Sitting of 3 February 1986

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

    Public Transport (Passenger Safety)
    Ms. Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to seek to improve the wellbeing and safety of women travelling on public transport.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have recently announced a new study of crime on the London Underground. I expect to receive the report and recommendations by the end of July. This study will cover the safety of women.
    Ms. Richardson: The Secretary of State has taken a long time to instigate that survey. Does he realise that women are the major users of public transport? The GLC has carried out the only survey of women by women to identify the difficulties which they experience on buses, underground trains and so on, and in badly lit streets. Over three quarters of them said that they felt unsafe at night. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the findings of the GLC and proposals from other metropolitan authorities, and improve the safety of women, by recruiting more conductors and other staff, rather than relying on machines, which cannot respond to cries for help?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady is a little over-critical. We have set up a study into the problems on the Underground. The problems of bus staff are being examined, as is violence to road passenger transport staff, by another of my Department's working groups, which will report shortly. A great deal is being done to investigate what can be done, and a lot is being done. If the hon. Lady would like to go to the Bank station, she will see the plans for modernising it, making it better lit and better laid out. Those are the sorts of ways in which to prevent crime, and the hon. Lady will find that the Government are doing a lot in that direction.
    Mr. McCrindle: If, as it is reported, London Regional Transport is anxious to appoint additional members of the British Transport police, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will turn a sympathetic ear to any appeal for additional funds which may be required as a result?
    Mr. Ridley: The British Transport police have been increased substantially as a result of the perceived problem to which my hon. Friend refers. In the first instance such matters are for London Regional Transport or the bus operator, whoever he may be, but we are doing all that we can to assist them.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State accept that one of the things that he can do to help is the early phasing out from, Charing Cross on southern region of outdated stock with individual compartment carriages, because their use late at night worries women.
    Mr. Ridley: It is for British Rail to propose replacing old stock of that sort, and if it makes an application to us for investment approval we shall consider it quickly and sympathetically.
    Mr. Squire: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement today, which I am sure will be given a greater welcome by women in general than it was by the Opposition Front Bench. May I underline that a number of men and women are deterred from travelling on the underground and that, in a sense, the amount of deterrence is greater than the number of attacks that take place?
    Mr. Ridley: I think that that is true, but I am sure that the ways that are being examined by London Regional Transport to improve the situation will all help. For some time efforts have been made to improve lighting and the safety of ticket and other staff, and to increase the presence of the British Transport police and inspectors in order to improve the situation.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Secretary of State read the GLC women's committee's pamphlet "Women on the Move" which, to make the point in another way from my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), makes it clear that only 17 per cent. of women feel safe travelling on public transport at night. In order to try to increase the number of women who want to travel on the tube and buses, and feel safe doing so, will he ask London Regional Transport to drop its proposals for further one-person operated buses and the reduction of guards on tubes, both of which add to the feeling of insecurity among women travelling on London transport?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must understand that it is taking a little time to get the London Underground more efficient, safe, and attractive to passengers. We took the system away from the GLC only 18 months ago and we have had remarkable progress in rectifying the GLC's errors.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I appreciate the efforts that my right hon. Friend has been making for the safety of women. However, the question also refers to "the wellbeing" of women. Would it not be for the wellbeing and convenience of women if there were female attendants looking after female toilets?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall pass that important point on to the authorities.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with county officials concerning the effect of abolition of the metropolitan counties on public transport in those areas.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): There has been a continuing dialogue between my Department and the officers of local authorities and passenger transport executives.
    Mr. Thorne: As that tells me nothing in answer to my question, will the Minister say what he is doing to avoid increased fares and poorer services as a consequence of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Mitchell: The level of fares is a matter for the bus operator concerned.
    Sir John Osborn: Is it not an error in timing that the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority has introduced proposals for a tram in Sheffield when the authority has been abolished and is running into serious deficit in its financing?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is a matter for the authority, and on that matter it is answerable to its local electorate.
    Mr. Crowther: Has the Minister learnt from his discussions that the effect of abolishing the South Yorkshire county council, coupled with the implementation of the last two Transport Acts, will be to treble at least
    4
    the fares, to cut services substantially and to make some hundreds of the staff redundant in an area of high unemployment? Does he regard this as a mark of progress in a civilised society?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is important to get a better balance between the amount paid by the user and the amount paid by the ratepayer. The high level of rates in South Yorkshire has undoubtedly contributed to the high level of unemployment there. In South Yorkshire the subsidy on transport amounts to 62·8 per cent. of the cost in cash terms for operating the service, while only 22 per cent. comes from fares. Nowhere else in the country is there such an extraordinary state of affairs.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister admit, openly and plainly, that the responsibility for increased fares, reductions in services and increased redundancies rests solely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because of the expenditure limits that he has set?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is for the passenger transport authority to establish the policy, and for the passenger transport executive to decide its priorities in the expenditure that it will undertake during the year as between the level of fares and the extent of service and of concessions.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Snapeasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to allocate additional funds to British Rail in the light of Her Majesty's Government's decision to proceed with the fixed Channel link.
    Mr. Ridley: External financing limits for 1990–91 to 1992–3, the years of maximum BR capital expenditure on Channel fixed link services, have not been set, but the Government recognise that BR's investment in these services will require a higher level of external financing than would otherwise have been the case.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State concede that he said recently, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), that he would not allow EFL constraints to affect British Rail investment in new rolling stock for the Channel link? Will he also accept that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport in the other place said exactly the opposite—that EFL would have to be taken into consideration? Will he sort out the departmental act, and will he give a guarantee that all the railway stock that will be needed will be built in Britain?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is, as always, wrong. My noble Friend said that the expenditure will have to be accommodated within the EFL—indeed, it will—and I say that the EFL will be big enough to accommodate it. I do not understand what the argument is.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during the past five years the Government have given more investment support to British Rail than any previous Government? The Opposition's protests are not consistent with the present position.
    Mr. Ridley: It must be extremely disappointing to the Opposition that, since 1979, more than £2·25 billion at today's prices has been invested by British Rail, plus £100 million a year on the installation of continuous welded rail. Those startling and impressive figures completely refute any charge that the Opposition might make that we have cut investment.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: To limit development in the south-east following the building of the Channel tunnel, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that some compensation to the north will be required? That can be done by the improvement of the road and rail network to serve not just the London area but to provide direct links to the north, to make up for the damage that will be caused to it by the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that £700 million or £800 million of railway investment will flow from the decision to build the Channel Tunnel Group's scheme. He may not know that there are no railway workshops in the south-east. They are all in the north and in the midlands. He might acknowledge the fact that those jobs will come to the areas about which he is talking. Further, if the Channel tunnel results in lower transport costs and quicker and more certain transport across the Channel, it will be of great assistance to his constituents. If he would stop trying to fight the party battle and recognise the immense advantages of what is happening, he would get on better with his constituents.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: How many additional jobs does my right hon. Friend think will result from this additional investment?
    Mr. Ridley: It is hard to say precisely, but tomorrow we shall be publishing a White Paper from which my hon. Friend will discover the best guesses that we can make about extra employment and where it will occur. Of course, it will be for the many industrial companies in the midlands and the north to make sure that they win the contracts when they are put out to tender.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister accept that there is some anxiety that the Channel fixed link will not necessarily benefit the north? If it is to benefit the north, we must have decent, first-class links across London. Will the Secretary of State consider this and ensure that British Rail provides not just links, but first-class, fast links across London so that the north and the regions can consider themselves connected to the fixed link?
    Mr. Ridley: I have frequently discussed this point with the chairman of British Rail. As the opportunities which the link gives to British Rail become more widely appreciated and worked out, there will be scope for through rail services from the entire country to the entire continent. British Rail has not had such an opportunity for many a generation, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the board is fully aware of it.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Opposition that he has already authorised the Snow Hill link, which will be one cross-London link? Following the previous two questions from the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend invite British Rail to introduce a specific plan to make the most of the Channel tunnel for the north by using Kensington Olympia station and the west London line as a link to the Channel tunnel, and upgrading the south-eastern and Chatham line from Redhill to Reading, which would link straight through to the north and the west? Will he invite the chairman to produce a report for him?
    Mr. Ridley: It is for the chairman of British Rail to say how he believes it is best to open up the opportunities which the link will provide. I cannot claim to know more than he does about the railway system. It is right that the
    6
    railways should make proposals. We shall assess them in the light of their viability and the time scale in which they would have to be built. It has not been possible to do that in the short time since the decision was made.
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss the fixed Channel link.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of the British Railways Board, he will raise with him the implications for British Rail of Her Majesty's Government's decision to proceed with a fixed Channel link; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridley: I meet ihe chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest. I last discussed the Channel fixed link with him on 22 January.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that the EFL for British Rail should be set far enough ahead so that we can all see what will happen? It will enable and encourage British Rail to develop and expand services not just in the south-east of England but in the north and Scotland, and clarify the different view taken by him and his noble Friend in the other place. Will he give an assurance that the EFL will be expanded to take account of British Rail's needs for the Channel link and that other investment required by British Rail will not be curtailed as a result of the Channel link decision?
    Mr. Ridley: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Can we take it, therefore, that the Secretary of State will be recommending to his Cabinet colleagues a bigger EFL for British Rail in the years ahead? In particular, will he take note of the need for further investment in the Ashford to London line? If it is to cater for the Channel tunnel and commuters, it will need a great deal of capital expenditure?
    Mr. Ridley: In the relevant years—1990 to 1993—the railways' provisional programme of investment is such that, even with investment in the Channel fixed link, it will be investing less than at present. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is that the costs of the Ashford line are included in the investment plans which British Rail has put forward as an immediate consequence of the Channel Tunnel Group's proposals. British Rail estimates that if it has high-speed trains working between London, Paris and Brussels the investment will be £390 million, but that if it has conventional-speed trains it will be £290 million. A decision as to which trains will be used has not yet been taken.
    Mr. Gow: Are there any outstanding matters still to be settled between the Channel Tunnel Group, BR and SNCF?
    Mr. Ridley: I was careful to ensure that the bones of an agreement were reached between the two railways and between the combined railways and the Channel Tunnel Group before the decision was finally taken. The agreement is that there will be a 50-50 joint venture between BR and SNCF. They will be able to decide jointly on the services, the costs, the share of the revenue and the investment. I believe that that is a thoroughly satisfactory deal for BR. BR is content with, and has agreed the

    7
    schedule of, tolls to be charged on trains passing through the Channel tunnel. I cannot at the moment speak definitely for SNCF in that respect.
    Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend recall that before the announcement of the Channel tunnel decision he gave the impression of being a Scrooge-like Minister who would not allow a penny of taxpayers' money to be spent in connection with the project? Since the announcement, and in the House this afternoon, he has given a somewhat different impression—that of a Lord Bountiful who is willing to spend money on expanding the EFL and on railways for the north. Does my right hon. Friend not think that he may be in danger of suffering from a little schizophrenia?
    Mr. Ridley: I know that my hon. Friend will never lack ingenuity in finding ways in which to question the Channel tunnel decision. This afternoon is no exception. I have always made it clear to the House that the essential road links and railway investment which result from the decision to build the Channel link would be accepted by the Government. We accept the need to build roads and sanction railway investment to any new port, new town or new factory where the traffic justifies increased infrastructure expenditure.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: In his original answer the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there would be more funding for British Rail as a result of the Channel tunnel. Is that why he opposed the scheme?
    Mr. Ridley: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he could repeat his question.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: There are none so deaf as those who will not hear, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Channel tunnel will mean extra funding for British Rail. Is that why he originally opposed the scheme?
    Mr. Ridley: I was opposed to the original scheme 11 years ago because it was to be paid for by taxpayers. I am in favour of this scheme because it will not involve taxpayers' money for the construction of the link, and it will therefore not be at the expense of other Government programmes which could have serious consequences for public spending.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the central question concerning the project is not whether we or the French get the most out of it, but how it can be directed so as to give the maximum benefit to both nations?
    Mr. Ridley: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Another question is whether the people who use the link will benefit, whether as passengers or as senders of freight. If they will not benefit, I shall be very surprised if the City finances the scheme. The fact that the City is likely to be prepared to finance the scheme is evidence of real need among users, which will be met profitably.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The Secretary of State has given certain assurances about communication development concerning the fixed link, but, after all these months, he has still not convinced industrialists in the north. When he has discussions with the chairman of British Rail and other transport interests, will he take account of the concern of industrialists and trade unionists in the north and of the
    8
    Tees and Hartlepool port authority, the third largest in the United Kingdom, which has expressed its deep worry about future trade when the link is developed?
    Mr. Ridley: I sometimes wonder how the Labour party, which is always calling for more investment, more infrastructure and more jobs in heavy industry, can find such contorted ways in which to disagree with the biggest infrastructure project that the Government have ever announced. They love it in general, but when projects that will provide many jobs in the north, the midlands and elsewhere are announced, they cannot even bring themselves to welcome them.

    Independent Airlines (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reached a decision on the Civil Aviation Authority's advice on the allocation of British Airways' financial assistance to independent airlines; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): Yes, Sir. Based upon the Civil Aviation Authority's advice, we have recommended 15 services to British Airways for assistance. I hope that the detailed arrangements can now be completed quickly so that the new services can be started as soon as possible.
    Mr. McCrindle: I welcome the development of these new services, but will my hon. Friend say what steps he has taken to ensure that the appropriate traffic rights are available? Will he confirm that the other undertaking in last year's White Paper—the development of longer-haul services in competition with British Airways—remains part of the Government's policy? What is he doing to prosecute that?
    Mr. Spicer: As for traffic rights, following the new, more liberal, arrangements that we have made with Scandinavia and West Germany, traffic rights are available on all routes except Glasgow to Gothenburg and Aberdeen to Esbjerg, and we hope that they will be sorted out soon. Our policy on multiple designation was set out in the White Paper on airline competition policy and we are, of course, sticking to it.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: If the Minister is so keen on multiple designation, would he be prepared to add some money to that already being paid by British Airways to finance this scheme?
    Mr. Spicer: No, Sir. The agreement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year was for £450,000 to be given to 15 routes, which is a pretty generous arrangement.
    Mr. Steen: As Britain has more independent and charter airlines than any other European country, will my hon. Friend ensure that our European partners do not drive some of our independent airlines out of business by insisting on noise regulations for those airlines that fly special planes not used by other European countries?
    Mr. Spicer: I am mindful, as is my hon. Friend, who does much work in that area for the industry, of the problems and the opportunities facing our airlines. In Europe our airlines are in a strong position—due in

    9
    large measure to the policies of this Government. We shall do everything that we can to ensure that those opportunities are fulfilled.

    British Rail Engineering Ltd.
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the value of export orders achieved by British Rail Engineering Ltd. during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and how this compares with each of the preceding five years.
    Mr. Ridley: BREL exports in 1985 were worth some £12 million. Exports in the years 1980 to 1984 were £34 million, £19 million, £3 million, £1·5 million and £30 million.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the figures are disappointing, the prospect for British Rail Engineering Ltd. looks good, especially with its design team? Does he further agree that the greatest obstacle to increasing exports is the negative view adopted by the conveners of the unions in opposing innovation? Will he support the management of British Rail Engineering Ltd. and help ensure maximum possible exports?
    Mr. Ridley: I pay tribute to BREL for its excellent efforts to obtain more overseas work. Last year it submitted tenders and indicative bids for export orders worth £580 million. More than 400 overseas trips were made to gain business. I am aware of a large number of possible orders in the offing. I congratulate BREL on its sterling efforts to try to increase business through exports. I realise that that is difficult, because many railways operate a protective attitude to exports. Despite that, BREL is beginning to break through in many parts of the world.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: How many of those export orders were lost because of the attitude of the Government and the Export Credits Guarantee Department? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is sensible to tell people that they are likely to lose their jobs in BREL because of privatisation and at the same time expect them to work harder?
    Mr. Ridley: The answer to the first question is none. As to the second question, no one has suggested that those people should lose their jobs. We are discussing extra efforts for the core works of BREL in the export business so that it can expand and create more jobs.
    Mr. Hirst: I warmly applaud the efforts of BREL to win overseas orders. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what proportion of the export sales have been manufactured at BREL's Glasgow works, where many of my constituents work? Does he regard it as disappointing that the management have proposed the downgrading of that works to a repair unit for ScotRail instead of using the undoubted talents and abilities of that work force for export orders?
    Mr. Ridley: The works at Springburn are devoted to repair and maintenance and not to new build or heavy reconstruction. British Rail envisaged BREL handing over the works to ScotRail in 1987 as the main works to repair and maintain Scottish rolling stock. As such, it is not possible for them to participate in new export services, which are confined to the core BREL works at York, Derby and Crewe.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that since the Conservative party took office, the railway works at Shildon, Stratford and most of Horwich have closed? Does he accept that Swindon is scheduled shortly to close and that the works at Glasgow are also under threat? Does he accept that up to 12,000 further redundancies in BREL are threatened and that it will take more than the disgraceful slur from his creeping hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) to alter that?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is the Government's intention to run down BREL even further prior to privatisation and that the public sector will again pick up the bill, while the private sector picks up the orders? Railwaymen will not forget the right hon. Gentleman's role in that.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has been told—again he does not seem to take it in—that his pressure for increased investment in the railways, which has been met, as I said earlier, has resulted in rolling stock that does not require so much repair, maintenance and reconstruction because it is new and of a higher quality. That has been the cause of the rundown in BREL's work force. To try to increase employment in the railway engineering industry I have agreed with the chairman of British Rail the new arrangements whereby BREL's activities will be split into repair and new build. The new build part will, therefore, at least have the opportunity to gain export orders. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. He never seems to welcome good news.

    Coaches (Speed Governors)
    Mr. Knowlesasked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the response of the bus and coach industry to his proposal that all coaches should be fitted with speed governors.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The Bus and Coach Council has supported speed governors as a means of ensuring that coaches observe the motorway speed limit. The council is involved in the work now under way to establish a technical specification for speed governors.
    Mr. Knowles: Is my hon. Friend aware that this measure will be a great relief to all who use the motorways, especially the MI? Will he underline his statement that the bus and coach operators will be involved closely in establishing a technical specification for speed governors?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. I think that the introduction of speed governors will be welcome not only to other users of the motorways but to passengers on the buses and coaches and, I suspect, to drivers.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that buses and coaches travelling at more than 70 miles an hour are the new biggest menace on the motorways? Does he agree that anything that can be done to curb them will be very much welcomed?
    Mr. Bottomley: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members. Public concern during the past two years has led to the proposal to introduce speed governors.

    London Taxicard Scheme
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the London taxicard scheme following the agreement reached by the London co-ordinating committee of boroughs.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Around 30 such letters have been received in the last four months. I have welcomed the decision of the London boroughs to continue the scheme along with other concessionary travel arrangements.
    Mr. Greenway: Is it not a matter for congratulation that after the abolition of the GLC all the London borough's will continue the taxicard scheme and that concessionary travel passes for pensioners, the disabled and blind people and dial-a-ride will continue? Will my hon. Friend end, once and for all, the GLC's constant lies, which are put about at public expense, that those services will not continue after abolition?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the taxicard and dial-a-ride schemes will continue. I join him in deploring the deception by which elderly and disabled people are frightened and misled by the GLC's campaign suggesting that that would not happen.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the London boroughs have not agreed to support the taxicard scheme? The Tory boroughs of Sutton, Bromley, Barnet and Hillingdon have all refused to become involved in the Londonwide scheme for the taxicard. What pressure will the hon. Gentleman put on those Tory boroughs to come into the scheme, or will he be as complacent as they are?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is a decision for them. It is a democratically arrived at decision, for which they will take responsibility. They will be answerable to the electorate for their decision.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the Government's decision to proceed with a fixed Channel link; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Since 20 January we have received a small number of letters about the fixed link from members of the public.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend accept, once again, universal congratulations to himself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because exactly the right scheme has been chosen to give a much-needed boost to British Rail, which needs that long-term development? Does he agree that overnight this has improved Anglo-French relations and shown that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a good European after all? As the French immediately announced that in the period up to the opening of the link they would spend £700 million on infrastructure, including transport infrastructure, around the Channel tunnel entrance on their side, will my hon. Friend consider again the merits of doing the same on the British side?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that this will be a boost to British Rail. One of the big advantages will be the way in which freight will be able to move throughout the European network from stations
    12
    in the United Kingdom. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should wait for the White Paper tomorrow, which will give him a great deal of information on expenditure.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recall that on 20 January the Secretary of State said in his statement that he would have to consider carefully the employment consequences of the development? Is he aware that people in my area find it astonishing and incredible that the Secretary of State could make an announcement about a project without considering the employment consequences?
    Can the Minister assure us that if the development, to which I am opposed, goes ahead, the north-east will receive special consideration in terms not only of the rail network, but, the road network? Is he aware that there is no motorway between Darlington and Doncaster, which is something that industries in the north-east desperately need?
    Mr. Mitchell: The consequences of the project on employment were taken into account by the Government and formed part of the assessment process when considering the four projects in detail. A very large volume of orders will be available to be won, but they will not be allocated to any part of the country. They must be won by people competing for them successfully.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Westland plc
    Mr. Strawasked the Attorney-General when he was first asked to give legal advice on the proposed financial reconstruction arrangements for Westland plc; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): The two letters from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence dated 6 and 7 January 1986, which have been placed in the Library, reveal the fact that advice was given by him on 31 December 1985 and on those two days. In accordance with the convention on Law Officers' advice, I am not prepared to disclose whether I or my hon. and learned Friend was asked to give legal advice on the proposed financial reconstruction arrangements for Westland plc on any other occasion.
    Mr. Straw: On the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter, the Prime Minister admitted to the House on 27 January that at least by 7 January she was told
    "in general terms, that there had been contacts between my office and the Department of Trade and Industry."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 657.]
    in advance of the leak.
    Did the Prime Minister at any time between 7 January and 23 January share that general knowledge with the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, and if so, on what date?
    The Attorney-General: The only time that I had any communication with the Prime Minister was on 22 January, when the Secretary of the Cabinet gave us an outline of his report.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is just the sort of question that amplifies the policy of the Labour party of obeying only those laws that it finds advantageous to accept? Labour Members have

    13
    stated on numerous occasions that advice between Law Officers and members of the Cabinet is in forbidden territory.
    The Attorney-General: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been a long-standing convention that neither the fact nor the content of advice should be disclosed.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Bearing in mind that the Solicitor-General gave his advice on the usual confidential terms, will the Attorney-General tell us, first, whether the prosecution of Mr. Bernard Ingham under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act has been considered, and, secondly, why it has not been proceeded with?
    The Attorney-General: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her statement, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, I took the view that my guidelines would not be fulfilled by any prosecution.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition are following a line of disreputable questioning? Are they not pleading confidentiality when it suites them, while taking the opposite view when that suits them?
    The Attorney-General: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is to be regretted that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her speech have not been accepted as they should have been.
    Mr. John Morris: When the Attorney-General replied to the House in a written answer on 16 January that the internal inquiry into the leak was
    "still some considerable way from being completed"—[Official Report, 16 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 614.]
    was he then aware that it was an inquiry into an official leak, and what legal advice was he then tendering? Was his Department consulted in any way on the proposed use of the Solicitor-General's letter? Are there precedents for Law Officers' letters being used as weapons for publicly chastising ministerial colleagues?
    The Attorney-General: I consulted the Cabinet Secretary and expressed my view that it was essential that an inquiry into the leak should be set up. I did not know any more about the inquiry until I was informed of the results. I was informed first in summary form and then I was provided with the actual document on 22 January, the same day on which it was given to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As for leaking, I have nothing to add to what has already been said. I agree entirely with what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in his letter of 7 January.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the offer of immunity to a civil servant arising from the inquiry into the leak of the letter sent by the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence on the Westland affair.
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the House with my agreement on 23 January, and to my three written answers to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on 27 January.
    Mr. Winnick: Why did the director of information in the Department of Trade and Industry require immunity from prosecution? Is it not clear that she was
    14
    understandably anxious not to be used as a scapegoat in this affair? Will the private secretaries who have been involved in the matter at No. 10 and the Department of Trade and Industry be given immunity, if they so require it, as a result of the latest developments? Does the Attorney-General accept that it is most unfortunate that the Solicitor-General was used in the first place by the Prime Minister in her war against the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)?
    The Attorney-General: There is no question of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General being used — [Interruption.] When his attention was drawn on Saturday by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the letter which had been published in full in The Times from the then Secretary of State for Defence, he telephoned the then Secretary of State for Defence and told him of his anxieties about the inaccuracies in the letter and wrote a letter, entirely of his own decision, on the Monday morning.
    Mr. Winnick: Why was immunity given?
    The Attorney-General: The answer to that question is the one which I have already given in a number of replies to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.
    Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a constitutional necessity that Law Officers' advice should be confidential?
    The Attorney-General: That is a long-established convention and one which the House should think carefully about before seeking to change it.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did the Solicitor-General discuss his letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence with the Prime Minister on 6, 7, 8 or 9 January? Secondly, if the Solicitor-General is asked to give evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, will he be able to do so?
    The Attorney-General: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is no. There was no such communication on any of those days. As for the second part of his supplementary question, I would need notice.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the use by any Government of leaks by public servants is demoralising to the public service? May we be assured that the practice will now cease?
    The Attorney-General: I cannot give that assurance, save on behalf of my own Department. I am happy to say that there have been no leaks from my Department since I have been in office. I agree with my hon. Friend that leaking of any sort is deplorable. I agree entirely with the phrase used by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General at the end of his letter of 7 January.
    Mr. John MorrisIs it a fair summary to say that the Solicitor-General was being used by other Ministers, that the Attorney-General was hoodwinked, in that he was not told the proper basis for the inquiry, that the salient facts were known to the Prime Minister from the start, and that in the bogus inquiry he was persuaded to grant immunity when he knew, or should have known, or should have been told, that there was no question of a prosecution and that it was an official leak?
    The Attorney-General: There is no truth in the allegation that my hon. and learned Friend was being used.

