamity of which so many of us are afraid. Such is my plea, and it is a very simple

283
plea. I know that it contains within it immense problems, but I believe that it is the only way which is reconcilable with Christian teaching and the only way which can offer hope for the future.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate on this important subject, but how difficult it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Soper, whose speech was so moving. Since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have had the opportunity of observing at first hand the working out in legislative terms of the Government's philosophy. It must be said that it has a cohesion and consistency which are rarely found in governments. Some people might call it an ideological inflexibility. Essentially it appears to be that deregulation, privatisation and the working of the free market will ultimately solve all our economic and social problems.
Deregulation includes the removal of all restrictions (thought by previous generations to be protection) in regard to employees, no matter how vulnerable those employees may be. Hence, we have seen the attempt to remove from employees the protection that existed under the Shops Act 1950 which was fortunately frustrated by your Lordships' amendment and dealt with finally in another place. More recently there has been a similar attempt in the context of the Sex Discrimination Bill.
Similar attempts are being made through the Social Security Bill, which undermines previous pensions legislation on which there had been an all-party consensus. The introduction of private personal pension provision in effect is an attempt to privatise pensions and, incidentally, it undermines good occupational pension provision as well. We shall shortly have the opportunity of debating these matters when the Bill comes before your Lordships.
In the field of general services we have had the privatisation of essential services such as transport, though there is no evidence that this will lead to an improvement in services in those parts of the country—particularly rural areas—where provision of such services is not and cannot reasonably be expected to be a profitable exercise. Of course, your Lordships also have before you the Gas Bill, and that again is another privatisation exercise.
On the wages and salaries front previous protection, some of which has existed for many years, has either been expunged or is in course of being so. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn has already referred to the fair wages resolution which was passed as long ago as 1945 and which has been honoured by all governments except this one. That has now disappeared. At least it meant that, if they wanted to get a public contract, contractors undertaking public work had to abide by certain minimum standards so far as their employees were concerned.
Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act which enabled a union to take a case to arbitration if it was felt that an employer was paying below the general level has also been expunged. As we have seen in another context, the Government seem to have no
284
role now for the Central Arbitration Committee, despite its good track record and its acknowledged expertise in dealing with industrial relations problems.
We have often been told by government spokesmen that various regulations are no longer necessary. We are told that they are out of date and that such arrangements can be left to unions and employers to negotiate. However, this Government have done their best to weaken one side of the bargaining and industrial relations structure, and that is the union side.
Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act at least provided some kind of basis for assessing employee opinion about the recognition of a union at places of employment. The process was not perfect. It involved a survey by ACAS, which would then make an award on the basis of what that survey revealed. However, it was a reasonably civilised method of testing employee opinion and ensuring that the unions which the employees joined would be recognised by an employer. That, too, has gone. Now the only pressure that can be brought to bear on a reluctant employer is industrial dispute action, which it behoves governments to devise machinery to avoid, wherever possible. If the Government pride themselves on giving the unions back to their members, the least they can do is to encourage employers to recognise the unions to which employees want to belong. However, the unions themselves are subject to more restrictions now than ever they were before. In the employment field the bias of the Government is there for all to see.
The main thrust of government policy, as exemplified in statements repeatedly made on their behalf, is to put the emphasis on assisting the employer to reduce labour costs. For that reason protective legislation is repealed, wages councils are to be emasculated, and it is made more and more difficult for unions, which are already weakened by unemployment, to represent and look after members' interests, while tripartite and highly respected bodies such as the Central Arbitration Committee are to have their role drastically reduced in the name of government philosophy.
However, what is this policy achieving in social terms? We are told that the economy is recovering and that things are on the up-turn; but to the young unemployed person who has little hope of getting a job, or to the unemployed man or woman over 50 who is perhaps risking his redundancy pay in setting up a small business (and over a third of those small businesses fail) this may seem a hollow claim indeed.
According to published statistics, the total number of employees in employment has fallen considerably since 1980. The decrease has mainly been in male employment. In 1980 there were just over 13 million male employees, which is nearly 60 per cent. of the total workforce. By 1985 this figure had fallen to just over 11½ million, which is a decrease of nearly million jobs, or over 11 per cent. These figures reflect the decline in manufacturing industry as a major employer. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already referred to this fact in his excellent speech. Manufacturing lost over 1·4 million jobs between 1980 and 1985, which is a fall of over 20 per cent.

285
There have been increases in employment in the service sector. Much of it is female employment and a great deal of it is part-time. The slight rise in employment figures is almost entirely due to increases in part-time employment and in the service sector. But there are problems lying in wait for us there as well because we have not yet seen in the service sector the full impact of new technology, particularly in service industries, such as banking, where it would be possible, if technology were more widely applied, to perform the same sort of jobs with far fewer employees than are at present employed in those industries.
We know from debates in this House that your Lordships are concerned about unemployment. This is shown by the number of times the subject is referred to in debates. We also know that there are parts of the country where unemployment is incredibly high. When we discussed the closure of Gartcosh last year a figure of 36 per cent. was given for that area which was not disputed or doubted by the Minister when he replied to that debate. It is recognised on all sides that this is a major social problem which may very well lie at the root of other problems that increasingly trouble us; for example, the decline in the quality of life in urban areas, the disaffection of sections of youth, particularly very young people and young people in the ethnic minority groups, who are feeling basically alienated and disaffected, and the effect of that on the problem of law and order. It is by far the major issue that we have to tackle and yet government policy does not do so, despite the single-mindedness with which that policy has been pursued.
It will no doubt be said—indeed, it has been said already—that this phenomenon is not confined to the United Kingdom and that throughout the EC unemployment is perceived as a problem. Our belief on this side of the House is that the Government, through their policies, have made the situation worse. Nor are we alone in that belief. Both the CBI and the TUC agree that there should be a radical government initiative designed to boost manufacturing industry.
It is clear that the unemployment problem cannot be solved overnight—and I am sure that nobody on this side of the House would suggest that it can be—but the manner in which manufacturing industry has been allowed to decline, without apparently any thought for the social consequences, is not likely to assist; rather the reverse. Mass unemployment is economic nonsense. It has been stated on this side of the House that the real figure is probably nearer 4 million. If we take the figure as being 4 million, the annual loss of output from these people must be considerable. It has been estimated that it could be as much as £37 billion. More than £22 billion is lost to the Exchequer in payment of benefits and lost taxation.
There are countries that have pursued full employment as a major policy objective, with active government intervention and planning techniques. Despite economic difficulties, they have kept down the level of unemployment. Norway, for example, has managed to keep it down to 2.9 per cent.; Sweden, 3.0 per cent.; and Austria, 3.9 per cent. That should be compared with our figure of around 13 per cent. What I am saying is that it is a matter of policy priorities. The priorities of the present Government do not
286
include full employment as a target, however difficult to achieve. Nor do they include social welfare, as many noble Lords have already said in this debate.
Indeed, the provision of employment is part of a social welfare policy. In that the Government differ from Disraeli. In his novel Sybil—or the Two Nations (and he was very much opposed to the polarisation of society into two nations) he wrote:
"Power has only one duty—to secure the social welfare of the people".
Power is not being used in that way by this Government.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for giving us the opporunity to debate this subject, which I find a very interesting one. I begin by saving that, knowing of his great knowledge of the health service, I was somewhat surprised to hear how amazed he was at the private hospital with beds at £350 a night. Many of the costs of National Health Service hospitals are now enormously high (although perhaps the patients do not realise it) but I had thought that the noble Lord would be aware of it. I left the Chamber briefly to telephone to check on that matter. In 1984–85 the cost of keeping a patient at the National Heart Hospital was £253.74 per night, excluding any capital cost. Such things have become expensive.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, the point that I was trying to make and probably did not make very well was that, not being an ordinary National Health Service hospital, it could not be used by National Health Service patients. Someone could get into it only by paying £350 a night.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. That leads on to the rest of the argument that I was going to bring against him. I blame the Labour Party for this division of the health service, and particularly of hospital treatment, into separate private and National Health Service camps. When we had pay beds, NHS patients definitely benefited from the amount of time the consultants were able to spend at the hospital which now they spend travelling between their private and their NHS commitments. That separation has not been a good thing in terms of medical treatment.
Another point to be appreciated is that if private patients were paying that amount of money to go to the hospital, those patients may well have been entitled to free NHS treatment and were not making the demands upon the state that they otherwise would. Anyone willing to pay such amounts, whether out of his own pocket or not, and choosing that rather than the cost of a holiday abroad, is quite entitled to do so.
I have been directly involved in the NHS for many years both as a general dental practitioner and as a member of health authorities and hospital boards. This Government's record on health care is good, and that should be stated and restated as it is not sufficiently well known. Under the last Labour Government capital spending on the NHS fell by 35 per cent. When we listen to noble Lords on the other side of the House, we get the impression that

287
everything was marvellous in the health service, but it was not by any means. The health service has needed an injection of funds for a long time.
In 1984–85 this Government increased the real level of investment by more than 30 per cent. It is 30 per cent. higher than in 1978–79. It was a Labour Government who introduced RAWP, which was the planned reallocation of resources in the health service. There was a case for it because it was to meet the population movement out of London. New areas needed hospitals. The shrinkage of population from, I think, 8 million to 6 million in London has made a dramatic difference to the demands of patients, particularly in central London, whereas all the dormitory areas around the fringes of London have greatly increased populations and need better hospitals.
One hears a lot about what is happening in terms of rationalisation of health treatment in London. It is very painful for people who are used to a service and are familiar with a hospital. No one likes to lose the unit to which he is attached. But we must bear in mind that even in London new hospitals are under construction. We hear little about that. One needs only to drive to Paddington to see St. Mary's Hospital, a brand new, multi-million pound hospital being reconstructed as a major teaching hospital. The National Heart Hospital, the board of which I have had the honour to be a member since 1974, is being rebuilt right now on a new site in Sydney Street, Chelsea, as the National Heart and Brompton Hospital. Phase I alone is costing £21 million. That will be a centre of excellence and will be available to give the most complicated heart and lung care to patients from all over the country. The hospital has an international reputation for research and is doing much to help people throughout the world, as well as in our own country.
These hospitals have been made possible by the present Government. We hear so little about that. My daughter is a new and comparatively young doctor. She is now in Hertfordshire and has also worked in a hospital in Suffolk. In each of those places she was working in a new purpose-built hospital. These are the areas about which we tend to hear nothing because the people there are very pleased with the new facilities that have been provided. I suppose that it is human nature to complain about what we do not have and not to be delighted with what we have.
When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who spoke so movingly about the homeless young in London, I thought of the time when I had been a social services chairman in this very part of London under a Labour Government. We had the same problems. The problem of young, homeless single people in London is not new by any means. The noble Lord mentioned the various units of accommodation such as short-life accommodation and old hotels or hostels that are being made available to these people. Under the Labour Government we were crying out for these to be made available. Times have moved on, there has been gradual progress and people now accept that these units can be made available. But I cannot see that problem ever being solved, because the capital city is a great magnet and draws people from all over the country. You cannot fit a quart into a pint pot. There
288
is no way you can suddenly provide magically a lot of extra housing. But too much council housing is empty for too long. I believe that approximately 25,000 council houses have been empty for over a year. Whether it is due to turnover, refurbishment, or whatever, that is too long to have so many dwellings out of use.
Since this Government were elected in 1979 they have determinedly planned and pursued economic policies for steady, sustained growth with lower inflation and a balance of payments surplus. Every Government since the war have had this aim, but this Government have achieved it. The present rate of inflation is 4·2 per cent., and it is still going down. The target is 3·5 per cent. by the end of the year, and it is believed that that will be reached well before the end of the year.
The social effects of this are very significant. It is so easy to take improvements for granted and to forget the previous situation. In 1975 the rate of inflation was 27 per cent. Do noble Lords remember when the price of foodstuffs in the supermarket rose so quickly that those fortunate enough to be able to buy in advance of their needs were much better off than those who had to go in and buy whatever they could to use then and there? The prices rose almost daily, and certainly week by week. That was the time when all the higher-price labels were superimposed on the earlier ones, until that was banned. Then the supermarkets stopped putting prices on and told one the price at the checkout. With inflation under control people have the security of knowing how to plan their budgets. The financial experts last week pointed out that even with falling interest rates, which are of benefit to those with home mortgages, savers today are getting a better real return on their money than for many years.
Those who have worked and saved for their old age under the Labour Government found it a terrifying situation that inflation eroded those savings. They had to rely on the state for support. These were people who had wished to be independent and had worked and planned for their old age. Inflation was certainly a leveller, but not a desirable one.
I know that unemployment is high and that many want work who are not able to get it. I also know that in London there are plenty of jobs and no applicants for them. As I have mentioned before in this House, we have had a vacancy since March. I rang the careers office this morning to check the situation. The reply was, "Yes, we have quite a few vacancies." I asked, "Can you quantify those?" The reply was, "No." I asked, "Can you tell me how long people are waiting to get work?" The reply was, "No, but we do not get many applicants and no one is very interested". That is a tragedy. In London it is not a question of whether one wants a job—any job—but a situation where people are picking and choosing what they would like to do. It is very nice to have a job that one likes to do. There is greater job satisfaction if one can find that type of job. But it certainly gives the lie to the fact that there is such desperate unemployment in London.
There is a certain mismatch of skills and jobs—that I accept. However, recently I met a group of industrialists in this House. They have factories in Wales, the North and Scotland—all areas of high unemployment—and they said that they could not get people to fill

289
their job vacancies. The reason is that they need people with the most elementary scientific knowledge, and the schools are not able to teach these sciences to an appropriate level. As your Lordships know, the Government are trying to get agreement on the curricula so that every child will be taught some sciences up to the age of 16. I hope that that will be accomplished, because it is a tragedy that there should he so many people genuinely wanting work who are unable to reach the necessary educational standards.
Comment has been made today about the appalling ILEA standards, and I must echo those comments. It is sad that the O-level standards in Inner London (which is the most expensive and, in terms of results, the least satisfactory educational system in the country) should be 40 per cent. below the equivalent for pupils in the whole of England.
Although I am limited by time I must comment on the housing policy of this Government, which is a great success. Two and a half million more people have now become home owners. The happiness and security of a family is based on its home. Families are taking a pride in maintaining and improving their own homes. I well remember the petty restrictions placed on people by the GLC, among others. People were not even allowed to have a budgie in a cage. It is rather nice to be able to paint one's front door the colour that appeals to one instead of being refused any right to have one's dwelling look different from anyone else's. People have taken to home ownership. I think that it is a great interest and morale builder. It also saves the council a lot of money, because maintenance and repairs have become a major item in the case of council-owned property. People talk about the high cost of repair needed to council homes as if this Government created that. It is due to many years of mismanagement and neglect on the part of local authorities. One cannot lay that at the door of this Government.
This Government have done much in housing to open up new opportunities with regard to converting flats, starter homes, and so on. Nationally, there are enough homes, and more should not be needed. But, again, we have that mismatch. These homes are frequently in places where people do not wish to live. Then, again, we have this problem of people who want to come to London, where we simply cannot provide for any more. I have mentioned the 25,000 houses which have remained empty for a year. However, Government policy is encouraging and supporting home improvements, and these have excellent social effects. In 1985 the local authorities estimated that £18.6 billion needed to be spent to bring local authority housing stock up to standard. The Government have given a commitment to support schemes. Many grants are being made for homes and home improvements.
I have almost run out of time. I cannot therefore go further into supporting policies that I believe have been introduced by this Government effectively and to the benefit of the people. It is very easy to be critical. We can always see more that we should like to have and to do: but I think that this Government's policies have been good and have helped people.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Employment correctly one of the few substantive points that he made in his speech was not only that Government policy did not affect the community but that it should not. I found that an extraordinary statement because it takes us back more than 70 years to an economic situation that would allow events to happen rather than seeking to direct them to the benefit of the community.
Statistics are important to this debate, and we have heard vital statistics. I am therefore freed from the obligation to repeat them.
I wish to speak today of the community and of the communities. In common with other noble Lords I have a geographic title. Mine is Parry of Neyland. Neyland is not the first town to spring to mind when noble Lords discuss the communities of Great Britain. In a Welsh Office official report Neyland was described as a little grey street leading down to the river—the Blaenavon of Pembrokeshire. It was also fitting to describe it, as Dylan Thomas described Swansea, as "a tumbledown town". It is one of those towns which promised but never fulfilled. In the 1800s it was one of the fastest-growing towns in Wales. It became a railhead and attracted the advantages for social, political and economic development that railheads did attract. In 1900 it was given a town council. It may please the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, to hear me say that from that day it started to go backwards.
I am not subscribing to the unaccountable battle which has taken place between this Government and the local authorities. I believe that the closer government gets to the people, then the more local it becomes and inevitably the better it becomes. I believe that this country is superbly well blessed as regards its local government and the figures which it attracts. Some of the denigration of local government at this difficult time has been neither in the interests of the Government nor of the nation.
Let us consider the town of Neyland. Let us consider the whole basin of the Cleddau estuary. What about West Wales? Neyland is my town; Pembrokeshire is my county; and Wales is my country. I am as proud as anyone to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. However, if you were to go with me to Neyland tomorrow, you would understand that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was speaking not the politics of envy; but the politics of empathy—the politics of understanding. It is possible for good and well-intentioned people and for good and well-intentioned governments so to isolate themselves from the truth of what is happening as not to be able to understand that there is real poverty in this land, real under-privilege in this land, and that in the town of Neyland probably more people are out of work long-term than those who have any prospect of fulfilling themselves in work.
Therefore, I have deliberately chosen to speak to those matters which I know best and to which I am closest, because I shall be going home tonight and I shall be meeting the people with whom I was at school, and who I taught, and a great many of them are poor—poor by the standards that I have come to

291
enjoy, by the standards that your Lordships have come to expect, and by those standards that every medium and every government promise in advance of an election and lead the people of Great Britain to expect.
It is a question of rising expectations—and this is part of economics that we learned at university—which, when they are not met, lead to disillusion. When the disillusion arises it creates a mood which no government can properly affect. I repeat what my noble Leader said in his speech: it is a question of mood. It is felt thoughout the country that so much is at fault that it will take a very long time to put right.
What must we do to begin to put the situation right? The curious feature and the anomaly of the situation is that those very local governments which have come in for so much stick have pent-up expenditure which they have accrued. I am advised that if that money were now allowed to be used by the local authorities—not by spendthrift authorities, but by responsible authorities comprising expert people who have spent a lifetime in local government—they could begin to phase into the spending programme the resurfacing of roads, the restructuring of services and the rebuilding of the community which some government at some time soon must do, because the services which affect our lives are rundown.
I have sometimes heard from my own Benches noble Lords whom I deeply admire give the impression that the poverty and the difficulties now being faced by people are of a different nature and quality from the poverty that they knew in 1926. Indeed, this debate is very much about 1926. On St. George's Day I happened to hear someone say in honour of the Queen's birthday that she was born in 1926 and that it as a "vintage year". I was born just at the end of 1925, and my wife was born in 1926. My daughter has grown up in Neyland; and, as the noble Baroness has just said, under successive governments we have seen a deterioration in the quality of life in that community.
However, during my childhood one could catch a train out of Neyland and buses left Neyland every half hour. There was also a ferry operating. Nowadays that community has been isolated by acts of successive governments. To pretend that the quality of life has not been affected—which was what I thought the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Employment was doing—is to misunderstand what is happening in this country.
If it be thought that I have based what I have had to say on Neyland, let me immediately lift my remarks to apply to every other community. Let me tell your Lordships about the market towns of Wales—towns which in their own right were once proud of their individuality and independence; towns that were serviced by markets; towns that were invested in by the products of the agricultural economy. Acts of government and of the European Community—an amalgam of Government—have robbed those towns of their lifelines and are vitiating the agricultural economy of the rural areas of this country, halving the land values and creating real poverty in those places where once the strength of the community lay.
292
It would be ridiculous for anyone to have the impression that noble Lords on this side of the House believe that simply the election of a government of the party of the Members on this side will radically change overnight the long-term deterioration and decadence of those communities as a result of government policy. It cannot be done. However, there must be a change of mood and, instead of the dreary recitation of the catalogue of meaningless statistics which are piled one on top of the other as though they really mean something, let us for heaven's sake set up a national commission. Let us get three or four of the best people in this country to look at the communities of Great Britain. It may be a suitable role at this time for the heir to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. What more caring man could we find, who has expressed his view about the community, than His Royal Highness Prince Charles? Why not set up a Royal Commission to look at the state of the communities and the state of society and start to do something about rebuilding the quality of life that we once knew?
Sometimes I sit here and people who I know to be caring, decent and friendly stand up and react automatically to the situation as though it matters in the course of human history what particular card we carry in our pocket. Surely to goodness what we are talking about here is that there is a better way than the current one. When I see the people whom I have taught standing on the street corners of the town of Neyland, and when I sit with them, it becomes all the more apparent.
Someone mentioned people not wanting to work. The other evening I sat alongside a lad who had just completed a 19-hour journey from the Falklands. For 17 months he had worked in the Falklands putting down, to my mind, a totally unnecessary runway which we could do with in Cardiff, although we have a better runway there now. I understand that the conditions in the Falklands are not all that good, and certainly the money is not all that good. He has had two periods of leave in 17 months. That boy wants to work, and so do the majority of the people I have taught. They want work, but they do not have it. This is a European Community problem which must be tackled on a European basis, but first and foremost it must be tackled on a Neyland basis, a Swansea basis, a Cardiff basis and, of course, elsewhere.
Sometimes we talk as though nothing exists outside the "golden triangle". Sometimes we talk as though no problems exist except in the area of this great metropolis. I urge my friends on all sides of the House to understand that we have a major problem of the running down of our communities, which are the lifeblood of this nation. London can be made more powerful; London can be beautified; London can attract the tourists; but if outside of London there is increasing decadence and increasing failure to find new solutions to 20th century problems despite the progress that has been made, we shall all fail in the end.
I make this appeal. Will the Secretary of State for Employment ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to consider setting up, after consultation through all the channels and with all the parties, a national commission to examine the true state of the communities of Britain and to release funds to begin to rebuild them?
5.20 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, in opening the debate my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell made a speech which I considered to be permeated with emotion and morality. It represented to me the best of British politics because my noble friend knew the difference between wealth and money.
The validity of that argument was highlighted by the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. How easy it is, when one lives with a philosophy that the most important thing in life is money, to get to the situation where you really believe that because one person has more money than another he is entitled to go into hospital and take priority in the administration of health. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, nods her head, but the truth is that private medicine establishes those priorities.
Some of the private hospitals in this country are used for administering bedside manners to cases that could well wait, while working class folk are suffering untold pain and misery because they cannot have an operation on their hip because they cannot afford it. Members are looking at me as though they do not believe it. Of course they do not believe it because the philosophy of the present Tory Party is that market forces are dominant.
I am not surprised for one moment that there are not any senior Members of the Government side on those Benches eager to stand and defend the policies of this Government. I am old enough to remember when after the last war some Members on those Benches really believed that we should be able to create a society which was fair and just, and based on need—not upon the ability to pay, but on need—and they supported that. They supported the establishment of our National Health Service. I have heard them boasting about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in his speech used the words "politics of envy". It sounded to me like a speech prepared as a thesis by some university student who had been safely ensconced inside a university for years and had never seen the real world outside.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, underlined the division that exists between two types in our society. Roughly it was first the creators of wealth, who provide the necessary labour to create wealth, and the others of course were the wealthy ones—the manipulators of wealth on the Stock Exchange and in the City of London.
Let me draw attention to another division in our society: the division that Mr. Heseltine went to Merseyside to cure. When he arrived on Merseyside he was told, "This is not just a contemporary problem. This is a problem that Merseysiders have had for over half a century". The problem is that the reason for the existence of Merseyside has now ceased. It came into existence to serve this nation as the terminal of a movement from one land area to another. When the need for that went, the need for Merseyside went. But Mr. Heseltine would not listen, because he knew the answer. The answer was to let market forces run Britain. When market forces became dynamic and started increasing wealth, so would the wealth of the people be increased.
294
I took the trouble to get out the London dockland report and the Merseyside dockland report. They are good reading. The Government should read them. The report from London dockland talks about the creation of 3,500 jobs in the few years since it was set up. Good luck to them. We had an exchange about that with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and the Leader of the House the week before last. There are 3,500 permanent jobs. The only mention of Merseyside was 35 jobs created for the garden festival. They have had the same time.
The success in London is not due to the fact that they have a better board or executive. The success in London is due to the drift which takes place to the South East, and which is now being increased. You have the Stolport; the Channel tunnel; Stansted; and Canary Wharf. All those things will drain the North.
If it goes on, the situation that exists in Liverpool will intensify. In case your Lordships do not know what the situation is in Liverpool, generally speaking it is that both parties, Tory and Labour, realised after the world war that the first problem was housing, and so an intensive programme of housing was carried on. After that it was realised that what were needed were steps taken to create jobs in Merseyside, and that it was no longer possible or practical to rely on the old traditional industries of Merseyside.
From then on we started pressing the Government from 1947 that we should have special measures, and that the solution to Merseyside's problems lay in curing the maldistribution of resources in the whole of the nation. We pressed for resources—not money—to be moved from the south-east of England, which was hopelessly congested, and we asked for them to be sited on Merseyside.
During the debate we have had the noble Lord, Lord Young, telling us that it is not tax that matters and that what matters is how much money you have to spend after you have paid your tax. Again that is probably a point made by a social welfare worker in a thesis in a university. Let us examine what it means. If we take London alone and even assume that the working class chap at the bottom end of the scale is no worse off after he has paid his tax, what do we learn? We find that the pressure from the people the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was referring to, those who manipulate the stock markets, has now increased to such an extent that the working class chap in London cannot even afford to buy a house, or even rent a house.
That is the fundamental problem, and that is why the Halifax Building Society—no doubt the kind of organisation favoured by this Government—is now coming out with the point of view in its latest housing report that one of the solutions that should be looked at seriously with a view to bringing down, and stopping, the escalation of house prices in London would be to move out of London some of the resources and congestion that causes those high prices. There has been a 19 per cent. rise in house prices in 12 months in London, while they have actually dropped in parts of the rest of the country because the demand is not there.
But the question of house prices is not the greatest danger to this Government, or the greatest danger to our society. The situation becomes more dangerous still. After the war we had a city government united in