    15
    When I was asked to grant immunity because the girl—the information officer—was refusing to give evidence unless she had immunity and her evidence was uniquely important in the pursuance of the inquiry, I was also told enough to make it clear to me that under no circumstances would I have prosecuted her in any event.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid and Trade Provision
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the aid and trade provision in 1985–86 and 1986–87 is to be funded from sources outside his Department.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The aid and trade provision is a separate allocation of funds within the aid programme. It is not funded from any other source.
    Mr. Deakins: Is it not inequitable that the Department of Trade and Industry, which gets most of the benefit from the ATP, makes no contribution towards the total and rising cost of that provision? Will the Minister consider seriously for the future asking his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry for a contribution, either in whole or in part?
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the funds for the ATP come from public expenditure funds as a whole. It is important to remember that the ATP provides both jobs and employment in Britain, and schemes of real developmental value in the Third world.
    Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether, if the ATP were to come from a different departmental budget, for example the Department of Trade and Industry budget, the scheme, which is admirable and needs to be expanded, might fall foul of GATT rules?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is broadly right. The important point is that this is aid. It counts as, and is recorded as, aid, and is directed to developmental as well as commercial ends.
    Mr. Beith: Is it not the case that the ATP has virtually trebled in size, while provision for rural development has decreased? Is it not inevitable that such emphasis on the ATP will distort the priorities which the Minister's Department should have as its main concern?
    Mr. Raison: The ATP has certainly increased in size over the years since it was started by the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart). However, we are now putting increasing emphasis on rural development, and I recently announced some valuable schemes.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the level of overseas aid to Indonesia in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Raison: Gross bilateral aid to Indonesia includes capital aid, technical co-operation, aid and trade provision and investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. In the years 1980 to 1984 aid amounted to £11·19 million, £15·35 million, £17·22 million, £12·36 million and £28·29 million, respectively.
    Mr. Clarke: Notwithstanding those generous figures and the supply of arms from this country, Indonesia has continued its policy of suppression against its own people, those in East Timor, and refugees in Papua New Guinea. What protest will be made?
    Mr. Raison: The Indonesian Government are well aware of our position, namely, that we are against abuses of human rights, wherever they occur. However, the fact remains that Indonesia needs aid and can make good use of it.

    Zambia
    Mr. Mc Crindleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to help the Zambian economy.
    Mr. Raison: We have pledged more than £30 million to the Zambian Government since last summer. In June we agreed to provide £4 million in programme aid, and £10 million to be associated with the World Bank's special facility. In December we undertook to provide a further £8 million in programme aid, and £5 million in association with the special facility. We also agreed a special grant of more than £1·5 million to permit the clearance of arrears of payments on aid loans. In addition, I have agreed to provide £3·17 million for a continuation of the integrated rural development project.
    Mr. McCrindle: In welcoming that package of measures, may I ask my right hon. Friend to update the House on the present state of negotiations between the IMF and the Zambian Government, and particularly on the degree of dependence of the Zambian economy on mining, because the fall in copper prices recently must clearly have had adverse effect?
    Mr. Raison: I think it is well known that the major problem facing Zambia has been the fact that its economy in earlier years was heavily dependent on copper prices, which, of course, have fallen in recent years. That has helped produce its substantial problems. Zambia is making good progress in its discussions with the IMF, and I am glad to be able to support it.
    Mr. Deakins: Does the Minister intend to help Zambian agriculture by making an appropriate contribution to the international fund for agricultural development?
    Mr. Raison: I am glad to say that agreement has just been reached within IFAD. I have also just announced a new contribution to the integrated rural development programme in Zambia.

    Mozambique
    Mr. Soamesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further aid he proposes to make available to Mozambique.
    Mr. Raison: As I told Mozambican Ministers on 28 January, I am making available to Mozambique additional capital aid of £6 million for developmental purposes and £1 million for emergency relief.
    Mr. Soames: I note my right hon. Friend's answer. Will he tell the House what the existing aid programme is being spent on in Mozambique?
    Mr. Raison: We are already providing £6·7 million for capital aid and £1·3 million for manpower aid. In addition a substantial amount of the money that we have pledged to the Southern African development co-ordination conference is also intended for use in Mozambique.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend tell us the main topics of conversation with the President of Mozambique at the recent Southern African development co-ordination conference which he attended last week?
    Mr. Raison: I attended that conference but the President of Mozambique did not, so I did not have any conversations with him. However, I did have conversations with his Foreign Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport. I told them about our new offer to their country. They were extremely pleased and we had very constructive discussions.

    India
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to increase the allocation of funds to India for the coming 12 months.
    Mr. Raison: I have no plans to do so, but India will remain by far the largest recipient of British bilateral aid.
    Mr. Janner: I very much regret that there is not to be an increase in aid in view of the staggering scale of poverty and deprivation that exists in India. Will the Minister at least promise to match, by governmental funds, sums that are raised by non-governmental efforts in this country to try to aid specific projects, rural and otherwise, in India?
    Mr. Raison: Our aid programme to India is very big indeed. We are the biggest bilateral donor, and in the next year we expect to spend £108 million. We are willing to take part in the joint funding of voluntary schemes, but the extent of our support far exceeds that provided by the voluntary sector, valuable though the latter is.

    Bharat Aluminium Company, India
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report progress on the construction of the thermal power plant for Bharat Aluminium Company, India and the amount of aid provided by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Raison: Work on the project is well in hand for completion on schedule in June 1987. ODA is providing grant-aid of almost £132 million, of which £33 million comes under the aid and trade provision.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome the progress and the planned completion of the significant project within the next 18 months. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the project will not only bring immense benefit to Indians but will have a beneficial spin-off for British consultants working abroad and for British manufacturers? Is it not such significant and tangible projects that British overseas aid should be geared to and support?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The project is proceeding very successfully. It will mean a valuable contribution towards the Indian power programme and also provides many jobs for British industry.

    Sudan
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of assistance being given by Her Majesty's Government for the transport of food in the Sudan.
    Mr. Raison: The 100 vehicles that we provided for Save the Children Fund last year are now being used to distribute food within Darfur. The additional £5 million that I announced to the House on 13 January is earmarked for distribution costs within Darfur over the coming months. The aim is to position as much food as possible, particularly in the most remote areas, before the next rains. We are in constant touch with the other major donors and non-government agencies which are also involved in the relief operation.
    Mr. Beith: Is it now the Minister's assessment that, with this assistance and the assistance coming from other sources, there will be no starvation arising directly from lack of transport within Sudan, or is he still anxious about the problem?
    Mr. Raison: It would be foolish to produce a smug answer to that question. Progress will need to be watched carefully, but I believe that things are proceeding along the right lines.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: During the previous Question Time on overseas development I referred to fuel for transport in Sudan. The Minister dismissed my concern as ridiculous. Will he withdraw that remark?
    Mr. Raison: I do not believe that fuel itself is the major problem, but I accept that all aspects of transport must be watched closely. There is basically enough food in the Sudan, the problem is making sure that it can be purchased and distributed among the people who need it most.

    Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Southern African development coordination conference held in Harare on 30 to 31 January.
    Mr. Raison: I attended the annual consultative meeting of the Southern Africa development co-ordination conference in Harare on 30 and 31 January. During the conference I made a new pledge of £10 million, mainly to be used for strengthening the regional transport link between Malawi and the port of Dar es Salaam. That sum is in addition to the £12 million that we have pledged at previous meetings.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome the aid for improving the infrastructure of the area, but can my right hon. Friend assure me that aid is going into projects that will help the economy to become self-supporting in due course?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is always a primary objective of our aid programme to help the economies concerned to strengthen, so that they can become more self-reliant.
    Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order immediately after—
    Mr. Straw: My point of order arises directly out of questions.
    Mr. Speaker: I know. That is why I shall take it immediately after Question Time.

British Leyland
3.32 pm
Mr. John Smith(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the future of British Leyland Vehicles and possible disposals.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Paul Channon): With the approval of the BL board, discussions are in progress between BL and General Motors with the aim of creating an internationally competitive United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry and improving the long-term prospects for the constituent BL companies. These talks cover Leyland Trucks, Land Rover, Freight Rover and certain related overseas operations. Discussions are at an advanced stage, but a number of important issues remain to be settled Separate discussions are taking place with the Laird Group, which owns Metro Cammell Weyman, about the future of Leyland Bus.
As to the other BL businesses, it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to return them to private ownership as soon as practicable. Talks with other car manufacturers on a variety of potential business ventures are in progress; some of them are wide-ranging, but are at an exploratory stage, and it is too early to tell whether they will lead to any potential equity stake, acquisition or merger.
Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State's statement reveals that discussions are at an advanced stage, but the House has not been told anything until today. Does not that statement confirm the fears expressed by the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in a speech yesterday in Birmingham? Is it not appalling that the Government are willing even to contemplate the disposal of the largest part of the British truck and bus manufacturing industry to an American competitor? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his predecessor was forced to say on 23 October last year:
"after lengthy discussions, Vauxhall is not yet ready to go further in proving that it really is a British car producer."—[Official Report, 23 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 285.]
In that context, is it not naive and foolish to expect that company to preserve any British element in what it acquires? Is there no part of British industry that is safe from the destructive purposes of the Government? Is there nothing that is not for sale? Will the Secretary of State confirm that a team from General Motors is currently in Leyland compiling a detailed dossier of our business? As the purpose of General Motors in buying Leyland would be to buy a market share, or rather to buy out the British market share and get its hands on modern facilities, which have been provided on a publicly financed basis at a cost of £320 million in the recent investment programme, will there not be large job losses in Bedford as well as Leyland? What is the estimate of the number of jobs that will be lost in both Bedford and Leyland?
What will the future be for the Land Rover and the Range Rover? Will not the job lot disposal of these prestigious British products be seen at home and abroad as a dreadful and shameful British retreat? Is it not a sad day when the British Government can even-think of such
22
a thing? If this deal goes ahead, will it not be the case that the British armed forces will have almost no British owned suppliers of the vehicles upon which they depend?
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question, not a statement.
Mr. Smith: Can the Government explain why all other countries in western Europe seem to want to stay in this industry but the British Government do not? Can the Secretary of State say what protection there will be for independent British research and development? Is not this episode typical of the Government's industrial policy? It involves the destruction of jobs, the permanent loss of an industry, the loss of independent research and development and the surrender of crucial British interests.
Mr. Channon: No, Sir. I strongly repudiate many of the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised in his question. As I have already explained, no decision has been reached in the talks between British Leyland and General Motors. When firm conclusions are reached, I shall make a full statement to the House. Were a deal to be reached, General Motors would give full undertakings that the majority—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Channon: I am surprised that on an issue like this the Opposition are not anxious for me to be heard. I am trying to explain these important matters. After what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying, he should be crying, not laughing.
General Motors would be willing to give undertakings that the majority of the products sold by the businesses involved would be manufactured in the United Kingdom, that the products would continue to have a high local content, that there would be a substantial level of exports, that research and development facilities would be maintained and developed in the United Kingdom, that Land Rover would retain its distinct British identity, and that an appropriate level of investment would be injected into the business to achieve competitive future models and facilities.
If these talks were to come off, it would be the Government's aim to ensure that the jobs and the future of Land Rover and these other companies were more., not less, secure. That is what we are fighting for—not for some shibboleth, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman—to try to get a viable industry that will be secure for the future.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that private notice questions are an extension of question time.
Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West): I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. As General Motors and British Leyland are well established commercial vehicle manufacturers in this country, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is Government policy to strengthen their manufacturing base? Will he remember that General Motors has a long, distinguished history of supplying first-class defence equipment to this country for this country's needs?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right in the latter part of his question. He is also right in the first part of his question, and I very much welcome his support.
Mr. George Park: Is the Secretary of State aware of a recent early-day motion,

23
sponsored by Conservative Members, paying tribute to the efforts of the workers and management of British Leyland? Does he imagine that his announcement will encourage either the workers or the management to make great efforts when they know that the inevitable rationalisation will mean that their jobs are likely to go down the drain?
Mr. Channon: I believe that my announcement, and what may possibly take place, should be—I do not say that it will be—of comfort to the work force. They should realise that their future is likely to be secure in a motor industry and in a truck industry that will have secure futures. Over £2 billion has been pumped into British Leyland during the past few years. We need to ensure that this industry is able to function successfully in the foreseeable future.
Mr. John Carlisle: I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), on the basis that General Motors is a successful company and that the merger could be to the benefit of British Leyland and it ill befits the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who turned up at Ellesmere Port in a Japanese car to talk to officials of the company, to talk of British content. General Motors has an excellent record in Britain, and I have every confidence that should the merger take place it will be to the benefit of all workers concerned.
Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take it later, if I may.
Mr. Channon: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's support, and I am grateful to him for what he said.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the duties that he has taken over is that of seeking to ensure that we have a viable British-owned motor industry? What has happened to the Government's philosophy of privatisation? Was it not intended to bring ownership to the employees and to the British people; not to sell off job lots in the American market?
Mr. Channon: I and my right hon. Friends are seeking to create conditions in which the companies about which I have been talking this afternoon will be able to have a more secure future than they have had in the past, and where their people will be able to look forward with confidence to the future of their companies. That is my aim. I would not allow talks to proceed unless I received satisfactory assurances to that effect, and I am sure that I will.
Mr. Iain Mills: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is in the the best interests of my constituents who work for Land Rover, the Austin Rover group and Unipart that the alternative to the suggestions that he has made may well be greater public investment, and that the exploration of the sort of co-operative venture that he has suggested would be beneficial to those constituents?
Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Why does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is so good for the employees that no talks have taken place with the trade
24
unions? Indeed, it has been denied to the trade unions that talks are taking place. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that the majority of products will be manufactured here? What will be the effect on the component industry, particularly in view of General Motors' poor record on buying components in Britain? Will he confirm that the bus and coach division could go to the wall, with the loss of 1,000 jobs? Does it not prove that in relation to the manufacturing industry the Government are not bothered about running the estate but only with selling the valuables in the manor house?
Mr. Channon: No, Sir. It means no such thing. It means that we are trying to achieve a situation in which the employment prospects and wellbeing of those in the companies concerned will be better rather than worse in the future. If a deal with General Motors were to be reached—and that is by no means certain—I shall have to be satisfied on the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about the majority of the products. We shall need to have a proper understanding about them.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend, whom I welcome to his post, think that British shareholders might be interested in the Range Rover and Land Rover, and for the rest could there be a European solution?
Mr. Channon: That is an ingenious idea which my hon. Friend, with his ingenious mind, so typically puts forward. I am convinced that the proposals for Land Rover offer the best possible future, that it could have. It will have extra opportunities in the United States, and that is very much in the interests of Land Rover.
Mr. Terry Davis: What arrangements will the right hon. Gentleman make to consult those who work at British Leyland and Metro Cammell Weyman about their future before their jobs are sold off?
Mr. Channon: I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question. As I have said, discussions are in progress. No decisions have been taken. The House will continue to be kept informed.
Mr. Richard Page: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reality of the situation is that there is over-capacity in vehicle manufacturing in the world and that any sale will give the opportunity to broaden the narrow retail outlets, possibly to overseas markets? Will he confirm that manufacturing capacity will be part of the condition of any sale?
Mr. Channon: That is an important point, with which I agree.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is this not an example of the Government dropping the Union Flag and raising the Stars and Stripes once again over British industry? Is it not true that this American corporation has made it clear that it does not want the Leyland Bus division? If that is the case, what will be done with it? What is the future of the Leyland plant in my constituency?
Mr. Channon: As I told the House, separate discussions are taking place with the Laird group about the future of Leyland Bus. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, rather than being so contemptuous about it.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the Labour party bitterly opposed the privatisation of Jaguar, which has been an outstanding success, not least for all the people who work in Jaguar? Does it not prove the Luddite attitude of the Opposition, because everybody knows that the future of the motor industry lies in international co-operation? If there is a possibility of a joint venture between British Leyland and a Japanese firm, would we not welcome that as well?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and it is typical of the Opposition today, as so often in the past, that they oppose any attempt to try to solve sensibly some of the serious commercial problems—attempts that are very much in the interest of all concerned.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: If the workers of Land Rover and Range Rover and the management said that they would prefer the Jaguar solution, would the Government stand in their way? Why did the Secretary answer yes to the question from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who said that a better solution to that of the Secretary of State for the job security of the people of the Meriden constituency and others was more public investment?
Mr. Channon: I do not think that I said yes. I shall look at what 1 said, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. [Interruption.] How interesting it is that when the affairs of a great industry such as this are being discussed the Opposition treat them with such frivolity. They are not interested in the future of British Leyland or its Trucks division. All that they are interested in is making petty mischief, as usual.
Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the future of scores, if not hundreds, of small businesses in the west midlands depends on their being able to provide parts to British Leyland? May we be certain that that future is being considered in any arrangement to be made?
Mr. Channon: I assure my hon. Friend that the point that she has raised is very much in my mind. I am grateful to her for referring to it again.
Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of an intervention by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), which I fear could mislead people, I make it utterly clear that I own and drive a British car, and have never had nor driven a Japanese car.
Later—
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind
26
the importance of the BL issue, why did we have such a very short time to ask questions about it? For the entire motor industry and all the people of the midlands, nothing is more important. We waste more time in the House on trivia than we spend on important matters such as this.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said at the beginning—the hon. Gentleman knows this well—that a private notice question is an extension of Question Time.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue with me from the Floor.
Mr. John Carlisle: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that I had said he owned a Japanese car. To correct the record, what I said was that he visited Ellesmere Port in a Japanese car. Perhaps he would like to clarify that — [HON MEMBERS: "Withdraw"].
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), may I stress that some of us whose constituents' work is affected by the disastrous statement that we have just had, at the first appearance at the Dispatch Box of the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, are entitled to have a chance to ask questions, and not have such a very brief period terminated when there were still many hon. Members on their feet?
Mr. Speaker: The House should understand that a Private notice question, which the Chair grants, is an extension of Question Time.
Mr. David Winnick: It was a statement.
Mr. Speaker: It was not a statement.
Mr. Winnick: It should have been.
Mr. Speaker: That is a different matter. It was not a statement. I was asked whether I would grant a private notice question on this matter, and I did so. I think that the House has had a fair run on it. No doubt we shall return to the matter.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that we have a very important debate to follow, which must end at 7 o'clock? Therefore, is it not right that we should pass to that debate as quickly as possible?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Questions to Ministers
3.47 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, during Question Time, there was an important disclosure by the Attorney-General that both he and the Solicitor-General had been wholly kept in the dark by the Prime Minister about what she knew about the source of the leak—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As I understand it, this is an extension of the full 10 minutes that we had on this matter, during which the hon. Gentleman asked a question.
Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is my point. Is it not outrageous and ludicrous that on such an important point the Attorney-General should be subject to only 10 minutes of questions each month? Will you confirm that it is within the rules of the House for you and the Government to agree to an extension of Question Time by placing such important questions to be answered after 3.30?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a question for me. If the Government or the Minister concerned wish to answer questions at the end of Question Time, that is in order. I judge that on this occasion the Attorney-General did not do that because he had Question 49 to answer.

Protection of Military Remains Bill
3.50 pm
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Friday last the Protection of Military Remains Bill was passed unanimously by the House. All its stages were passed unanimously, which is almost unique in the House. It is dismaying to see on the Order Paper today motion No. 4 in the name of the Leader of the House:
That the Proceedings of 31st January in Committee and on Third Reading of the Protection of Military Remains Bill be null and void.
In effect, the Leader of the House is saying that a Bill, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), shall be null and void despite the decision of the House that it should pass all its stages without a single vote.
We know that the Government are anxious to get away from Westland to matters of national importance, but is this not carrying things a little too far? The Leader of the House is trying to get a motion passed, presumably without debate, which rescinds the unanimous decision of the House last Friday. It shows contempt towards the House, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion and allow the Bill to proceed.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I can help the House on this matter. The Bill passed all its stages without notice. Normally, as the House knows, Bills do not pass all their stages in one sitting. I understand that the Bill in question requires a money resolution, which was not on the Order Paper. It will be necessary to move that before the Bill can proceed.

Teachers (Pay and Responsibilities)
3.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the teachers' dispute, which has caused disruption of children's education for the past year.
The House will be aware that, with assistance from ACAS, a provisional agreement has been reached between management and teachers on a settlement for 1985, an end to disruption, and assisted negotiations across pay and other conditions of service for 1986. The Government greatly welcome the prospect of a firm agreement of this kind along with the restoration of normal working in the schools. The disruption has not only damaged children's education. It has put heavy burdens on parents, head teachers and on many classroom teachers. We all want to see it end. I hope therefore that the provisional agreement will soon be formally adopted by management and teachers.
The NUT is not at present party to this agreement. I nevertheless hope that all the teachers' unions will join in the negotiations that lie ahead for 1986. The Government accept the case for an increase in teachers' pay to recruit, retain and motivate the teachers needed for the high quality school education our children need and deserve, along with improvements in the pay structure and a clarification of teachers' responsibilities. The Government have set aside additional resources for this purpose. I therefore hope that the forthcoming negotiations will soon make sufficient progress towards the Government's objectives to justify my releasing those resources.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and his Department did, and have done, nothing to help bring about a settlement of this highly-damaging teachers' dispute, and that his statement today does nothing to make a long-term settlement of the teachers' grievance more likely?
Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has not offered the local education authorities any extra money to help pay for the provisional settlement, nor has he offered to increase the Government's contribution towards a longer term settlement next year?
When will the right hon. Gentleman grasp the simple truth — a truth that is well understood by local authorities, parents and teachers alike — that raising educational standards and giving teachers decent salaries requires substantial extra investment?
Does the Secretary of State understand that his announcement that he will not be standing at the next election has transformed him overnight into the lamest of lame ducks? If he really cares about our children's education he should announce that he is resigning as Secretary of State.
Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have long taken the view—a view that we have every reason to confirm —that teachers deserve to have more pay in order that people of the right quality shall be recruited, retained and motivated. The Government have accepted that. We also believe that it would not be right for additional money to be given to teachers from the taxpayer without, at the same time, the teachers agreeing to a new pay structure with ample extra promotions and to implementing their duties.
30
The House is united in wanting an end to the disruption in our schools. There is, however, a difference between the Government and the Opposition which I must emphasise. The Government see a bargain for children in calling for extra pay and a new pay structure for teachers, but we also believe that there should be an acceptance by the teachers' unions of duties. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is active in seeking extra pay for teachers, and I can understand that. However, he completely refuses to accept that teachers, for their part, should accept duties. When he was asked that in a recent debate, he refused to confirm that it was the Opposition's view that duties are a necessary part of the bargain.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: If there is to be a complete resolution of the dispute, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that rank and file teachers should be persuaded to accept the outline of the ACAS agreement? Is it not therefore most important that, to persuade them, the Government should make it clear what benefits are on offer in the later negotiation for 1986 onwards? Those possibilities might be enhanced before negotiation begins.
Sir Keith Joseph: I accept what my hon. Friend said. It is important that teachers in unions should well understand what is on offer and that the Government have already set aside a substantial sum of money to be released on condition that the bargain to which I have referred is made. The Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has already called off the disruption. I welcome that, as I am sure the House does. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers is balloting its members. We understand that the ballot will take much of this month. I hope that the National Union of Teachers, which has called off the strike on which it provisionally decided, will decide to call off the disruption which it proposes at the moment to continue.
Mr. Clement Freud: The Secretary of State said that he would make sufficient progress towards the Government's objectives. Will he confirm that those objectives are the same as those that he spelt out to the House previously? Does he accept that the more intransigent he is, the more succour he gives to the hard-line unionists? I wonder whether he read today's leader in the Daily Mail which finishes:
"The Cabinet should empower Sir Keith to give a kindly—and astutely kind smile — (cash to follow) before he finally bows out."
Perhaps he would like to manifest that.
Sir Keith Joseph: If we had not been firm and said that extra pay for teachers from the taxpayer would be forthcoming only if, in return, they accepted their duties, a new pay structure and extra promotions, we would not by now even have a discussion of that bargain on the agenda.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I join my right hon. Friend in deploring the damage that has been done to our children's education by this long dispute. Does he agree that we must somehow find a way of encouraging those moderate and conscientious teachers who intensely dislike the strike weapon and who, in many cases, have rejected it? Can we not in the longer term move towards some kind of professional teachers' council, and hope that we can move towards negotiating a no-strike agreement?
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to all those teachers, in particular head teachers, who have carried on without disruption. I am ready to support the idea of a general teachers' council, if that is the wish of the majority of teachers, but I should need first to be convinced that it would operate on behalf of the children as well as taking an interest in teachers.
Mr. Jack Thompson: In his statement, the Secretary of State used the words, "normal work in schools". Do I take it that he was referring to the time before the teachers' dispute arose when teachers performed many out-of-school activities including taking children for Saturday morning football matches and that type of thing? The feeling that I receive in my constituency and beyond is that in the foreseeable future—certainly not in the Secretary of State's lifetime—teachers will not go back to normal working in schools. Even if there is a settlement, normal working in schools, as we recognised it before the dispute, will not return. Teachers are resisting the demands for out-of-school activities made upon them.
Sir Keith Joseph: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes, except that the Government are now separately financing midday supervision, as he and the House are aware, and we are asking that that appraisal be considered as part of the duties.
Mr. Robert Key: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of teacher unions such as the AMMA and the NAS/UWT are prepared to talk about restructuring, conditions and appraisal, whereas the impression is given that they are not? Does he agree that the ACAS panel, which has been established, should become a son of Burnham — an embryo negotiating body?
Sir Keith Joseph: I welcome what I know is the correct attitude of a number of unions. Burnham is needed under the law to validate and implement any agreement made under the ACAS umbrella.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that education requires a degree of consent and confidence before any learning can take place? Was it not his responsibility and duty to separate the issues that he mentioned earlier so that there was not the disruption that has taken place, and to ensure that discussion went forward on two different levels to avoid the disaster that we have just experienced?
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first proposition, but I do not think that the blame for the teacher unions' reluctance to discuss pay and what pay is for falls upon the Government.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that everyone is pleased to see teachers paid more? Does he accept that, unfortunately, the strike that we have seen over the past year has been the tip of the iceberg and that there has been serious disruption in schools for the past three years, with books not marked, work not prepared, parent-teacher evenings and evening interviews with parents not held? Will he do all that he can to ensure that the forthcoming discussions under the ACAS umbrella will ensure a full return to proper duty by all teachers so that children once more have the proper education that they deserve?
Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. It is to avoid a repetition of the experience of the past three years that the Government attach such importance to the acceptance by the teacher unions of their duties in return for additional pay and a revised pay structure.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Secretary of State recall an earlier reference to moderate and conscientious teachers? Does he recognise that even the most moderate and conscientious teacher perceives that the damage which has been done to British education during the past year or two is greater than anything it has ever experienced? Is he aware that that damage will not be relieved, if he was accurately reported following the settlement by the suggestion that the Government would not find the money to pay for any improvements? Will he make it absolutely clear that the Government will find the money or local authorities, whether they be Labour or Conservative-controlled, will all be found to be in default by the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Sir Keith Joseph: Such an inaccurate quotation is beneath the hon. Gentleman's normal standing. I never said any such thing. I repeated what the local education authorities have said the whole time, that to honour the agreement that they have now made would strain their resources a great deal.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on making it clear that the Government are ready to negotiate on the excellent ideas produced by ACAS. Will he make it his prime duty to publicise the fact that from 1 April 1986 a new teacher will get at least £7,037 and that a teacher on the top of graduate entrant scale 3 will get £11,969? Is that not a commitment to the teaching profession, and does it not show that the Government put the children first?
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with much that my hon. Friend said. To confirm the attitude that I am seeking to express, I should like to quote one sentence from a letter that I wrote to the chairman of the employers' panel and released to the press:
"the Government is only too eager to be able to justify such extra spending on teachers' pay and better rewards for effective teaching, in return for an acceptable bargain with the teachers on pay structure and on duties."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Have not the Government a cheek to be telling the teachers that they cannot have proper pay deals when the same Government voted through 19 per cent. for top salaries and in 1985 nodded through an average 17 per cent. wage increase for those in business management and top executives? The same Government keep referring to co-operation with regard to the teachers, but they refuse to co-operate with House Committees and instead plead the fifth amendment. They have ex-Ministers who will not tell the truth, and yet they are asking—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the statement.
Sir Keith Joseph: It is on the same perception of the need to recruit, retain and motivate people of the right quality that the Government agreed with the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body and they have made available to teachers an extra £1·25 billion in return for them doing their duties.
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has done, that we have an important debate following this statement, and 1 also have notice of two Standing Order No. 10 applications. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes and I hope I shall be able to call most of the hon. Members who are now standing if they ask brief questions.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have advocated a review body and who still believe in one nevertheless believe that an honourable settlement has been negotiated by ACAS? It will not be understood by parents if disruption does not cease forthwith.
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree very much.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I shall not consider myself a lame duck for the rest of this Parliament and therefore I see no reason why he should? If this settlement is decided by Burnham and most of the teachers' unions therefore accept it—it would presumably be imposed after that—is there any reason why members of other teachers' unions should not withdraw their support for the NUT, which will be the only body opposing it? After the new Burnham decision the NUT could not justify opposing the agreement.
Sir Keith Joseph: I very much hope that the NUT executive and its members will change their attitude.
Mr. Peter Lilley (St. Albans): Does my right hon. Friend agree that this agreement could have been reached last year when he first offered an extra £1·25 billion if at that stage the NUT had not still had a majority on the Burnham committee? It is only because the NUT lost that majority that this progress has become possible. They lost that majority because teachers voted with their feet for a more moderate approach to the settlement and to take up the olive branch which my right hon. Friend had offered.
Sir Keith Joseph: It might have been possible to provide extra money from the taxpayer had there been a with-strings agreement for 1985–86 instead of a no-strings agreement. That prospect was wrecked when the NUT walked out of the negotiations in December 1984.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I welcome the settlement so far, but will my right hon. Friend constantly re-emphasise the importance of restructuring to any longterm solution to the teaching profession's pay and conditions problem? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are willing to fund the increased costs of such restructuring, and will he recognise the difficulties of the local education authorities in the interim of funding a proper settlement?
Sir Keith Joseph: I agree about the importance of restructuring. The Government had provided, on condition, the extra money which would have enabled substantial restructuring and no fewer than 74,000 extra promotions, had the offer put forward by the employers in September last year, on the basis of the Government's extra money from the taxpayer, been accepted and not rejected.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) are regarded by Conservative Members as deplorable? There is great respect on this side of the House and in the country for what my right hon. Friend has set out to do as Secretary of State. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support in Britain for his insistence that the Government will not underwrite a new pay settlement to teachers until such time as their unions are willing to accept a proper professional contract which includes forswearing the disruption of schools now and in the future?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him. I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Member for Durham, North allows himself to reject the idea of the duties of teachers as part of the bargain.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his term of office has been characterised by a genuine desire to improve standards in our schools? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that in the light of the ACAS proposals the time has come to stop disruption in our schools especially in marginal constituencies such as mine—[Interruption.] The NUT quite deliberately targeted marginal seats. Is this not a generous offer and is it not time that it was accepted?
Sir Keith Joseph: I am rather shocked that Opposition Members laugh so heartily at the penalisation of children in the schools. Surely it is not part of the philosophy of the traditional Labour party to take it out on children?
Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that, like many other hon. Members in their constituencies, I have had numerous letters from parents in mine? They do not think a great deal of the Secretary of State for Education. Is he also aware that not long ago I accused him of messing up social services and messing up industry. Now he has messed up education. I am pleased that he is going at the end of this Parliament, and I hope he will not interfere in the future with the education services.
Sir Keith Joseph: I feel, despite the hon. Gentleman's point of view, that most people in this House desperately want better education for our children. That calls for the acceptance by teachers of their duties as well as a review of the career structure.

Draft Single European Act
4.16 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Draft Single European Act final text."
I emphasise "final text".
On 18 December, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was discussing the European treaty with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Secretary of State said:
"It was agreed that we should not speak of the establishment of a European union."—[Official Report, 18 December 1985; Vol. 89, c. 302.]
The first paragraph of the preamble to this treaty gives a commitment
"to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union,… to implement this European Union … and to invest this union with the necessary means of action".
In 1973 we joined the Common Market. At a later stage we had a referendum to sustain membership of the Common Market. The British people have never been asked whether they wish to be dragged unknowingly, unconsulted and unconsenting into a United States of Europe. This text is final and would mean that the United Kingdom would cease to be a sovereign state and would be merely a province of a larger United States of Europe. It is an important issue.
Secondly, as in important issue, it states in this final text that we are
"convinced that the European idea … and the need for new developments correspond to the wishes of the democratic peoples of Europe, for whom the European Parliament, elected by universal sufferage, is an indispensable means of expression,"
This is bunk. If, Mr. Speaker, you speak to your constituents, or if I speak to mine, or if one looks at the figures of those who voted for this institution at the last election, there is no doubt that it is bunk. It is not only bunk, because if one looks at article 6 one sees that this dangerous institution is about to be given yet more power.
Throughout the treaty we have talked about the European Assembly. Now, in article 6, we read that "After consulting the Assembly" is to be changed to "in cooperation with the European Parliament". I am not sure
36
what the language means, but I think that a Parliament is different from an assembly, and that co-operation is different from consultation. In this treaty this institution is to be given a great deal of power. As political power and parliamentary power is by and large a zero sum, if more power goes to Strasbourg and Brussels there will be less power here in this Parliament.
This is a matter of such fundamental importance that there is a risk that as a result of this Denmark will feel forced to secede from the European Community. It is urgent because the next business of the House is to consider giving parliamentary approval to an illegal budget passed by the European Assembly. It seems to me that it is the wrong way round for the Government to wish to give money to this bandit institution. Surely we should first discuss in Parliament whether we wish to give more powers to this institution.
As a matter of great urgency the Government have said that they must provide the extra money because they are taking the case to the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice is not only about justice; it is also about the increase of power of European institutions. If the Government first provide more money through Parliament and then say that they want the institution to have more power, and Parliament does not even see fit to discuss that increase in power, what is the outcome likely to be at the European Court?
You are a wise and powerful Speaker, Mr. Speaker. You are here, not to support the Government or their programme, but to support the sovereignty of the House. I implore you to grant leave for this urgent debate to take place.
Mr. Speaker: The 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 Draft Single European Act final text."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, my sole duty when considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that this matter meets all of the criteria laid down in the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House, but he will of course have an opportunity to discuss it later today.

Police Federation of Northern Ireland
4.21 pm
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the restriction on the right of free speech imposed on the Police Federation of Northern Ireland."
The matter is specific, in that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has tried to gag the elected chairman of the Police Federation of Northern Ireland by issuing a force order cancelling regulation 35 of the Royal Ulster Constabulary discipline code.
Regulation 35 reads:
"Nothing in these regulations will preclude the spokesman of any of the constituent sections of the Police association for Northern Ireland making or issuing any statement to the news media concerning the welfare and efficiency of their members."
Last week, the assistant chief constable, acting on the Chief Constable's instruction, handed to the chairman of the Police Federation a paper, of which I have a copy, saying that regulation 35, which establishes beyond peradventure the right of the federation to speak out on any matter which the House has made its business, had been amended thus:
"Statements and interviews and the publication of articles in any journal or periodical concerning matters of general Force policy and actions, or expressions of opinion on police problems or duties are not permitted without the express consent and approval of the Chief Constable … Where any aspect of welfare or efficiency may relate to Force policy or actions, police problems or duties, the Chief Constable shall be consulted and approval obtained, before any statement is made or any article published."
Those words have no meaning other than that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland intended, and intends to prevent the federation from making any comment in public which he has not specifically approved in advance. This is not only censorship. It is, and is meant to be, a gag.
During the weekend, the Chief Constable went further. He withdrew the amendment that I have just quoted and substituted for it his force order cancelling regulation 35 —the federation's free speech regulation—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use arguments which he might use if the application were granted.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to say that the matter is specific because the force order contains the words:
"Regulation 35 is cancelled".
The matter is also urgent because, if the Chief Constable's force order is allowed to stand, not only is free speech denied, but when the chairman of the Police Federation meets the press on Wednesday or Thursday his superior officer will have no choice but to charge him with a disciplinary offence. That is why it is urgent for his matter to be dealt with.
The matter is important, too, for the Chief Constable's action in Ulster could pose a threat to the free speech of the Police Federations of England and Wales and of Scotland as well as that of Northern Ireland. The federations on this side of the water will go to the aid of their Northern Ireland colleagues if this oppressive order is not withdrawn.
I therefore invite you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the House to debate this matter as it touches on one of our most fundamental rights—that of free speech—and strikes at the heart of the morale of 8,000 brave men and women who make up the Police Federation of Northern Ireland.
The matter is specific, urgent and important. I beg to ask that leave be given for it to take precedence over other business.
Mr. Speaker: The 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 restriction on the right of free speech imposed on the Police Federation of Northern Ireland."
The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important matter and I have listened with great care to what he has said. However, I have to give him the same answer as I gave to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I regret that I cannot find that the matter that he has raised meets all of the criteria laid down in the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. No doubt he will be able to find other ways in which to bring the matter before the House.

Supplementary Estimates
  Class II, Vote 9

    European Community Budget
    [Relevant documents: The Draft General Budget of the European Communities for the Financial Year 1986, with amendments and proposed modifications (Documents Nos. 10773/85 to 10778/85), together with the Treasury's Explanatory Memorandum thereon; and the Seventh Report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, House of Commons Paper (1985–86) No. 21-vii, paragraph 9.
    Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 30 January 1986, House of Commons Paper No. 203-i.]
    4.26 pm
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
    That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £135,917,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1986 for expenditure by the Treasury in connection with payments to the Budget of the European Communities not covered by direct charges on the Consolidated Fund under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 177.
    The special Supplementary Estimate which is before the House today relates to our contributions to the 1985 and 1986 budgets of the European Communities. There are two relevant documents, apart from the Estimate, of which Members will wish to be aware — a memorandum submitted by the Treasury to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on 24 January, and a transcript of oral evidence taken by the Committee on 30 January.
    I hope that it will be helpful to hon. Members if I first remind the House of the purpose and content of the Special Supplentary Estimate. I propose then to discuss the Government's policy on the disputed 1986 Community budget and our contributions towards it, and finally to say something about the statutory basis for our contribution to the disputed budget and the procedures for obtaining parliamentary approval.
    The Estimate contains two elements. The larger concerns the provision of some £118 million towards meeting a Commission request to member states to bring forward a payment of traditional own resources —agricultural levies and customs duties—from December to November 1985. I should stress that this sum does not represent an increase in Community spending. It is purely a question of the timing of the payment of own resources collected during October 1985. They would normally have been paid to the Commission in December, but instead they were paid on 20 November. Our December payment was reduced by a corresponding amount and there was therefore no effect on the public expenditure planning totals.
    The need for the November advance arose because one element in the financing of the 1985 budget —supplementary contributions under the 1985 intergovernmental agreement—was not received before the very end of 1985. We had taken provision of £820 million in Main Estimates and Summer Supplementaries to cover
    40
    these advances during 1985, but had not expected them to continue to be required as late as November. Consequently, when the Commission asked member states to bring forward the £134 million December contribution into November, only £16·1 million could be covered by the amount remaining in the Vote. The balance of £118 million was paid by means of a drawing on the Contingencies Fund. Parliament was duly informed of the advance payment on 21 November. The Supplementary Estimate now proposed is needed to reimburse the Contingencies Fund before the end of the current financial year. The Commission's cash flow difficulties caused by late payment of the 1985 IGA have now been resolved. There should therefore be no need for further advance payments of traditional own resources in the immediate future.
    The second part of the Estimate relates to the disputed 1986 budget. It seeks provision of £18 million in respect of our contributions during the first quarter of the year towards that part of the budget added by the European Parliament in excess of its powers under the treaties.
    As hon. Members will recall, the European Parliament adopted in December a budget for 1986 which made provision for some 629 million ecu—about £400 million —of spending above that agreed by the Council. The Government have decided to join the Council and several other member states in asking the European Court to annul the disputed elements in the budget. In the meantime, the Government propose, in common with all other member states, to pay in full to the budget on a without prejudice basis. Since, however, we do not accept any legal obligation to contribute towards the disputed elements, this element in our contribution cannot be charged direct to the Consolidated Fund under the European Communities Act 1972 and we need instead to seek Parliament's authority through the Estimates procedure.
    Mr. Tony Marlow: Can my hon. Friend say how much money Denmark is having to pay and when it is arranging to pay it? Can he also tell the House how it is that the Commission is applying this illegal budget at this stage?
    Mr. Brooke: Denmark is necessarily paying a smaller amount than we are, but it has decided to pay in full. In a moment I shall discuss the Commission's action in bringing forward the budget and asking for payment.
    Mr. Eric Deakins: What provision exists under EEC legislation, laws and treaties for those amounts to be repaid if we win our court case?
    Mr. Brooke: The circumstances that will obtain when the court gives judgment on the case are a matter which I shall discuss later. It is perfectly proper that the hon. Gentleman should raise it.
    I shall discuss now the Government's policy on the disputed budget for 1986. The Government take an extremely serious view of what has happened during the 1986 budget process. The two main issues are budget discipline and treaty violation.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the fact that today in London 48 Liverpool Labour councillors are facing the courts because of a so-called illegal budget. If the decision goes against them—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I believe that the hon. Member is referring to a matter that is sub judice. Can he assure me that it is not sub judice?
    Mr. Heifer: I am making an analogy, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If they are found guilty—I am not arguing for or against them — they will be surcharged and disqualified. If the Government win the case, will they not only ask for the money back, but suggest that the MEPs who have raised the budget should be surcharged and disqualified from holding office?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would not be appropriate for the Minister to pursue that matter. In the House, it is not in order to refer to a case that is sub judice. I am informed that the case is sub judice.
    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not referring to the case. I am merely pointing out that the councillors are now before the courts. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong. I am not arguing their case.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that it was not in order to refer to a case that was sub judice. This case is sub judice and must not be referred to.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Heffer: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is wrong for me to refer to the Liverpool case, is it not wrong for the Government to argue about something that is also sub judice, because it is before the courts?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is confusing two matters.
    Mr. Heifer: I am not confusing anything—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will like to know that the sub judice rule applies to United Kingdom courts, not to European courts.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have said that the case is before the European courts and cannot be subjected to the same sub judice rule as applies to a British court. When we went into the Common Market—dragged in without a vote, and some of us have been protesting ever since —we were told, without reservation, that in those areas where United Kingdom laws conflicted with European laws, the Common Market laws would supersede our laws. The Minister is telling us that the case is before the courts, which means that it is sub judice. We know that we cannot talk about Liverpool and Lambeth because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have said that those cases are sub judice. On that count, it seems to me that the whole debate and the application for a Supplementary Estimate must be abandoned, because we are not allowed to talk about it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is raising a point that can legitimately be raised during the debate. I am explaining the sub judice rule which applies in this place. It applies to United Kingdom courts, not to European courts. If the House wishes to change the rule, it knows how to attempt to change it. I am stating only the present position. It is my job in the Chair to ensure that our rules are upheld.
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    42
    The House is being asked to pass an illegal Act. The Government—thank God—with the other Governments, are to fight it through the Euro-court. If the Euro-court finds against us we can be forced to pay money. and the European Parliament will thus override the sovereignty of the House. How can that not be sub judice? How can we pay money—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is raising points which it would be perfectly legitimate to raise in the debate. I remind the House that the debate must finish at 7 o'clock. There are many hon. Members who wish to speak.
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would explain the sub judice rule further to the House, because there is a distinction between drawing attention to the fact that proceedings are taking place and commenting upon the substance of those proceedings. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was merely pointing out that proceedings were under way. He was not offering an opinion on whether they were justified, but was simply saying that proceedings are taking place. The purpose of the sub judice rule is to prevent legal proceedings from being affected by what might be said in the House. The hon. Gentleman was not offering a comment on the legal proceedings. He was drawing an analogy, and to draw the analogy he pointed out their existence.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: One of the reasons for the sub judice rule is to ensure that cases are not prejudiced by anything that is said in the House. Drawing them into an argument could easily prejudice a case. That is why the House, in its wisdom, has had the rule for a great many years.
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for coming in—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—on the point of order. I apologise also to my hon. Friend the Minister. Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your ruling is bound to be right, because the case to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred is a domestic case involving individuals. By implication, in raising that matter the hon. Gentleman is perhaps a little sympathetic towards those individuals. My hon. Friend the Minister is referring to an international case, where the debate technically revolves around the payment of a supplementary additional amount, rather than around the underlying arguments, although they will form part of the debate.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. I hope that we can now continue with the debate.
    Mr. Brooke: The two main issues are budget discipline and treaty violation.
    On budget discipline, the Government first expressed their concern at the Council's "Second Reading" discussion on 26 and 27 November. On that occasion the Council voted by qualified majority to increase non-obligatory expenditure by some 1·2 billion ecu on payment appropriations. In the Government's view, it would have been compatible with the spirit of the budget discipline agreement to increase non-obligatory expenditure by some 1 billion ecu, comprising 440 million ecu permitted under the statutory maximum rate of increase for this expenditure

    43
    plus some 550 million to 600 million ecu earmarked for Spain and Portugal in the first year of the enlarged Community. The 1·2 billion ecu voted by the Council somewhat exceeded this figure. The United Kingdom therefore voted against the Council's "Second Reading" budget as representing a threat to budget discipline. We did not, however, regard it as a flagrant violation. The non-obligatory expenditure totals exceeded budget discipline levels, strictly interpreted, but the excess was more than offset by the new own resources — net of refunds—which Spain and Portugal will be bringing to the budget.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: When we agreed to increase the level of our VAT contribution to the Community, it was pledged in return that we would get budget discipline. Is my hon. Friend saying that even if we win the case against the European Assembly the Council's "Second Reading" budget will still be in breach of those undertakings?
    Mr. Brooke: I repeat that the non-obligatory expenditure totals exceeded budget discipline levels, strictly interpreted, but the excess was more than offset by the new own resources—net of refunds—which Spain and Portugal will be bringing to the budget.
    At the December Budget Council the Council decided, with the United Kingdom again voting against, to offer a further 242 million ecu of non-obligatory expenditure in an attempt to reach agreement with the Parliament. The Parliament rejected the offer, which the President of the Council then withdrew, and took instead the regrettable step of voting and then adopting a budget providing for non-obligatory expenditure at a level 629 million ecu above the Council's "Second Reading".
    The budget as adopted by the Parliament is clearly incompatible with the Council's budget discipline conclusions on non-obligatory expenditure. It does not follow that budget discipline as a whole lies in ruins. The single most important element in the budget discipline agreement is the guideline for expenditure on agricultural market support, and the budget as proposed by the Council and adopted by the Parliament respects that guideline. There is headroom of some 170 million ecu within it. The problem area is non-obligatory expenditure. That is where the Parliament's action, and to a lesser extent the Council's December offer, were manifestly incompatible with the budget discipline agreement.
    The breach of budget discipline is a serious matter. To be fair, however, the Parliament has never subscribed to the Council's conclusions on budget discipline and is not legally bound by them. What is even more serious, therefore, is that the Parliament exceeded its powers by adopting a budget for 1986 with levels of non-obligatory expenditure going well beyond what was available under the treaty. The treaty provides that, if the statutory maximum rate of increase in non-obligatory expenditure is to be exceeded by more than the Parliament's statutory margin of manoeuvre, the Council and the Parliament must agree on a new maximum rate. In the event, the Parliament unilaterally adopted a budget which included a level of non-obligatory expenditure for which the Council's agreement had been neither sought nor obtained.
    In the Government's view, the Parliament cannot be allowed to get away with this. If it were, there would, as
    44
    my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has put it, be a substantial shift of real power in the Community. The balance of budgetary power between the Council and the Parliament would shift markedly in the Parliament's favour. The Parliament would be able to add substantial sums with impunity each year to the Council's proposals. These implications for future control of the Community's expenditure are even more serious than the amount of some 629 million ecu which is immediately at issue in the current year.
    The Government have acted swiftly in response to the Parliament's action. We have taken three steps. First, we urged the Council to bring a case against the Parliament before the European Court under article 173 of the EEC treaty. This the Council agreed to do, by a seven to three majority, on 20 December — a bare day after confirmation of the decision by the President of the Parliament to adopt the budget. The Council's legal services are expected to deposit pleadings with the European Court in the middle of this month.
    Secondly, we have ourselves initiated a case against the Parliament before the European Court, alongside the Council's case. Our application to the court was completed on 28 January and deposited on 29 January. The pleadings cannot be published, but have been made available to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. Copies have also been placed in the Library of the House for Members' use.
    The Government's decision to bring separate national proceedings alongside the council's case was influenced by three main considerations: first, the need to insure againt the slight risk that the Council's case might be found inadmissible because of the wording of the relevant treaty provisions; secondly, the need to insure against the risk that the majority in the Council in favour of the court action might at some stage be lost; and, thirdly, our ability to deploy in our own case legal arguments which we believe to be most compelling. Four other member states are likewise bringing national cases—France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
    The substance of our case is that the Parliament acted unlawfully by adopting payment and commitment appropriations which failed to respect the maximum rate provisions of the treaty, and also by including unauthorised appropriations for certain items of obligatory expenditure over which the Council has the last word. We are asking the court accordingly to annul the 1986 budget as adopted in so far as it exceeds the Council's own "Second Reading" budget of 26 and 27 November.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: My point concerns the action taken by the British Government, quite apart from the actions initiated by the Council and by other member states on the use of this money. Is there not a danger that the Commission will have spent the £18 million in this Supplementary Estimate before our interim measure comes before the court? Would not the best way of preventing the Commission from spending the money be for us not to pay the money? How will the Commission pay the money back if it has already spent it?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. We have announced that we will take that interim measure before the court. We are bringing the interim measure before the court for a number of reasons which are not simply associated with the immediate payments.