295
its desire to try to encourage private enterprise to come into the city, to try to encourage the Government to come into the city to create jobs in order to remove the discontent and frustration that people were feeling in that area. We tried and tried, and the last attempt was the Merseyside County Council.
Just before the Merseyside County Council was established we managed to persuade the Government to do something. The Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said last week that I dare not accuse him of knowing nothing about the North. That is something I should not dream of doing. I should not dream of telling him that he does not know and appreciate the frustration and feeling of alienation of people who have been unemployed for five, six, seven years; the feeling of those young working class folk with a couple of children who at Christmas cannot even afford to give them some of the basic things that most people in this country accept as a right; the feeling that they are being starved of what they should have as of right and which ultimately sometimes leads them into law breaking that should never take place.
The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, will know all about that. He will know that 3,500 jobs in the centre of Liverpool would have made a tremendous difference. I am not concerned that the noble Viscount knows about the North. I am concerned that he is not prepared to do anything about it, and worse still—he is not here, but he will be able to read it if he wants to—that he should have made it worse, because it was the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and this Government, as soon as they took office, who altered the plans of a Labour Government to move 3,500 civil servants to the North West, and 3,000 right into the centre of Liverpool. They did that and they boast about knowing the problems of the North but are not concerned to do anything about them. Ultimately the consequences were that one cannot say that the return of an extreme city council in Liverpool came out of the blue. It was not deliberately planned by some politician. "We will set out to be extreme. We will set out to defy the Government. We will set out quite deliberately to get control in Liverpool so that we can embarrass the Government". Of course it was not. It needed support from the grass roots. It needed the people in Liverpool to feel that ordinary moderate government, that ordinary appeals from local authorities to the Government, could ultimately win the day and improve their standing. They did not. Your Lordships should not be surprised if the voters in Liverpool prove once again that they have had enough that they are not prepared to accept what market forces are doing to them in Merseyside.
They see market forces operating on minor pleasures in Merseyside. Those who know Merseyside know that it is not a wheel round the hub of the centre. The centre of Liverpool is the port and the consequences of that are socially very severe. When the centre of Liverpool was depopulated, the people could only move one way. If those people down in the South could imagine what would happen if there was no South Bank and they had to spread the population out, they would see that they would have to spread long distances north. Doing that in Liverpool, because the roots are still in the centre of Liverpool, it would
296
mean extra costs on transport. Both parties realised that they ought to subsidise transport. What is happening now? The Government have decided that market forces will be introduced into transport. The subsidies will disappear, the number of bus journeys will be decreased and the feelings of those people who have unfortunately had to be moved away from the centre will be made worse.
I could give a list of the deprivations suffered by Liverpool and Merseyside people which would easily last for another half hour. I shall not. My time is up. But let me make this plea. If the Government really want to do something about the existing divisions in our society—I do not believe for one moment that they do, but they say they do—then they should go back to Macmillan, go back to the people who realised that if there is to be a divided society ultimately the consequences will be on their own heads.
It probably will not be just a lost election. If this problem is not cured properly the sickness and the canker that have been eating at Merseyside because of the failure to control private enterprise will spread. Ultimately what appears now to be a small division between the South and the North will grow until finally the northern part of the United Kingdom will resemble the southern part of Ireland or the south of Italy and it will then be too late to stop the frustration breaking out just as it broke out in Toxteth and in other places throughout this country. If the Government really mean business on behalf of the nation they had better start redistributing the resources and jobs that exist in the nation and not have them all resting in the South-East.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I agreed so much with what the last speaker said that I should happily have given him my 13 minutes. Like other speakers I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for introducing this debate. I shall content myself with commenting on the way in which government policies have increased homelessness and their deleterious effect on youth.
The avowed aim of the Government in their housing policy is the expansion of home ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, boasted how successful they are. As many of those who are homeless, or threatened with homelessness, are in no position to buy property, they receive little help from policies with this objective. Worse than that, to achieve their aim of higher levels of home ownership the Government have directed resources away from the provision of housing to rent (which would most benefit the homeless) to the provision of housing to buy. The clearest example of this is the reduction of public expenditure on housing. The housing budget for the Department of the Environment has fallen by nearly 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
One result has been a sharp reduction in capital investment in housing for rent by public sector agencies especially local authorities. Local authorities have the main legal responsibility for helping the homeless. The number of new homes built by local authorities in Great Britain fell from 75,000 in 1980 to 25,000 last year. At the same time local authorities have been obliged to sell houses to sitting tenants, and

297
nearly 600,000 council homes were sold between 1980 and 1985. Councils have thus suffered a net loss of stock, making it more difficult for them to provide rented housing for the homeless. In fact in some areas the situation has deteriorated to the point where the local authority has fewer houses available for letting than the number of homeless households for which it is legally responsible. Yet government restrictions have prevented councils investing the proceeds of sales in building new homes.
Your Lordships will remember that when we were debating the Housing Act 1980, when we were opposing the forced sale of council houses, I pointed out in my speeches that if we were to build houses it did not really matter whether we sold them but that it mattered very much if we were not building. I suggested at the time that that was what I expected to happen. I remember my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk taking me to task about that. He is not present this evening, but he can read Hansard and remember what he said to me across the Floor. It is all very well to boast that council houses can be sold, but if as a consequence homelessness is increased then more harm than good will have been done.
The reduction in the number of houses available for rent from the public sector has a number of consequences. One is that it has proved impossible to expand the legislative framework for dealing with homelessness, which is the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. We have always asked that it should be improved to include single people and childless couples. There is no point in doing all that, however, if there are no homes in which to put them. The position is that the Government will not amend the legislation. What is much worse is that lack of resources has increased the pressure on individual councils to interpret the Act in a restrictive way. All who have had anything to do with it will know that that is going on.
Lack of rented housing has also increased the number of people living in board and lodging establishments, often at public expense. Local authorities have been forced to place an increasing number of people in bed-and-breakfast hotels because of the lack of permanent homes for rehousing. Homeless single people have found hotels the only accommodation available particularly if they are unemployed.
The Government's reaction to this has been changes—not to their housing policy but to the welfare benefits system. This has merely resulted in increasing homelessness. It has not tackled the underlying problem at all. Government policies to decrease the number of people living in institutions under present circumstances are also likely to increase homelessness. The Care in the Community policy has a laudable objective but without adequate housing provision what will happen is that there will be increased homelessness among the most vulnerable sections of our community.
There is no evidence that the Government are providing the additional resources. The opposite is the case. The Government are pressing the local authorities to spend less; but they cannot provide the services by spending less. Housing policy needs to give
298
greater priority to helping the homeless and that in time to prevent homelessness.
I should like to make a few suggestions—and I am looking at the clock—which I hope will help. For example, there should be increased public investment in housing: I think that we would all agree with that. Local authorities should be able to spend the receipts from the sale of houses. The Audit Commission recommended that controls on capital spending should be abolished. Why not do that? Let us have the houses being built. Then, in my view—and this is probably more controversial—local authorities should be encouraged to purchase private houses in order to fulfil their housing obligations. At present, as your Lordships know, they are forbidden by law to do so. Councils are not allowed to purchase homes on the open market. Such purposes, as I see it, would allow a rapid expansion of rented houses at the same time as we are building up the housing required.
I have suggested in this House before, and I repeat it, that housing subsidy should be reformed. The subsidy should aim to encourage the provision of homes for the homeless and reform of the housing revenue financial procedures—and that is a detailed matter which the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will know very well—is needed in order to allow for better use of the subsidies to help the people who are homeless and in need. With more homes available, then we could amend the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act to include single people and childless couples. That really could be done in stages but it should be done.
Then, housing benefits also need to be improved because they need to be adequate to meet housing costs and the board and lodging regulations should be amended, with value for money being dealt with not in the way that it is being dealt with now but through regulation of conditions and costs.
Again I say to the Minister that the true cost of care in the community must be faced and extra funds should be provided to local authorities so that they can provide not only the housing needs but the other needs, the support needs, which must be met if we are going to have this policy. I do not want to be misunderstood. Care in the community is a laudable objective. What is wrong is advocating care in the community and then putting vulnerable people in the community without adequate support. That is wrong. It should not be done.
Housing of good quality costs money and of course people who are unemployed do not have the sort of money to enable them to buy houses of good quality. In many instances also the elderly are in the same position. Therefore, you find that people who are unemployed, the elderly and also the black population are in houses that are inadequate and in poor condition. In the case of the blacks of course, they have to face discrimination on top of their other problems. They will be discriminated against not only in the private sector but in the public sector as well. They encounter discrimination even when they try to buy. Even though it is illegal, they have problems in getting the loans and the credit facilities. Therefore, they tend to be found in disproportionate numbers among those in rented houses. In the case of the extended families, the local authorities have never built for large families

299
and therefore people with extended families have difficulties and, again, find themselves disproportionately represented among those left in bed-and-breakfast hotels for long periods. But the fundamental factor preventing access to decent quality accommodation is low income. It is there that this issue must be faced.
I want to use the last couple of minutes of my time to deal with the effect of government policies on youth. Government policies have been particularly harmful to youth. I do not need to spell out to your Lordships the impact on growing youth of unemployment: everybody recognises that, but it undermines young people's vision of the future and leaves them without a clear sense of identity and a purpose for today. That is one of the things that it does. I ask myself about the sense of values of a society which is prepared to allow its youth to be unemployed and homeless.
The most glaring example of the way in which the Government are dealing with this situation are these board-and-lodging proposals. In addition to being homeless and unemployed, they are making them rootless as well. I cannot really believe that any thinking government can be satisfied with approaching problems in that way. I hope, for example, that these regulations will not be reintroduced in the same form. I hope that the Government will begin to look more seriously at enabling more homes to be built so that we can prevent increasing homelessness. And, as a by-product of that, a lot of people would be employed.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for raising this subject and giving us all the chance to speak on it. I think his own speech was moving, caring and gentle. Of course, there was a certain amount of indignation in it, but I think even to suggest that his speech reflected the politics of envy was a gross distortion of anything he tried to say. In contrast to that I was thinking about how I would categorise the noble Lord, Lord Young, who made the accusation. I thought of many things, but one of the gentlest things I could think of was what Pangloss said about everything being for the best in the best of all possible worlds. We have heard this frequently from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. I believe that what has come across from this side at least is evidence that the rest of Britain does not think that things are quite as easy, and they are not quite as smug as noble Lords opposite appear to be.
I do not want to speak for too long. Much of what I wanted to say has already been said, in some ways much better and more forcefully than I could say it. But I want to speak about some of the Scottish experience. It would be quite wrong if I did not take the opportunity to speak about it in such a debate as this. First of all, the old people in Scotland, particularly in my part of Scotland in the west, as well as generally, are mostly of the generation of the time of the smoke-stack industries we hear about, the heavy industries which have now disappeared. This has left them with a legacy of poorer health than people in many other parts of the country. People who have
300
been involved in heavy physical work, frequently in inclement conditions, tend to have more acute illnesses than do those in much less onorous types of jobs.
We must accept that deprivation and lack of opportunity do not disappear quickly. Some of the deprivation of the 1930s is still apparent on people's faces, even now, in some of our areas.
The Scottish climate is not particularly suitable for old people. Last winter it was a gross scandal that old people in Scotland, in a country surrounded by oil, with unlimited coal reserves if we want to dig them out, were dying of hypothermia. Despite the pleas of the media and all sections of the Scottish community the DHSS still used quite unfathomable formulae to decide whether people should get an extra allowance to combat the cold. I can say that few people in Scotland actually got the allowance. Very little was given to them to help fight the cold last winter.
I hope that as we are moving towards slightly better conditions during the next few months the Government will sit down and take time to work out a better system for the allocation of additional heating allowances. One of the jokes in the newspapers has been that up to now the system was that someone in the DHSS office put his head out of the window and if he thought it was cold enough, an allowance was given, and if he did not feel it was too bad, no allowance was given. That appeared to be the attitude in Scotland: there was no genuine system.
The next question I should like to deal with in the context of Scotland has been dealt with very fully by my noble friend Lord Pitt. It is the question of housing. We have been discussing housing recently in this House, and we shall return to it. We have discussed the purchase of housing association housing and local authority housing in Scotland, but I should like to say something about the real problems we are storing up for the future in respect of local authority housing.
It is obvious from the debate—and many experts have spoken and given figures on housing—that no matter how many houses are sold, no matter how many people buy houses, there will still be a great need for houses to rent, and most of these will be controlled and owned by local authorities. No one in Scotland, including Government Ministers, believes that there will be a marked reduction in the need for local authority housing for a very long time.
The director of social work in Strathclyde, which is the biggest local authority area in Britain, speaking at a conference in Edinburgh some time ago, said:
"Housing quality is deteriorating quicker and the re-emergence of slum conditions is now a realistic prospect".
He was speaking about slum conditions such as we had in the industrial areas of Liverpool, Glasgow and many other places. These conditions leave marks on people for the rest of their lives. The director of social work said that that is the situation we are approaching now.
We have about 975,000 public sector houses in Scotland. If one assumes that a house has a 60-year life, that means we need about 16,000 houses a year to replace the stock. At present we are building about 5,000 houses a year in Scotland; so there will be 10,000 houses a year fewer than we need merely to

301
keep up. That does not include rehousing people. That is just trying to keep the stock we have in decent condition. One assumes that each house will have a major modernisation at least once in its lifetime. As one knows, wiring and many other things need fundamental, fairly drastic modernisation at least once in 60 years. Housebuilding, modernisation, repairs and planned maintenance are all affected by the stringent economic policy of the Government. I believe that we are building up massive problems for the future.
As I have said before in this House, one factor about housebuilding is that there is practically no imported content in houses at all. There may be a little imported timber, but practically everything else is indigenous. We have many building trade workers, bricklayers, joiners, plasterers, plumbers, and architects. There is also plenty of land in Scotland, and we have all the materials we need. Yet we are one of the worst housed nations in Europe.
The last point about which I should like to speak concerns young people. We have a special situation in Scotland, again linked to housing. Traditionally in Scotland a higher proportion of children stay in the parental home after leaving school than is the case in the rest of the country. That leads to higher levels of overcrowding. When that is added to unemployment problems, (of which we have as many as most other industrial areas in Britain) with perhaps both the parents and the children unemployed, one can imagine the situation in such an environment. The stress placed on the family is greatly increased because of unemployment and overcrowding.
If the suggestions of the Government housing benefit Bill go through—those put to the social security advisory committee—we shall reach a situation which I thought had disappeared in the 1930s, with young people having to leave home in order to allow the family to get as much as possible from their housing benefits. In the 1930s, as many of your Lordships may know, there was means testing—and there is a lot to be said for certain types of means testing so long as it is done right across society and with dignity. But if these housing benefit recommendations go through the type of means testing we get in the future could lead to the break-up of families such as happened frequently in the 1930s.
Where I live in Glasgow, and the place that I represented in the other place for a long time, is the centre of the student population, serving Glasgow University, Clyde University, all the technical colleges and the colleges of higher education. The young people tend to gather in that part of Glasgow. Therefore I think I know a little about students, and one of the sad things is that almost all these students or young professionals can tell you about their brothers, sisters or close friends who have the same qualifications for higher education as they had themselves when they were allowed into higher education; but because of educational cut-backs those people are not able to get into university or into other types of higher education now.
This of course causes great frustration. I am not talking about people who are not capable of benefiting from higher education but about people who are well qualified and who a few years ago would have got into
302
a university but cannot get in now. This is a terrible waste of talent and a terrible waste of young people.
Academic cut-backs are disgraceful enough but when the latest burdens on young people trying to get into university are added, that raises again the question of student housing and the fact that the Government are going to stop students being given housing benefits during the long and short vacations. In fact, it has been suggested that they will not be able to apply for unemployment benefit during the long vacation. If they cannot get unemployment benefit or social security benefits, it means that the chances of a young working-class student being able to go to university, even if he does get a place (and he must have very high entry qualifications now to get a place) are very remote. It is just too much for him to do.
I think we must accept that we shall never have the mass industries back on the Clyde. The enormous shipyards, the Beardmores and the engine works will not come back. Those were the places that employed 20,000 or, in some cases, 40,000 people. We shall be much more involved in using brain power rather then muscle power in the future. The present unemployment figures for Scotland are 338,500 plus 18,000 school-leavers. From the way the Minister spoke when he was replying and the way the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, spoke, one would have thought it would not be long before we heard again the old cry (and it may be stamped on unemployment cards): "Not genuinely seeking work". That was the way we were drifting, I felt.
What has already come to the people of Scotland very clearly—and I think it will come to the rest of the country soon—is the way we have totally squandered North Sea oil revenues, which could, and perhaps should, have been poured into education. That could have been the last chance for a country such as our own to build a decent future in the 21st century. The way the money was squandered in order to give tax relief and to bolster Budgets for the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be easily forgiven in the future by generations still to come.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I too, with other colleagues who have already spoken in this debate, resent the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about politics of envy existing on this side of the House. It is an unjustifiable remark and an insult to many people who have devoted their lives to raising the standard of their fellow men. Many of us are old enough to remember the workhouse days; many of us are old enough to remember the time when mother went without medical attention in order to pay the doctor's bill for her children. That is not just stuff to raise self-pity but is one of the driving forces, along with many other experiences that we have had not only of our own poverty but that of people among whom we have lived. That is the driving force that spurs us on in order to achieve a better society; and I resent very much indeed the remark the noble Lord made. Unfortunately, the same attitude is shared, I am afraid, by some of his colleagues.
I speak as one who during the 1945–50 Labour Government took part in the discussions on the health

303
service Bill, having previously campaigned, like many others, for a National Health Service. Those were heady days in the establishing of a National Health Service which became the nation's pride and the envy of many other countries. In the general election of 1979 we were told by the present Prime Minister that,
"the National Health Service is safe in our hands".
Today the situation is one of general crisis in health districts and a severe decline in service.
In fact, in spite of claims of increased spending by government—and I accept those claims—there has been a slow but sure dismantling of the health service and the encouragement and advancement of the private sector, which is dependent still to a great extent on the National Health Service, from which it recruits nurses and doctors trained at state expense. I once raised the question of some reimbursement being made by the private sector for this service, but so far as I am aware nothing has been done to obtain a degree of refund of the cost. However, it is only fair and right that there should be some degree of compensation.
There is hardly a health district that at this moment is not having to prune its budget and cut services. My own health district of Bexley faces a reduction of f £1·6 million. Last night decisions were made in secret session—that was the second meeting that has taken place in secret—and details are to be announced later of measures to be taken to meet the deficit. There is bound to be a drastic reduction of facilities. Only last week I was given to understand that domiciliary visits by nurses are being reduced and as a result elderly and disabled people will not be bathed and assisted by a friendly visiting nurse. In a caring society, community nursing is a vital factor in health care.
We are told of greater spending, which is true, but we are not told that spending has not kept pace with inflation, with technological advance or need. Another factor affecting health authority finances was the disastrous reorganisation built in by Sir Keith Joseph, followed by yet another reorganisation eventually; and Salmon was another disaster affecting nurses. Now we have the new general managers at inflated salaries on a three-year contract which, by the way, ensures that they will toe the government line, or else. Finance apart, all these measures, including a degree of privatisation, mainly affecting domestics, has brought about disillusion and despair among the staff. It is an undeniable fact that morale in the service is low.
From May 1979 to March 1985, 221 hospitals were closed and 38 new hospitals opened, with a net loss of 2,500 beds. With a major cost cutting exercise in progress in the majority of health districts, many more beds are being lost and more hospital closures are projected. Waiting lists for operations are becoming longer and longer. I understand that in London alone 10,000 people are waiting for operations under the National Health Service.
The closure of smaller hospitals, in particular in rural areas, has created hardships because of the additional travelling involved to obtain treatment. In my area Bexley maternity unit has been closed. That much loved mother-and-baby hostel in Woolwich was closed and an expensive extension was added to Queen Mary's maternity unit. That means that mothers come from a wide area. It is entirely wrong that an expectant
304
mother in an advanced state of pregnancy should have the problem of obtaining public transport to go to hospital for an examination. At that extension there were over 3,000 births last year. I do not claim increased productivity in Sidcup, because the catchment area is large. RAWP—
Lord Ennals: My Lords—
Lord Wallace of Coslany: Yes, my Lords, I know that a Labour Government introduced it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is aware of the recently announced proposals to make drastic cuts in the clinical services of the Maudsley Hospital, one of the greatest psychiatric hospitals in our country, which will affect young adolescents, disturbed children and drug addicts? They are some of the people in our society who most need treatment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am speaking generally and from my experience. I know that the Labour Government introduced RAWP and that my noble friend was responsible for it. It is another factor which affects the service. Originally it was intended to adjust differences of need among health regions. It is now being used to make adjustments to health districts within regions. That is a big difference. For example, the south-east regional authority is proposing to mortgage four hospitals to raise urgently needed funds. Government funding for the south-east region will fall by £1·8 million a year until 1995. There will be a need to switch funds from inner London to Kent and Sussex for an expansion of facilities in the Medway towns and the South-East. That is what I term internal RAWP. That is badly and seriously affecting many parts of London, outer London and my district in particular.
Official figures show that the various Thames regional health authorities had reductions in growth in 1982–83 from between 0·02 per cent. to 0·03 per cent., whereas in 1983–84 the reductions were from 1·1 per cent. to 1·2 per cent., and, in addition, in six other regions the reductions were between 0·01 per cent. and 0·04 per cent.
That is another factor that seriously affects health district finances. All those items will lead to pressure for cuts. Well deserved pay awards to nurses increase health authority problems. That is yet another burden that they must face. Many regions have increased spending on qualified nursing staff but have reduced spending on nurses in training.
According to a report in the Guardian yesterday, the DHSS was expecting the number of nurses in the National Health Service to fall by 2,000 because of recruitment problems. Part of the recruitment problem is caused by pay and career structure. Another even more important factor is the reduction in many areas of student and pupil nurses—the basis of future qualified staff.
A lack of facilities and long waiting lists are forcing people into the private sector, which is growing rapidly. By 1980 there were 139 private hospitals available with a total of 6,408 beds but by 1985 the figure had risen to 195 hospitals with 8,541 beds. The number is still increasing at the expense of the

305
National Health Service. For instance, as has already been mentioned, we have the new London Bridge Hospital just a stone's throw away from the financially pressed Guy's Hospital. Apart from the provident schemes such as BUPA, many hospitals are seen as a financial investment by American or Arab interests. I emphasise that I find a profit motive in health hard to appreciate.
I have no objection to schemes such as BUPA. As I have said before, people have a right to choose, but it is wrong that today we have the situation of "Go private or wait and linger in hope". I have a personal problem. Someone made that remark to me. On principle, I should never go private having fought for a National Health Service to which my family and I will stick. I do not attack BUPA. It is a provident scheme, but there are other schemes where the profit motive is the only factor for the establishment of a hospital.
It is no use the Government boasting of additional spending when European countries spend more of their gross national product on health than Britain. Since 1979, there has been a massive increase in prescription charges. It is true that people of pension age obtain relief, but that does not apply to the supply of spectacles where, unless on supplementary benefit or in acute medical need, pensioners face the full cost of the provision. That could become much worse under the proposed voucher system.
We are told by Ministers that those of us who complain about cuts or charges in the National Health Service are Moaning Minnies. That is not the way that we should proceed. We are not Moaning Minnies. I regard that remark, which is so often repeated, as blatant arrogance from those who came into power on the pledge that the health service was safe in their hands but who proceeded to mutilate and disorganise what was once truly a National Health Service.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, time—
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, the time factor of course spoils the debate.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to compliment he noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter. Although we have bandied around figures, statistics and percentages, all the comparisons that have been made are about people. That is the important factor that we must remember in a debate of this description.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said when he opened his remarks about housing, it is obvious that in the urban areas the declining housing subsidies and rate support grant, the tighter restrictions on revenue and capital expenditure, and the increasing level of homelessness are creating a crisis. Most large local authorities—and I know Birmingham so very well—say that that trend seems likely to continue unless government policies change.
306
Only last week I was speaking to the chairman of the housing committee and I took down her words to make sure that I did not misquote her. She said:
"The state of housing in the city"—
that is, Birmingham—
"is deteriorating rapidly and every week more problems emerge. The housing committee is continually having to reassess priorities as the headaches grow but the money available dwindles. It is an absolute nightmare".
Birmingham will be allowed only one-third of the amount for which it asked in grants towards housing.
But the irony is that the Government have already conceded that it was wrong to cut grants to Birmingham City Council by about £7 million. When the matter was taken to the High Court. the Department of the Environment said that it had exceeded its powers in reducing the city's block grant by £7 million. But Birmingham will not get that £7 million which it has lost, for the simple reason that the local government Minister has decided to bring in a one-clause Bill which will make sure that Birmingham does not get it. In other words, the Government are saying "We are going to move the goalposts because you have scored your goal".
It is a most unfortunate situation. I am talking about not 7p. not £70 but £7 million. The Department of the Environment has conceded that it was wrong, but the Government have said "No, you are not going to get it. We have found loopholes which we did not know about". Birmingham's lawyers were much more clever, as the leader of the council said, but although they proved their point and won their case Birmingham is not to get the money.
As regards council housing, it worries me very much when I listen to the constant sniping at local authorities and at their provision of housing. For a considerable time, I was chairman of the Birmingham housing committee and the wards that I represented were in slum clearance areas. I became involved with housing because, in the early 1960s, I was absolutely amazed at the conditions under which people had to live.
It is important for us to recognise the people for whom local authorities cater. For my information I am using the Audit Commission's report which the Government have already received. That report states at page 33:
"At present, council house tenants tend to be poorer, and generally older than the overall population average. The following statistics illustrate the social challenge facing local housing authorities generally in England and Wales:
—The median household income of council tenants (excluding old age pensioners, single parent families and the unemployed) is almost one-third lower than for owner occupiers with a mortgage … The precise figures for 1982 were £7,419 against £10,787".
That clearly shows the lower income.
"— 57% of single parent families in England and Wales are council tenants …
— Over 62% of households in receipt of supplementary benefit in Great Britain are council tenants".
That is the burden which a local authority has to carry. I ask the Minister who is to reply whether she thinks that the private sector will take up those responsibilities. If it does not take them up, they must be taken up by the local authority and further resources must be given to manage homes for those people.