    45
    We are concerned to place the application before the European Court. This is a novel action in the Community's history. We are concerned that the case should be considered at the earliest possibility. As I said to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, if the Commission has spent the money when the court makes its decision on the final case, by definition, the money has been spent. However, a most important battle will have been won in terms of establishing the distribution of power between the Parliament and the Council. If, on any future occasion, Parliament sought to do the same thing, an interim application would immediately become admissible and be decided on the precedent of the previous case.
    Mr. Marlow: Can my hon. Friend estimate how long the legal proceedings will take? How much money above the legal budget which my hon. Friend would support is likely to be spent in that time? If it is within the same financial year, why on earth can we not have the money back from the Commission?
    Mr. Brooke: On the timing of the main court action, it is unlikely that we will obtain a judgment much before the end of the year, and it could be some time well into the next calendar year. On my hon. Friend's specific question, by definition the sum involved will be £72 million, contingent upon the relative exchange rate at the time.

    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Brooke: I am anxious that hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak in the debate.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: This is an important point, especially in view of the possible year's gap. Is the Minister saying that the Commission, its President or an official statement has suggested that despite the matter being sub judice—at least in EEC terms—the Commission will nevertheless go ahead and pay out the money before the court makes a decision? Who made that statement, and on what authority?
    Mr. Brooke: The Commission has presented its demand to the United Kingdom for payment, and that is the subject of today's debate. It is on that ground that we intend to move our interim application that the demand is inappropriate in terms of the margin. Once the demand payment is paid, the resources can be spent under the Commission's powers. Failing our first request to the court, we are asking it to annul the budget in its entirety; in other words, to find that no valid budget exists.
    Our third action is to ask the court for an interim order in effect suspending implementation of the illegal elements in the budget until the court has given judgment. We shall be applying for this order within the next week or so. Our application will ask the court to suspend implementation both of the excesses of expenditure in the budget above the Council's "Second Reading" levels and of the extra contributions required to finance these excesses. Our advice is that the court is unlikely to reach judgment on the substantive cases before the end of this year, or quite possibly later. In our view, this reinforces the case for requesting an interim order, on which we would expect the court to decide within a few weeks. Other member states are likewise considering whether to request interim orders, but we are the only country to have decided firmly to do so.
    46
    The other policy issue which the Government have had to address is how much the United Kingdom should pay towards the disputed budget in the meantime, pending rulings by the European Court. The Government have decided, after careful consideration, that the best course is to pay in full towards the budget as adopted, on a without prejudice basis, pending the court's rulings. That is why we decided to present the special Supplementary Estimate.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am trying to follow the logic behind my hon. Friend's argument. I simply cannot understand how we can pay money on a without prejudice basis, which will then be spent and become unrecoverable. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend cannot defer that payment until the interim decision of the court.
    Mr. Brooke: If my hon, Friend will be patient, I shall come to that part of the argument.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: In the event of the Commission spending the money illegally, will it be open to us to deduct that amount from a future budget payment?
    Mr. Brooke: There would be freedom for us to deduct that amount from a subsequent contribution. However, obviously that would be contingent upon the decision of the court in responding to our interim application.
    The first and most important consideration is that the Council and individual member states must win the court cases if a major shift in power towards the European Parliament is to be avoided. The Government's legal advice has been that payment in full would enable the United Kingdom to appear before the European Court in the best possible posture. On the other hand, failure to pay in full would impair the United Kingdom's posture and tend to prejudice the substantive cases brought before the court and, still more, the United Kingdom's application for an interim order.
    A second important consideration is that all other member states have decided to pay in full. We ought not lightly to break ranks with the rest of the Council.
    A third consideration is that the United Kingdom would incur a potential liability to penal interest charges—
    Mr. Budgen: When my hon. Friend gave evidence before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee last week he said that the sole reason for paying the money was that the legal advice to the Government was that they should do so. He said that he would make available further details of that legal advice. When it was suggested that the payment was being made because the Government wished to appear Communautaire, my hon. Friend returned to the argument that it was being done on legal advice. Will he please explain in detail the basis of the legal advice?
    Mr. Brooke: I repeat what I said a moment ago, that failure to pay in full would prejudice the United Kingdom's posture, and still more the United Kingdom's application for an interim order — [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Because there would be a degree of illogicality in asking the Commission to cease to insist on a payment from us if we were not in fact making that payment.
    Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the whole of this case seems to hang on legal advice, is there any way in which the House, before it

    47
    decides on the matter at 7 o'clock, can have the benefit of the presence of the Attorney-General so that we can ask him questions?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter of argument, and is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Brooke: As I was saying, a third consideration was that the United Kingdom would incur a potential liability to penal interest charges on delayed payments if we failed to pay in full. The penal rate is currently nearly 21 per cent., and rises with each month of delay.
    It may be helpful to my hon. Friends if I expand a little on the legal background. Although the Government have been advised that they are not legally obliged to contribute to the disputed part of the 1986 budget, there is a contrary view — which we understand to be held by the Commission, among others—that the budget must be treated as valid unless and until it is annulled by the court. If the Government refused to contribute to the adopted budget in full, they would almost certainly be challenged by the Commission. Indeed, it is possible that the Commission could ask for an interim order against the United Kingdom. If, at the end of the day, it was held that the United Kingdom should have contributed to the budget in full at this stage, any delayed payments would be subject to the penal interest charges that I mentioned.
    Several members of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee argued last week that, contrary to the argument which I have given, payment in full would tend to prejudice the case rather than failure to pay in full. The Government do not accept that view. In our view, the only sensible way to proceed in such cases is to be guided by the judgment of those who are expert in the areas concerned, and our advice has been that it is failure to pay in full that would tend to prejudice our cases, and in particular our request for an interim order.
    There are three particular points. First, our advice is that the court is likely to be more impressed if the Council and member states adopt a common approach than if different member states pursue different courses. The dispute is effectively between the Community's institutions. The more an institution shows itself divided, the weaker its position will be. We have therefore been concerned to co-ordinate our approach with other member states and the Council. Although we shall wish, where appropriate, to bring additional arguments to the attention of the court, we do not want to fragment the Council's position or divert the court's attention from the main area of dispute. As I mentioned before, all other member states will be contributing in full.
    Secondly, the court may be expected to have some regard to the reasonableness of the conduct of the parties before it. Our advice is that our case will not be helped, least of all our application for an interim order, if we act in a way which appears to pre-empt the very judgment that we are asking the court to make. It is worth bearing in mind that our application for an interim order in the present circumstances will, from the Community's point of view, be novel and controversial.
    Mr. Eric Forth rose—
    Mr. Brooke: I shall not give way. I have given way at least 10 times already.
    48
    Thirdly, our advice is that there is advantage in being plaintiff rather than defendant throughout the nexus of cases surrounding the disputed budget. Our posture will be strengthened by standing on the high ground rather than being on the defensive. If we did not pay in full, we should almost certainly find ourselves on the defensive. The Commission would almost certainly sue us for the amounts not paid and for penal interest charges on these amounts. It takes the view that member states have an obligation to pay in full towards an adopted budget unless and until the court has ordered otherwise. We would then be defendants in one of the nexus of court cases and our posture would consequently be impaired.
    To sum up, the important thing in the Government's view is to win the court cases, or the European Parliament will gain substantial power at the expense of national Governments and Parliaments. I freely acknowledge how tempting it is not to pay in full in the meantime. However, in the Government's view it would be quite misguided to act in ways which, on the best available legal advice, would tend to prejudice the court cases.
    I turn to the parliamentary and payments procedures. The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service questioned me at some length on these issues last week, and I want to say at once how much I respect and share its wish to protect the rights of this House in matters of Supply.
    Before coming to the substance, I want to stress that the procedures that we are now adopting — the Supplementary Estimate and the debate in the House today —are those suggested by the Committee's predecessor in the last Parliament in 1982. The Government have complied with its suggestion and that is why the House has the opportunity today to debate the issues fully before any payment is made towards the disputed part of the budget.
    Mr. Forth rose—
    Mr. Brooke: On substance, I should like, first, to say something about how payments will be made and financed. The due date for our first VAT payment towards the 1986 budget as adopted by the Parliament is today — January's payment is based by convention on the draft budget—and the Commission will seek to charge penal interest in the event of any delay. The Government therefore intend, if the House approves the Supplementary Estimate, to credit the Commission's account today with some £12 million in respect of January and February. This will be financed initially from the Contingencies Fund pending formal proceedings in due course on the March Consolidated Fund Bill.
    As I have already mentioned, the Government are applying to the European Court for an interim order suspending implementation of the disputed part of the budget. If our application succeeds, we hope that it will not be necessary to go on contributing to the disputed elements of the budget. If we do not succeed, it may be necessary to make further ex gratia payments in early March and during 1986–87. Any such payments would similarly be financed initially by advances from the Contingencies Fund. From April onwards these advances would be made pending parliamentary approval of a 1986–87 Estimate and the Appropriation Act next summer.
    Several members of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service suggested last week that payment should be delayed until the House has passed a

    49
    Consolidated Fund Bill. I have considered these suggestions most carefully, but have to say that I cannot accept them. Payment is urgent, and the best interests of the United Kingdom taxpayer require that we should credit the Commission's account tonight.
    Mr. John Browne: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government have investigated fully the ability to pay to the Commission on an escrow basis? Such a payment would not prejudge the court's decision, and interest would accumulate for the United Kingdom if we were proved to be right in our application to the court. That is a common practice in commerce.
    Mr. Brooke: The Government have investigated that course, but we could not proceed on that basis because of the effect of current European regulations.
    It was not possible to plan on having sufficient time to complete all stages of a Consolidated Fund Bill in both Houses and obtain Royal Assent. These procedures, which are now formal, will be completed as part of the usual March Consolidated Fund Bill. The well understood and recognised role of the Contingencies Fund is to provide for payments that are urgent, in anticipation of Supply procedure. In accordance with the long-established practice, therefore, the Government are justified in assuming that if the House votes in favour of the Estimate tonight, it will not vote differently in the formal proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Finally, I shall say something about the Government's statutory authority for making payments towards the disputed element of the budget. This, too, is a subject which was raised by members of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. As the special Supplementary Estimate makes clear, this will be one of the many cases where expenditure relies on the House's approval of the Estimate and, in due course, of the confirming Appropriation Act. In the Government's view, such authority is sufficient and by no means uncommon. I should like to explain to the House rather fully why the Government are in no doubt that this is a perfectly proper way to proceed.
    As long as the House of Commons provides any necessary funds, a Minister can carry out any appropriate function which has not been prohibited by statute. In the present case, there is no legal restriction which prevents the Treasury from making an ex gratia payment to the Community, and funds are available from the Contingencies Fund initially and then through completion of the Supply procedures.
    There are, I accept, cases where specific statutory authority is appropriate, although not legally necessary. The relevant doctrine is based on exchanges between the Treasury and the Committee of Public Accounts in 1932. The Treasury and the PAC reached general agreement on the subject of when an Estimate and the Appropriation Act would not suffice, and I cannot do better therefore than to quote from the relevant Treasury minute on the PAC second report of that year. The Treasury then agreed that
    "practice should normally accord with the view expressed by the PAC that, where it is desired that continuing functions should be exercised by a Government Department (particularly where such functions involve financial liabilities extending beyond a given year) it is proper that the powers and duties to be exercised should be defined by specific statute."
    In all other cases, by implication, the Treasury and the PAC agreed that specific statutory authority was unnecessary.
    50
    The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service referred to "Erskine May", page 791. Our proposed method of proceeding does not fall into either category described by "Erskine May" as having been criticised by the PAC. First, this ex gratia payment is not illegal under any existing statute. Secondly, as I have already implied, we do not propose to create a continuing function of Government involving financial liabilities extending over several years. Perish the thought! The procedure that we are adopting for obtaining the consent of the House is, therefore, fully in accord with established practice and with the recommendations of the PAC.
    There are two conclusions which emerge clearly from what I have been saying. First, the Government are pursuing the right policies with regard to the disputed Community budget for 1986. Secondly, we are seeking Parliament's approval in the right way. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the Supplementary Estimate to the House.
    5.7 pm
    Mr. George Robertson: It is incumbent upon me, on behalf of the Opposition, to welcome the Minister of State to the first of his many EEC budget debates. It would not be an exaggeration to say that he has marked his debut at the Dispatch Box by not fully taking the House along with him as he advanced his arguments. Basically, the Government's argument, as I followed it, could be summarised by the example of a Mafia mobster saying, "Here is your demand for protection money. I suggest that you pay it. If you do, you will not have a case for going to the police." That seems in logic to be the way in which the Government's argument is being pursued.
    The outside observer would regard the Government's posture this evening with incredulity, and wonder what it was all about. Is an ex gratia payment really being made by the Government to an illegal budget in Europe? Is it really a Tory Government, who have arraigned Liverpool and Lambeth councillors in the dock for their illegal budgets, who are happily paying over £6 million a month to the EEC in response to an illegal demand? Is this not unreasonable extortion by the extravagant Brussels machine on the understanding and long-suffering British taxpayer, or is it something entirely different?
    On the surface, it seems that we are being presented with a mystery, and the issue was more mysterious when the Minister resumed his place than before he explained the Government's case. In reality, we are faced with a piece of organised hypocricy. We have been presented with a self-generated smokescreen and much of the smoke has been generated by Conservative Back Benchers. The purpose is to disguise the real purpose of the payments.
    The Government have brought in yet another duo of Ministers to deal with complex subject. We have another duo to succeed the great Rifkind-Stewart duet, which sang to us in so many previous debates. It was interrupted only by the Halley's comet of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who burst on the stage and made a number of grandiose promises. Before any of us could even quote them, he had disappeared to the Government Back Benches.
    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Did the hon. Member write this himself?
    Mr. Robertson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like an interpreter for these debates but if he listens carefully he will hear an argument that will appeal even to him.
    In September the Council produced the 1986 draft budget, which made no provision for the costs of the accession of Spain and Portugal, or for the so-called burden of the past. The burden of past commitments is not yet paid. The European Parliament then chose to add those commitments to the budget. Rather than say that the European Parliament was wrong, the Budget Council of Ministers added 900 million ecu to the budget. That included about 320 million ecu for the cost of enlargement which it had omitted from the original draft budget, no doubt through some misunderstanding. The European Parliament was still not satisfied that the budget would meet all the commitments, and the Council of Ministers then offered to add a further 242 million ecu, but the European Parliament turned it down.
    The 242 million ecu is a significant sum. If it had been accepted by the European Parliament it would have reduced the illegality, with which we are so consumed this evening, from 629 million ecu to 387 million ecu. That 242 million ecus would have reduced the illegal supplementary margin to barely 1 per cent. of the total EC budget for 1986. The original climbdown by the Council of Ministers was a visible admission that the original draft budget of September 1985 was wrong and wholly irresponsible, as it was massively short and could not meet the Community's commitments for the following year. If the budget is illegal, the bulk of it is illegal because of the actions of the Budget Ministers, and the Minister was more culpable than most, as he attended the meetings. They knew that they were framing a budget which was inadequate for the demands on it, and they had to admit it to the tune of the 950 million ecu increase that they offered in December.
    In the European Parliament the budget Minister's spokesman confessed in December that a further supplementary budget would be necessary later this year. Yet the Ministers, including our Minister, insisted on artificially cutting the amounts that everyone knew would be needed this year. In January the budget rapporteur, Mr. Christodoulou, offered a compromise to the Ministers. He said that if they would agree to a specific amount for the supplementary budget, a deal could be done because the supplementary budget would be necessary. He was spurned, and the Minister led those who rejected and demanded more cuts in the regional and social funds. He continues to insist on the fairy-tale fantasy of budget discipline and farm spending cuts. He is responsible for the budget.
    This crisis of illegality is self-created, as is the looming and much greater financial shambles facing the Community. It is pure humbug and pedantry of the worst kind for the Government to attack and lambast the European Parliament, whatever its manifest failings, as a cover for the budget Ministers' short-sighted, weak-willed abdiction of control over the common agricultural policy's appetite for Community cash.
    Why this great speed? By midnight tonight the House must agree the payment through one of the most unique forms of parliamentary subterfuge. In April 1985 Ministers passed the intergovernmental agreement to cover the shortfall in the 1984 budget. It was agreed in April, came before the House in June, and the Government
    52
    delayed ratification until November and did not make the payment to Europe until a final demand was made by the budget Commissioner at the end of 1985.
    Many hon. Members who questioned the Minister will be interested to know that in 1984, the last full year for which accounts are available, the Court of Auditors' report shows that the European Parliament also added expenditure to the European social and regional funds. Ninety four million ecu was added to the budget, but not a single ecu was spent by the Commission on items outwith the Council of Ministers' budget. Although we shall pay the European Commission, it will not spend the money on the items that are laid down by the European Parliament. Every hon. Member knows that the Commission will spend it by and large on the obligatory side of the equation which grows inexorably every day — on more and more Community farm spending. Taxpayers are the last people likely to get back anything from that. In 1984 the Commission ignored the additional provisions, and the money simply disappeared yet again into the vortex.
    The crux of the matter, of which Conservative Members will undoubtedly make a meal, is: if the Government are so sure of their ground on illegality, why are they capitulating so easily and quickly? The supplementary memorandum to the Select Committee makes it absolutely clear. It states:
    "The Government's lawyers have advised that there is no legal obligation on the United Kingdom to pay the disputed amounts."
    That could not be clearer. Why are the Government, who have arraigned councillors and threatened them with disqualification, surcharge and bankruptcy, laying down their arms and surrendering before the European Parliament, if their case is so strong?
    Mr. Dykes: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed the Minister's point, which is that precisely because there is no legal obligation to make the payment, the act of making it in advance of the court's judgment increases the Government's moral and juridical position?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is a suave operator in most circumstances, but one would have to be truly gullible to accept that argument. If this is a juridical court considering the case, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the fact that one has made illegal payments gives one higher ground over one who says that on principle there is no legal case for paying, goes to court and argues the case.
    Mr. Budgen: One would certainly think that of a judge in the United Kingdom, but judges in the EEC may be affected by political considerations, such as whether the money has been paid. Indeed, that could be a reason why the lawyers who advised my hon. Friend the Minister did not wish their advice to be made known to the House. If the judges of the EEC are politically corrupted, it is an important issue, about which the House should know.
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes at least one valid point. If European Court judgments are to be influenced by the willingness of parties to make payments which they believe to be illegal, we should be worried about it. The Minister's interpretation is interesting, and I am sure that it will be studied by constitutional lawyers, who have greater skill than I, with due care and attention. Whatever legal advice is being given to the Minister, some

    53
    of which he has faithfully relayed to us, it will undoubtedly be made available to the House and the wider world via Mr. Chris Moncrieff or some other oracle.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) something which may have escaped his broad vision? If one makes the payment before the matter comes up in court. and if the other part is spent, there is no point in winning the case at all.
    Mr. Robertson: Payments to the EEC are made on a monthly basis. If we are right, we can stop those payments at any time and make sure that the balance is kept at the end of the financial period.
    How limp and lame the Minister's explanations are this evening. It is doubtful whether anybody in the House accepted the limp and lame excuses he has given. They seem even more limp and lame when set against the backdrop of the penal sanctions levelled against rate-capped councils in this country. Of course, it does not just smell of that. It smells of a cover for something else which has nothing to do with the claimed illegality of that 1 per cent. of the budget which the Parliament has added to its estimate. The truth is that it is yet another payment to fuel the mighty and uncontrollable engine of the CAP, which is yet again driving the Community into another horrendous financial crisis. This is not a payment on account and it will not be returned to this country even if the court action over the 1 per cent. is a triumph for those self-same legal masterminds.
    In his evidence to the Select Committee the Minister said:
    "the disputed elements in the budgets are likely either to be repaid to the United Kingdom or to be broadly offset by extra receipts from the budget: the disputed elements related mainly to the Regional Development and the Social Funds."
    On Monday December 2 in the Financial Times the regional commissioners of the EEC made it clear that
    "Britain is in danger of suffering most from the freeze on EEC spending on the social and regional fund next year".
    Even if the Minister's prognostications come true we shall not find ourselves in balance, because when the funds for the regional and social fund dry up in the middle of this year, as everybody confidently expects, Britain is likely to lose most. It is simply providing more cash for the EEC to rescue the budget Ministers from the dishonest and shoddy way in which they put together a budget for 1986 which did not add up, will not add up, and cannot add up, and which will inexorably demand more and more cash as the truth catches up with it.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Mr. Robertson: The truth makes the Supplementary Estimate look like a petty cash box. We have a right to expect frankness, perhaps a rare frankness, from the new Minister about the scale of the real crisis and the kind of demands likely to be made on the British taxpayer this year.
    Budget commissioner Hanning Christopherson was right in January when he warned that regional and social fund projects would grind to a halt this year on the basis of present funding. As I said, we have been warned by the regional commissioner that the United Kingdom will suffer most heavily if spending is curtailed. That news is bad enough but as usual there is worse to come. The 1986 budget, even the illegal one over which we are getting
    54
    heated this evening, has some vital pieces missing from it. There is no provision in that budget for the 1986 fixing of agricultural prices. We know what that usually leads to. Secondly, and most significantly, there is no provision for a change in the dollar-ecu rate, which has already this year added 400 million ecu to the CAP expenditure. Thirdly, there is no provision for the massive drop in world grain prices, which is likely to bloat European Community costs and keep the price of food ludicrously high for British citizens.
    Mr. Junker, who spoke on behalf of the budget Ministers in the Parliament, was spot on when he warned of an indeterminate supplementary budget to be presented to European taxpayers later in 1986 like some sickening surcharge on a long paid-up continental holiday.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: There is no pleasure in it.
    Mr. Robertson: Not all holidays are pleasurable, as my hon. Friend knows.
    The debate is about the truth of the European Community budget discipline which we have been promised again this evening, as though telling us about budget discipline was a substitute for budget discipline itself. We warned at the time that budget discipline was a sham and it is now seen to be as bogus as we predicted.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Mr. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me? Many hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to use too much of the short amount of time that the Government have allowed for the debate.
    The debate is about a European Community, the whole effort of which is now being subverted by a farm policy that has gone berserk and which now consumes 74 per cent. of the entire budget and which again threatens to burst its banks. Agriculture should be at the front of our minds this evening because it is the common agricultural policy that is at the heart of the shambles and that will bring this hapless Treasury Minister, as it did with so many of his predecessors, back to the Dispatch Box again and again this year.
    The newly promoted Secretary of State for Scotland, the predecessor of the new Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stood at the Dispatch Box on 14 November and used the memorable words "an inbuilt control" when referring to agricultural spending. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has an affectation for not using notes when making his speeches. If one is being generous to him one could say that it was a lack of notes that made him so rash and brave as to utter those words. I think that those words should give comfort to many hon. Members on the Government Back Benches because if someone can say something like that without shame and get in to the Cabinet there is hope for many others to come.
    We now know what he meant by those words. He was talking about a secret report. We know that it is a secret report because we read about it in the Financial Times. That report has been drawn up by Mr. Frans Andriessen and Mr. Henning Christophersen, the farm and budget commissioners. It tells us that the unsold food in store in the European Community is now worth 10·5 billion ecu. That is 10 times the stocks of only four years ago. Cereal stocks alone are up from 6 million tonnes to 17 million

    55
    tonnes in the last year. The cost of storage and destocking is up by 1 billion ecu this year, to 4·4 billion ecu. That is nearly one quarter of the entire agricultural budget.
    From the Press Association tapes this evening we learn that the journal Agra Europe tells us that Commissioner Andriessen has today called for an extra £2,000 million over the next three years to set up a special stock dumping fund for special additional subsidies to dump food surpluses on the international market—additional money for an additional special fund yet again. That is all happening as farm incomes drop this year across the Community by 8 per cent. and fall in this country by 17·5 per cent. If that is what is known as "inbuilt control" we know precisely how to trust the Government's estimates. All the time the discipline disintegrates as American grain prices fall on the international market.
    In November we reminded the then Common Market team here that the existing budget was only 150 million ecu from the 1·4 per cent. VAT own resources ceiling. We demand and need to know where that is now. There is the extra 400 million ecu for the drop in the dollar-ecu rate. There is the extra £2,000 million over three years for the special fund. The regional and social funds are drying up. The agriculture prices are still unfixed. When all those things are happening, how far are we from the ceiling on own resources? How much will be needed in intergovernmental agreements and cash handouts to the Community this year to keep the bloated food surpluses growing? The House has a right to know, especially in the context of the debate. It is time that Ministers told us what they know to be the truth about what is yet to be demanded.
    The Government come here today telling the House that this is a one-off payment, a temporary payment, until they can get the illegally demanded cash back. They seem willing to face the rage of their Back Benchers, or maybe it is all a big misunderstanding again. Conservative Back Benchers are raging against those payments, made under extortion. The Government want that rage turned away from the incompetence of Ministers, including British Treasury Ministers; away from the sheer irresponsibility of the looming financial fiasco, and what it will mean for this country's taxpayers. The Government want that rage to be turned away from the fact that this is the start of another drip feed, not to food aid or regional or social fund schemes, to which some of us would subscribe, on a regular basis, but to an uncontrollable common agricultural policy. They are willing to face all that rage and embarrassment to protect the pure fiction that this is an ex gratia payment, and a reimbursible one at that. They may fool some of the people in the Chamber, although it seems to be precious few, and they will probably fool a few Conservative hon. Members who vote, but they do not fool the Opposition.
    As the House of Lords report told us in December, the European Community's agriculture budget is out of control because of a "lack of political courage" to do something about it. When the Government and their Ministers representing us in the European Councils have the courage to control farm spending before it bankrupts us all perhaps we shall assist them in putting through measures such as tonight's, but in the meantime, as they watch farm spending spin away again into the red, and
    56
    while all the time they champion and protect the charade that budget discipline is working, we shall, with honour and conviction, vote against the motion.
    5.32 pm
    Mr. Terence Higgins: This is the sort of debate for which those concerned with parliamentary control of public expenditure require either a strong stomach or a very strong sense of humour. It raises several serious issues that we shall have little time to debate as we should.
    I do not believe that one's attitude to the Estimate turns on whether one is in favour of or against British membership of the EEC. The plain fact is that it gives rise to more cause for concern for those who, like myself, are in favour of membership of the EEC than for those who take the opposite view. It is a dangerous development that has been described by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
    I am sorry that the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service was unable to produce a report on the matter because of the short time that we had to go into it. I hope that the evidence that we took, which is available in the Vote Office, will be of interest and help in clarifying a complex situation.
    The Minister of State rightly said that the first part of the Estimate is concerned with repaying to the Contingencies Fund some £118 million, expended at the end of the past year, which meets the tranche of the additional own resources that were paid in advance. I do not wish to comment on that now. I hope that the Select Committee will look further into it. We do not get interest on the advance payment that we have made, and we are now being told that we shall pay penal interest on the ex gratia payment, referred to in the second part of the Estimate.
    We are faced with a budget that is clearly illegal, and raises some difficult questions. It is true that, even if we succeed in the court case and the budget is declared illegal, the budget as it then stands will still be one that the Government oppose as not being consistent with effective budgetary discipline. Yet that is the basis on which the House was persuaded to increase the own resources from 1 per cent. to 1·4 per cent. That is very important. At that time, several of us said that in our view the intergovenmental agreement was not consistent with the treaty, and it was wrong that the situation should arise in which budget expenditure exceeded available revenue. That view has been upheld by the EEC's own Court of Auditors. Therefore, I hope that there will be a further statement on that aspect.
    The Estimate itself raises several important questions about parliamentary procedure, to which the Minister of State referred at the end of his speech. As my hon. Friend said, it is true that in 1982 the Select Committee objected to a system whereby money was paid to the EEC out of the Contingencies Fund and reimbursed by a spring Supplementary Estimate. The procedure now adopted is also objectionable. We have before us an Estimate, but we do not have before us a Consolidated Fund Bill. Under the new procedures nowadays, that is entirely formal. There is no reason why we should not have had a proper Consolidated Fund Bill, even in the short time that is now available to us. That would have been the right procedure for the Government to adopt.