307
I want to mention another item which is very well known to Her Majesty's Government; that is, the arrears on rent income that are accruing to local authorities. Arrears are a mounting problem not only in Birmingham but in the whole of the country. I am not talking only about rent arrears. There are electricity arrears, gas arrears and hire purchase arrears. In the courts—and I speak as a magistrate—there are even arrears of fines. Fines are being paid at the rate off £1 a week, which will take four years to pay off, in order to prevent people going to prison.
But I speak particularly of arrears of council house rents. At the present time the arrears in the city of Birmingham amount to £7.2 million. Before I go any further I want to explain that Birmingham is not a badly managed authority which cannot collect its rents. It has a very good arrears collection and it has been complimented by the Audit Commission on being a well managed authority. The strategy which Birmingham employs in collecting rents has been taken up and used by the Audit Commission. Nevertheless, the council has rent arrears of £7.2 million.
The economic furtunes of the West Midlands have declined substantially over the last 10 years. I have tables which show clearly what has happened to arrears of rents and rates. In 1979, the figure of council tenants in receipt of standard rent-rate rebates—that is, the unemployed or low-paid working tenants—was 19.1 per cent.; in 1981, the figure was 24.1 per cent. and this year it is 26.9 per cent. In 1976, the figure for tenants in receipt of supplementary benefit was 25 per cent.; in 1981, it was 29.9 per cent. and this year it is 50 per cent. In 10 years the number of people on supplementary benefit has doubled.
The figure for tenants in receipt of assistance with the payment of rent-rates was 44 per cent. in 1976, 54 per cent. in 1981 and 76.9 per cent. in 1985–86. Those people are in receipt of supplementary benefit or housing benefit. They are not rent arrears cases. For noble Lords who do not know the workings of housing benefit, it is a direct payment which is made to the housing office and the tenant never sees the money at all.
The Government's White Paper on the reform of the social security system insists that all housing benefit claimants should pay a minimum of 20 per cent. towards the cost of rates. Birmingham has estimated that 40.000 of its tenants who now pay nothing at all will have to pay 20 per cent. of the rates. When I tell your Lordships that the rates in Birmingham are over £2 in the pound, you will see that that will be an extra burden on them. Where are they to get the money when they are already in arrears with their rents?
My noble friend Lord Carmichael stressed that we should be asking the Government to use their priorities in the same way as this is being asked of local authorities. I concur in my noble friend's view that the Government waste money on unemployment and housing benefits when that same money could be spent on providing employment and giving people status once again in society within the construction and allied trades. If money was spent in this way, it would
308
provide not only employment but also what the customer wants—that is, homes for those who are seeking them.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, has left his place. I should have liked to tell him directly, in response to his remark that few of us are standing up in defence of the Government's policies with regard to social welfare, that I am very happy to do just that. I am very proud of what my Government have achieved through their policies, in the face of many difficulties, over the past seven years. I am grateful, like other noble Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for initiating the debate. The noble Lord made a comparison between Labour and Conservative policies, suggesting that they were distinct. I suppose that in many ways they are. However, his remarks remind me of a debate in another place in which I took part a few years ago on a very similar subject to that being discussed today.
I had calculated, for the purposes of that debate, that since the end of the Second World War there had been 17½ years of Labour government and exactly the same period of Conservative government. I said, at that time, that I had never been in any doubt that every government between 1945 and the time of that debate—it was presumably the early 1980s—had done their utmost to introduce policies that would have, in their application, beneficial social effects. Methods differed, of course. They still do. But whichever government have been in office, they have done their best. Their application of economic policy, as mentioned several times already, has been basic to social welfare. I say without hesitation that success in controlling inflation has meant that this Government have been able to achieve a great deal in areas where problems common to every party in office have essentially to be faced. I refer to the relentless advance of automation and the decline of major industry, automatically leading to redundancies, to unemployment and to the social consequences of which we are very much aware.
It is on the subject of unemployment and this Government's facing up to the problem that I wish to address myself in the time available. I listened with great interest when the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition suggested that my noble friend Lord Young should leave the Home Counties and go to the North-East. As the noble Lord knows, I go to the North-East all the time. I was born there, and I have lived there all my life. I should like to tell him that my noble friend Lord Young is a regular visitor to the North-East and is very concerned with our particular problems. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in his tribute to my noble friend for what he is trying to do in respect of training. A great deal is taking place in areas such as my own. A great deal has happened in the past. But my noble friend, during his period of high office, has given a new impetus to training. We are grateful to him.
My part of England, the North-East, has known its share of the major problem of redundancies and unemployment. I welcome this opportunity to commend most strongly the present Government for

309
their considerable success with policies in this context. I can give no better example of what is happening today than the northern town of Consett. In 1980, the town of Consett knew the closure of its iron and steel works. Those works had given employment for generations in that town and district, now known as Derwent. No better example could ever be given of a one-industry town. Consett was wholly dependent for its employment and social wellbeing on iron and steel. When the works was closed, this was a very serious matter for its people.
I was often asked by my south country colleagues in another place if unemployment, that, sadly, has been with us for some time in my part of the world, was visible in the North-East. Could one see it? The steelworks was closed in the autumn of 1980. It was just before Christmas of that year that I went to Consett to see this steel town that had lost its only industry. And, my goodness, unemployment was very visible! There were men and boys standing on the corners—the same scene, one imagines, as during the depressed days of the 1930s. There was a lacklustre feel about the whole place. Shopkeepers were expressing dismay at what they considered to be a very serious matter for them. The media wrote off the town of Consett. I recall two headlines of the period. Consett, in 1980, was described as the Jarrow of the 'eighties. It was described also as the town that had died.
On Saturday last week, having decided to take part in this debate, I visited Consett again. What a change is to be seen! The rusting steelworks, so depressing, right in the middle of the town at the time of closure are gone. They have been razed to the ground. Consett now has a trading estate called Consett No. 1 with an amazing range of new firms of all kinds, large and small. To drive round was very encouraging. High technology is to be seen in Consett No. 1, and small factories, providing everyday requirements. There is an unprecedented degree of diversification. What a wonderful thing this is for a town that was once dependent on a single industry. The closure of the steelworks meant bang—the loss of 3,500 jobs.
I should like now to quote from the Derwentside Industrial Development Association third annual report, just issued. It says:
"The direct results of the industrial development programme are measured very carefully each year through a job audit. To the end of March 1986 the Derwentside Industrial Development Programme has yielded nearly two and a half thousand 'jobs on the ground'. Many more job opportunities should be generated in future as the full growth potential of the businesses now located in Derwentside is realised. The agency is currently managing an exceptionally good set of active enquiries and anticipates another excellent year's peformance during 1986".
This is a wonderful story. A town in the northern part of England has suddenly a new life, thanks to the present Government's policies of investment and encouragement. It is a wonderful co-operative achievement involving the development association, English Estates, who do so much good work in the northern part of the country, and the local authority. Every available grant has of course been taken up. The most interesting one, taken up to the full in Consett, is the enterprise allowance. It is so encouraging, in addition to seeing the new factories and workshops, to realise that much of the effort and much of the new business is indigenous.
310
I pay great tribute to people in that area, mans of whom used redundancy payments to get up, have a go and start a new small business. I wish them luck, and I am sure that that wish is shared by noble Lords in all parts of the House. Some bought their houses with their redundancy payments. Again, as has been stated during the course of the debate, the buying of houses has been encouraged by the policies of this Government. Good for them! They have decided to stay put and to make their town work.
In addition to Consett, English Estates appropriately has its headquarters in the Tee Valley in the North-East of England—appropriately, because that is where the very first trading estate was established in the 1930s. English Estates has just reached the end or its year and has announced a 20 per cent. increase in factory and workshop lettings in the North-East. What is more, that is a 20 per cent. increase on a very good previous year. There are 50 additional factories and workshops that have come into being in the past year on trading estates in that region. They represent 4,500 new jobs. Government policies are working very well.
That is not to underestimate—and I am sure that no one would expect me to do that—the problem that remains with us. Our unemployment rate is far too high but in making policies such as those I have described the Government are facing that problem and overcoming it.
The policy regarding enterprise zones was a courageous one in itself. There is considerable evidence at this time of existing firms within the zones investing and expanding when they would not otherwise have done so but for that courageous concept. Another great investment in the North-East that has just been announced is that of the twelfth Japanese factory. That was opened a week last Monday. What a wonderful thing that is. I pay tribute to the North-East Development Council, which has so energetically campaigned in that area and which has been and is able to do so because of an enormous government grant, currently running at £¾ million. Again, it is a case of the Government's policy working and working well.
I pay tribute to the North-East Development Council for having brought into being also a conference that is to take place on 16th May. I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, when he said that everything happens in the South-East. He included in his catalogue, quite rightly, the Channel Tunnel. In the North-East—not the South-East—there is to be held on 16th May a conference in support of engineering industries in the North-East, because there will be an awful lot of work for the North-East from the Channel Tunnel, even though the entrance to it, through which the noble Lord will pass, is in the South-East. I commend that conference very warmly indeed.
Finally, I move on to the Port of Tyne, which in my region has always been taken as the barometer of our well being or otherwise. At this moment the Port of Tyne is flourishing as it has not done for many a year. A deficit of £¾ million has been turned in the past year into a £2¼ million profit. Everything seems to be going well on the Tyne—particularly the new coal handling plant, which is a co-operative effort between the National Coal Board and the Port of Tyne Authority.

311
That coal handling plant has come into being with an enormous government grant. Again, the Government's regional policy is seen to be working well. It used to be known as,
"The Tyne, the Tyne, the coally Tyne".
It used to be known also as the queen of all the rivers. It will be the queen of all the rivers again with regard to the coal trade. It is flourishing as it has never done before. That is an indication of government policies within the region working and working well.
As I have precisely one minute left, I conclude by again referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, who did something that is damaging to both his part of the country and to my own. There is a constant suggestion that there are two halves to this nation—the North and the South. There is a constant suggestion that the southern half of the country is given all the preference and all the advantages to the detriment of the northern part. I do not accept that. We are one nation. The North-East of England and the Merseyside area wish nothing other than to play their full part in the nation's industrial well being and in ensuring that social welfare for all is kept at the highest possible level throughout the country.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I, too, wish to join in the congratulations to my noble friend for initiating this debate and for his choice of subject. He has given the House a useful opportunity to examine the effects of legislation enacted in recent years covering many aspects of our daily lives. I shall resist the temptation to follow the previous speaker because that would eat up all the time that I have for what I have to say.
My noble friend, in a thoughtful and constructive speech, set the tone for the interesting discussion that has taken place this evening. One of the inevitable consequences of being No. 15 on the list of speakers is that noble Lords have already raised many of the points that I intended to make. I can therefore concentrate on my main interest in this debate, which is the effects of the Government's policies on the elderly, because of my long association with pensioners and with pensioners' organisations.
In the years immediately after the last war, this nation was respected and admired throughout the world for its health and welfare services. Now we are falling behind most of our European partners in our treatment of the elderly and others in need. Countries much poorer than ours are giving higher priority to social and welfare services.
A recent discussion paper published by the science and education board of the BMA states:
"British doctors who have travelled to other countries to look at their systems of care for the elderly return here angry and depressed".
It is asked why countries no richer than Britain can provide care that is so much superior.
That the Government have made it clear that they no longer accept the Beveridge objective of security against want without a means test must be obvious to all who try to keep abreast of developments in social security legislation in Parliament. The Green Paper
312
Reform of Social Security which was recently published states in Volume 1, paragraph 7.13:
"We should not place on our successors the responsibility for meeting all our financial expectations in retirement. Instead we should ensure that everybody is able to save and invest for his own additional pension".
Later, the report states in paragraph 7.19:
"That additional pension will be his own investment for his retirement, not a promissory note to be presented to a future generation".
That goes completely in the opposite direction to the Beveridge concept.
To find the Government's inspiration for their new approach to social security, we need look no further than a book entitled Free to Choose which was written in 1982 by the Friedmans and which was republished in this country last year. In that book, Milton Friedman had this to say:
"Any assurance [about future pensions] derives solely from the willingness of future taxpayers to impose taxes on themselves to pay for benefits that present taxpayers are promising themselves. This one-sided 'compact between the generations' foisted on generations that cannot give their consent is a very different thing from a 'trust fund'. It is more like a chain letter".
The Government's nil cost approach to social security benefits legislation has obviously interpreted that part of Milton Friedman's book quite accurately.
They take us back to the beginning of the century, because I read recently that it was recorded that at the end of the Boer War, Charles Booth's critics argued successfully that the government's first duty, now that they had money to spare, was to reduce taxes on the rich, and that the cost of old age pensions along the lines advocated by Booth would prevent a reduction of as much as tuppence in the pound on income tax. That has indeed been the present Government's approach since taking office in 1979.
What has been the effect on pensioners' incomes and living standards? I shall try in the few short minutes that I have left briefly to illustrate the effects in three main areas of concern, though there are many others, which are housing, income maintenance and transport.
First, as regards housing, because of cuts in central government finance and restrictions on local authority and housing authority expenditure and inadequate provision for repairs, many elderly people are living in inadequate accommodation. They often have insufficient support in their present home, but they are unable to transfer to more appropriate accommodation. Age Concern has estimated that 5 per cent. of elderly people live in residential and nursing homes or in hospitals and that of the 95 per cent. who are living at home 50 per cent. own their own homes, 35 per cent. rent from a council or a housing association, and 15 per cent. live in private rented accommodation.
About one-third of all elderly people live alone. Many of them are women, of whom a large number are over 75. It is estimated that there are 300,000 elderly council tenants who are desperately wanting to move, often from unsuitable properties which are too far away from relatives. In addition, a large number of elderly tenants live alone in large houses. This is not what many of them want and it means that family-sized properties are often under-occupied. Because councils do not have the resources to provide appropriate alternative accommodation, a totally

313
unsatisfactory situation continues and worsens as a result of deliberate government policy.
There are 48,000 dwellings classed as unfit for habitation which are occupied by elderly people; a further 195,000 classed as fit but in serious disrepair are occupied by elderly people; and 500,000 dwellings lacking one or more basic amenities are occupied by the elderly. The number of dwellings lacking a bath is 290.000. It is a fairly grim picture, which cannot be confused with the presentation of glossy packages about which we have been hearing from government spokesmen in the past few years.
There is little chance of elderly people obtaining repairs or improvement grants because there is a lack of funds, and because of cuts in housing expenditure far higher than in any other area of public spending the number of one-bedroom dwellings and sheltered accommodation being built by local authorities has fallen dramatically, until the situation has reached crisis proportions. In this area the social effects must be as self-evident to Government Ministers and Members of the Government, if they are honest with themselves, as they are to the rest of the nation.
The effects of the board and lodging limits were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pitt, but the major effect of the board and lodging limits has been upon elderly people—those who are already living in residential care and those who are in need of such care. Again, I am indebted to Age Concern, which represents the interests of elderly people, for reporting a steady flow of cases of people in difficulty because fees have been increased. I shall mention only a couple of examples because of lack of time.
There is the case of an 85-year old lady who suffers from senile dementia. She has no relative and her affairs are handled by a solicitor as receiver under the Court of Protection. The DHSS could not meet the increased fees of the nursing home which threatened to dump the lady in the solicitor's office.
Then there is the case of an elderly amputee who had been taken into a home before the 29th April 1985 but the home only had available a room on the second floor. She was promised ground-floor accommodation if it became available, so that she could move about in a wheelchair. But when such a room became available it was more expensive and the DHSS would not pay the extra cost. There has been a similar impact on elderly people who are living at home and on the people caring for them.
Gaining access to residential and nursing home care when it costs more than the supplementary benefit available is becoming virtually impossible. These effects of government policy are surely unacceptable to all who value this scheme.
I now turn to income maintenance. In the White Paper Growing Older, which was published in 1981, the pledge was made that:
"As the economy improves, elderly people will share in that improvement".
How far has that promise been kept by this Government?
The Government's chief claim to benefiting pensioners lies in the decline of the rate of inflation. I accept that benefit, as does my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, but I qualify my acceptance by pointing out
314
that because elderly owner-occupiers will have paid their mortgage, any reduction in mortgage interest becomes irrelevant. Indeed, it can be said that lower interest rates reduce the income from pensioners' savings.
Also, government fuel policy has meant that the price of gas has been raised to a level which is considerably higher than costs would warrant; and the structure of price increases is such that the standing charge increases proportionately more than does the unit charge. This adversely affects elderly people whose unit costs as a rule are a smaller proportion of their total bill.
Yesterday we also heard about the Government's charging policy given to the newly privatised British Telecom and the effects of that policy in further increases for domestic consumers which are well above the rate of inflation. It is deliberate government policy which has far-reaching social implications for telephone users as well as for pensioners.
The breaking of the link between pensions and prices and earnings has been mentioned. This has prevented pensioners from sharing in improvements in the economy, as promised in the White Paper, Growing Older. That, too, is self-evident. Had the link with average earnings been preserved, the single person's pension would have been £3·5 a week more in January 1986 and the married couple's pension would have been £4·55 a week more. By July 1986 when the next uprating is put into effect the losses may he between £6 and £7 for a couple and £4 and £5 for a single pensioner. So the total cumulative losses since 1981 could be in the region of £570 for a couple and £390 for a single pensioner. So much for a share of the improvements in the country's circumstances.
Other factors have affected the value of the retirement pension, with all the social consequences that that implies. For example, I recall that in 1980 the pension was two weeks late. It was a 54-week year instead of a 52-week year, and that cost a couple £12·30, which was never repaid. In 1984 the uprating was a week late again and that cost a couple another £2·80. So pensioners' standards have been deliberately reduced by government policies as the years have gone on.
As regards transport, I recognise that the effects of the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and the implications of the Transport Act on travel for elderly people cannot yet be fully judged. Concern that elderly and disabled people will be disadvantaged over time has not lessened. Deregulation of transport services under the Act will undoubtedly mean that unprofitable hut socially necessary services will eventually be withdrawn and doubts remain about the long-term future of concessionary fares.
A specific example of a difficulty caused by the abolition of the GLC is what has happened to the London taxicab scheme whereby certain categories of disabled people were able to use a taxi for a charge of £1, the difference in fare up to a maximum of £6 being paid by the local authority; in other words, by the GLC. A replacement scheme has been agreed by the individual London boroughs working in concert, except that Sutton, Hillingdon, Barnet and Bromley

315
have decided not to participate and so certain disabled people, including some disabled elderly people, will be disadvantaged in relation to their counterparts in other London boroughs. Again this is a direct consequence of government policy and it has tremendous effects socially.
So all the difficulties that I have outlined—and I could outline many more had I time—are the direct result of government policy since 1979. Many of the concerns which I have expressed affect millions of other people as well as the elderly, on whom I have had to concentrate. In my view since there is no hope of any improvement—indeed, the proposals contained in the social security legislation which is to be debated next month in this House will worsen the situation—I can see no real solution other than a change of government, and the sooner the better.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like first of all to join previous speakers in congratulating my noble friend and colleague Lord Wells-Pestell on introducing this subject and giving us an opportunity to make our case regarding government policies and their effect on people. It would appear from previous speakers that the debate has in some respects been broken down by Members of your Lordships' House speaking for areas and more or less presenting the case as they see it for the areas from which they come. I have spent all my life in the North of England—eventually in one of the largest cities. I live in another large city, in the North of Britain. I think noble Lords will understand if I restrict my remarks to that part of the country.
I was extremely disappointed by the response of the Secretary of State to what I thought was an excellent speech by the mover of the Motion. The whole speech was riddled almost with self-congratulation and (dare I say?) self-deception. We did not hear anything new to help the situation. I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate and to comment on the implications of the present Government's policies for many millions of people throughout the country. I want to refer in particular to the growing disparities between the North and the South of this country and to the way in which Britain is to some extent being south-easternised almost by stealth.
We have across the country a record level of unemployment which has hit the North more severely than other areas. There is no apparant strategy for dealing with such regional imbalances—very little regional economic planning and no coherent strategy for regional development. Such mechanisms no longer find favour with the present administration, who in the main are content to let market forces dictate the economic future of the country. It is my contention that such an approach offers nothing to the millions seeking work or any solution to what is now becoming an increasingly divided society.
I should like to quote from an article which encapsulates what some of the argument is about. The article, entitled "Auf Wiedersehen, luv", appeared in last Saturday's Guardian newspaper. The article
316
described how northern firms, particularly in the field of home improvements—double glazing and so forth—are now looking for work in the South because, to quote one company chairman:
"In the North demand is flat".
The article highlights many of the issues that cause me and others so much concern—a buoyant economy in the South-East, families with money to invest in their property and of course the ever-widening gulf in house prices, making such an investment an attractive proposition for those in the South but beyond the reach of those in the North.
The article pays tribute to the high standards of workmanship of such northern firms, with wage costs being considerably lower than those of southern firms. I can only assume that such enterprise is what market forces or monetarism—call it what you will—is all about. The sad fact is that demand is flat in the North because of industrial decline. The money is not there for people to invest in that type of enterprise.
Unemployment figures have been bandied about. I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, who has just left the Chamber. He appeared to be somewhat complacent about the position in the North-East or to be satisfied with what is happening. Since 1977 the three northern regions—the North, the North-West and Yorkshire and Humberside—have lost 730,000 jobs, 64 per cent. of the total national loss. Of those, nearly 50 per cent. are long-term unemployed. The area about which the noble Lord spoke—Newcastle—has horrendous figures. In the main the position in the South, apart from some of the inner London boroughs, has remained static. There is not much evidence in those figures to support the Government's view that we are still one nation.
In Manchester, where I served for many years as a local councillor, the rate of unemployment stands at 23·8 per cent. Almost one in four of the city's resident workforce is unemployed. More than half of Manchester's unemployed have been without a job for a year or more and nearly one in five for more than three years. You can relate those figures—the figures are probably worse in Liverpool—to most of the cities in the North of England. This is a terrible waste of human resources and talent. They are desperate for the kind of capital investment that would allow them to deal with this problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, spoke at length on housing. It is difficult sometimes to keep producing figures, but one has to produce figures to show the dimension of what is happening. The position this year is slightly worse than is shown by the figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. Manchester City Council calculates that it requires £600 million to put its housing stock in good order in accordance with the recommendations of a variety of reports from non-political bodies and professional bodies. In 1985–86, Manchester requested £96 million. It was allowed as a borrowing requirement £36 million, which is just about one-third of the sum required.
Despite all the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, despite speeches from all sides of the Chamber and the numerous reports to which I have referred, including the Duke of Edinburgh's report and Faith in the City, what have the

317
Government done this year? Manchester has applied for £109 million in 1986–87, which probably includes an inflation factor and something else. Manchester has been granted £28 million, which is in effect a reduction. I do not have the figures for the other cities. I know how they are worked out, and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will concur with this. What happens is that bids are placed and you all get the same percentage of what you ask for. It is a reduction in every way you look at it. Twenty-eight million pounds is an £8 million reduction on last year. This is a city with appalling housing problems, just like most of the other cities.
My noble friend Lord Stallard referred to the Social Security Bill that is going through another place. The Government are currently taking legislation through the House of Commons to deal with what they consider to be defects in the present system of social security. One imagines that this would be welcomed. Let me tell noble Lords what it will mean for people in Manchester and for the city council, which has been forced to assume responsibiltiy for major areas of welfare provision because of the withdrawal by this Government of other facilities over a period of time. This can be applied to other cities and to the inner boroughs of London.
Housing benefit cuts to claimants will amount to approximately £9 million. The city council will also lose £12 million in housing benefit subsidy. Approximately 12,000 schoolchildren will lose their entitlement to free meals. That is how we are caring for our future. All tenants and ratepayers, no matter how poor, will be forced to pay 20 per cent. of their rates and/or water rates. Single payments for furniture, bedding and so on will be replaced by a cash-limited social fund. In Manchester the DHSS currently pays out three times the national average in single payments to claimants. The Government's proposed legislation will do nothing to tackle the problems of poverty in Manchester or in other large conurbations. It will merely place an increased burden on those least able to fend and provide for themselves. That is an example of what will happen in the very near future when we ask for increased resources and care for some of the more deprived in our society.
Noble Lords will recall that a few weeks ago I gave some statistics relating to Manchester during a debate on health on 26th March, reported at col. 1423 of the Official Report. With your Lordships' permission I shall repeat those statistics in the last few minutes that I have in which to speak. They come from a joint report of the three health authorities in Manchester and the city council:
"For example, areas with high unemployment levels will also tend to have high incidences of coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Those differences mean that, on average, Mancunians are more likely to die prematurely than their fellow countrymen".
As I say, this refers to Mancunians, but one can apply it to other large cities and conurbations.
I quote again:
"Some examples of the scale of the problem are that between 1981 and 1983 over 5,000 Mancunians died before reaching the age of 65 years. That was almost 1,400 or 37 per cent. more than should have done had national trends applied. In parts of Manchester death rates due to respiratory diseases and lung cancer were over twice the national rate, while coronary heart disease accounted for almost 80 extra deaths per annum. That is the type of situations that some
318
people think can be dealt with by using a broad brush on very broad canvas",
and by leaving people who need aid to their own devices.
However, deprivation does not start among the elderly. It begins in these areas from the moment the child is born. I was not aware until I did some research that children born in these areas—such as the inner city area of Manchester and other inner areas of the big cities—are much smaller than those born in the more affluent areas. I understand that that is in the Platt Report. Evidence was given by my noble friend Lord Ennals that these children are much lower in weight and that the average child born in these areas is two inches smaller than those born in other areas. However, the most chilling statistic of those which emerged was that a child born in the inner city areas has twice the chance of dying in the first week of its birth than has a child in the other more affluent areas. Dare we say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, that we are one nation when there is that type of suffering being inflicted on babies as they come into the world?
I commenced by saying that I am a northener by heritage, breeding and up-bringing. I am extremely proud of my heritage. Bearing in mind the awful statistics for those inner city areas I hope that this debate—which has been so well initiated by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell—will move the Government out of their complacency towards understanding that a large number of people are suffering at the present time.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for initiating this debate. It should have been a debate about one or two nations. That it has not been is solely due to what we can see in front of us now: empty Conservative Benches. Indeed, if one looks at the list of speakers, one sees that out of the 20 speakers this afternoon 15 come from the Labour Party, four from the Conservatives, and only one from the Liberals or Social Democrats. Although the noble Lord the Secretary of State who opened the debate talked about philosophy—he at least used the word—it has not been possible to make this the kind of philosophical debate based on evidence which we should have in this House. I would make an exception only in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who tried to put forward a coherent philosophy. I should like to refer to that later on.
The opening speech by the Secretary of State contained nothing philosophical. In his predecessor's day when the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was in that place, we were accustomed to having a true philosophical debate. I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young, complacent, sterile and patronising, with no reference to anything that could be described in any way as philosophy.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, began, as he has before, by saying that he would not be here at the end—and I do not blame him after that speech. All we heard from him was the parrot-like repetition that one cannot cure social evils by public expenditure. There would seem to be a large divide between the noble Lord, Lord Young, and his Back-Bench colleague the