    57
    The more important point that gives the Select Committee cause for concern, to which the Minister sought to reply, is the fact that there is no underlying legislation, no primary legislation, which would justify the payment. The House is being asked to make an ex gratia payment that is not covered by existing legislation. As the Minister of State said, it is possible for a Government to put forward an Estimate, a Consolidated Fund Bill and so on, which provides the basis for the expenditure being made. But I question strongly whether what my hon. Friend said in his closing remarks was correct, because the Public Accounts Committee, on former occasions, has drawn attention to the way in which the procedures can be abused. In particular, I refer my hon. Friend to page 791 of "Erskine May," which says:
    "Expenditure by a department for purposes not covered by its existing legal powers normally requires to be specifically authorised by a financial resolution associated with a bill".
    That is not being done in this case. The Minister sought to make a distinction and to say that the circumstances that we now face were appropriate, but "Erskine May" states later on:
    "There have been cases, too, in which the Appropriation Act has been used, not merely as a substitute for specific legislation, but to override the limits imposed by existing legislation."
    The Minister of State did not answer that point. I believe that it is clear that we are overriding
    "the limits imposed by existing legislation."
    That is embodied in the European Communities Act 1972, which in turn is reflected in the treaty. The Government themselves say that what is happening is illegal. Therefore, it seems to me that they are going beyond the existing legislation. That is an abuse of procedure of the sort to which the Public Accounts Committee has objected. I hope very much that the Public Accounts Committee will look into that matter and let us have a considered view. Perhaps such abuses could be prevented in future by the Standing Order being amended, for example.
    It is also objectionable to use the Contingencies Fund if one has time to go through the proper procedures. There is no reason why we should go on this merry-go-round. We could have had the Estimate, a Consolidated Fund Bill and a Bill justifying the payment in the time that is available, short though that has been.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Higgins: I should like to continue because hon. Members wish to speak, and this is a difficult matter to explain.
    I now come to the substance of the argument. I welcome the fact — it is common ground — that the Government believe that the way in which the European Parliament has behaved is illegal. In my view, they are right to fight the case, as the Council of Ministers is right to fight the case. It would be an enormous extension of the powers of the European Parliament if it were allowed to get away with what it is seeking to do.
    The Government are right to take the action that they have proposed. Nevertheless, I am very doubtful about the ex gratia payment device. The Select Committee was told that it was essential that this procedure should be ratified by midnight tonight, otherwise there is a danger that we shall be charged interest on the ex gratia payment. This is pure Alice in Wonderland. We ought not to be confronted by such a ridiculous situation.
    58
    I believe I am right in saying that all Conservative Members have grave doubts—nobody, apart from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, has expressed a contrary view — that our chance of winning the case will be enhanced if an ex gratia payment is made. If the Government have confidence in the strength of their case, that is a very odd approach.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked whether we would get back the ex gratia payment if we won the case. I was heartened when my hon. Friend the Minister said that it could be deducted from a future payment, but I should like to know the basis for his statement. I was not aware that we could adopt such a procedure.
    Mr. Brooke: I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) to be asking his question in the event of the interim action being decided in our favour. I said that any sum that we had previously paid might be deducted from future payments, but that it would depend upon the judgment of the European Court in response to our interim application.
    Mr. Higgins: I am not sure that I understand that answer. We should like to know the basis for my hon. Friend the Minister's statement. It appears to contain a large number of uncertainties. If we are to make this ex gratia payment we need to know whether, if we win the case; we shall get it back; otherwise it will be a straight payment to the European Community.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: The fact that interest rates are higher in this country than in most of the other European Community countries suggests, surely, that the penalty factor should weigh less with us than with others, and it is all the more reason for us to be given credit for the interest charged if the payment is found to have been unnecessary.
    Mr. Higgins: I agree with my hon. Friend. Most unfortunately, however, the Select Committee understood that we should be charged a penal rate, the highest rate in the European Community, which is over 20 per cent. I am therefore unable to reassure my hon. Friend on that point.
    The argument is simple. It turns upon the legal advice and the expert advice that was given. After two and a half hours of questioning, in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, was as forthcoming as he could possibly be, he failed completely to produce any substantial legal argument which suggested that we stand a better chance in the European Court if we pay in advance than if we do not pay in advance. It was pointed out earlier that it would be very surprising if the European Court were to be influenced by that kind of payment.
    The whole matter gives one very grave cause for concern. There is no evidence that budgetary discipline is effective. The non-obligatory payments are in excess and the obligatory payments for agriculture are far in excess of anything that had been justified in argument to the House. Unless, therefore, my hon. Friend the Minister of State can do very much better in his winding up speech than he did in his opening speech, I fear that I shall be unable to support the motion.
    5.45 pm
    Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has made his usual careful and in debates of this kind, highly

    59
    critical speech. I do not propose to follow him into the legal and constitutional area. I am well aware that I do not share his competence. It is sufficient to say that, particularly for the layman, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the legality of the European Parliament's action. I presume that we should not be going to the European Court unless there was an argument about its legality. I presume that we should not otherwise be going to the European Court to establish whether its action was legal or illegal.
    There is also uncertainty about whether the Government have exceeded their proper powers. I fail to follow why an ex gratia payment should affect a judgment of the European Court. It was suggested in an intervention by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that the judges of the European Court are politically corrupt. That may have been a rumbustious way of putting it rather than a serious suggestion. At least, I hope so. In our view, the Community budget—
    Mr. Marlow: There is only one of you.
    Sir Russell Johnston: There are two of us. The hon. Gentleman's mental powers have been failing for many years. His eyesight seems to be following.
    The Community budget is inadequate to meet effectively the redistributive and regenerative roles of the European Community, which have been unable to develop properly. I refer in particular to the regional and social funds. I recall, because I was there, that when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was the President of the European Commission he referred not to a 2·5 per cent. but to a 1·4 per cent. of VAT budget. The Liberal and Social Democratic parties believe that a way should be found to give the directly elected European Parliament more budgetary authority. That was stated clearly in our manifesto.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Russell Johnston: I shall give way in a moment.
    We dissent from the approach which the Government and the Opposition have adopted to the budget. We wish that a more generous approach had been adopted, even before the Council's "Second Reading" debate. If that had happened, we should not be in this mess.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We respect the hon. Gentleman's pro-European views, but we are not debating whether the European Community's budget is good or desirable, but whether it is illegal. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he wishes this House to condone and to be an accessory to an illegal act?
    Sir Russell Johnston: I am saying no such thing, nor am I quite so sure as the hon. Gentleman is what it is we are debating. I suspect that in all of these debates we are debating practically the same thing, and I do not believe that quite that distinction can be made. We believe that the European Community should have a greater role to play in non-obligatory expenditure. That is in question tonight because of the actions of the European Parliament.
    Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Russell Johnston: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman—there must be a record kept somewhere of
    60
    such things—for perhaps the 54th time, I would remark, as the Minister did en passant during his speech, that the agreement on budgetary discipline, which with some justice has attracted a bit of scorn, has, nevertheless, not yet been breached on non-obligatory expenditure, where, after all, the problem of excessive expenditure arises.
    Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. He says that he would like the European Parliament to have greater budgetary powers. Does that mean that it is the Liberal party's policy that the European Parliament should be entitled to levy taxation upon the British people? What else could it mean?
    Sir Russell Johnston: In the long term a way must be found to do that.
    Mr. Marlow: A sharing of burdens.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Certainly a sharing of burden. One of the great criticisms of the European Parliament at the moment is that it has the power only to spend taxation without any responsibility for the raising of it. There is no direct accountability, and that is a fair criticism. So, yes, essentially I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but before I leave that point I must add that we must remember that while it is true that the European Parliament has added to the budget, when it comes to the actual expenditure of that money it is not the Parliament that spends it, but the Commission, and the Council regulates that expenditure and determines what are the proper projects.
    Essentially, I am saying that the situation in which we now find ourselves need not have arisen if the Government had adopted a positive approach in Milan and Luxembourg when there were the makings of an acceptable accord in the Council which Parliament would have considered to represent a reasonable response. We have brought this on ourselves. It is tragic that we should now have got ourselves into what is clearly a thorough-going legal mess, which, in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) the Minister said could well go on for 18 months or so before a determination is made, and it is likely that the institutional conflict will worsen during that time.
    The way in which the European Parliament has behaved has been heavily criticised by those unfavourably disposed to the EEC in the press and elsewhere, and doubtless there will be criticism during the debate, but, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said in an incisive speech, this is "a self-created crisis" and those responsible are the Ministers whose original draft budget was grossly inadequate and who failed abjectly in a situation in which a rational negotiated settlement could have been achieved. To that failure British Ministers made their full contribution.
    The Parliament has added 1 per cent. of its budget. That is the scale of this issue, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us. I must support the hon. Gentleman on the fact that the regional and social funds may run out. That is a real danger. He is right. That is the sort of thing to which the Government should be addressing themselves anxiously. I also agree that the problem of the CAP is at the heart of this. Although, as I have said many times, it is an illusion to believe that somehow or other that can be dealt with at a stroke, what disturbs me is the absence of a clear forward plan.
    That is the serious issue, not the desire of the Parliament to try to ensure that the Community's limited

    61
    social contribution is sustained. Those circumstances do not require one to oppose the Government in the Lobby, even though one is highly critical of the way in which they have conducted affairs.
    5.53 pm
    Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that he would be brief and then spoke for 26 minutes.
    Mr. George Robertson: I never said that I would be brief.
    Mr. Dykes: Perhaps I misheard. I thought that that was the implication of his anxiety to get on and not take interventions.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that he would not take long.
    Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for Hamilton then spoke mostly about agricultural policy, but I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that he put his finger on the reality of what had happened in what amounted to the Council of Ministers' obstinacy and obduracy in failing to grasp the realities of the situation with the enlargement of the Community. What other course did the European Parliament have, faced with that obduracy and refusal to draft a proper budget, even to use the appropriate conciliation mechanism, than to do something that can be regarded in some circles as an illegal act? We may have to reserve our judgment on that until the European Court reaches its decision. It may dig up all sorts of precedents and evidential items which show that the European Parliament had no other realistic course of action. It would be wrong to predjudge that, so we are dealing with only a technical motion tonight.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is not the argument about what else they could do exactly the same argument used by the Socialist councillors of Camden and Liverpool who took the view that the limitations imposed by the Government did not allow them to spend as much money as they felt was right? Therefore, is not my hon. Friend supporting the Socialist councillors of Camden and Liverpool in breaking the law?
    Mr. Dykes: Despite the obvious temptations, my hon. Friend is not right in trying to draw that comparison between the domestic political crisis between local authorities and the Government, and the European situation. The conciliation and consultation procedure in the budget formation of the EC is a different exercise where the parties get together round a negotiating table and negotiate agreed figures, not on obligatory expenditure but on non-obligatory items.
    Once again, it shows that the whole budget procedure is out of kilter because the European Parliament should now have a greater role and should be able to deal with much more than a tiny marginal tranche of total spending in non-obligatory categories unless the Council of Ministers is to be more like-minded with the European Parliament in future on taking budget outlays ahead as the Community expands, both on enlargement and the need to spend more on the regional and social funds.
    Of course, hon. Members and others are right to put their finger on the glaring problem that is building up over
    62
    agricultural spending. But in dealing with the motion tonight it is absurd for my hon. Friends—there is a glaring absence of Labour Members, who, apart from one distinguished presence on the Opposition Back Benches, do not seem to be interested, and Members of other parties,—to express, I hope not in a semi-hysterical fashion, tremendous indignation about what is a technical motion on a Supplementary Estimate. I think that it is literally correct to say that it should excite no one beyond saying that we are all in the business of trying to control, rationally and reasonably, Government spending.
    We all listen with great care to everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) says on this subject. He knows a profound amount about it. But even he faces the danger of always being much more excited and indignant about tiny amounts of money in the EC than about domestic items. We are talking about £6 million a month of extra interest payments to be incurred and £18 million over three months in comparison with huge quantities of domestic Government spending which, if one looks back at the record of what was said in Committee and in the House, he and other hon. Members do not get so worked up about.
    I do not often hear my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referring to the fact that we now spend £20 billion on unemployment benefits because of our huge level of unemployment. Surely that is a much more serious problem than the minuscule amounts of money in the EC. Even the total budget of £22 billion. is tiny in comparison with the total United Kingdom Government's spending of £150 billion. Our portion, moreover, as a result of the budget rebate—that has not been referred to so far tonight, although we are only halfway through the debate, and I hope that my hon. Friends will refer to it—swamps any tiny amount that we have to pay here, we hope temporarily, as a result of the future court judgment, on the basis, I presume, of expert legal advice.
    My hon. Friend the Minister referred to that and I am content that on the basis of sound legal advice from Government lawyers, they have decided that that is correct. The revelation of Legal advice to Government is always a difficult area. I said that on the basis of what my hon. Friend said. I am content to rest on his recommendation that, on the basis of legal advice received by the Government, it seems right to make that payment. It would look awful and crazy if we were to take a position separate from the other member states who, with their equally clever and highly paid Government lawyers, have decided to pay the money in advance. It would look ridiculous if there were a difference of position. The court would notice that immediately.
    It is important for the position of the Council, even of one disagrees with the larger background which, as a good and enthusiastic European I do, that it and the Government should maintain the same position. Perhaps the Governmment feel that they are likely to win the case anyway, and then the money can be refunded.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
    Mr. Dykes: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way, because by looking at the clock, I know that it would be unfair on other hon. Members.
    Let me assume that the money could be refunded. To some extent, this is new territory, and I can only say with

    63
    my subjective confidence that we shall get most of the money back. This is the only, absolutely essential, way for the Government to establish their moral position in the face of such a course of action. They must be whiter than white as they approach the European Court, and be able to say that they have done certain things that their legal advisers have suggested that they do.
    This may be a historical judgment about the relationships between the institutions of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Tonight's motion is only a small, limited part of the wider scene and it would be wholly irresponsible for hon. Members, particularly those on my side of the House, not to support the Government on the motion, which remains entirely technical. It is not a matter to cause great anxiety and it is much more important to see the wider picture both for the development of the Community budget — the 1986–87 budget will be even more important because of its expenditure on agriculture—and the way in which the Government will respond when the court has had time to deliberate.
    6.2 pm
    Mr. Eric Deakins: I remind the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that big issues can arise from the expenditure of small amounts of money. I refer him to the 1630s and the case of ship money, which eventually involved the country in a civil war. The principle is what is important, rather than the amounts at stake.
    The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made an interesting speech. Tonight we are dealing with a House of Commons matter, to which there are two aspects. The right hon. Member spoke about one aspect, that of Supply procedures and so on. The PAC, of which I have the honour to be a member, may need to take a look at procedures again. Apparently it has not done so since 1932.
    The PAC should say, in the light of the interim judgment given by the court, whether we should seek to make some other recommendations, if the court were to refuse the interim judgment for which the Government have asked and we were therefore obliged to make these ex gratia payments until the court had reached a substantive judgment later in the year. In those circumstances, we would have to make sure that the Government provided time in the next financial year for us to consider these things properly as this Supplementary Estimate takes us only to the end of the financial year.
    Some substantive issues have been raised. This is a House of Commons matter, and I am concerned about the aspects of the relationship between the Assembly and the Council of Ministers. In a sense, the Council of Ministers is a euphemism for national Governments and Parliaments, because that is what it represents. The issues that we have raised are at least as important as those raised when we discussed the intergovernmental agreement which was outwith the treaties and possibly the most important aspect of our relationship with the EEC institutions since we joined in 1972–73.
    I have been pointing out for several years that the Assembly is constantly seeking to increase its powers. I see at least four federalists here today, on both sides of the House, and they will naturally welcome that move. In its
    64
    attempts to increase its powers, the Assembly is constantly aided and abetted by the Commission and, where appropriate, by the European Court. I am not as sanguine as the Government that we shall necessarily win the dispute when the Court makes its substantive judgment.
    The Assembly has passed an illegal budget and the Commission is backing that against the Council. This is part of the process of creeping federalism, whereby Community institutions are always working to increase their power, not always but often, at the expense of national Parliaments, and there is a ratchet effect because power once conceded to the EEC is never regained. Therefore, the Assembly, the Commission, the Council and the Court are constantly receiving accretions of power, gained in various ways and through various procedures within the Community. That strengthens their power as against national Governments and Parliaments.
    Control of finance is the key to power, as we know from the history of this country, and the Assembly recognises that. In its budget resolution, the first of two last year, on 14 November 1985 it said, in paragraph 9:
    "the Commission should submit to the budgetary authority a proposal for a minimum-term course of action taking account of the need for the gradual transfer of certain funding operations from the national to the Community framework".
    Funding operations are a means of raising money — forms of taxation. That shows the way that the mind of the Assembly is always working. We should always have that in the back of our minds.
    The battle between the Assembly and the Council over funding is a battle between the Assembly and national Parliaments. The House could teach many in Europe a great deal about these things. We also have an important right. Federalists will support the Assembly, and we have already heard one or two expressions of support. However, non-federalists, and even those in favour of the Community, such as the right hon. Member for Worthing, will have to take careful note of what the Assembly is trying to do. Even the Government, in the Treasury minute to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, made clear their view that this would be a major change in the balance of power between Community institutions, and therefore between Community institutions and this national sovereign Parliament.
    As is well known, the history of our Parliament started with disputes between Parliament and the Crown over the power to tax people. It was only later that Parliament sought to gain control of expenditure. In the case of the Assembly, the process has begun in reverse, partly because of the powers given to it in the Community treaties. It is starting with the power to spend money. In paragraph 16 of the budget resolution it says that the Assembly
    "Takes the view that the Community cannot ignore or curtail, via the budget for 1986, the financial commitments it has entered into: is therefore resolved to ensure compliance with this principle throughout the budgetary procedure".
    In other words, it is saying that spending must take priority over raising money to finance the expenditure. Eventually that will lead to the Assembly demanding the power to tax as well. We have already heard something about this from the federalists tonight.
    The annual report of the Assembly is entitled "Progress towards Integration" and it shows, in the report of the budgetary committee, that it is working towards this. At long last, the Government have finally woken up to this creeping federalism. It was remarkable that the Prime

    65
    Minister, in her statement to the House on the Luxembourg summit, consistently throughout both statement and answers—I bet that there were many anguished faces in the Foreign Office — used the words " European Assembly" to describe what she had previously called the European Parliament.
    The Assembly has been encouraged in this spendthrift approach by the big increase in own resources that this House and other Parliaments have granted. Its debates show that the Assembly is looking forward to the 1·6 per cent. VAT rate being introduced at a much earlier date than the Council and the Government would wish.
    But that is not the only thing that has encouraged the Assembly in its spending spree. It has now proved possible, through the intergovernmental agreement, to raise money outside the framework of the treaties. Those two facts combined have convinced the Assembly that it an do what it likes on spending—we shall see more of this in the future—because national Governments will pay in any case, whether the spending is legal or illegal and whether or not it exceeds the budget. That is a cavalier attitude to expenditure and a threat to budget discipline.
    The House must accept that the Assembly does not consider itself bound by budget discipline. Paragraph 12 of the budget resolution of 14 November states that the Assembly
    "expresses its support for measures to contain expenditure as part of a coherent reform of the common agricultural policy, but demands that the nature of such containment be jointly defined by the budgetary authority and the Commission"—
    that is, the Assembly and the Commission—
    "and repudiates any unilateral decision by the Council in the matter."
    That means that the Assembly will not go along with budgetary discipline until its powers are substantially increased by agreement with the Council and, no doubt, with national Governments.
    The Assembly is now an enemy of national Parliaments in the EEC. It is competing for a share of the real power currently exercised by national Parliaments. It is encouraged by more powers than were given to it at the Luxembourg summit. It has an insatiable appetite for power and it must be stopped. The question is whether the action that the Government are taking will stop it.
    I hope that the Minister can reply later to two semi-legal points. First, the Council is taking action under article 173 of the Treaty of Rome which states:
    "The Court of Justice shall review the legality of acts of the Council and the Commission other than recommendations or opinions."
    Nothing in that article states that the court shall review the actions of the European Assembly. Therefore, it makes it all the more astonishing that, with all their substantial legal advice, the national Governments represented at the last Council meeting did not seek to couple the Commission with the Assembly in the substantive court case. If they had coupled the two, they might have lost on the Assembly—because it is not mentioned in the article—but they would almost certainly have won on the Commission. I do not understand why the Government weakened their case on the substantive issue by not using the words in article 173 and taking parallel action against the Commission.
    If the Minister cannot reply to my second point tonight, I hope that he will none the less consider it carefully, because it is in the interests not only of the House but of the Government. Later this year, we are threatened with a supplementary budget—everyone agrees that that is
    66
    likely—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made clear what the components of that budget would be and what its causes would be. If there is a supplementary budget, in addition to the budget that the European Assembly increased, will that not weaken our case before the court? We shall be asking national Parliaments for money additional to the budget that was originally approved by the Council and rejected by the Parliament. If I were not parti pris in the matter. it would suggest to me that the European Assembly was right in its attitude to Community expenditure in 1986. If and when the Government are faced with a supplementary budget, I ask them to think carefully about whether it might prejudice their position and that of the Council on the main issue.
    If the United Kingdom loses, the Council and national Parliaments will have serious problems. More power will be granted to the European Assembly and it will mean an end to any semblance of budget discipline. An adverse verdict would lead to a crisis in the relationship between Britain and the rest of the EEC. I look forward to that very much.
    6.14 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Anyone listening to my hon. Friend the Minister of State opening the debate would have concluded that it was a debate of great technicality and that only those who have studied the European institutions and obtained a PhD in law could usefully consider the matter further, but that is not so. The debate is mostly about a relatively simple value judgment as to how people get their will in political institutions.
    We start with the assertion set out in the Government's briefing to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that the legal advice is that failure to pay in full would impair the United Kingdom's posture before the European Court. Yet my hon. Friend has never explained that to the House or to the Select Committee. He has never — as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary would say—addressed himself to the question of how the judges could disadvantage the United Kingdom in the proceedings. It must be emphasised that there are multiple proceedings. Of course, the proceedings brought by the Council could be dropped, but separate proceedings have been brought by France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
    We know that France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have already paid on the nail, so let us consider the likelihood that at least one of those nations will continue with its proceedings. How will it be possible, on this issue of principle, to disadvantage the United Kingdom as against another nation state? My hon. Friend has not explained, and I do not believe that it is explicable.
    My hon Friend has not explained whether he is serious in his implied criticism that the EEC judges are affected by political considerations, but that is perhaps a narrow point.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend share my sense of mystery about how the court will be swayed in its consideration of the matter by whether Britain pays on this occasion, yet the Commission and the European Parliament are prepared to overspend illegally in advance of the judgment? They do not believe that that action will prejudice their case in front of the court, yet we are being asked to accept that if we do not pay it will affect us.
    Mr. Budgen: I share the mystery. Like all great mysteries, it is incapable of explanation. Had it been capable of explanation, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State would have explained it long ago.
    We are talking about political will. Anyone who observes the forces in the EEC institutions and here must have sympathy for a Treasury Minister who is trying to contain expenditure in the EC. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) set out helpfully and with great knowledge the way in which the European Parliament, as it calls itself, wishes to extend its power to the disadvantage of the Council of Ministers, often with the connivance of the Commission. There are assertions that a proper system of budgetary control has been instituted, but we must compare those assertions with our knowledge that the American farmer will be substantially better supported by a new farm Bill. We know that the Americans are trying to reduce the value of their currency against that of other countries, and we know the effect that that will have on the cost of disposing of farm surpluses created by the EEC. Those who see those forces must sympathise with the Treasury in trying to push back this vast tide that is enveloping it.
    We must also consider the political forces. The Labour party says that it favours strict control of expenditure in the EEC, but it also talks about the EEC being an organisation that can reduce unemployment in Britain. Labour Members speak in grandiloquent, even mawkish terms, about the regional and social funds. Even if the present Government are, at best, only lukewarm on industrial intervention, we are led to believe that a Labour Government would favour more EEC expenditure to create jobs.
    The Liberal party is much more open about that. It is in favour of a very much higher level of expenditure, particularly on the infrastructure of the EEC. To that end, Liberal spokesmen say that they would be in favour of a much higher contribution from VAT to the EEC. They are quite open about that.
    The constitutional, economic and political forces are all against the restriction of expenditure in the EEC. What is required most of all from the United Kingdom at the present time is a gesture of political will. We have the opportunity now to demonstrate that gesture, and that would not cost very much. Let us assume that my hon. Friend the Minister is correct in saying that, in this instance, that would lead to the imposition of penal interest charges. We are talking about only £18 million, so the penal interest would not be very high, but the gesture would demonstrate to everyone in this country — farmers, those who want extra payments from the regional fund and the multiplicity of interest groups that are ganged up behind increased expenditure in the EEC—that the Government are serious on this issue.
    In the face of that, the Government have said that they have received expert legal advice. They do not want to tell us what that legal advice is and they will not be too specific about it. They do not mind junior Ministers coming before a Select Committee and having a disagreeable time for a couple of hours, but they will not condescend to particularities about that. All that the Government want us to know is that they have jolly good legal advice and, what is more, they probably paid pretty well for it.
    Be that as it may, most legal advice of that sort is a value judgment. It is a judgment about how institutions and people respond to a token gesture. We now have an
    68
    opportunity for a token gesture. The mood in this country towards the EEC is changing. In 1974 I campaigned for us to enter and remain in the EEC, but I, as well as anybody, now feel a change in mood.
    In the Fontainebleau agreement, the Government, by giving a moral commitment to a further increase in the VAT contribution, while at the same time asserting that they had control over expenditure in the EEC, placed themselves in a difficult situation. If the Government come to the House time after time asking for more and yet more money, at some stage the nation will want to know why the Government did not refuse to pay what they regarded as an illegal demand. It would have been an illegal demand in respect of £18 million only, but the nation will want to know why the Government did not have the guts on this one occasion to say, enough is enough.
    We are not really talking about legal advice. Rather, it is a matter of the Government's desire on all occasions to be seen as Communautaire, to go along with the consensus in Europe. The consensus in Europe, like the consensus within the interest groups in the member states, is towards increased expenditure. That uncontrolled expenditure is deeply damaging to those who hope that this country will continue to remain in the EEC.
    6.24 pm
    Mr. Robert Harvey: Today's debate goes to the heart of the European issue. Many would argue against giving greater powers to the European Parliament as it encroaches upon the sovereignty of our country. That argument comes from the so-called internationalists on the Labour Benches and from those Conservative Members who argue that Britain's sovereignty is being eroded by the EEC.
    It ill suits those who criticise the EEC for being remote and bureaucratic to be against the proposed expenditure, except on the narrow legal grounds touched upon in the debate. The elected EEC Parliament has amended a budget proposal from the Commission that would absurdly have made Portugal and Spain net contributors to the Community — Portugal being one of the poorest countries in the EEC. If that had not been corrected, if the Parliament had failed to exercise the proper scrutiny over the EEC budget, there would be no control over the Commission's proposals—and in Strasbourg I witnessed the deliberations as the Parliament went line by line, page by page, through a great volume of EEC budget proposals — other than the control exercised in these debates by hon. Members. With the best will in the world, that cannot be classified as detailed or even detailed scrutiny.
    Mr. Spearing: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he agree that one of the anomalies is that the Assembly, while having some powers—now under argument — of increasing expenditure, has as yet no powers of taxation? If it were to have both, there would be a unitary state. If the Assembly is to have some power, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should, as the House did during the 1780s, combine these powers? There is no way out of the conundrum that the hon. Gentleman is proposing.
    Mr. Harvey: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but there are some hon. Members, and I am one, who believe in the principle of no taxation without representation. If