319
noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who gave us instance after instance of how public expenditure and public boards could improve social conditions.
But I shall go beyond that. Who are we to listen to? Who are we to believe in the Conservative Party today? Which Conservative Party is it that determines policy? The noble Lord, Lord Young, tells us that we cannot cure social evils by public expenditure, but only last week his ex-colleague in the Cabinet had this to say:
"The elimination of social stress and the eradication of urban dereliction are not the natural hunting grounds for profit-seeking entrepreneurs left to their own devices".
Those were the words not of a Socialist, but of Michael Heseltine last week on Merseyside, speaking as a man who has been in the Cabinet far longer than the noble Lord, Lord Young, but who seems only now to be contradicting what he, as a Minister with collective responsibility in that Cabinet, has been doing for seven years.
I want to talk simply about the issue of one or two nations. I shall not talk about the unemployed because that has been discussed widely during the afternoon. I simply mention that there are now 2 million more unemployed than there were when this Government came into office. They cannot escape that responsibility. If one has 2 million more unemployed, one has 2 million more poor households.
I want to speak for a moment on the personal issue. I returned last night from West Derbyshire. I invite the noble Lord. Lord Young, and any Member of the Government Front Bench, to return with me to West Derbyshire on Friday morning to meet some of the people I have been meeting over the past week. I do not have to talk about poverty being only among the unemployed. The workers in West Derbyshire are mostly either quarry workers or workers in the tourist industry—both low-paid jobs. Last week I was talking to a quarryman whose weekly pay is slightly above the old age pension. If one talks to the women—and a large number of women are employed in the tourist industry—one finds that it is not just the unemployed who are poor, but also people in full-time work, and, above all, those who can get only part-time work.
Come and talk to the pensioners, my Lords; talk to them about the loss of public transport in the rural areas, and hear about how they have to take three buses to get to hospital; hear about how a pregnant woman cannot get an ambulance to take her to hospital and has to travel by buses which run perhaps only once or twice a day. These are the realities. These are the people about whom we are talking.
Let me remind your Lordships—as my noble friend Lord Stallard has already emphasised—that the pensioners of this country are poor people. Nearly 2 million pensioners in this country are on supplementary benefit. One-third of all the widows in this country are on supplementary benefit. The Government admit that supplementary benefit involves a poverty test.
What did the noble Lord, Lord Young, tell us about the 571 old people who have died over the past four months from hypothermia? Is that part of government policy? Is that an example of the success of the social
320
consequences of the Government's policy? I invite noble Lords to come with me to West Derbyshire to talk to some of the survivors and their relatives, because they will receive a very different answer from that which we received from the noble Lord, Lord Young, this afternoon.
Let me harden my view into national figures, showing that to talk about "one nation" is only rhetoric. The reality is that there are now two nations and those two nations are the rich and the poor. I address my remarks specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, because it is not worth trying to argue the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Young.
Since 1979 the gross earnings of the bottom 10 per cent. of employed men in this country have increased 69·5 per cent. But the increase in retail prices is 74·6 per cent. Therefore, the bottom 10 per cent. of employed men in this country are now worse off than they were in 1979.
However, let us look at the position of the other nation. The top 10 per cent. have increased their earnings—if you can call them earnings—or certainly their income by 101·2 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Young, talks about pricing ourselves out of jobs. Who is pricing themselves out of a job? It must be the top men; the bottom men are not pricing themselves out of a job. They are receiving lower wages and lower incomes and so are their households—their wives and their families. I point out that these are all official figures.
Let us take the Government's test regarding qualification for supplementary benefit. In 1976 there were 4·7 million British people on supplementary benefit. By 1979 a Labour Government had reduced that figure from 4·7 million to 4·4 million. Therefore there was a reduction of 300,000. It was a slow process, but very important to those 300,000.
In 1983, the last year for which figures have been published, the number had risen to 7·1 million. From 1979 to 1983 the number of people on supplementary benefit had risen from 4·4 million to 7·1 million. Does that indicate one nation or two?
The noble Lord, Lord Young, talks about it not being the responsibility of government. Is that so? Let us look at taxation and national insurance. The noble Lord says that they do not matter. They matter to those people who are paying them; they matter to those who find their incomes being reduced because of the increased burden of taxation and national insurance. Again, let us consider the figures.
The noble Lord gave a selective example of a single man. I shall give real examples from the people to whom I have been talking in the past week in Derbyshire. Let us take the situation of the low paid family, and I emphasise "low paid". The government definition is a married couple with two children on half average earnings—fully employed, but receiving half average earnings. The taxation and national insurance for that low paid family has doubled since 1979. However, those who are earning five times the average income have had their taxation cut by 13 per cent. during the same period. Does that indicate one nation or two?
I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Young, had put some meat into what he claimed to be a philosophy,

321
because there is a philosophy and we used to hear it from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. We had some good arguments and debates. The Conservatives believe in inequality; the honest ones say so, and they say why they believe in it. The Conservative philosophy is that inequality brings greater productivity, greater production and, therefore, greater national wealth, and that will trickle down to the whole community.
However, it has not worked. We have had seven years of it and it has not worked. Indeed, it has not worked by any test. It has not worked by the Government's own test. It has not worked by increased investment. It has not worked by increased employment, because we have 2 million more unemployed. It has not worked as regards trade, as was shown clearly by the report of the Select Committee of which I was an honoured member. It has not worked over seven years. However, what it has done is to deepen the difference between the rich and the poor.
A great deal of the money that the Government said would go into investment and the development of production in this country has gone abroad to the high interest rates of the Bahamas and elsewhere, starving our own industry at the same time. Therefore, the theory or philosophy which lies behind that belief in inequality has not worked by the Government's own test.
Like my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, I warn the Government that the public are against them. I have been talking to only a few hundred people in Derbyshire, and I shall not draw conclusions from that except that what I have found on the doorsteps in Derbyshire bears out national public opinion polls. On the national level, the commissioned public opinion polls show that 92 per cent. of the people of this country believe that the present poverty in Britain is important. I repeat, 92 per cent. take that view. The percentage is larger for the Labour Party than for the Conservatives, Liberals and Social Democrats, but of that figure 83 per cent. of Conservatives polled believe that poverty is an important and immediate issue in this country.
If we apply that test to the Budget, we find that 61 per cent. of the people of this country preferred that any surplus that the Chancellor had should go to the poor rather than to reducing income tax; only 27 per cent. preferred the policy which the Government followed in that Budget.
Therefore, I say to Members opposite: your own people—people like Mr. Heath and Mr. Heseltine, whom I quoted earlier—and your own people who voted for you in the last election are telling you that you are wrong. We will not tolerate this increase in poverty at a time of increased wealth in our nation.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is to wind up the debate two related questions. First, from the weight of evidence on this side of the House this afternoon, with scarcely a squeak from behind the Government, do Her Majesty's Government admit that the evidence shows that under their administration the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer? Secondly—and this naturally leads on from the first question—in the wake of that evidence, do the Government still believe that this policy of
322
deliberate inequality in our society is capable of regenerating the British economy?
7.29 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the last speaker before the concluding speeches, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for giving us the opportunity to put forward some of the less happy aspects or results of government policy. I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply will not feel that this debate has been entirely in an attacking vein. Many speakers have put forward solutions, and I hope that the Government will take note of them.
As might be expected, I am going to look at a few of the effects of the Government's policy on health and the health service. The nation's health and the health service are not one and the same thing. Health depends on a far wider spectrum of factors than the provision of health care. It is easy to point to examples, as many of my noble friends have, of disruption and distortion of the NHS, but it is less easy to demonstrate that these disruptions have had a serious effect on health. In my view this is largely due to the dedication and professionalism of the many doctors and nurses who have had to work longer hours in difficult circumstances and carefully to concentrate their efforts on the critically ill. As a result some of those who are not quite so ill, who are recovering from illnesses or operations or who are awaiting admission to a hospital have had to suffer unexpected and unplanned waits to go into hospital or have found themselves discharged unexpectedly early.
Sometimes their admission is cancelled on the day they had expected to go into hospital. I have several examples of this among my list of patients in the Bloomsbury district. Many more patients than before are having to wait weeks and weeks for out-patient appointments. The waiting time for out-patient appointments in many specialties has increased. The problems of Bloomsbury are shared with many other health districts, as other noble Lords have mentioned. We have heard about Guy's, St. Thomas's and other districts.
The noble Baroness may say that this is part of the effect of applying RAWP—the recommendations of the Resource Allocation Working Party, rationalising the facilities between overprovided and underprovided parts of the country. But this scheme was devised for use during a period of growth in the National Health Service, and it was not designed to be applied within regions but between regions. The ruthless application of RAWP today is decimating once proud and world-famous teaching and research centres of excellence. I have seen it happening with my own eyes.
I am not against hospital closures as such. They may well be logical as health needs change. But just as hospitals need to warn general practitioners or district nurses if they are going to discharge someone unexpectedly, so the contraction of health facilities needs to be planned in advance. The present system of indiscriminate ward closures at very little notice, the temporary cessation of admissions and the sending home of medical students because there are no patients to teach on seem to me to be penny-pinching economy gone mad. It has made a lot of people disillusioned and a lot of people angry.

323
I could go on about the annoyances of working in the health service at the moment, but I should like to look at some general effects of the Government's policies on health. Health, says the World Health Organisation, is not merely the absence of disease but includes physical, mental and social well-being. Many speakers have spoken about unemployment Unemployment does not lead in this country to starvation or death from exposure, but the cost of preventing this happening is a major millstone around the Government's neck. The cost of keeping unemployed people from deprivation takes away sums from a whole variety of other, more contructive uses, and health and the National Health Service are two of those.
Unemployment affects mental and social well-being and the will to go on living. One recent study from the City University has shown that suicide among the unemployed is more than twice as high as in the rest of the population. Another well-known and careful study by Dr. Leonard Fagin called The Forsaken Families demonstrates how during a period of recession it is the families least able to cope who suffer most. These are the families most likely to have multiple needs, to make the biggest call on social security funds and to need expensive social support.
The boredom and lack of purpose in the lives of unemployed school-leavers is one of the factors—not the only one—behind the current wave of heroin addiction. Drugs relieve boredom, and their acquisition, usually by raising money by criminal activities, helps to provide excitement and a meaning to life. It is a major factor in the recent increase in crime.
I consider that the much publicised government campaign against drugs is concentrating far too much, in a punitive way, on controlling supply, and too little on the underlying causes or on the health of those with a drug problem. Many of your Lordships will have read of the plight of the Bethlem Royal. This was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Soper. It runs one of the few residential rehabilitation centres available in the National Health Service for drug abusers. It appears that one or more wards, or possibly the whole hospital, will have to close in order to balance the district's budget. The waiting list for admission is already far too long and will extend even more, or it may even have to be closed entirely. So much for the Government's priorities with regard to drugs. I very much hope that the noble Baroness in her reply will be able to tell the House that my information may be wrong here.
The Government have been so concerned with containing the cost of the National Health Service that they have neglected opportunities to tackle some of the basic health problems of the country. I mention, in passing, that an honourable exception is the recent agenda for discussion on primary care. I basically welcome the suggestions in that blue (or green) paper, but I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate it and to look at the small print at a later stage.
I should like to mention two major health problems that ought to have been tackled more vigorously. These are child health and coronary heart disease. A crude but useful index of child health is the infant mortality rate. This has gone down as standards of
324
living and the health service in this country have developed and new technical procedures for caring for health have improved. It has steadily gone down over the years. But other countries have done better than we have. We have been caught up and overtaken by Japan, Hong Kong, France, Denmark and Finland, and recently even Spain has caught up with us. This ties in with the remarks by my noble friend Lord Dean that many countries poorer than we are have better social services.
A characteristic of these countries is the small difference between the infant mortality rate of different occupational groups and classes. If the whole of the United Kingdom had the infant mortality rate of the better-off social classes, I and II, our rate would be equal to the very best in the world. If our national rate were even that of France, more than 1,000 babies who die each year would live.
The remedy for this state of affairs is to concentrate and improve services where they are needed. This is spelt out clearly in the Black Report and before that in the Court Report, both very much neglected and excellent social documents, whose recommendations would cost far less than unemployment benefit does at the moment, and the social security payments which go along with unemployment. We cry out if a child is killed by a terrorist attack, whether it is blown out of a Jumbo jet or killed in a laser-guided raid on Tripoli, but 1,000 babies are dying quietly each year in our country because of government inaction.
If we take coronary heart disease this country is in top position in the world. Some 30,000 men die each year before reaching retirement age, as well as many others suffering painful and disabling illness. There are two well-proven steps to be taken to cut down the risk of developing coronary heart disease. One is to stop smoking and the other is to cut down drastically on saturated, that is, mainly animal and dairy, fats. The Black Report in 1980, six years ago, suggested seven steps the Government could take to reduce cigarette smoking. So far they have taken only one of these, to put up the tax on cigarettes. I do not think that is enough really to deter people. I am still amazed that advertising of a lethal product is allowed when people can be put in prison even for possessing a far less addictive and no more harmful substance, cannabis.
The other thing that can be done is in relation to diet, which has been spelt out clearly by two authoritative and reasonable reports: the NACNE Report and the COMA Report. These have been out for four years and for three years respectively. Only this year are the Government putting into effect the recommendations on fat labelling from COMA. There is no agreed central policy in the Department of Health on food and health. Many of the agricultural support policies of MAFF and the common agricultural policy directly subsidise foods that contribute to coronary heart disease.
It is now accepted that coronary heart disease has its origins in childhood. In 1983 the Government commissioned a survey of the diet of schoolchildren. On 17th December 1984, in a Written Answer, I was told that preliminary results would be available in spring 1985. Last month, spring 1986, news was leaked that the findings showed that our children's diet was very bad, containing far too much fat and sugar

325
and too little fibre. This important survey has yet to be published, although it is available. I have just picked up a copy from the Library today and I shall be studying it closely.
The report was discussed in "World in Action" on television on 15th April and several experts said that our school meals were worse than food obtained at home and were the kind of diet our children should be eating if we wished to maintain our leading position in the coronary heart disease stakes into the next century. I should like to ask the noble Baroness why there was a delay of a year in putting out this report and why it is only quietly available now on special request and has not been published? Could it be that pressure has been applied to suppress the results of this important survey, and, if so, by whom? One thing is clear. It was quite wrong for the Government to remove the requirement for school meals to conform to a minimum nutritional requirement in 1980. School meals have got worse. These nutritional requirements should be reintroduced as soon as possible.
I should not go so far as to adapt the warning on cigarette packets and say:
"This Government can seriously damage your health".
But I do say that they are seriously impeding this nation's chance of improving its health. However, on a positive note I say it is not too late for something to be done about it. I hope it will be.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, so that the Minister may commence her speech at the agreed time, I shall have to telescope my remarks or to cut some items out altogether. At the outset I should say how impressed all noble Lords were, I am certain, by the sincerity and the human understanding with which my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell introduced this important debate. It is a tragedy that only two non-ministerial speakers from the other side have been attracted to take part in a debate that is really about human personalities in our country. Of the 20 speakers, 15 were my noble friends, and with a very impressive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in addition, they have presented a case dealing with quite a number of important problems covering a number of areas in this country.
I was re-reading the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on urban priority areas, Faith in the City, the other day. In the introduction there is the paragraph:
"We have to report that we have been deeply concerned by what we have seen and heard. We have been confronted with the human consequences of unemployment".
Incidentally, the one point I agreed with in the inadequate speech of the Secretary of State was the reference to the importance of the quality of life and values.
Continuing the introduction of Faith in the City, I find this is stated:
"many residents of urban priority areas are deprived of what the rest of society regard as the essential minimum for a decent life; they live next door to, but have little chance to participate in a relatively affluent society; by any standards theirs is a wretched condition which none of us would wish to tolerate for ourselves or to see inflicted on others".
326
Later I find that in the latter paragraphs of Chapter 1 of the report the question is raised as to whether two nations are being recreated. The report says:
"the process of polarisation is a general one in Britain today"
The noble Lord, Lord Young, questioned remarks I made in a supplementary question a little while ago about the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will be able to refer to the official statistics in Social Trends, published in 1986, which confirmed the fact that the position of the great mass of poorer households has declined while that of the better-off households has improved.
Chapter 8 of Faith in the City deals also with the decline in central government support. Noble Lords on these Benches and in many other parts of the House have stressed the steady drift downwards of the rate support grant. This is the way in which the nation as a whole is able to assist local authority areas, particularly those areas of deprivation and those areas where the needs are greater than in others. Who can deny that relationships between central government and local government have a considerable effect and have had a considerable effect on the social problems in many areas?
The Secretary of State said that Socialists believe in state control. Who has been endeavouring to stop the Government's central control of local authorities? It is surely Members on this side of the House. In 1978–79 the rate support grant was 61 per cent. of local spending and in 1986–87 it will have dropped to 46·5 per cent. Whatever else has been done about adjustments in rates and penalties, the system of GREAs (grant related estimated assessments) still remains.
The Government centrally—the state, using the words of the Secretary of State—are endeavouring to determine the needs element of all the local authorities. I know the problems that members of local authorities are facing in determining the priorities, which matters they will engage upon and which they will not. I know what my own daughter tells me. She is the chairman of a county council social services committee. They have terrible problems in assessing what are the priorities to be tackled, and that is due to a great extent to the Government's control of the rate support grant.
I must make one or two references to unemployment because the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, gave the impression that there are masses of vacancies all over the place. The figures that I have indicate that there is one vacancy for every seven unemployed claimants. We all see the press accounts of jobs that occasionally arise and where there is one job vacant and a thousand people are lining up rushing to try to get that one job. It would be wrong for anyone in this House to get the impression that there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed claimants who really are not seeking work.
Let us look at the position of youth. The number of young persons who have never had a job since leaving school totals 291,000. Some 85,000 of them are under 18 and have never had a job since leaving school; 56,000 are aged 18 and also have never had a job since leaving school; and 150,000 are aged 19 and over and also have never had a job since leaving school. We

327
have the position that there are 1.25 million young people under 25 without jobs. Many noble Lords have expressed the problem that faces our country when we have such a vast number of young people who have never had a job and who have no expectation of a job. These are the youngsters to whom we have to pay considerable attention. Furthermore, 1.4 million of the unemployed—that is, 40 per cent. of those out of work—have been out of work for more than a year. More than half a million have been without work for three years.
As my noble friend Lady Fisher has said, these are just facts; but we are talking about human beings. It is of no use the government spokesmen, as did the Secretary of State today, continually giving us these assertions that things are moving. The Government claim that there have been new jobs created since March 1983. No less than 611,000 of that 700,000 are women's part-time jobs and not full-time jobs at all. The Secretary of State fails to tell us—and he is always talking about the numbers of those in employment, which is the important figure—that the numbers in employment have fallen by 1·8 million since the Conservative Government took office. These are not my figures; these are figures quoted by the Department of Employment Gazette. Manufacturing employment has fallen by one-quarter—no less than 1·8 million since 1979. I believe that we are alone among the industrial nations where that type of unemployment in manufacturing industry has occurred. Our manufacturing industry has lost a quarter of its jobs in under seven years.
It was interesting to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who gave his account of Consett. We were all impressed with what he said about Consett; but as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said to me, "This is like a beautiful flower in the desert". It is encouraging; but the deserts exist in Scotland, the deserts exist in North-East England and in the North of England; the deserts exist in the West Midlands; and the deserts exist in South Wales. These are the problems for our manufacturing industry, and this is where the problems are so acute. It expresses the case that we have for great public expenditure on the infrastructure of our country.
This was explained quite effectively in a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. As he rightly said, the TUC has pressed for this and the CBI has pressed for this—that is agreed, but perhaps to a differing degree—and our own House of Lords Select Committee on Employment also pressed for this. I was impressed by the words of my noble friend Lord Hatch, who said that public work and development of this kind help to underpin the private sector. I think that that was a very important statement that he made and one which I hope the noble Baroness, when she replies, will accept.
Perhaps I may look at a few points in the education field. Apart from the turmoil which results from the present unfortunate dispute with the teachers, and despite what the Government say about expenditure, parents are worried about the shortage of books and equipment. The Minister said in another place that it is for local authorities and schools to decide on the balance of spending on these items, bearing in mind local priorities.
328
But, despite what Ministers have said, a recent survey by the National Parent-Teacher Association found that four out of five secondary school pupils are forced to share textbooks and that in over half the secondary schools only fund-raising by parents kept the classrooms equipped with such essential materials as exercise books. The Audit Commission estimates that there is a backlog of £500 million needed in school repairs. I noticed a report in the Financial Times of 9th April which stated:
"Britain, alone in Western Europe, is contracting its higher education sector. Only Portugal and Ireland have a lower proportion of 18 year olds entering some form of higher education than Britain's 13 per cent."
The same report in the Financial Times went on to say that expenditure on further and higher education has been cut by about 10 per cent. in real terms since the Government took office.
One of the worst tragedies resulting from the Government's policies is that of housing. Housing has borne probably the most savage cuts since 1979. I am not filled with envy of anyone. My life has been quite happy and I have no envy of anyone, although the Minister seemed to suggest that practised in this House was the politics of envy. I am one who has always bought my own house. Even when I was married in 1937 on a salary of (what was it?) £4.15s.6d. a week, I bought my own house, and therefore I am not jealous of people who are owner-occupiers. But there will be masses of people who, by the nature of their jobs and by the nature of their low incomes, will want houses for rent. Public sector housebuilding reached the lowest figure since the 1920s—only about 40,000 in the year.
Is there not somewhere in the Department of the Environment files a report saying that some £20 billion is needed for urgent repairs to council estates? The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which, as most noble Lords know, I am the president, has estimated that in all there is a bill of £62 billion required for the public sector, for the private sector and for new homes really to bring our housing up to the standard at which it ought to be in a civilised society. I shall not go into all the details of what we are lacking; but local authorities are not even allowed to use the £5 billion of assets which they have and which could have been used to provide these new homes and to repair the property that badly needs repair. They are not allowed to use it.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness saw a statement in the Financial Times of 8th April when it reported a publication by the AMA dealing with the position of many persons who were encouraged to purchase their own council houses, albeit at very massive discounts. The publication reported the results of the AMA study into the mortgage arrears of council houses sold to tenants. Of those people, one in ten families became homeless because they were unable to pay the mortgage; despite the massive discounts that they had on the sales. In the last two years, the number in serious arrears—that is, in arrears over six months—has risen by 40 per cent. Encourage home ownership by all means, but not on the basis of those figures.
In conclusion perhaps I may say that of course the question of costs and expenditure must come into

329
consideration, but what this Government always seem to reject is consideration of the social benefits of expenditure. My noble friend referred to the Transport Bill. We fought this on the question of one transport Bill after another; we even fought it on the question of the abolition Bill. Social benefits are important considerations.
This debate is not about who has the most compassion. I am certain the noble Baroness has as much compassion on these issues as I or anyone else; but it is the Conservative philosophy, if you can call a dogma and a doctrinaire outlook a philosophy, that is the problem. It leads to policies where people and social considerations are not placed as the important factors. That is why we on this side of the House have the Motion before us today. That is why we shall be putting before the country our new campaign policy of freedom and fairness—note the words "freedom and fairness". As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said in his invigorating speech at the outset, what we are considering is the future of our country. That means the future of all the people of our country, and that is why this Motion is so important.
8.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for initiating this sometimes emotional, always interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have covered so many of the issues which are at the very heart of how we see our society that your Lordships will appreciate that I shall have to refer some points to colleagues, but I shall try to answer as many questions raised as possible. Of course, many answers to many questions are already in Hansard.
I suppose I should not do a tit-for-tat, but the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, did point to a dearth of Conservative speakers in this debate. I point out that no Labour Peer except for the two Front-Benchers spoke in the Conservative debate on 23rd April on violent crime and the protection of the public, which also seems to me a fairly basic subject which interests us all.
It will not surprise your Lordships if I start from the base of my own department. The Government are fully committed to protecting the position of the least well-off in our society. I have said this before but it is well worth saying again, especially as some noble Lords seem to be in some doubt on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, appeared to think that his side of the House represents the only party which cares for people. How wrong can a man be? For instance—I say this in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, as well—we are restoring the record cuts, cuts of over a third, that the previous Labour Government made in the health service capital programme. Members of the party opposite are keen to talk about so-called cuts made by this Government. Their memories are short.
My noble friend Lord Young gave examples of what this Government have done. My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth gave other examples and used his long experience of the North-East to great effect. These were not dry statistics. As the noble Baroness, Lady
330
Fisher, said, figures represent people and the ability of the health service to look after the ill and suffering. I could not agree more. That is what we in the Government care about and what we shall go on caring about and doing something about.
I refute the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for her informed remarks. Under this Government our hospitals are treating some 800,000 more inpatients than they were in 1978 under the Labour Government; 3 million more outpatients have attended hospitals; there has been a record number of kidney transplant operations: hip replacements are up by 40 per cent.; and more babies' lives have been saved from needless death. Spending in the health service is £950 million higher in 1986–87 than it was in 1985–86, more than double its 1978–79 levels, and about 24 per cent. ahead of general inflation.
As to the inequality of provision between the North and the South raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, the distribution of money to RHAs which use the RAWP formula takes account of relative deprivation in certain parts of the country, as does the urban programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised the question of the NHS management board which is currently reviewing the RAWP formula. That will include a look at the problems of inner cities and the costs associated with medical teaching. The report will be ready by the end of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, will want to know that the management board is also looking into the question of waiting lists.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals, Lord Soper and Lord Rea, spoke about the Maudsley Hospital cuts. The Bethlehem and Maudsley SHA is considering various proposals for containing its costs. Some of the proposals being considered would affect the services mentioned by noble Lords, but recommendations will be discussed with my department before any decisions are taken.
The other key area of social policy where we are taking bold and decisive steps to secure much needed improvements is in social security. We shall have the opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, to debate the Government's proposals in detail when the Bill currently being considered in another place comes before your Lordships' House, and I do not have time to take up the noble Lord, Lord Dean, on his selective quotes from the green paper on the Government's new approach.
I should like to mention the single-parent families of whom the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, spoke. I acknowledge that one-parent families, as the final report found, tend to be less well-off than two-parent families and to rely more heavily on state benefits. That is why in our White Paper we repeatedly refer to one-parent families and include special provisions for them. On income support, there is lone-parent premium and the higher earnings disregard. On the family credit, lone parents will receive the same adult credit as couples and the one-parent benefit is disregarded. There is no intention in the Government's mind to change the structure of the one-parent benefit which has increased by 22 per cent. in real terms since this Government came to power.