    69
    the European Parliament can continue to extend its financial control over the EEC budget, that will be a step towards greater accountability and representation.
    If the anti-Marketeers were heeded, there would be more power for the Commission and the bureaucrats and less power for the elected representatives of the people of this country. Let us remember that the elected Members of the European Parliament sit as representatives for the people of this country.
    The nitpicking, small-minded, critical tone of EEC debates is sometimes sad to witness. Strengthening the European Parliament is another crucial step on the road towards greater European integration. In 1945 the second great war of this century came to an end. Less than 30 years later, all the main European countries which fought that war, on the Continent that shaped the rest of the world, were joined in a Community which banished for ever war between them.
    That was a political miracle of astonishing dimensions. For a decade, however, little else has happened. The Community has expanded and become a formidable trading block but progress towards the accountability of its institutions — that is what is enshrined by the move towards budgetary accountability in the Parliament, and towards political union—has moved at a snail's pace.
    To most people, Europe represents the stuff of today's debate. The Community is steeped in obscure financial haggling and there is constant fire from hon. Members on both sides of the House who argue that it is wasting our resources and usurping our national sovereignty. They do not realise that Britain's real sovereignty, our say in determining our own destiny, has already been usurped by the bigger political and economic powers in today's world. European co-operation is the only way of regaining a say in the major issues that affect us all.
    Mr. Dykes: I agree with my hon. Friend. Is it not really sad to reflect that the only places where such absurd debates still occur are in this country, in Demark in its slightly eccentric way, particularly given the recent resolution in its Parliament, and in Greece which is very esoteric and bloody-minded anyway?
    Mr. Harvey: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, although for safety's sake I shall not associate myself with his remarks about the Greeks.
    For 10 years, we have seen Europe ignored as a priority and degenerate into a series of annual bazaars for the allocation of EEC resources, coupled with well-meaning but always frustrated calls for the reform of the Community budget. The wider issues on which Europe can and should be making its voice heard are forgotten. On each of those wider issues there are 12 faint EEC voices—not one strong one—all of which are lost in the roar of super-power dialogue. The only way that we can regain our sovereignty and our say on those grave issues is to act with greater unity.
    Considerable effort has been made to find a common European view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those efforts are to be applauded. How much more important is it that a common position be adopted on the greatest issue facing the Continent since the cold war began — that of controlling the arms race before it enters a new, dangerous and vastly expensive phase. Today, the Russian fear of the American strategic defence initiative—
    Mr. Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I find it a little difficult to relate the remarks of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) to the Supplementary Estimate. I am sure that he will be able to relate them to the Estimate.
    Mr. Harvey: I was just about to return to that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The arms issue is one upon which Europe should begin to have a voice. What is Europe's position? My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has properly expressed his reservations about American reliance on the Maginot line in space—
    Mr. Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you had given a ruling that in such a truncated debate the hon. Gentleman should bring his speech into line with the purpose of the debate.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Clywd South-West will relate his remarks to the subject of the Estimate. It is a short debate.
    Mr. Harvey: I shall do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to conclude. The debate should touch upon the issue of European union. I feel that the narrow issue that we have allowed ourselves to discuss—
    Mr. Thurnham: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend return to the subject that we are discussing. He made the interesting point that part of the expenditure was necessary because Portugal, one of the poorest members of the enlarged Community, would be a net contributor. This country is now one of the poorest members of the Community and we are a contributor. Is that one of the reasons why we are so unhappy about this increased expenditure? Does not the breakdown in budgetary control go against the need for unity which I believe he said was the Common Market's greatest strength?
    Mr. Harvey: I associate myself wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's remarks. For most people, Europe is represented by the kind of detail that we have been discussing and is not seen as the uplifting ideal that it once was. I hope that it is not too late to revive the ideal of a united and respected Europe and Community whose values, civilisation and good sense exceed those of the great powers that dominate today's bipolar world and which can act as a bridge between them. In that context, I welcome recent moves towards European foreign policy co-operation.
    If Europe can find a common voice in the world, economic integration and the greater accountability of EEC institutions will follow at their own pace. In the meantime, the House should vote to support the greater accountability of EEC institutions to the people's elected representatives. Let us strengthen powers of the European Parliament. Let us strengthen the cause of Europe and democratic accountability, and let us approve these Supplementary Estimates.
    6.33 Pm
    Mr. John Townend: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that we are discussing a narrow technical point. It is a matter of considerable principle. There are a number of

    71
    matters about the current EEC budget and the proposals before the House that I find deeply disturbing. Clearly, time will not allow me to deal with them all.
    If the actions being taken in the court by the United Kingdom and the other four countries fail, the whole agreement negotiated by the United Kingdom when it approved the lifting of the VAT ceiling from 1 to 1·4 per cent. will become worthless.
    Budget discipline was one of the salient points of that agreement. We were assured in the House by the Prime Minister that that agreement would give us effective budget discipline. If the Assembly's action is upheld in the court, it will drive a coach and horses through the agreement. Those of us who opposed the increases in net resources will be completely vindicated. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what contingency plans the Government have should they lose the court case? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that they could lose it.
    I wish to deal with the so-called ex gratia payment into court. I found it disturbing to be told by my hon. Friend the Minister before the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and in the House today that he had been advised by his legal advisers that if we did not make an ex gratia payment our position in the case would be jeopardised. That is not just against the tradition of British justice; it is against natural justice.
    Mr. Budgen: It may be part of European justice.
    Mr. Townend: I sincerely hope not. My hon. Friend is a little cynical. The Government are implying that the court is incapable of making a fair and balanced judgment on the issue before it—whether it is a legal or an illegal budget—but will be influenced by whether this country makes an ex gratia payment in respect of what we submit is an illegal demand. If that is how European justice works, how can we ever expect fair and impartial decisions to come out of the European Court?
    I should like to deal with the subject of interest. It is inconceivable to anyone brought up with the idea of equity before the courts to believe that if we make an ex gratia payment in advance and win we are not paid interest on that payment, but if we do not make a payment and lose we pay a 20 per cent. penal rate of interest. That is unjust and indefensibe.
    Mr. Marlow: As I understand it, my hon. Friend is a successful business man. We have two alternatives. We believe that we are right and that we will succeed in the court. If we withhold the money and turn out to be wrong, we will have to pay the money plus the interest. That, however, is a small chance. If we believe that we are right, and we are found to be right, we shall not have paid the money. My hon. Friend is a business man. If it were his own money, which course would he take in those circumstances?
    Mr. Townend: I should take the same course as my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the great sums of money involved in our contribution to the EEC, the interest on £18 million, even at 20 per
    72
    cent., is peanuts? Even if we have to pay that, if we make an effective gesture against EEC overspending it will be a small price to pay.
    Mr. Townend: My hon. Friend has made a relevant point. He should remember that the total cost is not 20 per cent., because we would save the interest on the money that we would have to pay through the gilt market. The net cost would probably be only 8 per cent.
    Unless my hon. Friend's reply is far more convincing than his opening speech, I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will find that I cannot support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
    6.39 pm
    Dr. Oonagh McDonald: On the Third Reading debate of the EC Finance Bill the then Minister of State, Treasury, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was asked by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to
    "give a commitment to the House … that there will be no soft loans, intergovernmental agreements, whip rounds or any other form of temporary subvention to the Community".
    The Minister, of course, had the sense to decline, although he did say:
    "provided that the budgetary discipline that has been agreed is observed … there will be no need to come back to the House for another intergovernmental agreement."
    He later added:
    "I find it impossible to envisage circumstances in which the Government will come back to the House."—[Official Report, 22 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 185-188.]
    Neither the Minister nor we imagined this rather extraordinary set of circumstances in which the Government would come back to the House to demand a Supplementary Estimate. It is apparently designed, dare I say, to sweeten the judges so that they will judge in our favour.
    One of the questions that hon. Members have rightly pursued in this debate is what is the exact nature of the European Court. The Treasury itself stated in evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that payment of this kind would
    "enable the United Kingdom to present its arguments before the Court in the most attractive light, a factor seen as an important advantage".
    The Minister will have to tell us a great deal more about how he and his officials view the workings of the European Court in regard to this advance payment. The Government should tell us more about the nature of their own legal advice — they certainly have not been so coy about revealing the nature of their legal advice in the recent past. The Minister has many questions to answer.
    The Minister, in his opening remarks, said that it was necessary for the United Kingdom to act in the same way as the other Council members who are also pursuing this case before the court. Why did the United Kingdom, together with the other European members of the Council, not come to a quite different view? Why did they not agree that no one should pay until the court case was settled? Surely that would have been possible by agreement. Why was that not done?
    The reason for the advance payment, before the court case has been settled — as the Minister knows well, despite assurances given to the House — is that extra funds will be needed anyway. When the Minister was pressed about the possibility of withholding payment if the

    73
    judgment goes in our favour, he said that this was possible. The Minister did not say that we would be in a situation where we would withhold payments of that kind.
    The Minister and the Government know that this will not be the first time that the Government will come back to the House this year and ask for more money. This £18 million is only the first request. The spokesman for the Commission, Mr. Junker, has already said that there would be a supplementary budget required during the course of 1986. When will that happen and how much will it be? The Minister and the Government cannot continue to rely on the claim that budget discipline has been achieved and that there will be no need to come back to the House.
    There are two issues on which the Government might find themselves in difficulties. First, there is the question of the regional and social funds. It is true that that is non-obligatory expenditure, but the expenditure which the European Assembly added to the budget was added for two reasons. First, it was added because over 50 per cent. of the regional and social funds element of the budget refers to past commitments. That means that this year the Commission may not be able to meet promises that have already been made for payments under the heading of the regional and social funds. The second reason is that the European Assembly takes the view that agricultural spending, running at 70 per cent. of the budget, absorbs far too much of the budget.
    If the regional and social funds run out of money and if we refuse to pay any additional money into the European budget we shall lose because much of that money would come to us. Have the Government thought about this problem and if so what conclusions have they reached?
    The Government have refused to face up to the problems of agricultural spending. During the course of this debate it has already been stated that any fall in the dollar-ecu exchange rate below 1·2 will lead to budget increases in terms of export refund payments. A fall of 4 per cent. has already taken place this year and that means another £400 million on export refund payments alone. No agreement on cereal prices has been reached but this is not the only problem which agricultural spending faces.
    In the newspapers this weekend there were reports about our food surplus, which increased by 75 per cent. to £1·4 billion last year. Inevitably that means a rise in the cost of servicing the stores of such surplus stocks. The Observer reported that the European Commission is planning to dump £4 billion worth of surplus food on to the world market over the next three years. The cost of that would be at least £2 billion. A secret European Commission report was referred to as the source—since it has already appeared in The Observer it is perhaps not all that secret. The Minister should tell us whether these reports are true. Is it true that the cost of dumping and the costs of servicing the storage of the stocks will rise in Britain and in the whole EEC to the extent of £2 billion? If so, agricultural spending will certainly run out of hand again. What will the Government do about this?
    Will the Government come before the House with demands for yet more money for the worst possible reason — for the continuing, obscene food mountains and money for the practice of dumping surplus products on the world food markets, with dire consequences for Third world countries? That can only increase starvation and the difficulties that many Third world countries face.
    74
    Why will the Minister not come clean with the House and tell us that the £18 million is to be paid into the European Commission not just to make our case appear in the most attractive light but as a kind of down payment on the calls that will be made on our resources in the coming months of 1986? Why will the Government not admit that there is no such thing as budgetary discipline? Budgetary discipline does not exist because the Government have done nothing to reform agricultural policy within the Community.
    If the Government persist in believing in the existence of the budgetary discipline they are the only member Government who continue to do so. The European Commission has abandoned any such behief. The Commission's annual report on agricultural spending last year made it quite clear that:
    "Even in those sectors in which substantial reform has already been achieved—e.g. milk products and wine—much remains to be done by way of stock reduction and supply management."
    That is a polite way of saying that the reforms have done nothing to reduce agricultural spending, but rattier it will get out of hand, as it has with cereals.
    The £18 million is only the first instalment. It is a sweetener to the court. The Minister should tell us more about that and when he proposes to demand more money from the House for obscene and wasteful farm spending. He should come clean with the House tonight.
    6.50 pm
    Mr. Brooke: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
    This has been an excellent and forceful debate. Some hon. Members have asked questions about Government policy with regard to the disputed 1986 budget, and others have been more anxious to discuss our parliamentary procedures in such a case. I shall do my best to comment on as many of the issues that have been raised as possible.
    I should like to underline three fundamental points in my opening speech. First, the question at issue is nothing less than the balance of power between the European Parliament on the one hand and the Council and national Parliaments on the other. Secondly, the key to resolving the issue satisfactorily is winning the court case. Thirdly, the procedures that we have adopted for seeking parliamentary approval are those recommended by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in the previous Parliament. I trust that the critics of those procedures will not overlook that fact.
    I would not accuse the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) of the Latin American delegate's technique of putting in the margin, "Weak point-shout," but amid his charges of humbug and pedantry he glossed lightly over the illegality that the European Parliament had committed. He either does not understand the process of budget making, or he is saying that breaking the law does not matter if the infringement is small. I am glad that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), with a reference to ship money, issued a powerful corrective from the Opposition Back Benches. Of course it could be argued that this is the thin edge of the wedge, but the critical fact is that what the Parliament has done is illegal, and we intend to reverse that.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) mentioned the dilemma of our having a short time, which made more difficult the handling of a complex matter. It also made more difficult the Government's

    75
    handling of the case in terms of whether a Consolidated Fund Bill could be introduced. The dilemma was serious. As for timing, the preoccupation, apart from the dislike of paying interest, is with not finding ourselves being sued for interest on a payment that we were making without prejudice and ex gratia.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sorry, but no. I have very little time.
    As for the method, which was recommended by the Select Committee, the use of the Contingencies Fund is dictated by urgent cases. It is difficult to envisage a more urgent case or one for which the fund would be more relevant.
    Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend said that we were making the payment without prejudice. Without prejudice to what? As we understand it, we are to make a payment but cannot get it back.
    Mr. Brooke: We are making it without prejudice in the sense that we are making it not under the authority of the European Communities Act 1972, but under a separate head. In paying, we are saying that we regard the demand as improper, but we need to pay it in the context of the court cases.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing mentioned page 791 of "Erskine May" and overriding the limits. The payment is not obligatory under existing legislation, but nor is it ruled out, which is the critical feature, as I think my right hon. Friend implied. The Estimate is brought forward on a separate basis, but not one which requires legislation to override the 1972 Act.
    The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) criticised the Council of Ministers for its responses, but, in the process, ignored the issue of budgetary discipline, and was, I fear, joined in that by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) for emphasising that the issues adduced by others as excuses for the European Parliament were simply justifications for illegality.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has kindly said that I helped him by saying that the payment was illegal. Why should we make an illegal payment which we shall not get back and which the Commission will spend for us?
    Mr. Brooke: What I said, and what I thought my hon. Friend joined me on, was that the European Parliament's act was illegal.
    The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked two questions. One related to section 173 of the European Community Treaty and the basis for our case. The very fact that the Parliament is not mentioned there raises the possibility of the Council's action being inadmissible. That is the basis for bringing our own case. The answer to his second question is that we could sue the Commission, and can still sue it, but there is no prospect of the Council of Ministers doing so. In that respect, we should be acting independently. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Assembly overspending. I would not have thought, from what he said, that none of his colleagues in the Assembly had voted against the illegal budget, but I agree that he is not responsible for them.
    76
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) mentioned the disagreeable time spent before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I did not think that it was disagreeable at all. I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to another occasion. He threw the word Communautaire at me. I suspect that it might well be an unparliamentary expression. The critical thing from the Government's point of view and in the context of the future of the Community is that we win the case. We believe that that can best be achieved by maintaining common cause among member Governments.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) emphasised the importance to the future of Europe of winning the case. In that respect, he was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), although my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington disagrees about the best way in which to win the case. The disagreement is simply one of tactics.
    The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) achieved the considerable feat of speaking for 10 minutes on behalf of the Opposition without referring once, as far as I am aware, to the illegality of the Parliament. She raised other issues which are relevant to the debate, but did not tackle the central one, which is the basis for the Government's action. I am happy to deny on behalf of the Government that we are bringing forward this Estimate because extra funds will be needed anyway. We are bringing the Estimate forward to assist the conduct of our case in the court and to reinforce our expectation of winning.
    Dr. McDonald: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Brooke: Not at this stage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing asked why we were making the payment to support our case. We are anxious to maintain a common approach among member Governments in this nexus of cases. We do not want to pre-empt the court. As for the interim application, we are uniquely bringing forward the motion.
    When I referred to high ground, my metaphor was as much military as moral. We are anxious to remain the plaintiffs in these cases, not the defendant.
    In conclusion, I express the hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will vote in favour of the special Supplementary Estimate. The procedures for which the Government are seeking approval are those recommended by no less an authority than the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in the previous Parliament.
    Several hon. Members have expressed surprise at the nature of the Government's legal advice, but to my memory no one has suggested—or at least no one has convinced me—that we should ignore that advice.
    The balance between the Government's argument and that of some of my hon. Friends is that they believe that one act of political will in withholding payment is crucial to the future of Europe, and the Government believe that another act of political will is critical, which is acting in unison with our friends in the Community to defeat that illegality by the Parliament in the court. I ask the House—
    It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to the Order of the House, 31 January.
    The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 200.

    Division No. 58]

    [7.00 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Alexander, Richard

    Evennett, David

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Alton, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Amess, David

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Ancram, Michael

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Arnold, Tom

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Forman, Nigel

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

    Fox, Marcus

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

    Franks, Cecil

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Baldry, Tony

    Freeman, Roger

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Freud, Clement

    Batiste, Spencer

    Gale, Roger

    Beith, A. J.

    Galley, Roy

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

    Benyon, William

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Best, Keith

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Gow, Ian

    Blackburn, John

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Bottomley, Peter

    Grant, Sir Anthony

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Greenway, Harry

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

    Gregory, Conal

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Ground, Patrick

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Grylls, Michael

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Gummer, Rt Hon John S

    Brinton, Tim

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Browne, John

    Hancock, Michael

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Hannam, John

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Harris, David

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Harvey, Robert

    Burt, Alistair

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Butcher, John

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

    Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

    Butterfill, John

    Hayes, J.

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hayward, Robert

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

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Carttiss, Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Cash, William

    Heddle, John

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Henderson, Barry

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hickmet, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Hicks, Robert

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hill, James

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

    Hind, Kenneth

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hirst, Michael

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Holt, Richard

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Conway, Derek

    Howard, Michael

    Coombs, Simon

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

    Cope, John

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

    Corrie, John

    Howells, Geraint

    Couchman, James

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Crouch, David

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Irving, Charles

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Dunn, Robert

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

    Durant, Tony

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dykes, Hugh

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Eggar, Tim

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    78

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Pollock, Alexander

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Portillo, Michael

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Powley, John

    Key, Robert

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Price, Sir David

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Knowles, Michael

    Raffan, Keith

    Knox, David

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Lamont, Norman

    Rathbone, Tim

    Lang, Ian

    Renton, Tim

    Lawler, Geoffrey

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Lightbown, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lilley, Peter

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Rost, Peter

    Lord, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Ryder, Richard

    McCrindle, Robert

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Maclean, David John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Silvester, Fred

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Sims, Roger

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

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Madel, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Major, John

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Malins, Humfrey

    Speed, Keith

    Maples, John

    Speller, Tony

    Marland, Paul

    Spence, John

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Spencer, Derek

    Mates, Michael

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Squire, Robin

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Mellor, David

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Merchant, Piers

    Steen, Anthony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Mudd, David

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

    Murphy, Christopher

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Neale, Gerrard

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Needham, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Neubert, Michael

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Newton, Tony

    Tracey, Richard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Trippier, David

    Norris, Steven

    Trotter, Neville

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Osborn, Sir John

    Viggers, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waddington, David

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Wainwright, R.

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Parris, Matthew

    Walden, George

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

    Wallace, James

    Pawsey, James

    Waller, Gary

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Walters, Dennis

    79

    Ward, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Wood, Timothy

    Warren, Kenneth

    Woodcock, Michael

    Watts, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Wheeler, John

    Whitney, Raymond

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Mr. Carol Mather and

    Wilkinson, John

    Mr. Robert Boscawen

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Deakins, Eric

    Anderson, Donald

    Dixon, Donald

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dobson, Frank

    Ashton, Joe

    Dormand, Jack

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Douglas, Dick

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Dover, Den

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dubs, Alfred

    Barnett, Guy

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Barron, Kevin

    Eadie, Alex

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Eastham, Ken

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

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

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Ewing, Harry

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Fatchett, Derek

    Blair, Anthony

    Faulds, Andrew

    Body, Sir Richard

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Boyes, Roland

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fisher, Mark

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Flannery, Martin

    Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Forrester, John

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

    Foster, Derek

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

    Foulkes, George

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Fraser, J. (Norwood)

    Buchan, Norman

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Budgen, Nick

    Fry, Peter

    Caborn, Richard

    Garrett, W. E.

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    George, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Campbell, Ian

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gould, Bryan

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Gourley, Harry

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Clarke, Thomas

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Clay, Robert

    Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

    Clelland, David Gordon

    Hardy, Peter

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Cohen, Harry

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Coleman, Donald

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hawksley, Warren

    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

    Craigen, J. M.

    Home Robertson, John

    Crowther, Stan

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

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

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    80

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    John, Brynmor

    Radice, Giles

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Randall, Stuart

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Redmond, Martin

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Lambie, David

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Lamond, James

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Robertson, George

    Leighton, Ronald

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Rogers, Allan

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Litherland, Robert

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Ryman, John

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McGuire, Michael

    Sheerman, Barry

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    McKelvey, William

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

    McTaggart, Robert

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

    McWilliam, John

    Silkin, Rt Hon J.

    Madden, Max

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marek, Dr John

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

    Marlow, Antony

    Spearing, Nigel

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stott, Roger

    Martin, Michael

    Strang, Gavin

    Maxton, John

    Straw, Jack

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Meacher, Michael

    Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

    Michie, William

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Tinn, James

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

    Torney, Tom

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Wareing, Robert

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Weetch, Ken

    Nellist, David

    Welsh, Michael

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    White, James

    O'Brien, William

    Williams, Rt Hon A.

    O'Neill, Martin

    Winnick, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Park, George

    Woodall, Alec

    Parry, Robert

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Patchett, Terry

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pendry, Tom

    Mr. Ron Davies and

    Pike, Peter

    Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £135,917,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1986 for expenditure by the Treasury in connection with payments to the Budget of the European Communities not covered by direct charges on the Consolidated Fund under section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 177.

Australia Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.13 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
7.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Our relations with Australia are of the greatest importance to this country. The Bill will, when enacted, confirm the United Kingdom's recognition of Australia's present-day status as a proud and independent nation. The removal of the old residual constitutional links reflects this country's affection for Australia and is therefore a cause for satisfaction.
The Bill is at the request and with the consent of the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. The request and consent was expressed in the Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985, enacted in December 1985 by the Commonwealth Parliament in Australia. That legislation came about as a result of legislation enacted in September and October 1985 by the legislatures of each Australian state. In the passage through state legislatures and the federal Parliament, there was unanimous support from all Australian political parties to the proposals. I am happy to report that the same unanimity was evident in the passage of our own Bill through another place.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove the remaining constitutional links that still exist between the United Kingdom and the Australian states. The links have their origin in the way that the Commonwealth of Australia was created in 1901 as a federation of what were, until then, individual British colonies. On federation, a number of powers and functions were conferred upon the Commonwealth authorities, but the states, as the then colonies had become, retained many of their previous powers and functions. In law, and in many respects, they retained their status as colonies of the United Kingdom. With that status they remained subject to certain restraints and controls from the United Kingdom which, with the development of Australia to independent statehood, has clearly become inappropriate.
The quasi-colonial status of the Australian states meant that, in respect of those states, Her Majesty was sovereign in right of the United Kingdom; thus, when exercising her powers in relation to the states, Her Majesty is formally advised by her United Kingdom Ministers. Under the Bill, Her Majesty will continue to be sovereign in respect of the states, but no longer in respect of the United Kingdom. Instead, the Bill provides that when Her Majesty is exercising powers and functions in respect of the states, she will do so on the advice of Australian state Premiers. This mirrors Her Majesty's position in relation to Australian Commonwealth matters when she is advised by her Australian Commonwealth Ministers. The Bill makes no other change in the position of Her Majesty as Queen of Australia.
82
The Australian Government's request is made in accordance with section 4 of the Statute of Westminster 1931, which states:
"No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof."
The details of the Bill are the result of extensive consultations between the Australian state and Commonwealth Governments and, more recently, between the Australian Commonwealth and United Kingdom Governments. Her Majesty approved the proposals in the middle of last year. Once Her Majesty had approved them, all the states and the Commonwealth of Australia passed legislation in their own legislatures. Following Royal Assent to the Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985, passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, Mr. Hawke wrote to the Prime Minister formally seeking enactment at Westminster of complementary legislation. That is the Bill before the House.
The Bill is drafted to mirror the Australian legislation precisely. Briefly, the Bill will, in clause 1, remove the British Parliament's power to make laws for Australian states— thus it achieves the complete legislative independence of Australia from the United Kingdom. By virtue of clause 10, the Bill will terminate the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom for the government of any Australian state.
The Bill will also remove certain restraints which at present exist in relation to the legislative powers of Australian states. By clause 8, it will remove certain powers of Her Majesty, as the Queen of the United Kingdom, exercisable on the advice of United Kingdom Ministers, to disallow or to suspend the operation of state laws. By clause 3,it will remove certain restrictions, for example, under the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, on the legislative powers of Australian states.
Turning to judicial matters, clause 11 will terminate appeals to the Privy Council from state courts. However, it will not affect an appeal instituted before the commencement of this legislation, or an appeal for which leave has been given before the commencement of the Act. Those will continue to be dealt with in the same manner as before, as if this legislation had not been enacted.
As regards the powers and functions of Her Majesty and governors in respect of states, clause 7 makes new provisions. Her Majesty's representative in each state continues to be the governor. It is the governor alone who will exercise the powers of Her Majesty, except on the appointment or the termination of the appointment of a governor, and at times when the Queen is personally present in the state.
On those two matters, the Bill provides for the Queen to act on the advice of the Premier of the state concerned, although when she is personally present in a state, any such advice to the Queen would be tendered only in accordance with the mutual and prior agreement between the Queen and the Premier. That arrangement was agreed between the Australian federal and state authorities and the Palace.
Finally, in clauses 13 and 14 the Bill amends the constitution Acts of Queensland and Western Australia respectively. The constitutions of those two states are the only ones that include specific provisions relating to the appointment of their governors. The clauses are

83
consequential upon termination of the powers and responsibilities of United Kingdom Ministers in respect of states.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join the Government in welcoming the Bill. It represents and embodies Australian wishes. All parties and all state legislatures in the Commonwealth Parliament support the proposals outlined in the Bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech, legislation has been enacted in all state and Commonwealth legislatures smoothly and without controversy. It is right that this House should agree to the request of the representatives of the Australian people for the removal of these residual constitutional links.
The decision to propose changes has not been made lightly. While it is true that the Bill will remove certain, largely formal, legal links, it will in no way weaken the deep practical relationship between our two countries. Moreover, it will substitute new arrangements that accurately reflect Australia's well-established status as a modern and sovereign nation. The Bill also acknowledges Australia's proud independence under its Queen and the true balance of our relationship today.
I commend the Bill to the House.
7.22 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I thank the Minister for his clear and helpful speech. It is obvious that the Government have not materially altered their position since Baroness Young outlined the Bill in another place on 16 July.
In no way will the Opposition seek to delay or amend the Bill. On the contrary, we shall do everything that we can to speed its passage through the House in the hope that Her Majesty the Queen can proclaim its coming into force when she visits Australia early next month.
On one level, it would in any event be quite unrealistic for us to raise obstacles. It would be inappropriate to seek unilaterally to amend matters which have been agreed by all Australians, and which should properly be within their competence. We note the unanimous approval in Australia, the passage through the state legislatures in September and October last year and the Royal Assent in Australia on 4 December. It has been agreed by all parties in Australia, by all states—even by Western Australia, which in the 1930s had a secessionist movement—and by the Commonwealth Government—even those individuals who have been most loyal to the old Commonwealth relationship. One contrasts the reception in this House for the Bill with that for the Bill that eventually became the Canada Act.
Wih such unanimity of approval, how can we oppose the Bill? It is the recognition of a change in relationship from the time of the establishment of the Australian Commonwealth in 1901—the residual element of that quasi-colonial relationship whose very existence contains at least a chance of potential conflict between the Crown, our legislature and Australia.
Nevertheless, there were positive elements in the old relationship, especially in the co-operative development of the common law. All Bar students and civil practitioners will be aware of the distinguished Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, Sir Owen Dixon, and of the Wagon Mound case in 1961, which decisively altered the concept of liability in our civil law, defining the limits of liability
84
for a negligent act. All that arose from a mishap in the harbour at Sydney. The personal relationships between members of the Bar in Australia and this country will continue, and I am sure that the legal co-operation generally will also remain.
The tide has passed, and, as the Minister said, it is quite anachronistic that, for example, Her Majesty the Queen, in exercising powers in the Australian states, acts on the advice of United Kingdom Ministers. When the Bill becomes law, in exercising such functions the Queen will act on the advice of Australian state premiers. Another example of an anachronism is that this House should have certain functions in respect of legislation for the states of Australia.
There is a new reality. There is the development of two wholly independent, nations, in no way dependent the one upon the other, enjoying a warm and close bilateral relationship — two proud democracies, homes of the common law. When problems arise on a bilateral level, such as those following the McClelland commission report on nuclear tests in Australia, those potential forces of an explosive conflict will, I am confident, be settled on a basis of mutual good will and long-standing friendship.
We do not need these remaining residual quasi-colonial ties to define our relationship with Australia—something that is based on far broader and wider foundations. We have fought together, we have talked together as parliamentary colleagues in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we mix together, we have a network of family links between this country and Australia—there can hardly be a family in the United Kingdom which does not have some personal link with Australia—and we play together.
My only slight criticism of the Bill is that our negotiators have not done a tough enough job, because there is no reciprocity. Perhaps, as a swap for giving the Australians their constitution, we should have insisted that Alan Border remain in this country for five years.
A new relationship has indeed developed. When Sir Robert Menzies used to say that he was British to his bootstraps. that was anachronistic even then, as I cannot imagine that many British people were wearing bootstraps. We now look forward to the British-Australian bicentennial celebrations to be held next year. The old is dead, long live the new relationship. At last, Australia has achieved her legislative independence.
7.30 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: It is welcome and uplifting to take part in a debate in which both sides of the House seem united in wishing progress to a Bill. I compliment the Under-Secretary of State on giving a new definition to the term "Second Reading", in that he read for the second time what his noble Friend had read so well in another place, while inserting one or two interesting adverbs, which were recognised by the occupants of the Opposition Benches.
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who are so much better represented proportionally in the Chamber this evening than are the Government or the official Opposition, I am pleased to say that the Bill has the full support of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties. It was anachronistic to have judicial and residual administrative rights over Australian legislation, and we welcome their termination.

85
Australia is a mature and civilised country which I have had the privilege and pleasure of visiting on a number of occasions. The last occasion on which I visited it was as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. If ever there was a country which deserved to look after its own destiny without unnecessary interference from us, it is Australia.
It used to be said in olden days that one could tell the difference between an Australian and yoghurt because only one of them had culture. That is no longer so, and the arts in Australia flourish now as probably in no other Commonwealth country. The Australian cinema is enjoying a marvellously exciting new life. The Melbourne opera house is one of the architectural gems of the world, and the Australian theatre flourishes. Perhaps more important is the fact that the Australian arts are customer orientated. When I was in Melbourne, even matinees of quite heavy operas were fully attended, with people waiting for returned seats.
In sport, Australians need no interference or guidance from us. There is perhaps a moment for gloating over cricket, but in all other sports they are almost fearless. Their racing is brilliant, in that they have removed elitism from it. Spectators do not necessarily wear hats, and they are not barred from going into various enclosures by virtue of how much they have paid. The bravery and knowledge of their commentators is brilliant as well. Our BBC and ITV commentators will never commit themselves if horses finish within half a length of one another. The Australian commentators call results when they are by a whisker, and they are steadily proved right.
I observed the Australian prison service and found it to he excellent. Their rate of recidivism is very much lower than ours, and there is genuine understanding, and investment in, the well-being of prisoners. I spoke to the director of prisons in the state of Victoria, and he explained that it was the state that took away individuals' liberty and that the prison service tried to replace that with dignity.
Australian agriculture needs no help from us. The CPA delegation visited an avocado plantation in Western Australia which was irrigated by means of a computer, with one man sitting in a hut with a hydrometer measuring the dampness of the earth and spraying it where necessary.
There is oil in the north and the wine from the Hunter valley in the south can take the place of any wine in the world. The state parliaments are decently run and, unlike us, sit no more often than is necessary. The Senators are well paid and they all, as well as Members of the state Parliament, enjoy free rail travel anywhere in Australia. That is something from which we should learn.
The Bill will have an effect on the conferment of honours on Australian citizens. I am pleased to say that that was not picked up by anyone in another place, and one tries in this place to be to some extent original when debating something which began in another place. Clause 7(5) reads:
"The advice to Her Majesty in relation to the exercise of the powers and functions of Her Majesty in respect of a State shall be tendered by the Premier of the State",
which means that no longer will honours have to be filtered through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. From now on they will be recommended by the state premiers to Her Majesty, who in her capacity as the Queen of Australia will confer honours on her Australian people.
86
I believe that our friendship will be stronger if we allow Australia, a mature and civilised nation, to run its own ship of state. It has shown the ability to do so, and I do not believe that anything that has happened recently on our side of the ocean is likely to persuade it that when it comes to governing a country we have all the answers. I welcome the Bill, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support it.
7.37 pm
Sir Dudley Smith: I shall not indulge in a travelogue, like the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). I found it fascinating, however, to hear about his racing experiences in Australia.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in introducing this small but important Bill, it is largely a formal measure. One is tempted to ask why the formal powers have been retained for so long. A similar sort of Bill came before us a short while ago that dealt with Canada. I do not know of the intricacies that lie behind such measures, but perhaps we should have proceeded jointly instead of taking a piecemeal approach. One of the most comforting and heartening features of the debate is the complete agreement on this measure that has been expressed from both Front Benches. It is comforting and heartening also to know that the Bill is in accord with the thinking of the separate states in Australia. That must be good.
I detect that everyone in this place believes that it is essential to retain full links with the Commonwealth, especially with the old Commonwealth. Our ties with Australia remain strong and they are not to be underestimated. Nor are they to be neglected. It must be understood that they should never be taken for granted. There have been suggestions in the past on the part of Australia that it should break from us while still retaining a loose association within the Commonwealth. Having been to Australia, like the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, I detect an enormous amount of good will among Australians; that is evidenced by the many young people who come to Britain from Australia. Many of the younger generation still regard Britain as their motherland.
The ties that we are debating are anachronistic and they serve no useful purpose. It is right that the statute book should not be littered with laws that no one has any intention of implementing. Therefore, it is wise that we should be taking the step that is marked by the Bill. Wherever I go—I am sure that this will be echoed by all hon. Members—I find that there remains enormous goodwill between Australia and Britain. I am a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe and it is interesting that among the most regular visitors from parliaments outside Europe are those who come from Australia. It is usual for Australia to send a strong team to Strasbourg about once a year to participate in debates and to make contact with European parliamentarians of the 21 nations which form the Council of Europe. That is all to the good, and we should do everything we can to encourage it.
Australia has enormous potential. It has a tiny population compared with its land mass. Long after our time it will be much further developed than it is today and with a larger population, when certain climatic barriers have been broken. Australia is a formidable and essential

87
part of the Commonwealth. The Bill has a great deal to commend it, not least because it gives us an opportunity to emphasise the strength of our ties with Australia.
7.40 pm
Mr. Bruce George: In 1982 the Daily Telegraph carried a story written by Nicholas Comfort, a perceptive analyst, in which he said:
"Politicians at Westminster are bracing themselves for a Bill to make changes in the Australian Constitution, in the hope that it will arouse less controversy than last winter's debates on Canada's."
About that time I opened a file on Australia, and four years later the file is thin because the contrast between the Australia Bill and the Canada Bill is enormous. I suspect that Australian politicians, seeing how badly the issue of patriating Canada's constitution was handled by the Canadian Federal Government, resolved to ensure that when, eventually, legislation was introduced for Australia, it would not be subjected to the same intense debates.
If the public was asked whether it appreciated that Britain still had a residual responsibility for Australia, many people would be as bemused as hon. Members were in the late 1980's when it was pointed out that we had a significant residual responsibility for Canada.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman is more than five years out on his dates. We legislated for Canada in the 1980's.
Mr. George: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard he will see that I said that the issue surfaced in the late 1970s. In 1979 I presented a lobby of 250 Canadian aboriginals. The Canadian issue scarred Canadians and the parliamentarians involved. Fortunately, the House is not being put through the same traumas with Australia. Australian politicians realised that they should not go through that process and did what Canadian politicians did not do, which was to secure compliance among all the federating elements in the Australian political system and all political parties, so that there was unaminity in presenting the legislation.
The contrast is startling. The Canadian Prime Minister sought not simply to patriate the constitution, but to alter the balance between federal and provincial Governments. That caused consider ble opposition in both Canada and the United Kingdom, and resulted in long hours of debate. Eventually the federal Government of Canada had to climb down and secure a different agreement with the provinces. The Australian position is very different. Although some of the characters involved in the debate five years ago are present today, the circumstances are completely different.
There was a time when such a debate would not be automatically peaceful, as clearly it will be today. The precursor to today's legislation may have been the traumas of the mid-1970s which involved the Governor-General and the dismissal of the Government of Gough Whitlam. Fortunately, there has been agreement in Australia, although there is the issue of republicanism, but that matter is exclusively for Australians. This final constitutional tie is being severed, and we wish the new arrangements all good fortune.
The issue of Australian aboriginals—those who are left — will not be debated today, or in our future
88
debates. That is not to say that we regard the position of Australian aboriginals as something Australians can view with pride and pleasure. However, Australian aboriginals, for whatever reason, have not lobbied British parliamentarians. If they do not see any enhancement of their status through debates in the Houses of Parliament, that is up to them. But I certainly would not like it to be thought that the Australian record was any better than that of Canada, because in many respects it is worse.
The Australians have a legacy of Westminster government which they have nurtured and developed in their own unique way. Indirectly, Australia had colonies, and Australians can be proud of the political system that they have established and of the system that they have bequeathed to their former colony of Papua New Guinea. A few months ago when the Prime Minister there was defeated on a vote of no confidence, he resigned, for the second time, and took his place on the Opposition Benches. The success of that political system may be because Australia, not the United Kingdom, was the colonial power.
The number of column inches in Hansard devoted to Australia will be limited. The measure is not being subjected to intense political debate, which is welcome. I presume that the remaining stages will be as uneventful as the Second Reading because Australians have proceeded more intelligently than their fellow Commonwealth parliamentarians in North America.
The House should wish the Bill well. It has secured unanimity here and in Australia. It is right that the Australian Government have introduced the legislation, and I hope that their future political developments will be successful.
7.48 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: During more than 25 years in the House I have seen incompetently drafted Bills causing unanticipated troubles. I do not admire those who draft Bills incompetently. The Hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) does less than justice to the institutes of learning, which he has not dignified by his presence, in believing that British people have been wholly ignorant of the constitutional position between Australia and the United Kingdom. I should have thought that every university, except for the one which he has illuminated by his academic advice, and a huge number of people were well aware of the constitutional position of the British Parliament vis-a-vis the Commonwealth of Australia.
I rise to point out that the word "Commonwealth" is understood wholly differently in Australia and in the United Kingdom. It so happens that tonight we are passing United Kingdom legislation. In the United Kingdom the word "Commonwealth" means the British Commonwealth. I notice that the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) are not listening. I ask for their attention, because I am not making a party political point, but am trying to ensure that when we pass the last definitive Act which affects the great Commonwealth of Australia, we get it right instead of wrong.
Mr. Anderson: Surely it is for the Government Front Bench to enlighten the hon. Gentleman. In clause 16, the interpretation clause, the Commonwealth is properly defined.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Indeed, and nit-picking lawyers would agree with the hon. Gentleman: but he would have been wiser to wait until I had finished before making such inappropriate observations. My reading of the Bill has also reached clause 16. In fact, I have reached later in clause 16 than has the hon. Gentleman, to where it says:
"'State' means a State of the Commonwealth and includes a new State".
I suppose that when we were all at primary school we knew the silly games, which were not even played by parliamentary drafting lawyers, where one turns to page 5, then page 17, back to page 6 and on to page 30 before one discovers what is intended.
I am making a substantial point, in that, in clause 1 "Commonwealth" is not used in the sense in which it is always used in the House, as in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is being used in a different sense, which is wholly appropriate within the Commonwealth of Australia, but is not appropriate in United Kingdom legislation. We should not have to wait until clause 16 to discover that the sense in which the incompetent draftsman of the Bill used the word "Commonwealth" in clause 1 is not the sense in which it is normally used in the House, in another place, by our courts, in official designations, and by Her Majesty when she opens the Commonwealth Conference. It is used in the Australian internal sense meaning the "Commonwealth of Australia."
I am not making a Committee point, but I think it would have been more appropriate if the incompetent draftsman of the Bill had put "Commonwealth of Australia" in cluse 1 and had also given a definition in clause 16 reading:
"'State' means a state of the Commonwealth of Australia and includes a new state."
I am putting this on record because, although courts often say that what is spoken in debate does not constitute the law, they refer to it as evidence of the will of Parliament.
We have all suffered so much from incompetently drafted legislation that I wish to use this occasion to protest against an example of it. It would have been so easy to say:
"No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth of Australia, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of the state or of the Territory".
Mr. Anderson rose—
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the jack-in-the-box on the Opposition Front Bench want to intervene?
Mr. Anderson: Putting aside clause 16, do we not have a definition even before clause 1, in the title of the Bill:
"An Act to give effect to a request by the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth of Australia"?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We do not have a definition there at all. The first operative clause is clause 1. If the hon. Gentleman was a little more informed on such matters, he would know that the preamble does not constrain content. I am not a lawyer, for which I thank God frequently, and I hope successfully.
Mr, Buchan: There is an interpretation clause—clause 16, which clearly defines the Commonwealth as the "Commonwealth of Australia" and the state as being a
"State of the Commonwealth and includes a new state".
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That has already been referred to. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening rather than
90
chattering to his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, he would have heard his hon. Friend make that point a short while ago.
I am saying that it is wholly unsatisfactory, shoddy and inappropriate draftmanship to have to wait until clause 16 before one discovers what should be in clause 1. I suppose that as an ex-junior Minister the hon. Member for Paisley, South feels it necessary to support incompetent draftsmanship, because he was a Minister who introduced incompetently drafted Bills to the House. If he had listened to what has been going on, he would have been apprised of the point that I am making.
I think it is sad that an important Bill, which brings a wholly relevant and deserved dignity to the Commonwealth of Australia, should be sullied by such mean lawyers' drafting, which does not say what it means. One should be able to read a Bill and know what it means as one goes through it, instead of having to play the silly game of referring from one clause and one part of a clause to another until one understands.
My appeal is for clear and competent drafting of Bills rather than such incompetence, which is only just legally complete, but is not what it could have been or should have been. That is the point I wish to place on record. If the Bill should be tested, as it could be in the British court. an Australian court or, in cases of conflict of jurisdiction, in any other court in the world, I would prefer to have a simple and what should be dignified measure stating clearly what it does instead of starting with avoidable ambiguities without explanation until clause 16.I think that the protest ought to be made even on this occasion, and I assure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that I shall continue to make such protests if he employs the same draftsmen for future Bills.
7.59 pm
Mr. Eggar: With the leave of the House, l shall respond briefly to the points that were made in the debate.
The Government are delighted that the Bill has received widespread support throughout the House and I am sure that that shows the close relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Australia.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) drew attention to that close relationship and in that respect he particularly mentioned the conversations that have been taking place about the Royal Commission set up by Australia to look into nuclear tests. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, there were some helpful discussions between Senator Gareth Evans, the Australian Minister who is responsible for the matter, and my right hon. and hon. Friends, at the end of last month. He probably also knows that the United Kingdom has accepted the Australian invitation to participate in a technical assessment group. We have also agreed to be represented on a consultative group, which will examine the issues raised by the Royal Commission.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) also supported the Bill. I am sure that the Australians will be thrilled to have his imprimatur of their artistic endeavours. I am not so convinced that they will welcome his preoccupation with racing, wine and prisons, which is not exactly the image that they would wish to project of their country. However, I know that everything he said was said in a positive spirit.