331
With regard to housing benefit, one-parent benefit will not be counted as income. The lone-parent premium will be carried through into housing benefit. There is also preferential treatment in tax, as they get the additional personal allowance.
The noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Cledwyn, said that child benefit had not been uprated in line with prices. It is quite wrong to keep harping on about cuts in child benefit while at the same time ignoring what the Government are doing to ensure that help goes to where it is most needed. The Government are committed to bringing forward a balanced programme which will give all families a valuable contribution to the cost of bringing up children while directing extra help to low income families.
Although the November 1985 uprating of child benefit was less than the increase in the retail price index, the Government's record on family support over recent years has been well balanced. The level of child benefit from November 1985 compares reasonably with its value since April 1979. Those getting supplementary benefit are not affected by a child benefit increase of less than the RPI because child benefit is fully taken into account.
Also, many less well-off working families are being protected. Their increases of FIS and housing benefit more than compensate for the lower increase in child benefit. The increase of 10p a week from July 1986 for each child is slightly more than the rate of inflation. As for the future, there will be no change to the structure or character of child benefit. It will remain a universal benefit, not means tested and tax-free, and it will continue to be paid to the mother.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, spoke about the number of families receiving family income supplement, which he said had tripled since 1979. That is not quite correct. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also spoke about this. The number of families receiving family income supplement has increased from 80,000 in 1979 to over 200,000 now. That is an increase of two-and-a-half times. However, it does not provide support for the noble Lord's assertion that low wages are driving families into poverty. What it does reflect are the real increases in family income supplement, which means that more families are now entitled to receive it than in 1979. Since 1979 the family income supplement prescribed amounts have been increased by 17 per cent. in real terms.
The social effects of our proposals go far beyond simplification. For the first time the three major income-related benefits will be assessed on the same basis, and that basis will be net income. The result is not only streamlined benefits but also a structure that will tackle the absurdities of the poverty and unemployment traps at the roots.
Turning to the question of pensions, it is quite simply a fact of life that all attempts to increase occupational pension coverage over the last two decades or so have failed. No more than half the workforce are in a job which will give them a pension. A Bill shortly to be brought before your Lordships will change that. We believe that in future it will be, as it should be, the exception for people to reach retirement without some form of pension from their job. Because
332
we are simplifying the rules for contracting out of the state earnings related pension scheme and because we are providing a worthwhile incentive to get more provision off the ground, we believe that those employers who, for understandable reasons, in the past have been reluctant to set up pension schemes will find it more attractive to do so. In particular, small employers will welcome the opportunity to contract out of the state earnings related scheme without having to make the open-ended promise of a salary-related pension.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner spoke of the consensus on pensions having been removed. That consensus has ceased to exist. One cannot reconcile Opposition calls for a national investment bank and the direction of pension funds with consensus. The SDP have now called for a radical change to SERPS but cannot agree with their Liberal colleagues in the Alliance on what needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested that pensions should be linked with earnings rather than prices. If the link with earnings were restored, the Government Actuary has estimated that for pensions and linked long-term benefits the additional cost would be £6·5 billion by the turn of the century. However, the Government have more than honoured their pledge to maintain the real value of pensions and a married couple's pension is now worth £3 per week more in real terms than in 1978.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked about occupational pensions being undermined by personal pension proposals. It is certainly not our intention, contrary to what the noble Baroness said, to undermine existing occupational pension schemes, but we are committed to giving every employee the choice of taking a personal pension. We believe that people who opt for a personal pension will do so because they wish to have a direct say in the investment of their pension savings or perhaps because they expect to change jobs frequently. We recognise that people cannot have an unlimited right to opt in and out of their employer's scheme. Once they have chosen a personal pension it will be up to the employer as to whether or not they can rejoin the scheme later on. We are also proposing that people who opt for a personal pension but do not change their job do not have an automatic right to transfer rights built up before April 1988 into the personal pension. This restriction is there specifically to protect the finances of occupational schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, spoke about the decline in education and three levels of provision. The Government are committed to giving parents the widest possible choice in selecting schools for their children's education, but they are not neglecting the state sector. Expenditure per pupil is now at the highest ever level: the pupil-teacher ratio is the best ever. I do not deny the need for more spending, but there is the need to be sure that current resources are being well spent and to take a view on what can be afforded.
My noble friend Lord Young referred to the need to bring education and work closer together. The Government have done a good deal to improve education and training opportunities for young people, particularly in the 16-plus age group. We have set ourselves a target: no young person should go out

333
into the world of work without a relevant qualification or the prospect of obtaining one. We are well on the way to meeting that target.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his tribute to my noble friend Lord Young in respect of the part he has played concerning the Manpower Services Commission. The commision also provides many people with work-related further education, which is more relevant to them than anything previously on offer and has enormous benefits for society. Many health authorities—for example, South Tees, which I visited recently—make excellent use of MSC schemes and have found the commission's staff very willing to discuss difficulties.
The noble Lords, Lord Wells-Pestell, Lord Hatch and Lord Underhill, said that the rich had benefited at the expense of the poor. The country as a whole benefits by providing incentives to key individuals. That is perfectly consistent with wage restraint in industries and services, where we need to improve our competitiveness. It is consistent with benefits being increased by increases in the price level, or somewhat more. Pay increases for the higher paid often reflect performance bonuses and share option payments. Comparisons with 1979 will include the effects of widening differentials after compression during the Labour incomes policy.
I was very grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for quoting concrete examples of the cost of national health care, especially after the noble Lords, Lord Wells-Pestell, Lord Cledwyn, and Lord Sefton, had deplored what they regard as the immorality of private health care. There is a long tradition of private facilities complementing the National Health Services. Health care is expensive and if people can pay for themselves, who are we to deny them? It leaves more to care for those of us who are dependent on the National Health Service.
I regret that it is extremely difficult for me to answer all the questions that have been put in the time available to me to do so. However, there are just one or two things I should like to put forward. With regard to housing policy, the noble Lords, Lord Pitt, Lord Sefton, Lord Banks and Lord Carmichael, spoke about the planned level of public sector investment in housing. In fact it has been increased by £200 million for 1986–87. Earlier cuts were necessary to secure our primary objective of controlling inflation and achieving sustained economic growth.
This brief summary of the points raised by your Lordships will in itself show the length and breadth of the issues before us. I have been able to show your Lordships that this Government are already taking positive steps or have made clear equally positive plans for future action. We do not shrink from such action, nor from making it plain that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and other noble Lords opposite, we do not believe unbridled public spending to be a cure-all for the social problems that we face. Our concern goes far beyond that easy and unrealistic "cop-out". We pin our faith on a sensible analysis of the problems and of the direction of resources to where they are most needed and where they will have most effect. I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn: it is on that and on care—in a deeper sense of that word which noble Lords opposite toss about—that our past
334
record and our future policies are based and on which we are happy to stand.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, all I want to do is to thank everybody who has taken part in this debate tonight, in particular my noble friends whom I think succeeded in extending the debate so that it has been wide-ranging and very seldom overlapping. I wonder whether like me they will go away tonight, having listened to the noble Baroness, believing that we are living in Paradise. Whether I shall succeed in holding that view for any length of time I do not know.
The only other matter I should like to raise is this. I had good reason to believe that one of the bishops would have been taking part in the debate tonight. If I say this in the presence of a bishop, perhaps he will be good enough to pass it on to the right quarter. The bishops have so much experience in this field and have published a report in the name of the Church, and so it would have been useful had one of them participated in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Ullapool Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time. and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time, and reported from the Committee.

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill [H.L.]
8.20 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Broxbourne.)
On Question, Bill read a third time with the amendments.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Bill has been slightly improved during its passage, but I should not like it to go to another place without putting on record that even as amended it is not a Bill that leaves here with universal approbation. I have no intention of again going over the arguments about its creating uncertainty and tipping the balance between Parliament and the judges too far in the direction of the judiciary, but I still feel that we should be better off without such legislation.
Further, I am not happy with the form of the Bill and think, for example, that it would be preferable, if we are to have an Act at all, that it should incorporate the whole of the European Convention on Human Rights instead of only part, as the Select Committee concluded some time ago. Other noble Lords have put forward other possibilities. Having said that, may I say that there are important issues here? On balance, although I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, the arguments that they have put forward are genuine and are deserving of careful consideration

335
and genuine debate. It is accordingly somewhat disappointing, to my mind, that when we have been tackling such issues there should have been such small attendances at the various stages of the Bill and in general such a lack of interest.
I cannot help recalling that in the debate on the Address on 12th November last year (col. 195) I ventured to express some dissatisfaction over the fact that the Government had decided to renew for five years their acceptance of the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the European Court without inviting any debate, without even an oral Question and without any preliminary announcement of their intentions.
I am not aware that anyone took the slightest notice of the point that I was making. That is perhaps not an altogether unusual experience, but, when one comes to think of the fresh legislation, the new statutory instruments and the changes of policy to which the decisions of the court have already led, nearly all of them as a result of indivdual petitions, it seems to me less than satisfactory that we should pay such small regard to our relations with the court and the convention.
It was interesting yesterday, when we were discussing what might happen about the Moonies, or perhaps I should say the Unification Church, that no one thought it appropriate to point out the possibility that Article 9 of the convention about freedom of religion might prove to be relevant.
I still come across widespread ignorance and confusion about the EC Court of Justice at Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, a confusion from which I fear even the BBC is not exempt. I cannot help but regard the comparative indifference to the Bill as symptomatic of a general lack of interest in procedures which are bound increasingly to affect our actions and policies in this country. During its passage, the Bill has given rise to some interesting discussions among a few. I profoundly wish that they could have reached a wider audience.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, on a point of order. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale was in order in addressing the House after the vote had been taken. I hope that I may follow him now in that irregularity so long as we recognise that it is irregular. However, the Bill has not yet passed and therefore I think that both my noble friend and myself, throwing ourselves on the mercy and the compassion of the House, can be heard to say a few words about the Bill. I propose to follow my noble friend's excellent precedent.
I should like at this late stage to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on the skill and courtesy with which he has directed our labours during the passage of the Bill, which, notwithstanding the disappointing attendances that it has secured in the House, is I am sure a measure of real importance which possesses a highly civilised quality.
It will not I think surprise the House if, with the noble Lord's consent, I inform the House that he and I have discussed the Bill and discussed at length the
336
objections raised on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I say no more about those objections other than that they give rise to a real debate on questions of genuine importance and deserved a greater throng of concerned Members of the House than they succeeded in obtaining.
Having considered with the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, the various points that were made, he and I remain convinced of a number of points, only three of which I think it proper at this late stage to mention. I mention them because they are all of importance. First, the Bill represents no threat to the sovereignty of Parliament. It represents no attempt by a side or a direct wind to secure any change in our constitution. Parliament remains, in matters of legislation, sovereign.
Secondly—I come now to its positive advantages—the Bill, if enacted, will assist our judges to do justice in a field which under the common law is traditionally their field—the protection of the rights and liberties of the subject against the power, whether that power be exercised directly or indirectly, of the state. That has been the function of our judges since the time of Henry II. There is nothing in the Bill which adds one inch to the field of jurisdiction of our judges but within that vital field of protecting the individual the Bill lends them strength.
I could develop that argument with a good deal of particularity. I mention only one specific indication of strength. At the moment, the common law is lacking in the protection that it offers to the citizen for the safeguarding of his privacy. We really have no principled law relating to the right to privacy. We secure the protection of privacy by a number of strange devices derived from the property law, such as the law of trespass, but if this Bill becomes a law it will introduce from the European convention a direct right to the protection of one's private life. That is an immense strengthening in a field where all of us who know the common law have been aware for years that it is deficient.
The most important point—certainly, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, it is the most important point to my mind—is: what is in this Bill for the ordinary citizen? Jurists can talk to the point—I suppose rather in the way I have been talking—almost (I hope not quite) ad nauseam. But what is in it for the ordinary citizen? Quite simply, if this Bill becomes law the ordinary citizen gains this advantage. If he suffers a violation of the rights and liberties guaranteed to him by his Government in ratifying the European convention, he will now have a remedy in his national or domestic courts. He will not have to go to Strasbourg, although the right in certain circumstances will still be there—a right which I suspect will seldom be exercised if this Bill is enacted—and our judgments can administer the European convention in so far as the European convention applies, as it does apply, within our jurisdiction. That is a great advantage to the citizen.
Finally, my Lords, do not talk to me about letting in cranks. There is a six-month time limit and our judges, particularly now in the field of judicial review, have a long experience of dealing with cranks. We are paid to do that.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I wish to make a few comments about this Bill and to raise a particular point, which I hope your Lordships will not think too small to intrude into the debate on the Third Reading. Unfortunately, I was prevented by other engagements from taking part in the earlier stages of the Bill.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely we cannot have a debate on Third Reading after a Bill has been passed. We cannot go on.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, may I interrupt? We are in order in having a debate on Third Reading.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I thought it was possible to say on Third Reading whether we liked the Bill—
Lord Paget of Northampton: But, my Lords, it has had a Third Reading. The Third Reading is over.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is either on the Motion, That the Bill be now read a third time, or it is on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
Lord Paget of Northampton: It has been passed, my Lords.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I understood from observing conventions in your Lordships' House that there was hardly any time when you could not speak on a Bill so long as it was still before the House. Anyway, I presume to continue my remarks until somebody puts me down.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, may I reassure the noble Lord on a point of order? He can do anything he likes, so long as he carries the consent of those of us who are here, and at the moment I think he has it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for that reassurance. I can now regain my confidence. In the past I have supported all Bills in similar form to this and this is not the first time that this principle has been before the House in a Bill. Therefore, I am fully behind the motive and purpose of this Bill.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, has taken up this matter. If I may say so with great respect, I think it is always a good thing, when a noble Lord comes to this House, to have a purpose in his mind to achieve something here, however difficult and however small. I may humbly suggest that I set an example in that respect. The point I wish to raise is probably one which would have been more appropriate to the Committee stage, but what I thought was that if we are going to embody a convention of an international body into our statute law, the transposition will have to be done by drafting a statute law to comply with the convention, rather than lifting the whole of the convention and putting it in a schedule to the Bill.
This is my point. The schedule to the Bill is the convention, so when I raised with the noble Lord the point that I wished to make a small amendment to the
338
schedule, he said, "Ah, you cannot do that because this is the convention and Clause 1 of the Bill enacts the convention. Other clauses make it clear that when the Bill is passed you still cannot tamper with the convention." I look at Clause 4(2), which reads:
"No provision of an Act passed after the passing of this Act shall be construed as authorising or requiring the doing of an act that infringes any of the fundamental rights and freedoms, or as conferring power to make any subordinate instrument authorising or requiring the doing of any such act, unless",
and so on.
That would therefore stop the purpose that I have in mind now. So I turn straightaway to Article 9, and here we deal with religious freedom. Paragraph (1) of Article 9 makes it clear that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Paragraph (2) establishes freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs. Paragraph (1) has made it clear that religion may be manifested in belief, worship, teaching, practice and observance. But I am very mystified as to what paragraph (2) means. I read:
"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and"—
"and" is the word—
"are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
That word "and" seems to me to imply that, although freedom to manifest one's religion shall be subject only to certain limitations as are prescribed by law, it is only if that law is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety and the other conditions that paragraph (2) sets out. I come to the conclusion, therefore, that Article 9 would preclude the amendment of our legislation regarding the slaughter of animals to remove the immunity from our general law of the religious practices of Jews and Moslems in the slaughter of animals. Our legislation at present provides for that immunity. But the Farm Animal Welfare Council has been given the job of considering whether it should continue. The council has made a report that is now in the hands of the Government. If, therefore, it was proposed or desired to change that position, it looks to me as though it would fall into the mischief of Clause 4(2). I wanted therefore to add to Article 9, at the end.
"or for the prevention of cruelty to animals or birds".
I wanted, in other words, to bring into a Bill dealing with human rights the rights of other species, especially as those rights are dependent upon the exercise of the human freedom of religion, its beliefs, its practices and the rest. So the two things are really bound up with human rights; that is the point. I enter, therefore, a friendly caveat. While wishing the Bill success in what lies before it, I hope that before we embody the convention in our statute law we do something to make the language of the convention more compatible with the general structure of our statute law.
8.41 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I, too, should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne for the skill, courtesy and tenacity with which he has steered this Bill through its stages in your Lordships' House. I should also like to make clear that the silence

339
or relative silence from this Dispatch Box does not mean that the Government are indifferent to the question of human rights. On the contrary, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur made very clear at Second Reading, we regard the safeguarding of human rights as of fundamental importance. We differ, however, from the supporters of this Bill in that we are not convinced that to graft the general principles of the European convention on to our statute law—a body of law that is very specific in nature—will provide a satisfactory means of promoting human rights within our constitutional framework. Opinions are deeply divided on this issue, and until and unless a consensus can be achieved we would be hesitant to support such an important constitutional change.
I think it is clear that there are substantial problems with this Bill, in particular its constitutional implications. But our discussion of it has, I think, contributed to a better understanding of the arguments surrounding it, and for that we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne for the initiative that he has shown.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, before the Bill leaves the House, if I may use that phrase, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for introducing it to your Lordships' House. I regret deeply that I was one of those Members who missed the debates. I assure the House, however, that I have read all the speeches on this Bill delivered since 10th December. I would have thought, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, should not assess the interest of Members of your Lordships' House in this debate merely by the attendance.
Reading the debates, it is accepted on all sides that we need constantly to strengthen the protection of fundamental human rights and freedom, and to protect the individual citizen in the face of the official power of the state. That is, I believe, accepted. There is no evidence of complacency. It is accepted that there is a need for constant vigilance. But the debates, notwithstanding the great eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, have shown that opinion is still sharply divided as to how we can best achieve the desired end. Should we incorporate into the law, in full or in part, the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman? Should we continue to build upon our body of existing case law, as advocated by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale? Or should one at this stage steer a middle course and establish a human rights commission that would examine the citizen's complaint against the background of the convention and then make a recommendation, as has been advocated? And no doubt there are other options.
Again, notwithstanding the persuasive argument of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, we have heard from a number of noble and learned Lords, who have spoken
340
with immense authority and who are highly respected, that this Bill has profound constitutional implications. I am a mere solicitor in private practice. I am not quite certain how I am to steer a course between the arguments advanced by noble and learned Lords. What is known, however, is that these implications are a cause of concern for the Government. I would say only this. One would have thought that before we set in train a constitutional change of this nature, or introduced, to mention the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, a measure of real importance, there should be profound discussions of all aspects of the matter with the public and with interested parties.
We regard the Bill as a contribution to that debate. Although the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, expressed disappointment with the Government's response at the end of the Second Reading debate, we would assure him that he has made a valuable contribution by introducing the Bill to your Lordships' House.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, we are now at the closing stages of our discussion of a Bill that received an unopposed Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 10th December. I hope that I am not alone in finding our long journey an interesting, absorbing and, indeed, exhilarating experience. Our discussions have naturally enough contained elements of controversy. I shall start today, however, on an eminently uncontroversial note with an expression of my appreciation of the contributions that we have heard both this evening and at all stages of the Bill—clear, cogent and informed as they have been from all your Lordships who have been good enough to instruct and edify the House. I might perhaps say here a warm personal thank you for the kind and over-generous remarks made about me and my part in relation to the Bill in the debate this evening.
The approach of your Lordships has not been uniform. We have had, I am glad to say, enthusiastic and discriminating support from all quarters of the House for the letter as well as for the spirit of the Bill. For that I am extremely grateful. We have had also criticism from those who, in the classic phrase, find no difficulty in combining their enthusiasm within the bounds of decorum. I take comfort from the fact that the grounds of criticism that have been advanced at the various stages of the Bill are by no means uniform. Indeed, many of them have tended to cancel out.
For example, there were the efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, and of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to cabin, crib and confine the Bill within much narrower parameters, which were balanced by the efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—whose great authority and wisdom we all respect so much—who sought to terminate the jurisdiction of the Commission and European Court of Human Rights. When one finds such learned and eminent gentlemen taking such extreme, opposed and polarised views, there is comfort for the promoter of the Bill to find himself standing on the middle ground.
Today we have heard interesting, informative and eloquent speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of

341
Abbeydale, made a great contribution to the proceedings of this Bill at its various stages, and he served on the Select Committee. I am grateful to him for his interest. We have not seen eye to eye on every iota of the Bill but I respectfully echo that which the noble Lord said tonight concerning the general approach to those matters.
Then there is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who speaks with an authority on matters of the law in general, and on these matters in particular, which one cannot hope to emulate but only to envy. It has been a great privilege to have his co-operation, wise guidance and sage counsel in the putting together of the Bill and in seeing it through your Lordships' House. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, as your Lordships will be, as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is an old friend from House of Commons days. He raised a point which, as he rightly said, would perhaps have been better raised at an earlier stage of the Bill, but we all understand the reasons for not so doing. The noble Lord was good enough to acquaint me of his intention in regard to the point that he wished to make and I felt obliged to tell him that, in my view, the amendment he proposed was outwith the terms and context of the Bill; that we could not amend in the schedule the convention to which we are a party by international obligation.
The noble Lord was good enough to accept that argument. He has made his point today and we have all listened with sympathetic interest. He need not be unduly disturbed. Animal welfare is something that lies very close to every judicial breast in this country. I am sure that in the interpretation of these laws the noble Lord will find a sympathetic approach that will be of great comfort to him. I know, and other noble Lords know, his special concern in matters of animal welfare. We all respect it, as we do his many other qualities. If I may say so to your Lordships, it is gratifying to find so tender a heart in one who was such an eminent figure in the Inland Revenue.
I shall come in a moment to the contribution of my noble friend on the Front Bench and to that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on the Opposition Front Bench. First, I must say a word in regard to one prominent critic who is not able to be with us tonight. I refer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. He has communicated his view to me and has asked me to communicate it in turn to your Lordships' House.
In substance, my noble friend considers that there is much common ground on the question of providing a remedy in our courts, but disagreement, or a measure of disagreement, on the means of implementation. As your Lordships may recall, my noble friend was an advocate of confining the remedy to the processes of judicial review—a proposition that failed to find favour with the House. He expresses to me the hope that if the Bill is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, they will introduce their own Bill to provide a remedy more on his lines or perhaps on the lines of a Parliamentary commissioner or the like. I do not propose to detain your Lordships with speculation or exhortation based upon what I think is a melancholy and, I hope, improbable hypothesis. What
342
I think my noble friend does not quite appreciate is that it is not a matter just for the Government it is a matter for Parliament.
Not that I despair of Her Majesty's Government. After all, I have seen most members of it enter the House of Commons, and I have seen them learning the ways of the House of Commons and getting to respect its authority. Therefore I do not despair, despite the cautious words of my noble friend on the Front Bench, of the outcome with the Government. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—and I am much obliged to him for his references to me personally and to what the Bill is seeking to do—I do not despair of the Opposition either.
It is true that the Government have not yet given any mark of approval to the Bill. However, I feel sure that their sagacity will lead them to a statesmanlike conclusion when they have given it further and fuller consideration. I therefore commend the Bill on this, its Third Reading. I hope that it may secure your Lordships' seal of approval and proceed to the other House and thence onto the statute book for the benefit of our citizens and the improvement of our law.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, I believe that I collected the voices too quickly on the Motion for Third Reading. With permission, I will do so again, and then perhaps your Lordships will wish to take formally the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill read a third time, with the amendments.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Broxbourne.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

South Africa
9 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what political arrangements they would like to see in South Africa consistent with economic progress and security for all population groups.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking those members of your Lordships' House—noble Lords, noble Baronesses and the right reverend Prelate—who have indicated their intention to speak in this debate this evening. It is a subject which is particularly close to me as I have lived all my life in South Africa. For that reason I hope that I am able to make some contribution to the debate this evening and that I shall be able to add some increased understanding to the crucial issues in South Africa.
At the outset I should like to indicate my position in South Africa in the sense that I am a member of the opposition. I am opposed to the racial and social policies pursued by the successive national governments. But I would submit that much of the opposition to the South African Government's policies that comes from abroad is based on an excessively simplistic critique of the situation. We all regret the escalation of unrest, the deaths and the

343
violence that have occurred in the townships, but I would submit that in the last year there has been a rather one-sided view of the situation in South Africa.
I have phrased my Question to include the words "population groups". I have done this because of the rather diverse and unique society in South Africa. It is a society that is divided by ethnic backgrounds, languages, religions and political affiliations. The population of South Africa amounts to approximately 33 million. It is made up of 24 million blacks, 5 million whites, 3 million coloureds and 1 million Asians. Among the black population there are approximately 10 black population nations—otherwise called tribes—the two major population groups being Zulus and the Xhosas. The Zulus number approximately 8 million and the Xhosas 6 million.
This evening I wish to devote a few words to the make-up of the various white cultures and more specifically to the Afrikaaner. The Afrikaaner's striving for an identity and a desire to be separate has been in essence the root cause of apartheid. I suggest that a threat to the breakdown of their culture has been the biggest obstacle to change. However, more changes have taken place in South Africa in the last two-and-a-half years than have taken place in the last 30 years.
These changes have come about as a result of a number of different factors: first, there is the escalation of the urban and rural unrest; secondly, they are due to the pressure exerted by the business community; and, thirdly, these changes have been influenced by international pressure.
I wish to dwell on the issue of international pressure initially and to mention the three threats which international pressure has posed to the South African Government. There is no doubt that the Gleneagles Agreement, the sporting boycott against South Africa, has brought about positive change in the sporting policies of South Africa. Although initially I supported the agreement, and indeed I still do, I claim that it has been taken to ridiculous extremes, a recent example being the banning of the South African paraplegics from competing at Stoke Mandeville.
One other issue that needs to be mentioned is the threatened imposition of economic sanctions. Although I agree that it is important to exert pressure on the South African Government to change their racial policies and that there is a need for the total repeal of the apartheid legislation, I contend that the imposition of sanctions will be counterproductive rather than constructive. Many arguments have been put forward on the pros and cons of this issue, and I am sure that other noble Lords will mention the arguments this evening. Among the points raised will be the loss of jobs and the possibility which President Botha has raised of retribution and the imposition of sanctions on the front-line states. I shall not delve further into the pros and cons of economic sanctions. Rather I shall turn to the measures of reform that have taken place.
The Wiehahn Commission some three or four years ago resulted in the emergence of trade union rights for Africans. I spent two years in England in 1982 and 1983 and during my absence from South Africa I noticed one positive move, which was the emergence
344
of a black middle class. The trade union movement in South Africa will indeed gain in momentum, grow in strength and pose a real threat to the South African Government. There has also been the scrapping of the racial job reservations. The wage gap between blacks and whites has closed. There has been recognition of blacks in positions of commercial management, such as in the large chain store Pick and Pay, which has 40 per cent. of its management in non-white positions. There has been the demise of petty apartheid and the repeal of the racial clauses of the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. The list of reforms continues.
However, the major stumbling block to a total repeal of the apartheid laws remains the Group Areas Act. It is this Act that I, as one who has lived in South Africa, wish more than anything else to be repealed. An example of the repeal of the Group Areas Act can be seen in South West Africa. This has made no difference to the lifestyle of the South West Africans. It is the reluctance of the Afrikaaner to relinquish the Group Areas Act that I feel has been a major source of the criticisms of South Africa. But of late, we should all welcome the repeal of influx control—more specifically, the pass laws. I also welcome the Commonwealth Eminent Persons group, which has played an invaluable role in promoting dialogue in South Africa.
I do not wish to dwell on all the issues as I am sure, as I said earlier, that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses will be mentioning these, but I wish to touch on a few of what I feel are the real problems. How does one curb the escalation of urban violence? Even if Nelson Mandela were to be released and the apartheid laws totally repealed I sometimes wonder whether this really would do away with the violence in the townships.
Another problem is the escalation of unemployment, now standing at 12 per cent. for the African population. High inflation is one major cause of the escalation of violence in the townships. There is also the need to raise black educational standards. Indeed, a unified Department of Education is vital. I would also submit that the tricameral legislature, the black local councils and the homelands policy are totally out of date. The tricameral legislature excludes 72 per cent. of the population of South Africa.
I would submit that the root problem in South Africa is the Africans' mistrust of the sincerity of the Nationalist Party reforms; and equally the mistrust by many whites of the African National Congress. I regret the move to radicalism which has been expressed of late by Mrs. Winnie Mandela. I myself have always sympathised with Mrs. Winnie Mandela, but the call for violence through necklacing is abhorrent.
The final problem I wish to underline is the loss of human rights in the state of emergency. We all regret the escalation in the townships, but I can state that in Capetown there was a time when one could not travel through any of the coloured townships without the threat of one's car being stoned. The state of emergency helped matters. I would not support the state of emergency but I would submit that its temporary imposition assisted matters.
From here I wish to state the threats to South Africa—the inability to curb the escalation of urban

345
violence and, equally, the threat of a white backlash, more specifically by the more radical Afrikaaner. At the outset of my speech I mentioned the population groups. The reluctance of the Afrikaaner to do away with the vestiges of apartheid and to give up his identity has been the root cause of many of our problems. Should the violence escalate into the urban areas there exists the very real threat that the more radical Afrikaaner will exert pressure through violence, as occurred in the vigilante experiences in Kagiso in the Transvaal. Another threat is the increasing disinvestment in South Africa through lack of confidence in the economy and political situation.
In conclusion, what would be the requirements for a peaceful South Africa? At the root of my speech this evening is a desire for evolutionary change rather than revolutionary change. First is the need to abolish the vestiges of apartheid, and more specifically the Group Areas Act; second is the release of Nelson Mandela; third come negotiations with the leaders of the Opposition, which must include the African National Congress; fourth is the need for a Bill of Rights with effective protection for minorities.
I conclude by stating a few of the possible solutions to South Africa. Recently in Natal, as a result of the Buthelezi Commission Report of 1982 an Indaba solution has been suggested for unification of the Natal and Kwazulu, with a multi-racial government. The Opposition have suggested a federal system decided on geographical not racial lines. I would, however, support the supposed Canton system which has been outlined in the book The Solution by Louw and Kendall. I know that my noble friend Lord Monson will be making a few remarks on this issue.
Above all, what is needed is cessation of the escalation of violence and a move to evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. I look forward to hearing what noble Lords, and indeed the Minister, have to say on possible solutions that Her Majesty's Government would like to see, consistent with economic progress and security for all population groups.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, has, I believe, started the debate on a very constructive note with a balanced and very well-informed speech. I should like to thank him for it.
I feel diffident in following the noble Lord. I do not know South Africa particularly well, though I spent a month there this winter. I must confess that it was only my fourth visit. But what a kaleidoscope of a country it is, especially in the past few weeks. The sudden ending at one dramatic stroke of the pass laws is very remarkable indeed because at one stroke it removes the biggest grievance of non-whites. President Botha has been as good as his word with regard to that. But it will take great courage and skill to sweep away all discrimination under the law on grounds of race or skin colour as to where people may live, where they may work, where they may be educated, or how they can join in the government of the country at all levels. What a formidable task, my Lords.
We now hear with pleasure that the Group Areas Act is not a sacred cow. Those were the words of
346
President Botha. We note that forced removals are frozen—and about time too. We note that freehold title is promised for urban blacks. That is another potential large step forward. But sweeping away apartheid will have many dangerous side-effects. We must not oversimplify it. Let us give credit where it is due, however late in the day these root and branch changes are coming, and noting in particular the furious reaction of the extreme Right-wing parties which contrasts strangely with the scepticism and even cynicism of so many who can hardly believe what is happening.
With apartheid hopefully on the way out the way will be open to negotiation and reconciliation in which the drafting of a new constitution, based presumably on universal franchise within a federal or confederal system, must be rooted. I have only, one comment to make on that because I am not a constitution-maker. Surely it would be a great mistake—and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso referred to this—to try to extend what I believe has been called "co-optive domination" to blacks, by trying to build on the failed experiment of the tricameral parliament. I certainly think so myself.
The South African Government have a daunting task ahead of them. President Botha said that he intends to build a new South Africa. Those again are his words. This means that he has to face up, with his government, to harsh, unpalatable facts which have been blithely ignored for far too long. Good luck to him, my Lords.
I want now very briefly to turn from the general to the particular with a few specific criticisms that I developed when I was there this winter. I wish that we could hear a lot less of the communist bogey. I have sometimes been accused of always seeing Reds under the beds, partly because I happen to have written three books on Marxism. But the communist bogey is always being trotted out by the South African Government. We are told that nearly all the ANC leaders, and the Pan-African Congress leaders are Marxists. There are of course many different kinds of Marxists, as we know every well in this country. Some in South Africa have turned to Moscow in despair. But with regard to the commmunist bogey, there are more than 50 countries in the African Continent and not one can properly be described as a Soviet satellite. Perhaps two are almost that, but both of them are suffering from terrible civil wars.
I noticed the lack of government commitment to equal provision of education facilities for all under a single ministry. Of course it cannot happen very quickly, but the disparity between expenditure on black and white education is really fantastic: it is about one to seven in financial terms. There is a hugh imbalance. I hope that some target dates for correcting that situation will be published soon. I noted as well the failure of the Government to give a lead to the rest of the country, to other employers, through black advancement in the top-heavy public sector. I hope that that will fairly soon begin to put right.
My final criticism is that I was deeply shocked by the police methods used. The police seemed to be a law unto themselves, and that must be taken firmly in hand. They have an extremely difficult task. Incidentally, I know from personal experience in

347
Palestine before the war that there is nothing harder than what are called "duties in aid of the civil power" and we know that very well from what is going on in Ulster. However, the very first rule is to apply the minimum force. I am sorry to say that rarely have the South African police done that.
I should like to turn to some of the encouraging matters that have struck me. I noticed a very healthy ferment of discussion among anybody who cares about South Africa which I had not found previously. People were living in a cocooned way and were turning a blind eye to what was going on around them. Now everybody is talking about it, and that must be good. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, referred to the steady growth of the African middle class, and that is good. He also mentioned—and, therefore, I shall leave the subject aside—the development of African trade unions which are much too politically inclined in the present atmosphere, and that is regrettable. He also referred to the growing number of Afrikaaners involved in industry and commerce. They must have a vested interest in stability and in restoring foreign confidence. All those three matters are on the plus side.
Another interesting matter struck me, and I hope that I am not being unduly hopeful in this respect. Now that two Right-wing parties have broken right away from the National Party—and therefore the Broederbond, to whose tune successive South African governments have had to dance since 1948 is no longer nearly so significant as it used to be, and may be quite unimportant in the future—there must be a possibility that the substantial moderate wing of the National Party will get together with the Progressive Federal Party, because they have a great deal more in common than is generally or openly admitted. I see the Conservative Party and the HNP as a natural opposition to what the South African Government are now trying to achieve. It would be excellent if that could come about.
Finally, under this heading I wish to say a brief word about Kwazulu. It is very encouraging that the Buthelezi Plan for multi-racial joint executive and legislative authorities in Natal may at last be on the way after some four years of dithering on the part of the government. I like to think that that will be the way forward for the province, if not a blueprint—and I certainly do not think that it is—for the whole country. It is so important because it cuts clean across the apartheid principle of separate "own affairs" and "general affairs". That simply must be done.
Kwanatal could show that something well short of "one man one vote once" in a unitary state can work, and that making the country ungovernable through violence is self-defeating. I pray that it will show that.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about British policy towards South Africa. How can it be argued—and it often is argued—that the more we trade with the Soviet Union (COCOM rules apart) and the more cultural, educational, and scientific exchanges we have with the Soviet Union, the sooner will the Marxist-Leninist system (responsible for denying self-determination to nine formerly independent countries in Eastern and Central Europe and for flying in the face of the Helsinki Agreement) be broken
348
down, but that apartheid will wither away if trade sanctions are applied and all such exchanges, even in sport, are restricted or banned? I simply do not begin to understand. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John, has said, we must get off the Gleneagles hook somehow. We cannot even play ping-pong against South Africa if the Marxist president of the Seychelles says that we should not do so. That is the sort of hook we are on. I am sure that this needs entirely fresh thinking.
So far as sanctions and South Africa are concerned, the Government are right. Sanctions would mean more jobless in South Africa, more unrest, more violence and more poverty. I hope that the Government will not be diverted from their present course, which I believe to be entirely right. Related to this is the mandatory United Nations' embargo on the export of arms to South Africa. I see no reason for change here. I do not believe the Government do either. But how effective is the embargo, with Israel openly defying it and being South Africa's largest supplier? This is a question which must be asked, and I cannot understand why nobody ever points the finger.
I want to say a word about the British Council. I am a great admirer of the British Council. It is surely a matter for us to decide, having taken careful account of the views of our allies and friends, what the British Council should do in South Africa, and how it should be restricted in its work. Out of some 5,000 exchanges between this country and African countries last year, there were only 200 or so with South Africa. The British Council's tiny staff of 14 is grossly overworked.
The staff in other significant African countries is double or treble that number. Yet training black South Africans is an investment in the future in what is, after all, a developing country. We should of course do nothing at all to support or condone apartheid. But is there not a strong case for many more exchanges as our contribution towards the ending of apartheid? What is sauce for the Soviet gander in these respects is surely sauce for the South African goose as well. Are some people perhaps indulging in a false piety?
I have one other brief point about the BBC. I made enormous efforts to listen to the BBC every day, and I had the greatest difficulty in getting it. Moscow and the Voice of America were booming out the whole time. There is an urgent need to improve the BBC's short-wave signal and coverage, perhaps with a transmitter in Lesotho, and also to speed up the sluggish work on the transmitting station in the Seychelles.
What is really needed here is a medium-wave transmission from a neighbouring state. I was shocked to hear that it may be three or four years before that happens. For quite small expenditure we could have a medium-wave transmission. That is what people want to listen to. South Africa for the BBC is a peripheral zone, and this must be wrong. The BBC is beating the air. I hope my noble friend can comment on that.
I conclude by reminding noble Lords that the Queen's Speech spoke of the need for "fundamental change" in South Africa. I believe that the need for it has the solid backing of all parties in your Lordships' House, and not least my own party. There are bound to be honest disagreements about means, but few, if any, about ends.

349
The Rubicon was only a small stream when Julius Caesar crossed it and committed himself to an irrevocable course of action. There was no looking back. I pray I am right in thinking that that is just what President Botha has done. This may be naive; it may be over optimistic. Perhaps it is. I hope it is not. But how much better to cross the Rubicon before it becomes a turbulent torrent, perhaps even unbridgeable, and before the country sinks inexorably into a revolutionary situation, which it is on the very brink of today.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, for putting down this Unstarred Question not only because it has enabled me to withdraw my own Motion, which was similar, but because it is healthy that this Chamber should hear the genuine voice of South Africa, and this is the genuine voice of the South African liberal. It was only a few years ago that a notable Lord from the opposite Benches used to speak in complete favour of apartheid. Thai was valuable too, because it enabled noble Lords here to hear what are the true views of South Africa.
When I say that the noble Lord, Lord St. John, has put forward a classic South African liberal case, he starts off with the breaking up of the population into different ethnic communities. I shall not go into detail about this tonight. But I remind him that if one looks at the African National Congress, at the United Democratic Front or at any other of these organisations, one finds that they are totally intra-ethnic. They cut right across ethnic boundaries.
The second point I make to the noble Lord is that it is simply not enough to talk about repeal of the apartheid laws. To Africans, to coloureds and to Asians the prospect of returning to the pre-apartheid conditions in South Africa—to those before 1948, which were deeply discriminatory and had been so for over 200 years—does not appeal and never will appeal again. It is not enough to repeal the apartheid laws. It is the basic discrimination of the whole system that existed long before the word "apartheid" was ever invented that has to he changed if there is to be peace and co-operation within that country.
Finally. I would say to the noble Lord that what he has failed to do is to explain to this House why the two main leaders of the main opposition party—the main liberal party, the party financed by the Oppenheimer group, Van Zyl Slabbert and his colleague—both resigned from Parliament. They had become convinced, after years of endeavour in Parliament, that they would never get the kind of democratic South Africa they were looking for through parliamentary means. That has not been explained and I think it is an omission from a South African liberal speaking in this House.
So far as the case that the noble Lord has put forward and so far as the case that the Government have so far put forward whenever I have inquired, they are based on the belief that South Africa is in a process of reform and that what President Botha says at different times should be believed. I assure your Lordships, although I have not been to South Africa since 1959, through no fault of my own, that that is
350
not accepted by the vast majority of black South Africans and a large minority of whites as well.
Let us look quickly at the reforms that have been listed. There is the constitution. It is a new constitution which omits the representation of over 70 per cent. of the population. There is the restoration of citizenship, but it is the restoration of citizenship without a vote. There is the legalisation of trade unions. But, despite the legality now of black trade unions, when the trade unions act and call a strike the state still comes in with its police and its military forces, and the big employers which support the liberal element among the whites in South Africa, dismiss those workers. This is the recognition that the trade unions get. Then there is the dropping of the emergency—but with the accompanying news that the security forces will have new draconian powers and that something similar to the previous emergency can be declared under another name.
Finally, there is the question of the pass laws. I accept that the promised dropping of the pass laws is an important move forward. I hope that it goes forward genuinely, but already it is conditioned by the Government's announcement that there will be passes for everybody, not just for blacks, and that the dropping of the pass laws and the new influx control laws that will be introduced will not apply to the homelands. The blacks will not accept that because they have never recognised, as the noble Lord rightly said, that the so-called homelands are any solution to the South African problem.
The reforms appear to be cosmetic and phoney, as they have done before. We wait to see; but the Africans will not wait to see and they are not waiting to see: and there is no reason why they should. They have been waiting for 250 years. What they see is that these are certain sectors of life, vital, crucial, essential sectors of life, which the South African President does not mention as being reformed. He does not talk about an integrated education system; in fact, he repudiates it. He does not talk about a reform or an abolition of the Group Areas Act. The noble Lord said, quite rightly, that this was an essential element in the South African situation.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I should have stated that the Government are at present looking at the revision of the Group Areas Act. That is being done.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Government are certainly looking at the revision of the Group Areas Act on the advice of their counsel but the President, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Intelligence have all declared that the Group Areas Act will never be altered in essence.
Finally, once the President's words are taken at their face value by his own Foreign Secretary, who expresses the view that there may at some time result from these reforms a black President, immediately President Botha denies it and contradicts his own Foreign Secretary. Those are the kinds of matters that you cannot ignore and they have to be put alongside the so-called reforms about which we hear a great deal more. What I suggest to this House is that we must face this situation. Peaceful means of change, of removing

351
discrimination, have been tried. I participated in many of them myself—the days of protest, the days of prayer, the freedom charter. They were all killed by the power of the state, the brutal, ruthless power of the state. It was only when constitutional means had been destroyed and when the black Africans saw that there was no possibility of getting reform through peaceful means that they adopted the means of violence.
Violence for what? Counter-violence to state violence. But those modifications that have been made in the apartheid system have been made by what means? They have been made by sporting sanctions; they have been made by the financial sanctions of the banks of the world last summer; they have been made by the counter-violence, the rising counter-violence, of Africans to state violence.
Where do Her Majesty's Government come into this situation? First, I hope that tonight the noble Baroness can assure the House that when the Eminent Persons Group reports, that report will be published not later than 30th June; because although the report was only to take six months and although the start was postponed until the beginning of this year—which takes us through to 30th June—there are suspicions that there will be pressures to postpone the publication of that report so that there are not debates in this House and in another place before the long Recess.
Secondly, Her Majesty's Government now have a duty to start talking, not to President Botha, whom they have talked to before, or Pik Botha, the Foreign Secretary, but to black representatives. And they can start with the African National Congress, with the United Democratic Front. They can start with Bishop Tutu. They can talk to genuine representatives of the African people, because over the past few weeks Her Majesty's Government have been put in a position of extra responsibility.
For the last few years her Majesty's Government, whether it be in South Africa, in Namibia or in Angola, have left the leading role to the United States. The United States have now ruled themselves out of any position of negotiation within South Africa. They have done so by openly supporting the rebels, the guerrillas, in Angola, by supporting Savimbi there, and by supplying him with the Stinger anti-aircraft missile. They have ruled themselves right out, because their policy of discussing with the South Africans has led them to supporting the rebel movements in Angola, thus associating themselves with the South African state both in its continued occupation of Namibia and in its invasions of Angola.
Therefore, Her Majesty's Government are in the hot seat, and in the international world only Her Majesty's Government are in a position to conduct any kind of mediation in the internal situation of South Africa. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will recognise that it is not only Colonel Gaddafi who supports state terrorism; it is also the United States Government in Southern Africa. Have Her Majesty's Government protested about this and used their influence to stop President Reagan from supplying Savimbi and UNITA with these weapons and intervening in the affairs of a sovereign state, which affects the whole of Namibia and affects the situation in South Africa?
352
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able tonight to state that they adhere totally to the principle that in every state in which they have any influence every citizen has an equal right to participate in the determination of the kind of society in which he lives. The British Government have called for the release of Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu. I hope that the noble Baroness will repeat this tonight. It also means Her Majesty's Government, in answering this Question, should be able to say publicly that they believe in universal adult suffrage in South Africa. That does not necessarily mean on the Westminster model, which is for them to decide: but universal suffrage does mean that Her Majesty's Government recognise the basic democratic principle that in every society every citizen has an equal right to participate in the determination of the form of society under which he lives.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the cause of the present violence in South Africa is the fact that the very large African majority of the population in that country has no say in its own government. It has no vote; it has no power whatever at the national level to shape the society in which it is the preponderant element so far as numbers are concerned; no power to organise the police who condition its daily life, and so on. That is the cause. The cause remains untouched by the whole spate of reforms which President Botha has brought in in the last year or two, up to and including the promised abolition of the pass laws. In particular, this cause will remain untouched by the abolition of the Group Areas Act, for a reason which was mentioned in passing by Lord St. John, about which I should like to say a little more.
If you go to Namibia today, you can see a country where the Group Areas Act was repealed—I forget how many years ago. But it is quite long enough for any effect it was going to have to show up. If you travel through that country you see the white townships, all neat, large, white and clean; you see the coloured townships, all neat, middle-sized and clean; and you see the black townships which are all small and as clean as they can possibly be, given the poverty there. Nothing has changed. The reason is very easy to seek. A black person is now perfectly free to go and live in a white township. But he needs to have seven (or is it twelve?) times the income in order to be able to pay the rent or the purchase price. Maybe he could do that if he were to get a job which would pay it to him, but he cannot get that job because he is not educated for it. And he is not educated for it because the education system in Namibia has not changed and will not be changed, in that country or indeed in South Africa of course, until there is the majority power to change it. That is the cause, we can be sure, of the violence, and that is the remedy. It already expresses itself.
We, the rest of the world, have to decide what to think about the bitter and terrible rounding by Africans on those Africans who have agreed to accept service, as it looks to us, in the system of local government. But it has been imposed on the populations without their agreement and without their having any choice in effecting it. That is a kind of demoralisation that we are seeing which is intrinsic in

353
the withholding decade after decade, of power from a population, which ardently desires to have it and has a right to it.
A word about violence in a tyranny—the old chestnut of European political philosophy. We have heard a lot in this House in recent weeks about terrorism and violence. I suppose we might agree on the whole that acts of indiscriminate violence against a population in any society are to be condemned unconditionally, that acts of violence against the government of a free society—a democracy—are to be condemned unconditionally, but that acts of violence against the government of a tyranny require further examination.
A subsidiary question has to be asked: how likely was this act of violence to change the nature of the tyranny, to get rid of the tyranny? That has to be referred to a rather refined touchstone: what was the loss of life, or what is the likely loss of life beforehand, weighed against: what is the likelihood of effecting a change in the nature of the tyranny? This is the question which people who live under tyrannies have to ask all the time. We, fortunately, do not, and we sometimes lose sight of these realities.
There was an opinion poll carried out last year in South Africa. It asked a very simple question of a sample of the population: who would you like to settle matters for you? Who has your vote for the negotiation on a future regime in this country? If you add together those who favoured the 30-year-old African National Congress, those who favoured the three year-old United Democratic Front and those who favoured Bishop Tutu, who appears to count as a kind of political party in himself—a one-man force in politics, as indeed he is—you get 61 per cent. and if you throw in Chief Buthelezi and lnkatha you get another 8 per cent., making 69 per cent.
I think that all British people, and indeed all people who do not live in tyrannies anywhere in the world, must have an especially affectionate eye on Chief Buthelezi, who stands for just the same things as all the others do, but who unconditionally rejects violence as a means to their achievement. I think, on the other hand, it is impossible to deny that the time for that is now past. That was pursued for decades with hope. The hope died out some years ago, and what would happen is happening.
The demand of the South African Africans is simple enough. It is for direct negotiations with those who they say "really lead" them. That means the freeing of Mr. Mandela, as so many noble Lords have said, and it means negotiation about the direct and immediate transfer of power from the hegemony of a small minority to the majority. That is what they want and it is clear that that is what they will get in time. The question is, how much blood in the meantime? As to the form of the delightfully open question asked by the noble Lord, Lord St. John about what the Government would like to see, it does not matter a bit what the Government or any member of this House would like to see. It will be settled by the play of national political forces in South Africa. The political structure which holds the majority in political helotry has to change. The demand is to change it. What it is changed to, as several noble Lords have said,
354
is something about which we have no right to hold opinions.
Let us look for a moment at external relations. There have been United Nations resolutions galore about South Africa and Namibia. After a time of failure to get anywhere, the international community responded to an American suggestion that they should have a go. We in this country backed away from our earlier association with the Front Line States in an attempt to find a solution, and left it to the Reagan Administration. Somebody in that Administration had the bright idea of using that attempt as a lever to get the Cubans out of Angola, not realising that he was presenting to the South African Government a pretty good excuse for doing nothing for another four years. That of course is exactly what has happened.
The time of the American leadership is now over. We can see that in two ways. First, it has proved necessary for the Commonwealth to send the Eminent Persons, who cannot operate in dual harness with any particular American initiative and, secondly and even more powerfully, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, the commitment of the United States to send weaponry to the Savimbi guerrillas against the Angolan Government has made it as impossible that the United States should have any part as a mediator in that part of the world, as it is impossible that they should have any part as a mediator in the Middle East, given their wholehearted support of Israel.
That has gone one stage further than the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, mentioned. The Angolan Government has formally requested the United Nations once again to act as principal mediator in its affairs, and in doing so has claimed a specific breach by the United States of an American-Angolan agreement, which has hitherto not been published, made at a place called Mindelo in the Cape Verde Islands. That agreement contained an American pledge not to back Savimbi.
I come now to the subject of sanctions, which must be uppermost in everyone's minds. It is clear now that a majority of the South African Africans want sanctions of some sort. Of course, they are worried about the economic penalty which would attach to them, and differ about the kind of sanctions. Perhaps not all understand what can be done by sanctions and what cannot. That is where the British Government and Parliament must come in. There was a complete isolation of Britain at the last Commonwealth summit. There is the undoubted fact, which I think is accepted on all sides of the House, that Britain has "a historic responsibility" in that context. Britain is one of the two European powers which fashioned that strange society. We may be glad that it was not us who introduced the most lethal element of it; but we played a role. From time to time we handed power to this party or that, and that was a formative element in the history of South Africa.
In the SDP a year ago—I mention a historical fact which is interesting not merely for party reasons—we adopted a policy about financial sanctions. We said that if possible there should be Community legislation to ensure that there would be no new loans from European banks except for special projects devoted directly to the good of the African people; that there should be a prohibition on Community banks taking

355
a portion of any existing loan, and that the Community countries should deny South African firms access to the European Capital markets. Of course, a fortiori, this we would all want to see done by a British Government if there were not a Community agreement on it.
The interesting thing is that this is all, more or less, happening now, in any case and without any special pressure from governments. The bankers have done this for economic reasons, and because they know which side their bread is buttered. The argument now is not about new loans, taking a portion of old loans, or denying access to the capital markets. The argument now is about rescheduling existing loans.
Is it thinkable that there should be government bans on rescheduling? It is unlikely that the governments of
356
the capitalist North are going themselves deliberately to bring about a default in any of the large southern debtors. But, if not, we have in time to face up to the question: can we go on treating South Africa and Brazil—South Africa with its deplorable record by almost any index you can think of, and Brazil with its excellent record, given that it once got into debt—as if they were the same?
The identification of Her Majesty's present Government with the views and interests of the English speaking business community in South Africa is comprehensible. But it is a form of tunnel vision and it is possible to hope—and I very strongly hope—that they will soon abandon it and consider the interests objectively, and the views sympathetically, of the majority of people destined to live and die in that unhappy country.
9.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, the tone of this debate is thoughtful and sombre and I think there is an appreciation on the part of all those who have spoken so far of the desperate urgency of the situation in South Africa, and also an appreciation that the problems of South Africa will be solved inside that country and that what can be done from outside is necessarily limited. I am not sure that the appreciation is general among us, though, that many of the things which have featured prominently in the debate in recent years about the iniquities of apartheid are now beginning to disappear from the scene as major factors, and that what really is at stake is a struggle for power, a struggle for human freedom, a struggle for dignity.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John, who started this debate, said his hope was for evolution rather than revolution. But many people would believe that the revolution has in fact begun, that there is a revolutionary struggle going on; and of course there is a tremendous amount of bloodshed by any standards and a great deal of suffering taking place daily. So it is right that we should be conscious in this debate which we are having now—those of us who live outside South Africa and a long way from it—of the sufferings people are going through, mainly among blacks, in that country at the present time.
I believe also that we ought to recognise our own responsibilities here. This is the point at which there will be a real and genuine difference of opinion in this Chamber, because I hold very strongly that this country is morally responsible, along with other Western countries, for its failure to bring more effective pressure to bear on South Africa over the years, on its internal policies and also on Namibia. I believe that the damage which the Prime Minister did by her remark after the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of State, when she said how she had resisted the demand for sanctions, saying "We have only moved a teeny-weeny bit over krugerrands", did very great damage to Britain's reputation internationally; and I think it was heard in South Africa by many blacks as showing that Britain was putting its own economic interest first. Your Lordships may consider this unfair, but I believe that is how it was heard.
I listened with great interest to the very thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on these matters. He drew a parallel between sanctions against the Soviet Union or communist countries over trade and why we were not pressing for these while pressing for sanctions against South Africa. The answer surely lies in that old, well-worn phrase, "Horses for courses". The point about sanctions against South Africa is that we have a long historic involvement with that country, we have the biggest economic involvement with that country, and also the judgment needs to be made as to whether these are going to be effective in that situation.
This may be a quite different judgment from that which would be applied over the Soviet Union, although I supported sanctions of some kind against the Soviet Union at the time of the Afghanistan
358
invasion. It is noticeable now over Libya and what has come up on the question of state sponsored terrorism that there are those who are prepared to consider sanctions there. They see that the alternative may be something leading to greater violence. I believe that we have not taken this question seriously enough in this country. Many major British companies are morally responsible over this, as also are our Government. All of us have a share in that responsibility.
During the years in which I have had, necessarily, to give some attention to the South African situation I have noticed a great change of view, for what it is worth, among the British churches. I served for 10 years on the division of international affairs of the British Council of Churches. When I joined that body majority feeling was against the imposition of sanctions on South Africa. When I left the feeling was overwhelmingly in favour. This steady change was brought about because it was a body with people constantly coming and going between South Africa and here and having constant contacts with leaders of all shades of opinion and particularly black nationalist leaders in South Africa. It may also be worth noting that on his recent return from South Africa where he had been to represent the Archbishop of Canterbury, the new Bishop of Coventry who, as former general secretary of the Church Missionary Society, has wide international experience, was quoted last week as saying:
"I come back reluctantly convinced that sanctions, carefully applied, are needed now".
More important is the view of Bishop Desmond Tutu, to which reference has been made. Bishop Tutu said before he was elected as Archbishop:
"I have no hope of real change from the Government unless they are forced. Our children are dying. Our land is burning and bleeding, and so I call on the international community to apply punitive sanctions against this government to help us establish a new South Africa, democratic, participatory and just. This is a non-violent strategy to help us to do so".
It is significant that although that statement was thought by some to have cost Bishop Tutu the election, so to speak, as Archbishop of Cape Town, he was elected. It seems to me that this is yet another indication of the way in which opinion in South Africa has moved, especially among black nationalist leaders.
The question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and others, about the effect of sanctions on jobs and matters of that kind in South Africa. Do we suppose that this has not been carefully considered by people caught up in the situation there? Of course it has. But they see that the real danger now facing them is that the moderate leadership of people like Desmond Tutu is rapidly being outflanked.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord St. John, to the statement of Mrs. Winnie Mandela. I would not wish to defend her language or the threat, especially that terrible reference:
"We shall win liberation with our matches and our necklaces".
That sends shivers down all our spines. Yet the starkness of that language is a sign of the situation into which we have now moved. Massive violence is being used on the part of the South African Government. It

359
is being responded to by violence on the part of many black nationalists, some of whom are outrunning the leadership that they have had up to now. Be it noted that Dr. Alan Boesak and Bishop Desmond Tutu risked their lives in front of angry crowds to rescue people who were threatened with a necklace execution.
The Question on which the debate takes place refers to the future of South Africa consistent with economic progress and security for all population groups. None of us can really see what the future holds in that troubled and unhappy land. It is important that all of us should realise that underneath a race situation—this is so in all countries with race problems of this kind—are social problems of deep poverty and inequality. As time goes on and as South Africa gets over to some extent the race problems that have dominated its history over 250 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, says, the social problems underneath—the problems of great poverty and great inequality—will become more dominant.
What we will begin to see emerging are African black leaders who will make their appeal to those who essentially are the "haves" in that society. That is why I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who said so much of great sense in his words to the House tonight, in his reference to Chief Buthelezi. I suspect that Chief Buthelezi's appeal will be partly to a tribal power base, but also partly to that section of blacks who now have a stake in a certain form of prosperity. Very quickly such situations tend to polarise, where one gets the genuine nationalist movement that still represents to a great extent those who are the poorest in the country, whereas others represent more an emergent middle class.
If that comes about in the South Africa of the future, I hope very much that we in this country will be sensitive to the emergence of that social struggle too, and not simply assume that those who are leading the poorest sections of the community are those who are not to be taken account of and are to be opposed. Very easily the kind of social system that we have in our country, and especially in the United States, tends to produce sympathies with those who are the "haves" rather than with those who are the "have nots" in such societies; sympathies with those having wealth and power over and against those who do not.
In regard to the question of population groups and the different ethnic groups that make up South African society, reference was made—I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood—to co-optive domination of blacks; I think that was the phrase that was used. One is dealing with a society there in which for hundreds of years there has been a deliberate attempt to divide society and to increase the divisions, not least by the creation of the Bantustans, which really is an intolerable political solution; it is no solution at all.
In the years ahead it will not be easy for the peoples of South Africa to be able to get over the divisions thus created. Yet, surely there is no real security for the future in continuing to emphasise the differences between ethnic and population groups in that country.
360
That is why what has been said about the movement towards a society of individual democratic rights is so important.
In the end the security of racial minorities will depend on the goodwill of the majorities among whom they are placed. All of us in your Lordships' House should have the greatest sympathy with whites caught up in that siutation. They have been and are defending one of the highest standards of living of any racial group anywhere in the world. That is something that cannot go on, as we all know, in that particular form. Any group taken from this country and put into the position of South African whites would undoubtedly behave in the same way. That is why we have no right to point the finger at them, but we should look on their situation with humility and some sympathy.
At the same time we should point them forward to the only possible security in the years ahead, which is the goodwill of the black majority and a society that is fundamentally based on individual rights. It may be necessary to make some interim arrangements but, as has already been said, that is an aspect that will have to be worked out within the country itself. However, in the years ahead that must surely be the direction in which South Africa must move.
Let me close at this late hour by quoting a parable used by Bishop Desmond Tutu at a meeting recently of the South African Council of Churches. I believe he took it from a film called The Defiant Ones, which concerns two escaped prisoners—one black and one white—who are handcuffed together and who, in one impossible situation, find themselves desperately trying to get out of a pit. To begin with they struggle and trample each other down, and fight with each other. In the end they find that only co-operation can get them out of that desperate situation. It should be our hope and prayer that that is what will happen in South Africa. However, I believe that it can happen only if more help is given by us from this country.
10.10 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for putting down this very interesting Question. Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest, inasmuch as I was born in South Africa and lived there for 13 years as well as in Southern Rhodesia before returning to this country during the war in 1944. I therefore did not experience life under the first post-war Nationalist Party Government, who were elected in 1948 and who have been in office ever since, though petty apartheid was very evident, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, in his speech.
I have returned to that beautiful country on a few occasions since the war, and my most interesting experience was in 1969, in the company of six Conservative Members from another place, led by the then Mr. Oscar Murton, a Deputy Speaker and now a Member of your Lordships' House, when we visited South Africa as guests of the South African Foundation. This enabled us to meet senior civil servants and members of the Government and gave us an opportunity to try to probe the minds of those

361
representatives of apartheid and come to some conclusion as to where they were leading their country.
More than anything else, what struck me was their unfailing belief in their doctrine and their complete lack of flexibility in meeting other people's points of view halfway. As has been mentioned by other noble Lords, since that time there has been a marked change in attitudes, as I was to discover on my return to South Africa eight years later. We are now another eight years further on and change is accelerating all the time.
The question arises of how fast this change is taking place, and, as the noble Lord asked in his Question, what political arrangement would we like to see in South Africa which is consistent with economic progress and security for all races, or should I say population groups?
There was an extremely interesting article in The Times about a month ago by the well-known South African writer and journalist Mr. J. M. Coetzee, entitled "On the Lip of a Volcano". It gave an insight into the minds of ordinary, hardworking Afrikaans people in the Cape who believe in progress toward a multiracial society in South Africa but who have slight reservations and favour a restricted pace in their attitude toward genuine change. There was an article opposing this view in the Review section of the Observer last Sunday and a really disturbing article appeared in the Financial Times yesterday. It is my honest belief that if outside pressures are brought to bear too harshly on the economy of South Africa in order to achieve a political end, the Afrikaaner laager mentality will come to the forefront again with possible re-establishment of Boer republics, as advocated by Mr. Eugene Terre Blanche of the new AWB party, which will be followed by an exit of liberal whites with alternative passports, to the detriment of the majority black population who in themselves are tribally divided.
I submit that it is to this possibility that Her Majesty's Government have to give serious thought in their attitude toward future developments in South Africa.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I seldom find myself rising to support our present Prime Minister, but when I hear the right reverend Prelate trying her for taking regard to British interests I feel a little inclined to remind him that that happens to be her job. It also happens to be our job. At present, as I see it, there is only one relevant and important issue. Is there to be a white government or a black government in the Union of South Africa? Which serves our interest primarily, for that is what we are here to look to; and, secondly, which serves Africa's interest? I have no doubt at all that it is the same.
It is a question of a white government or a black government. There is no compromise. African history has made that quite clear. No constitution in Africa can protect a loser. At least we must learn that. While terrorism rages we must not be fobbed off by liberal theology. Theology always gets bogged down in semantics. We hear chat about democracy. What does democracy mean? Does it mean one man one vote, winner take all? If that is the idea, I am most
362
emphatically not a democrat. To my mind democracy is far more concerned with the "outs". In democracy the "outs" are free under one law: free to organise, free to argue, free to fight an election, free even to win. Noble Lords should remember one thing. No African Government have ever lost an election. Democracy in any real sense simply is not an option.
What we must all be concerned with is an effective government. Can the blacks provide this? Just look at the record. If fascism means a system under which a dictator rules a one-party state and no opposition is permitted, 28 of the 34 Bantu and Sudanese states have chosen fascism. But they have not been successful even as fascists. I doubt whether one of them is solvent, in the old and simple sense of the word, capable of paying its debts as and when they are due. In spite of having had the advantage of very substantial aid from other countries and a green revolution which has increased agricultural potential by a factor of three, production of foodstuffs in Africa is below what it was before the war under colonialism. Africa was then an exporting country that could afford to export food. Now it is importing food on a very large scale and it is still starving.
Just consider whether they are capable of governing. What has happened to Nigeria? In spite of oil and great wealth it is a collapsed economy and its people are for the first time in memory suffering from hunger as a result of the economic condition. Then consider Zimbabwe. In spite of sanctions and a war the Smith Government held the Zimbabwean economy in vastly better condition than it is in today. Zimbabwe is having trouble in feeding its people.
Just consider to whom the liberals are proposing to give South Africa, under a principle, I suppose, that all men are created equal. They obviously are not. They are created very different indeed. The Bantu are among the most backward of the human race. They never domesticated an animal. Not one African animal has ever been domesticated. They never used a wheel. They never measured time; they never built a stone house; they never achieved a written language. On all things African, the Cape Kaffirs were always regarded as the most backward of all.
Evolution is a slow process. We would be highly optimistic if we imagined that in 30 generations they would be ready and capable of governing a highly complex modern state like South Africa. These are the realities. It is no use "kidding" oneself with a liberal truth of revelation and ignoring the observed facts as we know them. If we had a black government in the Cape it would be not only the economy of South Africa which would collapse but the economy of all the adjoining states, which are highly dependent on her. It would be a worse situation than the Zulu invasion which she suffered a couple of centuries ago.
What do we do? We know very well that we need a white government in South Africa and that South Africa needs a white government because that is the only kind of government that can administer it or run its economy. Surely those people deserve our support. We should make it clear to President Reagan that this is where you find Communist terrorism. What we are facing in South Africa today is the appalling terrorism of the "necklace", the crowds and the burning of the

363
policemen. This is the kind of terrorism which one cannot give in to. Libyan terrorism is trouser buttons compared with that. Terrorism must be crushed: there is no other alternative. One cannot argue liberalism with people who are burning policemen. The violence must be crushed. It is pure weakness to be merciful at a point like this.
When the Zulus were on the rampage 140 years ago I have noted down the proclamation that we issued:
"Hear ye and listen with both ears. Whereas from your youth up you have been taught to consider a man's life to be the property of the Chief and that the Chief in this district is the Lieutenant Governor representing the English Queen…".
That is how it began. That is what they understood; and it worked. That is the kind of level of ethics with which we are dealing.
I repeat that there can be no compromise with terrorism, and least of all in Zululand. As with anywhere else in the world—and this we want to say to President Reagan very firmly; we have to be consistent in this—terrorism must be crushed. It is only then that we can begin to think of new arrangements. But they must not be arrangements which imperil white rule, because that is necessary to Africa.
10.24 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with much of what the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, has said this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, talked about the resignation of Van Slabbert. I was in South Africa at the time that Van Slabbert resigned, and it may interest him to know that the papers were full of criticism of him—and these are the liberal newspapers—and that there was also great criticism by his own party.
Talking to any black parent in South Africa, their paramount ambition is to improve the education of their children. I should like to refer to the educational facilities available to black people in South Africa and to mention that in 1985 98,000 black youngsters obtained matriculation, as against 10,000 in 1981. Noble Lords may say "All right, there is a long way to go"; that is quite true. However, those results will increase rapidly and as such are an achievement to university entrance. Moreover, with the present graduates and undergraduates, together with the increasing number of matriculants, the pressures to consider some form of qualified vote to the blacks—and I do not think that this has been mentioned by any noble Lords this evening—of which education should be one qualification, will mount.
Surely approaches to South Africa should be made along such constructive lines by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I want to ask here a quick question. When defending the system of black education in South Africa today, does she approve of the segregated system both at schools and at universities?
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I was not approving or disapproving of the education; I was merely stating the facts about the increasing success of youngsters in
364
black education. My inquiries during a recent visit to South Africa elicited that there is much agreement on improving education. Consequently, anything that Her Majesty's Government can do would be of great help and assistance at this time.
While all civilised people deplore any segregation of ethnic groups, the condemnation must be based on an understanding of the total situation and not on individual matters. Sadly, criticism appears generally in the form of biased and ill-informed statements which help no one. Over the past few years I have spent some time in South Africa, and I have been aware, especially recently, of the healthy criticism of the government in both the English and Afrikaan newspapers. That has increased enormously, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord St. John, will agree with me.
While I was in South Africa, I was encouraged to learn that many blacks are starting up their own businesses in all spheres—factories and small businesses—and they are receiving the necessary financial backing. Indeed, I spoke to various banks on the matter. As other noble Lords have said, there is an increasing number of wealthy blacks, as evidenced this time I was there by their large cars. It is a very good thing. I saw them around Cape Town. It is a very different picture from the one which I saw a few years ago.
We all deplore the exploitation of people, but a single phase of 40 years in the history of a country should be considered in the light of how help can be given, rather than what we can gain from the situation.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I must start by congratulating my noble friend both on his initiative and on his admirable speech. Unlike the rest of us, he actually lives on the spot and therefore he has a personal interest and an up-to-date knowledge of the country about which we are talking. I congratulate him, too, on phrasing the Question in the way he has. It is up to those governments and those individuals who criticise South Africa to do so constructively, bearing in mind that it is not they who will have to suffer the consequences if the changes which they urge turn out to be disastrous when put into practice.
When I landed in South Africa in February last year, after a gap of 20 years, a rather sour joke was circulating around Cape Town. It went something like this: Question: Define a foreign "expert" on South Africa—Answer: A foreign expert on South Africa is somebody who has overflown that country at a height of 30,000 feet during the hours of daylight—the last five words being italicised.
Therefore, although unlike 95 per cent. of those who rant and pontificate about South Africa, I have actually been to the country—three times, and, what is more, one of those times was extremely recently (because conclusions drawn even 18 months ago may well be totally invalid today, as my noble friend pointed out, so rapid is the pace of change)—I speak with some trepidation.
Two distinguished authors wrote magnificent books about South Africa following extensive and thoroughly investigative (if I may use a modern term)

365
journeys round the country made 40 and 20 years ago respectively. The first author was H. V. Morton, and the second was the American author Allen Drury. Though both their books were very different in style and in content, both arrived at the same conclusion—namely, that the more you travel round South Africa arid the longer you spend there the more you realise the complexities of the situation and the less certain you are that you know all the answers, or even some of the answers. This is an additional reason for most of us to speak with some hesitation.
There are perhaps three ways in which the views of an outsider might be of some assistance in this context. First, an outsider occasionally may—I say "may" and not "can"—be able to see the wood at a time when the insider is totally preoccupied with the trees. Secondly, an outsider may—again I do not say "can"—be in a better position to draw upon historical or contemporary parallels which may either help to resolve the problem or at the least help to clarify it. Thirdly, possibly the most important role an outsider can play is to help to interpret the situation to the outside world, which is bemused by so much highly selective, and sometimes positively misleading, media reporting.
Let me give a striking example of this. The other day a distinguished senior European diplomat was astonished when I mentioned that some inhabitants of Soweto ran BMWs. He was obviously under the impression that all South African blacks are barefoot and penniless individuals clad in tattered rags. If somebody of his position thought that, what must the great mass of the public think? We might start the educative process here.
Nine days ago I bought two tabloid newspapers just west of Johannesburg. One cost 10 pence and the other 13 pence. Here they are. The first is called the Sowetan and caters, as you might expect, for the black inhabitants of Soweto. On the cover is a photograph of a wedding, with the groom dressed in a white dinner jacket, a black tie, a stick-up collar, and white gloves. The bride is wearing a lovely wedding dress such as you might see in the pages of the Tatler. My wife and I saw several smart black weddings in Durban, the receptions often taking place in the four-star hotel where we were staying.
Page 9 of this issue of the Sowetan contains a full-page advertisement for electrical goods, ranging from an Electrolux twin-tub washing machine at £285 to a large upright fridge freezer at £323 including tax. Turning to the page containing advertisements for second-hand cars one sees a 1982 Audi 100 advertised at £2,640; a 1984 Escort 1300 GL going for £3,050; a 1983 Opal Commodore, five-speed, said to be in immaculate condition, for which £3,810 is being asked.
It is true that the Citizen, the tabloid which caters for the English speakers of Johannesburg, as well as including second-hand cars in that sort of price range, includes a great many more expensive ones ranging up to a 1985 Mercedes 380 SE, ex-demonstration, at £26,000. It would be foolish to deny that the standard of living of the whites, particularly in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg, is not a good deal higher than that of the blacks. The difference in the standard
366
of living between the Afrikaaner and the Portuguese inhabitants of Johannesburg on the one hand and the blacks is not nearly so marked, but certainly the English speakers are much better off.
The point is that the inhabitants of Soweto are well enough off so that literally millions of blacks from other parts of Africa cross into South Africa voluntarily, both legally and illegally, so as to share in that standard of living.
I wish I had time to enlarge upon the aspects of the growing black middle class to which my noble friend has referred: for example, the attractive, elegantly-dressed, highly-professional Zulu newscaster. I wish I could give other examples of the voluntary help which in so many quiet and undemonstrative ways so many whites are giving to blacks educationally and otherwise. Many whites, including a widow, a friend of ours, took teenagers from Soweto into their homes for three weeks and drove them to and from school so that they could sit for their matriculation exams. This was done because the thugs and intimidators had threatened to beat them up or even pour petrol over them and set them alight if they dared to sit their exams.
My wife's godson is a doctor in a black hospital. He told us of a black nurse who was detemined to get to work. When the thugs threatened the driver of the bus taking her to work she walked 40 kilometres in to work rather than be intimidated. I think it is time that this courage among those moderate blacks received more recognition from people in this country.
I wish I had time to defend Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei and Venda, the first three of which I have visited and the first of which, at any rate, is run by people of the very highest calibre. Naturally I defer to my noble friend's much greater experience, but I wonder whether he is right in putting so much emphasis on a total repeal of the Group Areas Act, rather than its gradual modification. What works in Windhoek—which despite its peculiar charm remains the one-horse town it essentially was when I first visited it 21 years ago—would not necessarily work without a great deal of friction in the much more crowded area of the Vaal triangle. The Act would certainly help Indians and coloureds; but there are already many de facto grey areas, as I am sure your Lordships realise. In other words, the Act is not in practice enforced: Indians and Portuguese are living together in the west of Johannesburg.
I believe that the blacks would be much more interested in the repeal of the oppressive restrictions on starting new businesses in black areas—minicab businesses, for example, which require very little capital to start. All one needs is a clean driving licence and a bit of initiative. These restrictions at present impinge particularly unfairly upon black entrepreneurs: it is much easier for whites to start a business. That is the kind of thing that the Government ought to do without delay, because there would be no question of any backlash if they were to implement such a change.
At the end of his balanced, thorough and very sensitive book A Very Strange Society, published in 1967, the author Allen Drury lists 20 points in mitigation of what might roughly be called the white

367
South African position. He balances this with 10 strong condemnations of laws and administrative practices for which he can find no justification in any circumstances. It is pleasing to note that of the 10 matters of which he was so highly critical, at least 8½ have been remedied. I think that the Government should be given some credit for this.
A number of noble Lords have given their reasons for the current unrest, most of which I agree with, some of which I do not: I shall not go into that. But nobody has talked about the one further reason, which is our old friend, or enemy, the revolution of rising expectations. There is, to which I shall return in a moment, the unhappiness and poverty resulting partly from the recession, partly as a result of the boycott and disinvestment. We must bear in mind that 300,000 new people are coming on to the labour market every year. Our Government cannot find work for 30,000, let alone 300,000. How the South African Government can be expected to find work for all these people if disinvestment is being pressed, I do not know.
The police have been mentioned. No one defends the conduct that we have seen, but it ought to be borne in mind that the South African police force is unusually small by international standards. They have only one-twentieth of the police per head of population compared with East Germany. East Germany is a special case, it may be said. Very well, but they have less than half the number of police per head of population compared with France and less than two-thirds compared with Scotland. When numbers are small, you have to have recourse to weaponry much more quickly than if you can swamp an area with numbers. Undoubtedly the education and training levels of the police are not as good as they ought to be, but this is not something that can be remedied overnight.
This brings us to my noble friend's extremely important point. What new political arrangements can there be consistent with security for all population groups? At the beginning of August 1954, Pierre Mendes-France told the European and Sephardic Jewish population of Tunisia, who then comprised 8½ per cent. of the total population, that not only they but their children and their children's children would have a secure and prosperous future in an independent Tunisia. There is no reason to suppose that M. Mendés-France was either insincere or dishonest. Yet within 10 to 12 years 90 per cent. of the Christian and Jewish minorities had been eased or squeezed out. Wherever their children or their children's children are it is certainly not Tunisia; and Tunisia is one of the most liberal and tolerant of Arab countries.
This is all part of the great mass movement of minorities in their millions out of the African continent which has been taking place over the past 30 years, starting with the eviction of the Greeks, the Maltese and the Jews from Egypt, then the flight of the pieds-noirs from Algeria and then the exodus of the Asians from Uganda, Tanzania and to a lesser extent Kenya and some of the central African countries. Then look at Angola and at Mozambique !
If anyone should happen to take a wrong turning when driving out of Lisbon airport on the way to the
368
centre of Lisbon, as I did a few years ago, he may come across a street lined with dwellings which are little more than glorified packing cases, packed full of miserable "Ritornados", as they are called; people expelled from Angola and Mozambique, most of them white, quite a few of them of mixed race and a few blacks. They amount to something like 10 per cent of the entire population of Portugal.
Even in Zimbabwe, where race relations are said to be quite good—and from my brief experience there three weeks ago they certainly seemed quite good—at least 70 per cent. of the Europeans have left. Although some are returning, many more would leave if they could get their money out, which they are not at present allowed to do.
The exodus of which I speak has not, in general, taken place because of outright persecution. It has taken place because of the massive population explosion that has occurred in Africa, as it has occurred in some other continents. There are far too many people chasing too few jobs. When this occurs, preference is naturally given to members of the dominant ethnic or cultural group. It is said that Europeans in a one-man, one-vote, unitary South Africa would still be wanted and valued if only for their skills. I wonder! I can well imagine certain categories being wanted, for the time being, that is. For example, they might include doctors, dentists, vets, chartered accountants, agronomists, airline pilots, mining technicians, university lecturers, some judges, large-scale highly capitalised farmers and captains of industry, assuming that a free enterprise system still prevails.
On the other hand, I wonder what sort of a future would await the following: taxi drivers, shop assistants, bank clerks, airline stewardesses, small farmers, market gardeners, coalminers, goldminers, commercial travellers, railway signalmen and assembly-line workers. The latter group is larger than the first yet, given the population explosion, I would not give them much of a long-term chance in a unitary state. It is the first group whose skills are internationally marketable; it is the latter group who have literally nowhere else to go.
Then there is the vital question which my noble friend also raised of the maintenance of economic prosperity, so vital for all the people in South Africa, whatever their race, and for Africa as a whole. The vast fields of maize, sugar cane, tobacco, citrus groves and sleek cattle look impressive, and they are. But they are not easy to grow or to raise. Most of South Africa suffers from an endemic water shortage, exacerbated by the population explosion and by continuing industrialisation. In the east of the country where rainfall is adequate the topography and the particular rainfall pattern means the soil suffers from severe leaching; in other words, agricultural productivity cannot be taken for granted. The land requires a lot of attention and would not long survive a decline in standards.
There is no need to remind your Lordships that South Africa is the industrial powerhouse of Africa. It would be disastrous for Africa as a whole if anything went wrong there. I leave aside all questions of conservation, both nature conservation and architectural conservation, at which South Africans are so

369
skilled and into which they are currently pouring so much effort. How shocking it would be if all this first world efficiency, order and creativity were to crumble into the third world chaos and corruption so graphically described by the Trinidadian Indian writer Shiva Naipaul. He writes of the,
"lusts that disfigure African societies",
and of the (substantiated),
"tales of bribery, embezzlement, extortion and corruption that … signal a collapse of self-control verging on collective derangement".
Universal suffrage is in itself no guarantee of justice or freedom. Universal suffrage, after all, led to the Nazis coming to power in Germany and the Marxists coming to power in Chile. Universal suffrage in a unitary state can only work satisfactorily when virtually all inhabitants of the state share common assumptions; when they are on the same beam, as it were.
The treatment of news items by the two newspapers I mentioned earlier, the Sowetan and the Citizen, shows the size of the gulf which has to be breached. The Sowetan totally failed to mention the horrible necklace murder—we have all heard of the petrol-filled tyres put round somebody's neck—of a black policeman, nor the fact that a black softball player is in intensive care after being badly beaten up for daring to play softball with whites, against the order of the thugs. Apartheid works two ways, you see.
On the other hand, the Citizen, the paper catering for English-speaking whites, totally, fails to record the story of the off-duty black policeman in civilian clothes who was walking home quietly at night and was beaten up by policemen, both black and white, who had mistaken him for an ordinary member of the public. The editorial content of these papers shows the gulf even more starkly, with the Sowetan describing Colonel Gaddafi as a "hero" and as one of the "children of light". These two papers are aimed at the relatively moderate in each community. The gap between the extreme positions is obviously very much greater.
Although both Botswana and Bophuthatswana have Bills of Rights which are widely acclaimed as models of their kind, both are thinly populated states with mainly rural economies. I do not think you are likely to get any highly populated, industrialised state on the African continent which equates to our conception of a liberal Western multi-party democratic society for a very long time, if ever.
It is interesting to peruse a leaflet published by the United Democratic Front which I picked up in Johannesburg the other day: the United Democratic Front is generally thought to be the mouthpiece for the banned African National Congress. After talking a lot about freedom and democracy in a unitary state it goes on to deny that, should it come to power, the cultures of different groups would be thrown overboard. However, it says that cultural values which are "reactionary or divisive" will have to be outlawed through legislation—ominous words, indeed!
So far, we have done no more than cover the philosophical gap between the westernised and semi-westernised uban groups. When you consider the rural areas, the gap is often much greater. When I was in
370
Natal in March last year the papers carried a report of two Indian boys of 12 and 13 who had bicycled out to buy some sweets. When they did not return a search party was sent out. When their bodies were found they had been ritually sacrificed and horribly mutilated. The murderers have not so far been found, but one can be certain they are neither other Indians nor Europeans. The point is that this sort of thing happens the whole time: it is a very common occurrence. How can one create a democratic unitary state out of such material?
So long as the mineral wealth of South Africa is fairly shared, surely a federation is the right answer. A federation, after all, is consistent with the universally acknowledged right of self-determination. As Leon Louw and Frances Kendall say in their excellent and stimulating book advocating a cantonal system for South Africa, which I wholly commend to your Lordships although it is a little optimistic for a congenital pessimist like myself:
"Any future political dispensation for South Africa must clearly be based on a system which ensures that all her disparate groups can live without fear of domination by any other group."
They go on to say:
"For this country"—
that is, South Africa—
"to have any prospect of enjoying peace and prosperity all the major groupings need to see light at the end of the tunnel in terms of their own perspective."
It is these considerations that Her Majesty's Government should bear in mind in their dealings with South Africa.
10.51 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I can see the look on your faces—"Thank heavens he's the last one in!"—and probably I am the least qualified to speak in our debate this evening, never having been to South Africa, although I have plans to visit there next year to see my brother and his family. He is a housemaster at the Diocesan College in Capetown and was responsible for some part of the education of the noble Lord, Lord St. John, to whom I am grateful for initiating our debate this evening. My brother's enthusiam and belief in the future of South Africa are quite remarkable, and it is under pressure from him that I have been persuaded to make a few comments this evening. I promise to be brief.
Debates on South Africa, wherever they take place, are usually worded to give encouragement to the underlying assumption that some outside force or external factor could be motivated to bring about beneficial change, either by somehow compelling the government to behave in a certain way or by strengthening the oppressed to obtain a more desirable state of affairs. The idea that this external factor, whether it be at government level, business level or some other special interest level, such as Church, university or sporting body, might be able to influence the government to behave in a different way, is fundamentally incorrect. But it is ironic that those who believe that changes can be brought about by external pressure often dismiss the resultant changes as inconsequential and cosmetic.

371
Anyone who pursues an external factor can always find an enthusiastic audience with guaranteed media coverage. Fighting apartheid from outside has become a growth industry. I watched the recent documentary by Sharon Sopher, and was appalled by what I saw—incontrovertible evidence of beating and torture of detainees, a large number of them children. I saw clear evidence of police brutality and indiscriminate firing of weapons into crowds, to the extent that I began to wonder whether what I was seeing could possibly be true. The cameras and film crew did not appear to be hidden, and yet the police and soldiers seemed not to care what was recorded on film.
In this country we are used to seeing violence in Ulster and are aware that anyone on television film automatically becomes an actor—to the extent that, in my opinion, it becomes impossible to evaluate the importance and reliability of such pictures. In my rugby-playing days we used to wait for the right moment—when the referee was not looking—before we punched a member of the opposing team.
These television films are obviously causing trouble in South Africa, as can be judged by the restrictions placed upon the reporting of unrest situations. I hope these will soon be ended. The freedom of the media in South Africa is a vital precondition for the expansion of democracy and an important factor in the Western view of South Africa.
For many years the United Kingdom has maintained its position as one of South Africa's five major trading partners. Direct and portfolio investment is estimated to be in excess of £11 billion—almost one-half of all foreign investment in South Africa. Up to 250,000 jobs in the United Kingdom depend on these trade links. Wherever one goes in this country there is always someone who has family and friends in South Africa. Many people will have been there. As a result, the British people have a great deal of goodwill for South Africa. They are concerned that things should go right.
Relations between the two countries, although strong, are under strain. There are three reasons for that. The first is the state of the economy and the weak rand. British business is not getting the profit and dividends it is used to, and it is aware of the growing international pressure, especially from the United States of America.
Secondly, our perceptions at all levels have become deeply influenced by the unrest and continual visual impact of the unrest and police action. Thirdly, there is a general impression of turmoil and disorder coupled with uncertainty as to where the South African Government's political reform programme is leading, which has shaken confidence that peaceful answers are possible.
Ten years ago politicians and analysts could debate whether South Africa might fundamentally transform itself peacefully or whether violence would occur. That issue has been superseded by how much violence is likely to occur and whether it can be limited. In short, is South Africa in the early stages of civil war, and could a revolution take place?
The belief that the revolution has begun and that the destruction of white power is within sight is
372
widespread, especially among young black militants in the townships and within the African National Congress. However, I feel that the existence of those organisations and the violence which they have caused does not yet warrant the description "revolutionary". Individual acts of sabotage—the targeting of black local government representatives, of police and of others described as collaborators, are exceptions. It is a course of planned, deliberate action aimed at weakening the foundations of the state with a view to causing its ultimate collapse.
Regrettably, the violence has been greatly aggravated by the extraordinary lack of expertise on the part of the police in dealing with demonstrators. In many cases the police have behaved provocatively and with an apparent lack of control, and the results have been appalling.
Violence among rival black organisations accounts for 30 per cent. of all deaths. Relations among followers of rival bodies have intensified as the political temperature has risen, with fatal consequences, and the organisations have been unable to keep control over their members. That is due partly to the bannings, detentions and even killings of leaders, which not only heightens the level of tension and anger but destroys the ability of a national leadership to keep its followers in check.
Despite all those difficulties, are there any real prospects for a negotiated settlement, or is South Africa destined for degenerative collapse? The Government have given repeated commitments to the principle of negotiation provided that the parties to the negotiations renounce the use of violence. The ANC has never rejected negotiation, but it refuses to renounce violence.
A problem in initiating negotiation is the suspicion among black groups that in seeking their participation the Government are in fact trying to inveigle them into apartheid structures. No credible black organisation will even consider negotiation until apartheid is fully and completely abolished. Changes that have already occurred have stopped short of eliminating the core principle of apartheid—that people are to be allocated compulsorily by statute to population groups. For the majority black opinion the ending of apartheid is not a factor for bargaining: it is the precondition for the initiation of negotiations.
The basic issue is power, and it boils down to the question: who ultimately is going to rule? The cruelties of apartheid and its debasement of human dignities must not blind us to multiethnic-multiracial societies. No ruling minority will ever hand over or share power unless it is forced to do so by massive pressure.
The splendid rhetoric of Mr. Botha on 31st January this year provided a comic parody of the reality of life in South Africa; but I hope that, with the admitted recognition that the present system's days may be numbered, there might be the possibility of compromise between majority rule and whatever kind of group-based participatory scheme emerges from the principles laid down by Mr. Botha.
It is reasonable to assume that whatever happens in South Africa a large proportion of the white population will have to stay. The slogan "We have nowhere to go" will prove true, if only because there

373
are few, if any, countries in the world likely to accept large blocks of white South African immigrants. Probably the next decade will see the emigration of significant numbers of professional or skilled white South Africans, most of them English-speaking, and also large numbers of the so-called coloured and Indian categories who do not all view the prospect of majority rule with equanimity.
Even an organisation with clear majority support will find it has to offer safeguards to minorities. A variety of safeguards are available under the constitution and these will be needed in a post-apartheid South Africa to help the minorities which will exist to share power. The world is full of unhappy, wretched and persecuted minorities and it would be naive to suppose that constitutions alone can afford them adequate security, as in the final analysis their security depends upon their usefulness to majorities.
As always in discussions on South Africa, the basic issue reappears: would the nationalistic government ever contemplate genuine power-sharing and would the ANC accept such a compromise, even as an interim stage? These questions are unanswerable but are worth striving for, perhaps, I hope, with the help of the international community.
As I said 10 minutes ago, I have never been to South Africa, and so I am particularly grateful for notes I have received from the office of Ambassador Dr. Denis Worrall and for a text from David Welsh, whose thoughts and ideas are of great help to me. I shall look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say, in the hope that any encouragement she can offer will be very welcome to those of us left here this evening and also to South Africa itself.
11.1 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for enabling us to have this debate, though I am not sure that this is the appropriate time or the occasion to debate a subject which is so important and so crucial. Certainly the House, at the end of a long and tiring day, should not be expected to deal with so significant a subject as this. However, we must do the best we can.
We all know that the instability of this huge area of Southern Africa is caused partly by the failure of a substantial section of the white population properly to comprehend that a failure to abandon apartheid must end in disaster, and partly, too, because the decolonisation of the countries to the north has accelerated the demand for a radical change.
As the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has just suggested, no one who knows the area—and I must confess that I have not been to South Africa for seven years or so—and its problems would argue that there are any easy solutions. There are deep complexities. There is a great fear and suspicion and as the conflict continues so the gulf between white and black politicians widens, anger turns into hatred and extreme elements on both sides achieve more power and influence.
Racial and religious conflicts, if they are not resolved quickly, always develop in this way, as this country knows to its cost. Nor must we forget that feelings run deep in South Africa, because the roots of the Afrikaaner population also go deep—a point made
374
by the noble Lord, Lord St. John. They are no longer Dutch with grandparents in Amsterdam. They are as South African as New England Americans are American or, dare I say it, as Ulster Protestants are Irish. We know the implications of that very well and the intransigence of the communities involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, and I have been friends for more years than I care to count and we agree on many things, but I must say now that I must disagree with him fundamentally in his views about the developing countries and their rights. In deference to our friendship I shall say no more about that this evening.
The noble Lord's Question is prudently phrased because he asks what political arrangements the Government would like to see. Although we had long historical connections with the area until fairly recent years, there is very little that Britain can do alone to influence the course of events. But, united with our friends and allies, we could do a great deal. The noble Lord's debate is timely because the unrest in South Africa, far from dying down, is becoming more acute. More than 1,100 people have been killed since the autumn of last year, and there were 171 deaths in March, according to the Economist of 12th April, which describes it as the bloodiest month so far.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John, has more local knowledge and experience than most of us. It seems, however, that many white people including businessmen—the noble Lord referred to them—are seeking desperately for some easement by way of a solution. The so-called Natal option has been revived as a possible basis for a solution. But that seems to me impractical. The debate is also timely because the six-month period agreed at the Nassau Commonwealth conference for the ending of apartheid shortly comes to an end. I do not believe that many people would be satisfied that Mr. Botha has moved significantly, although he has made some proposals, from the hard core of apartheid. A decision will have to be taken by the Commonwealth and thus by Britain as to the further steps that may be thought necessary. The noble Lord dealt with the modest reforms of Mr. Botha. The point that he made about the Group Areas Act is an important one. Its repeal would be a substantial step forward, but I see no early likelihood that that will take place. Even if that were to happen, profound and major obstacles would remain to be dealt with.
The Economist the other day made a fair comment. I was very impressed with what the correspondent said. It was this:
"Despite the relentless array of injustices still afflicting black and brown South Africa, it is untrue to say that nothing has changed or that Mr. Botha's reforms are meaningless. Though they mean almost nothing to blacks, to whites they are pregnant with meaning. Since whites have power, that is not irrelevant. What has changed dramatically is that white ideology has collapsed".
That is a very interesting point. The article states that there is no physical threat to white power, and we can understand this. But the Economist asks the 64,000 dollar question. It is this:
"is it wise to assume that because white physical power is unchallenged, the white will to govern will remain constant? Not any more. It is the will, not the physical strength, that is under question. It is the will that is undermined by the collapse of ideology".

375
If there is no settlement and no attempt to move forward to a real understanding, the future is bleak indeed.
I return to the Commonwealth initiative that Her Majesty's Government supported and here I assume that the Government are waiting, with others, for the report of the group of eminent persons that includes the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I believe that they are awaiting an answer from the South African Government and the noble Baroness will perhaps be able to tell us more about the expectation on this point.
The noble Lord's Question also refers to economic progress and security for all population groups. These two do not necessarily go together. South Africa has achieved economic progress in the post-war years without political development towards what we would regard as a civilised system. I believe that we and the Government are at one on the objective, but not perhaps on the means whereby it may be achieved. Mr Malcolm Rifkind, when a Foreign Office Minister, summarised the objective on 20th November in another place. He said, at col. 266:
"We are working for the total elimination of apartheid and for rapid progress towards a genuinely non-racial democracy in South Africa".
We agree with that statement, but we differ from the Government on what action should follow. I fear that the uncertain British response at Nassau may not suffice next time. If we have to choose between constructive disengagement and drift, if we have to choose between effective economic sanctions in concert with our friends on the one hand and an ineffective stance on the other, I believe that we must choose positively for clearly defined action.
I do not believe that we can stand still. If we act then there will of course be economic consequences for us, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John, referred to that aspect. There will be consequences also for a section of the black population. But those consequences will be small by comparison with the slow drift into civil war over a period of time; with the suffering that will ensue; and with the deaths that will follow. It is also worth bearing in mind that the people in the homelands—called by the Economist "ten rural cesspits"—are suffering the most grinding poverty at the present time.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he says that economic sanctions would be understood and would be supported by the great majority of the black population. That is certainly the intelligence that I have received from all those who have visited South Africa recently.
Like the noble Lord, Lord St. John, I would like to see security for all population groups—white, coloured and black. There is room for them all in that large country with its great resources. Let us look at the reality of the situation in South Africa. It has a population of 32½ million. The total black population is 24·1 million. The coloured population is 2·8 million. The white community—Afrikaaner and English-speaking—is 4·8 million. Therefore, as night follows day, the big majority must sooner or later engage in government in South Africa. There can be
376
no doubt about that and no argument about it—it is going to happen. The question is: when? Progress must be real, because as delay and conflict increases the bitterness also grows and makes the emergence of an anti-white, anti-Western government the more likely.
The noble Lord's "economic progress and security" depends on stability, not on a bloody civil war. Like him, I think that Mr. Nelson Mandela should be released. I think also that Mr. Mandela and Mr. Oliver Tambo understand the realities well enough. They want stability; they do not want civil war in their country.
There are two other factors. First, one cannot move 5 million white people, most of whose antecedents go back 300 years. Secondly, even if one could, South Africa would be infinitely poorer without them. The answer to the noble Lord's Question is therefore clear. The only political arrangement that will work in the longer term is the one that recognises the inevitability of majority rule and which plans for it in co-operation with all sections of the community in South Africa.
As I have said, that would involve the release from prison of Mr. Nelson Mandela, which is something that the Government have called for, and which the noble Lord, Lord St. John, indicated that he also supports. It would involve also a readiness to hold discussions with the ANC. Some may regard that as impractical and some may regard it as undesirable—but they should know that unless such a step is taken now, there will be a far less desirable outcome in due course. Does it not take a long time for countries to realise the inevitability of that and of the result of failing to take action in good time? It is because of the failure to understand that fundamental historical point that the country has lived through agonies and despair.
The noble Lord made a constructive speech and he made some important proposals. I believe that we should all like to see evolutionary change and not bloody revolution, but it must take account of some fundamental factors. The noble Lord will know and respect—and I understand that he is a lawyer—the basic principles of the common law of this country. They concern freedom under the law; the rights of the individual regardless of colour, creed or race; the evils of detention without trial; and the political freedom that gives every man and woman a vote. That is where I must disagree fundamentally with my noble friend. Those are the only principles that hold out permanent hope for South Africa.
I have always hoped that, to avoid chaos, South Africa would evolve step by step. But the steps must be substantial and they must end in majority rule—though with the safeguards that the noble Lord, Lord St. John, has mentioned. Time is running out, and, as the right reverend Prelate said, revolution is menacing the scene. Experience over the years has taught us not to be too optimistic—but that should not deter us from trying and from hoping.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for asking this Unstarred Question this evening. We all listened with great interest to his thoughtful and balanced speech,

377
which, if I may say so, contained a great deal with which we can all agree. My only regret, and it is one that I share with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is that at such a late hour it is difficult to do justice to the very large subject that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, has introduced.
Sadly the level of violence in South Africa has continued to increase despite the lifting of the state of emergency on 7th March. One hundred and seventy-one people died in unrest incidents during March, which is the highest monthly figure since the start of the recent unrest in September 1984. The violence has taken a number of different forms, not only clashes with the security forces but also faction fighting, vigilante action and the "necklacing", with burning tyres, of alleged government collaborators. Large numbers of buildings and vehicles in black areas have been destroyed. Your Lordships will, I am sure, join me in rejecting violence from whatever quarter. We must all wish to see an early end to the repression and violence in South Africa, and the beginning of a genuine political dialogue that will lead to a peaceful, prosperous and just future for all its people.
I have noted with interest the various views that have been put forward this evening. At the same time I hope that your Lordships will understand that it would not be right for Her Majesty's Government to prescribe particular political and constitutional arrangements. It is for the people of South Africa—all the people—to find their own solution. The problem is complex, as many of your Lordships have said. What we ask is that the search should be peaceful and that the solution should command the support of the people as a whole. For us to try to tell them what constitutional outcome is best would invite the response—and rightly—that it is they, not we, who will have to live with the consequences. That is why it is the people of South Africa who are best placed to decide what is mutually acceptable.
As I have said on many occasions, the Government start from the position that we utterly condemn apartheid. It is quite unacceptable that there should be legislated discrimination which keeps the majority of people in an inferior position and allocates power and privilege to a small minority solely on the basis of race. Such discriminatory legislation cannot just be modified; it must be completely removed from the statute book.
We recognise that the South African Government have embarked on a programme of reform, which is a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and my noble friends Lord Chelwood and Lord Colwyn. Last year they abolished the Mixed Marriages Act, the Political Interference Act and Section 16 of the Immorality Act. This month they have taken the important step of tabling legislation to repeal the old pass laws and of issuing a White Paper that foreshadows a major easing of influx control. Proposals have also been made for the reform in this parliamentary session of citizenship legislation and the granting of freehold rights for blacks. Those reforms should be widely welcomed. They do not go far enough, but they have contributed to the momentum for change.
378
Moreover, President Botha has said that he is committed to negotiating,
"a democratic system of government which must accommodate all legitimate political aspirations of all South African communities".
The implications of this and other principles that he outlined at the opening of Parliament in January are both fundamental and potentially far-reaching.
What is now needed is for the South African Government to move quickly to turn their promises into reality. The need is twofold. On the one hand there must be further steps to abolish all discriminatory legislation, including such key instruments as the Group Areas Act, which was a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. On the other hand, every effort must be made to open genuine dialogue with the acknowledged representatives of the black population. Failure to act and act soon in this way will only increase the frustration, the disappointment and the violence.
The British Government have on a number of occasions outlined the sort of steps that we believe could create the climate of confidence that is so urgently needed for political dialogue to begin. We have called for them ourselves and with our European and Commonwealth partners. On some of them, for example, the lifting of the state of emergency and repeal of the pass laws, the South African Government have taken action. On a number of others, they have yet to do so. These include the unconditional release of Mr. Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, an end to detention without trial and the unbanning of political parties.
In the course of this evening's debate, noble Lords have raised a number of specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, made certain allegations about Israel's breach of the United Nations arms embargo against South Africa. I cannot comment on those allegations. They would be a matter for the Security Council Arms Embargo Committee. I can say, however, that the British Government, for their part, comply fully with Security Council Resolution 418 which forbids the sale to South Africa of arms and related material and calls on states to refrain from any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons. We believe that all other UN member states should similarly comply with this mandatory embargo.
My noble friend also raised the question of the reception of the BBC External Services in South Africa. The Government are aware of the poor audibility of the BBC External Services in that country and measures are being taken under the current audibility programme to improve reception there by the introduction of additional equipment in the Ascension Island relay station. We are also examining other ways of boosting the signal to that area without any deterioration of coverage of Central Africa. The possibility of medium-wave transmissions is being considered as part of this study, as well as broadcasting in the tropical bands.
My noble friend Lord Chelwood and the noble Lord, Lord St. John, raised the question of sporting contacts with South Africa. As your Lordships will know, the Government's policy is to discourage such

379
contacts, in keeping with their obligations under the Gleneagles Agreement. They advise individual sportsmen or sporting bodies of government policy. It is then up to the sporting bodies and individuals to make their own decisions. Other Commonwealth countries have to reach their own decisions on how they deal with sporting contacts with South Africa.
My noble friends Lady Sharples and Lord Chelwood also asked about education, in particular about the role of the British Council in South Africa. The council administers in that country both programmes from its own budget and a major proportion of ODA's educational aid programme to black South Africans. The total budget for 1986–87 is £1·7 million, an increase of nearly 16 per cent. on last year. A further £500,000 is also being made available this year for aid to black South Africans from funds arising out of the saving on our UNESCO contribution. The British Council is likely to play a key role in administering some of those funds also.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the Government's policy on economic sanctions. I refer in particular to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. As your Lordships know, the Government, together with our European and Commonwealth partners, have adopted a number of measures designed to send a political signal to the South African Government without damaging the livelihoods of the South African people. We are, however, opposed to more general economic and trade boycotts since we believe that those would only stiffen white resistance to change, while increasing unemployment in Britain, among black South Africans and in neighbouring African countries. Far from promoting peaceful change in South Africa, we fear that such boycotts would only make matters worse there.
A number of noble Lords referred to the development of the Durban Indaba on the KwaZulu-Natal proposals. On that, we welcome all moves towards peaceful reform in South Africa and we are pleased to see the efforts being made to reach agreement between the races on political advance. It is not for our Government to prescribe what form that advance should take.
I should like now to return to what I have referred to earlier—the urgent need for a political dialogue between the South African Government and the acknowledged representatives of the black population of South Africa. That is a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and many others who have spoken this evening. The Commonwealth Heads of Government in Nassau last October established a group of eminent persons with the object of facilitating such a dialogue in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides. The British nominee to the group, which acts quite independently of governments, is the noble Lord, Lord Barber, whose great ability and experience are well known to your Lordships. The whole group visited South Africa in March and met with a broad spectrum of South African opinion in its search for ways of getting dialogue started. The group is meeting again in London today and tomorrow to assess the progress made.
380
Wisely it has maintained a high degree of confidentiality. We believe that it has won a great deal of respect and co-operation on all sides. It has already achieved more than many predicted. Its credibility is reinforced by the broad base of international support which it now enjoys. It would be wrong to underestimate the difficulty of its task. But the mission represents much the best prospect at this time for a positive international contribution to a settlement in South Africa. It is now at an important stage. The British Government will continue to give all the help and support we can, using our longstanding links with South Africa to best advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked that the report of the group should be published not later than 30th June. I can only say to him that it must be for the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, which acts independently of governments, to decide when to submit its report.
To conclude, if progress is to be made, the aim must be to prevent further polarisation in an already grievously divided society. Economic progress and security for all population groups in South Africa, to which the noble Lord wisely referred in his opening Question, are important elements in building the mutual trust needed for a lasting political solution. What we need to see is a suspension of violence on all sides, together with further action by the South African Government to show that they are genuinely committed to fundamental reform and to the establishment of a non-racial democracy in South Africa.
If only the necessary vision and statesmanship can be shown on all sides, I believe that the way could yet be found to the just and peaceful outcome that we all so earnestly desire for that country.

Essex Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eleven o'clock.

  CHILD ABUSE: ACCESS
  CHILD ABUSE: ACCESS
  NUCLEAR TEST BAN: NEGOTIATIONS
  NUCLEAR TEST BAN: NEGOTIATIONS
  ST. LUCIA: UK AID
  ST. LUCIA: UK AID
  ST. VINCENT: UK AID
  ST. VINCENT: UK AID
  DOMINICA: UK AID
  DOMINICA: UK AID
  ISRAEL AND ARAB TERRITORIES
  ISRAEL AND ARAB TERRITORIES
  YOUTH TRAINING BOARD: MEMBERSHIP
  YOUTH TRAINING BOARD: MEMBERSHIP
  GREEN BELTS AND PLANNING PERMISSION
  GREEN BELTS AND PLANNING PERMISSION