91
The hon. Member for Swansea, East suggested that we might have to have Alan Border back. I think that, in fairness to the Australians and the present poor state of their cricket, we might let them keep him.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East drew attention to the honours system and the way in which the Bill will change it. I confirm his impression. To complement the new legislation, it has been agreed by all concerned, including Her Majesty the Queen, that in future all honours recommendations will be made direct to the Queen by state Premiers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) rightly welcomed the Bill, and correctly referred to the anachronistic elements. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) drew attention to the differences between the Canada Bill and the Australia Bill. I well remember the role that he played in the Canada Bill. He mentioned that nothing had been said about the Bill to hon. Members by aborigines in Australia. That is correct. We understand that no representations were made by aborigines to any of the state legislatures or the Commonwealth of Australia legislature during the passage of the Bill.
I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). The whole House is always impressed by his grasp of detail and by the way in which he regularly draws attention to the importance of the drafting of parliamentary Bills. I should like to consider the points that he made, but as Opposition Members said, there is a reference in the long title of the Bill and in the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia. The Bill is taken directly from the wording adopted by the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament. It is an exact replica of that Bill. Therefore, any amendment that we sought to make to the Bill in the House would have to be returned to the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and probably to the state legislatures as well. I am sure that we would wish to avoid that if at all possible.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my hon. Friend really been advised that to use the phrase "Commonwealth of Australia" in our legislation to make explicit what is internally explicit in Australia would have to be returned to Australia, when there is no change in meaning whatever? He knows the answer as well as I do. If my hon. Friend is trying to persuade the House of Commons of
92
that, does he honestly believe it himself? The Bill is not like the Canada Bill. Its substance was affirmed by a foregoing Canadian enactment. This Bill will be an individual Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Does my hon. Friend believe what he is saying?
Mr. Eggar: I hope that my hon. Friend will not do me an injustice. Of course I believe what I am saying. I said that I would consider carefully the point that he made. He was courteous enough to tell me earlier that he was likely to make it. I had to point out to my hon. Friend that there was a complication. I did not make any assertion as to whether his point would apply, when I said that any change that we made in the House would have to be referred to the Parliament in Canberra. I wanted to register that point. I was not using it as a definitive argument, nor would my hon. Friends expect me to do that because the Committee stage is still to come.
As all hon. Members have said, the Bill is widely welcomed in all parts of the House, as it was in all state legislatures and throughout Australia. The severance of the residual constitutional link that the Bill represents in no way weakens the deep practical bonds between our two countries. Those bonds are based on mutual friendship, and need no legal backing. The Bill acknowledges that. I believe that all hon. Members will wish to recognise that fact, and will be pleased to assist in the removal of the anachronistic links.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Durant.]
Committee tomorrow.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A committal for tomorrow means that any amendments will be starred amendments. Can you give us any guidance as to whether Mr. Speaker will be unwilling to accept amendments tomorrow, because they have not had the day's notice that is usual before Committees?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time, and he knows that "Tomorrow" does not automatically mean that the Committee stage will be taken tomorrow. In fact, we have been told that the Committee stage will be next Monday.

Museum of London Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
8.7 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel that I should at this stage explain why the proposed new clause 2, which was in my name, was withdrawn last week, and what I propose to do about it.
In Committee I undertook to consider further the need for the production of regular reports by the board of governors on the activities of the museum to be required by law. That was in response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I accept the need for that additional overall statutory obligation. However, I have been advised that the new clause was hybrid and could have introduced additional and lengthy delays. I have a clear sense of obligation to the Committee. I therefore undertake that the Government will table a new clause in Committee in another place which, broadly described, will put a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to lay regular reports before both Houses on the exercise of the board's functions. I hope that that explanation will be helpful to the House.
Mr. Norman Buchan: We understand what the Minister has said, and we are glad that he took our proposal on board. We look forward with interest to the new clause that is to be tabled. The Minister is fortunate because if he had tabled a potentially hybrid new clause in front of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) we might have been here for a long time.
I should like to raise a concomitant point of order, on new clause 1. It was debated in Committee for about an hour. We were just beginning to consider the ramifications of the problem when I decided, with the approval of the Committee, that it would be more appropriate to debate such a major matter of principle on the Floor of the House. Therefore I did not put it to the vote, despite pressure from many of my hon. Friends. I thought that it would be better for the House as a whole to have a look at what has become a major matter of principle. We have learned today, from the tapes, that the number of attendances at the Victoria and Albert museum since the introduction of charging has dropped by almost half. We warned the museum at the time that that would happen. For this reason I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will reconsider the decision about selection. It is a matter of urgent importance. The unions are keen to have an answer. No answers were given, since the questions were never put to the Committee. For these reasons, I ask that we should be allowed to discuss the new clause.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I assure the House, and the hon. Member, that Mr. Speaker had all these considerations before him. He has made the selection, and we shall proceed accordingly.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The selection of amendments for discussion is something of a mystery, but may I ask you whether or not new clause 1 is in order? May I take it that if it were not in order it would not be on the amendment paper?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: New clause 1 has not been selected. Mr. Speaker had before him all the
94
considerations which the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) very properly raised. New clause 3—Mr. Norman Buchan.

Museum of London Bill
  New Clause 3

    DUTY OF GOVERNORS TO RETAIN OBJECTS IN COLLECTIONS
    'The Board of Governors of the Museum of London shall not dispose of any of the objects in their collections.'. — [Mr. Buchan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    In the short time available it has not been possible to deploy all the arguments. However, they can be dealt with when the Bill goes to another place. I have no doubt that that will happen. I look forward with immense confidence to the Bill returning to this place after it has been passed by the House of Lords with new clause 1 added to it.
    New clause 3 is a probing amendment. However, it goes further than that. We are anxious about the pressure that can be brought to bear upon the trustees and governors of museums. That is why this amendment has been tabled. We want an assurance from the Government that no objects in the Museum of London will be flogged off without the utmost consideration and care and without reference back to the Minister concerned.
    8.15 pm
    The Minister will appoint half the governors and trustees of the museum. A rampant and crude commercialism is the ideology and philosophy of this Government. They are cutting grants and support for the museums and thereby compelling boards of governors 10 behave in this way. Furthermore, because of the nature of certain appointments, action is taken that is in line with crude commercialism, instigated by the philosophy of the Prime Minister and this Government.
    I have been very disturbed by what happened at the National Museum of Wales. There has been a great deal of correspondence about it, including a report in The Guardian. The keeper of the National Museum of Wales accepted an offer from a body called Brains Trust Incorporated to transfer to Japan one of the finest and best collections of impressionist paintings outside any capital city in Europe. It is an even better collection than the Glasgow collection, which is one of the most important of the provincial collections. Brains Trust Incorporated offered £250,000—although later evidence suggests that it offered £140,000—for the whole collection. It meant that the people of Wales would be deprived of the collection for a year while it was sent on exhibition to Japan. It would not have formed part of an educational tour, involving the British Council. The collection was to be shown inside a department store. It was a further extension of commercialism—the use of impressionist paintings to attract customers into a department store.
    Mr. Clement Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the exhibition was to be situated not only in a department store but in a distant corner of the top floor of that department store so that people would have to walk all over the store before they came to the art treasures?
    Mr. Buchan: I understand that that was so. It is like one of those puzzles where one has to work oneself through to the end until one comes to the French impressionists, courtesy of Brains Trust Incorporated.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his point about the Japanese department store, is he aware that Japanese department stores play a lively part in the patronage of the arts, particularly the patronage of living artists?
    Mr. Buchan: That is quite true. When they can afford to pay this kind of money they have good reasons for doing so. However, without let or hindrance this collection of extremely valuable paintings went to Japan without the benefit of proper curatorial care. We do not want that to happen to the Museum of London's collections. We want to ensure that if it is the wish of the governors to lend any part of the museum's collections it should be done on a reciprocal basis. That has always been the case with art collections. We want the Minister to assure us that what has happened in Wales and elsewhere will not be allowed to happen to the collections in the Museum of London.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) believes, it seems, that museums should never dispose of any of the objects in their collections. He has referred to his apprehension about the Government's rampant commercialism. I am apprehensive about the rampant reaction of the hon. Member for Paisley, South. He is the Bourbon of the world of the arts and the heritage.
    To call somebody a Bourbon in the context of the arts and the heritage is not to disparage him, as hon. Members will recognise, but my anxiety about the hon. Gentleman is that he believes that nothing should ever change.
    He reminds me of Charles X of France. The point of comparison is not that, as a young man, that monarch led a life of scandalous dissipation, although that is true, but that to a very high degree he believed in tradition. That was exemplified by the proceedings at his coronation service at Rheims which ran for very many hours. It was part of the antique ritual of that ceremony that the monarch should be pricked by a golden bodkin. It is easy to imagine or to fantasise that if the day comes when the hon. Member for Paisley, South finds that he is Minister for the Arts a similar grandiose and very beautiful ceremony will be performed. Charles X prostrated himself for 12 hours during the ceremony. One can imagine the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) as his acolyte administering the puncture with the golden bodkin. One could also fantasise about the hon. Gentleman attempting to press the bodkin home a little deep. But, be that as it may, if I were to pursue that line of thought no doubt you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    However, I want to advance a serious objection to what is being proposed by the Labour party. It is the mark of all good collectors, whether private or museums, that they seek to improve the quality of their collection. It would be a mistake in the case of an important museum such as the Museum of London, which has a serious responsibility to preserve and archive material of great importance relating to the history of London, to rule that neither the directors nor the trustees should ever have the power to dispose of objects that were of trivial or minor importance and not
    96
    worthy to be in the collection. We should be prepared to advance and to be a little more open-minded in that respect.
    There must, of course, be safeguards. It is important to provide that a future director should not be able to succumb to the caprices of collecting fashions and dispose of objects at his sole discretion which might, by a wider judgment and the judgment of posterity, be objects of genuine importance that should be in the collection. But one can provide against that by requiring that the trustees should have a right of ultimate decision or by some such procedure. But it would be a mistake not to provide that there should be power to dispose of objects of second-rate importance.
    Mr. Freud: In that case, will the hon Gentleman accept that it would be helpful if the governors came from three different stables rather than two?
    Mr. Howarth: I do not think that that is essential to the point of principle that I am trying to establish. For example, in America it is a much more widely accepted practice that museums should be free to dispose of minor objects. That is one reason—among many others—why the quality of collections in many American museums and galleries has been enhanced over the years. I do not want to debar that possibility from the Museum of London.
    Finally, it is curious that Opposition Members, who are rightly anxious that more funding should be available to our museums and galleries, should want to preclude one minor, but none the less not insignificant, source of possible additional funding.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) told us in his concluding sentence all that we wanted to know in defence of the new clause. One would expect an hon. Member representing the constituency that the hon. Gentleman does to introduce into his speech so many literary and historial references. I can assure him that the people of Newham, North-West have still not finished talking about the coronation ceremony of Charles X.
    The hon. Gentleman's last sentence lies behind this new clause. He said that there is this one way of raising money — renting out exhibits to other countries. I am completely in favour, as are all my hon. Friends, of the interchange of exhibits between museums internationally. One would want to see that happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) referred to the National Museum of Wales, and we have the feeling that that museum did what it did at precisely that time in order to raise funds because there was a great shortage within its budget. Therefore, its reason was not the high-flown one that we would support. Instead, it was done on a straightforward commercial consideration.
    The Opposition have said consistently in Committee and on other occasions that we can see the time coming when the Government, in attempting to cut public expenditure as they have attempted to do unsuccessfully for years, will look to the soft underbelly of the arts, the museums and library services in order to try to make some token savings, forcing those arts institutions into the market place in a way that is conducive neither to the interests of the museums nor to the interests of the consumer—the public who pay through their rates and taxes for the museums and art galleries to be maintained.

    97
    Just as we saw the National Museum of Wales accepting a pretty measly amount of money for the cream of its exhibits for a year, we can see in the figures that have been released tonight from the Victoria and Albert that it has been forced into introducing a scheme for voluntary admission charges, not because, as one understands from the director of the Victoria and Albert, they want to do it as a matter of principle, but because they have been forced to do it through not having sufficient funds for the museum's activities.
    The Minister might say that we are being somewhat alarmist, but it is our duty to look to the future. After all, the future is with us, not with the Conservative party. We are worried that in the short time before a Labour Government are restored and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South is gracing the Government Front Bench as the new Minister for the Arts, perhaps museums will start selling off some of their exhibits in order to raise cash because the Government have squeezed them.
    Those are the reasons for the new clause, and I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I must speak on this new clause because it is rubbish. It is greater rubbish than any new clause or amendment that was tabled in Committee. Not only is it nonsense, but it does not even mean what Labour Members intend it to mean. It says that the museum shall not dispose of any of the objects in its collection. Surely, if a person rents out an item he retains ownership of that item, while losing possession temporarily. Therefore, the clause would not debar anybody from renting out property.
    Secondly, I wonder just how sterile it is to fetter directors of the new Museum of London right from the start in not being able to dispose of certain objects on display. Not all the objects are ancient artefacts. Some are models which the museum might want to sell to schools for educational purposes or to other museums to demonstrate the history of London.
    Thirdly, I wonder whether the new clause is consistent with the Labour party's policy on museums. If the British Museum were to transfer the Elgin marbles to the Museum of London, the Museum of London would not be able to sell the Elgin marbles. If this new clause were to apply to the British Museum, the Elgin marbles could not be returned, which I believe is the Labour party's policy. For those three reasons the new clause is nonsense and I beg the House to reject it.
    Mr. Spearing: A few weeks ago I too might have thought that the new clause was otiose or went too far by way of safeguard. But I do not feel that today after having sat in Committee and knowing a little of the extent to which the Government and their representatives and nominees are going in respect of Britain's assets.
    The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) spoke of the Elgin marbles. They are not Britain's assets; they are the assets of Greece. We know that there has been some discussion about their future. Almost by definition
    "any of the objects in their collection"—
    presumably, at the time that Royal Assent is obtained—relates specifically to London. That is the difference between this museum and the British Museum or the National Museum of Wales.
    Therefore, by definition, if anything at all is to be sold it will be sold to either a London organisation for storage
    98
    or display inside London—the Inner London education authority has been mentioned—or it will be sold outside London altogether. That, almost by definition, would be undesirable, or at least there would have to be a strong case for so doing in terms of sale rather than by loan or overseas exhibit.
    Unfortunately, the members of the governing body who would take such decisions will be nominees of the Prime Minister of the day. I do not know how long the present Prime Minister will stay in her position—there have been a number of varying estimates in the past day or two —or who her successor might be, or whether there will be a Tory successor. The other governors will be nominees of the City of London. We have been over this in Committee but I say again that such a board of governors would not enjoy the same confidence of a Labour Government as would the existing board of governors.
    8.30 pm
    A few weeks ago, one might have said that any reasonable person would not be irresponsible in selling off artefacts or exhibition material from London, for example from some useful and interesting exhibit of the 1930s. The London museum has a 1930s shop —a Boots or a Woolworth—which is well laid out.
    The Government are selling off all sorts of national assets. Who would have believed even two years ago that a Government would tell the House that they were expecting to dispose of Land. Rover? If the Government can do that, their nominees can act irresponsibly towards the objects that have been collected to represent London.
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), at an early stage, asked us to use our imaginations to the full, and he discussed issues such as the coronation of Charles X. Tempted though I am, I shall not be drawn into this exciting debate. In the second part of his speech my hon. Friend made the important point, which was backed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), that we should not fetter the museum. We should not allow the total immobility in the movement of objects of art between museums that the clause would bring about. It says:
    "The Board of Governors of the Museum of London shall not dispose of any of the objects in their collections."
    Therefore, it is extremely restrictive. It would be wrong and impracticable for an institution such as the Museum of London to have such a clause imposed upon it.
    The existing Museum of London Act 1965 has in section 5 a thoughtful and carefully drafted provision, which gives adequate safeguards and provides a sensible flexibility to the board of governors. The 1965 Act allows the board to dispose of objects, but only if the object is a duplicate or if it is not, in the opinion of the board, required for retention in the collection. It goes on to say that at least two thirds of the members of the board of governors must approve of any disposal before it takes place. It makes other safeguards for objects vested in the board under particular trust conditions.
    We can count on the board to maintain and enhance the museum's collection, to present a picture of London's history that is as complete and representative as possible. That is one of its main aims, but the 1965 Act rightly allows for a little manoeuvre o dispose of duplicates and certain other objects as well. The present law should stand.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) suggested, at least by implication, that the

    99
    Government were likely to starve museums of funds. It has now been confirmed that the City Corporation will match our contribution of £2·25 million to the museum, and therefore there will now be a 10 per cent. increase in the budget for the coming financial year. There could not be a better sign of our commitment to the museum. There is no question but that we shall continue basic funding. There is that assurance.
    The law has worked perfectly well under the 1965 Act, which has been in operation for 10 years. With the criteria about the disposal of objects of art, it has worked successfully. I see no reason why we should change the present rules. It would be wrong to impose immobility on the movements of objects of art, which is what the new clause proposes. It is better to have the existing safeguard under the board of governors, which is in an appropriate position to make sensible judgments. I ask the House to reject the new clause.
    Mr. Buchan: I must express my intense disappointment at the extraordinary way in which the probing amendment has been received. I had thought that the Minister would immediately accept the principle that inspired the amendment and would have agreed to the House of Lords bringing in a more appropriately worded amendment. However, we are dealing with a Government that are very different from that who brought in the 1965 Act. Proper qualifications were written into the 1965 Act, but they are not qualifications with which I would trust this Government. Nor are the nominees that they will appoint necessarily the ones I would agree to.
    A Labour Government brought in the 1965 Act. It says that there can be no transfer of objects unless it is approved by
    "not less than two-thirds of the governors for the time being."
    That was at a time when the board was made up of three separately appointed thirds, but now it is a board entirely composed of Government nominees and, of all "uncommercial" bodies, the City of London. I would not trust my bodkin to such a body. There are good reasons why we put this to the "àl 'outrance", as they probably said at the time of Charles X, because we cannot trust this lot.
    There is another reason for the clause. We are not saying that it is necessarily a bad thing for museums to interchange or to loan. There may even be an occasion when such a provision might extend to other sections, for example when there are duplicate copies of instruments. However, we want such movement to be rare, qualified and taken care of by a properly democratic board of governors, not one appointed by this Government.
    A final reason for the new clause is that we shall be in power in two years. We are willing to have an absolute regulation, not for all time to come, but a stop placed on the actions of this Government and their board during the following two years. Given the disappointing answer, we can no longer treat this as a probing amendment but as a correct and firm amendment and a moderate assessment of the position that we are facing.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Put it to the vote.
    Mr. Buchan: I would do so, but I do not wish to summon up the armies of support behind this new clause. The Bill will go to another place, as Joan of Arc had to do at Rheims, so that she could deal with her acupunctured
    100
    monarch. We shall leave it to the good sense of the House of Lords. Therefore, despite pleas to the contrary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Take no prisoners.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Is it your pleasure that the new clause be withdrawn?
    Mr. Christopher Murphy: No.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that his vote must follow his voice.
    Mr. Murphy: Very well.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 1

    COMPOSITION OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS
    Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after second 'by', insert
    'the Corporation of the City of London under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 1 of the Museum of London Act 1965 and'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 10 leave out from second 'date' to end of line 14 and insert
    'that number of members shall be appointed by the Greater London Arts Association'.
    No. 3, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'subsection' to end of line 14 and insert
    'shall be increased from six to eighteen'.
    No. 4, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
    Mr. Banks: Amendments Nos.1, 3 and 4 are consequential upon each other. Their purpose is to eliminate the Corporation of the City of London from that part of the Bill which allows nomination to the museum's board of governors. The continuity of the museum's board will be broken on 1 April 1986 when, with the abolition of the GLC, that council's nominees will not longer be able to serve on the board.
    In Committee the Opposition were consistent in opposing extensions of nominating rights to the City of London. On reflection, we now wish to remove the City of London entirely from the right to nominate to the board. The Bill is before the House only because of the abolition of the GLC. We would not be considering changing the board's composition were it not for the disgraceful abolition of the GLC—something on which I have spoken many times in the House and on which I shall continue to speak until citywide government in London is restored. I agree that we shall have to await the next Labour Government, but I can be patient for about two years.
    In the meantime, we should bounce this matter straight back at the Government. We must say to them, "You have caused the mess in London because of an act of political vindictiveness by the Prime Minister, who personally wrote into the 1983 Tory party election manifesto the abolition of the GLC and then added the metropolitan county councils for good measure." The Government are only now realising the mess that will be left in London and elsewhere because of abolition. The Bill represents only a small part; it is not the messiest part of abolition. The provision of sewerage and waste disposal services will be a far messier consequence of GLC abolition than altering

    101
    the composition of the board of the Museum of London, but they stem from the same irresponsible, undemocratic act—the authoritarian approach of the Prime Minister, who said that, because she did not like the people who controlled the GLC, she would abolish it.
    That might sound an unlikely thing for the Prime Minister to say, but I refer hon. Members to the speech made by the chairman of the Tory party—the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—who, in his inimitably gallant and moderate way, said that because the new divisive Labour party controlled county hall, the Government would abolish the GLC. He is the only Conservative to have spoken the truth publicly about the abolition of the GLC. It was an act of political vindictiveness inspired by the Prime Minister, and this Bill is a consequence of it.
    I want the Government to pick up the entire tab for the Museum of London and to give all the rights of nomination to the Prime Minister, because she caused the problem. Another reason for my wishing to do so—this is much more pleasant from the Opposition's point of view—is that the City of London has no long-term future. The next Labour Government will have to consider the structure of London local government—
    Mr. Hanley: Why?
    Mr. Banks: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. I am certain that, when the Labour Government do so, the City of London will not avoid the fate that it has dodged since the 19th century. At that time, the City of London had an opportunity to expand its limits to those of the natural London at the time, but it declined because it wished to retain its ancient rights and privileges.
    I remind the House that the Herbert Commission, which reported in 1960, said that if logic had anything to do with it, it would recommend the amalgamation of the City of Westminister and the City of London; but logic had its limits and, for its purposes, the City of London lay outside them. What an amazing statement: the City of London can defy logic. It might have been able to do so until now, but it cannot defy the democratic wishes of the incoming Labour Government, and I look to that Government to do something about the City and the democratic structure of London.
    8.45 pm
    My amendments anticipate that event. We do not wish to have to introduce a Museum of London Bill in 1989 and again change the structure of the board of governors. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) asked why we wished to abolish the Corporation of the City of London. I refer him to the structure of the City, with 13,000 electors controlling the wealthiest part of London. The City retains the business vote, although it was abolished in the rest of Britain some years ago. It retains aldermen, who were abolished throughout local government elsewhere. What is more, those aldermen are elected for life. Can one imagine the uproar if I came to the House and said that GLC members should be elected for life? There is a good bunch of GLC members over there, and they deserve to hold office for life—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Not all of them; occasionally one has to take prisoners on board, and one cannot always pick and choose the people with whom one travels. We should have met great opposition had we introduced such an undemocratic proposal. That is what happens in the City,
    102
    and that is why we do not want the City to have nominating rights to the board of governors. Central Government should accept the entire burden.
    The Museum of London is not the museum of the City of London. Another reason for our objection to the corporation's power of nomination being enhanced was our fear that a museum designed for all of London would become more limited in its scope and vision because one of its major paymasters was the City of London. A concentration on the square mile would not be in the interests of Greater London as a whole, nor in the interests of the museum generally—[Interruption.] I realise that interesting meetings are occurring in the Chamber; clearly my hon. Friends are already completely convinced of the argument and need not listen to my speech. However, from the attentive faces of Conservative Members, I know that the power of my rhetoric is swaying them. They understand the basis of my argument. They realise that right is on our side in this argument, as in all others, and in that confidence I urge the amendments on the House.
    Mr. Luce: I have heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) speak many times, but that was one of his more extraordinary speeches.
    Amendments Nos.1,2 and 4 would end the appointment of governors, not only by the GLC, but by the City of London, and would allow them to be appointed by the Greater London Arts Association. Amendment No.3 suggests that those nominees should be replaced by a further 12 governors to be appointed by the Prime Minister. That is the most curious amendment, because in Committee and on the Floor of the House during the past half hour we have heard several attacks on the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should be responsible for appointments to museums, yet the amendment suggests that she should have the power to appoint not just nine governors, but all 18 governors. I am delighted and interested in that suggestion. I think, however, that the Opposition ought to make up their mind on what they want my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to do—
    Mr. Banks: The right hon. Lady can do anything that she wants to do.
    Mr. Luce: —about the appointment of governors.
    I am delighted that the Opposition have such trust in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is excellent news that they believe my right hon. Friend would make a good range of appointments to the board. It is marvellous news that the Opposition have now changed their mind after all the discussions in the debate. At least we have managed to convert the Opposition to the wisdom of the Government's approach and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's sensible appointments to the board of governors.
    I must rightly and firmly stick to the fundamental point that I have made throughout. It would not be sensible to divorce the appointment of governors from the funding arrangements — that is to say, 50 per cent. from the Government and 50 per cent. from the City of London. it would be sensible and consistent to stick to that approach.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The corollary of what the Minister said earlier is that he should now accept the amendments. If he does not do so, it will prove that he has no faith in the Prime Minister's ability to make the right appointments.
    Mr. Luce: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be totally inconsistent so far in his contributions, I am trying to be consistent. The Government are giving 50 per cent. of the funding, and the Corporation of the City of London is giving the other 50 per cent. It makes absolute sense that each should have nine nominees out of the 18, and we should persist with that broad approach. If the City is contributing 50 per cent., it is certainly not unreasonable that it should have that role in the appointment of the governors.
    I must reiterate that I have always taken seriously the important points about the Londonwide nature of the museum. That concept is built into the Bill in clause 2, which was debated to a considerable extent in Committee. I repeat what was said in Committee and during the earlier stages of the Bill, that in making these appointments to the board of governors my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the City of London Corporation will take full account of the Londonwide nature of the museum.
    I wholly and utterly reject the attack made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on the City and his claims that the City is unsuitable as a body to make these nominations. I must tell the House that the corporation has a long and distinguished tradition of serving Greater London and the surrounding area. We should remind ourselves that the City Corporation established the Guildhall museum, which was a forerunner of the Museum of London. The corporation has played a major part in the creation of the Museum of London. I ask the House to reject the amendments.
    Mr. Buchan: The Opposition cannot get reason through to the Government. The whole point is that since this mess was created by the Government and the Prime Minister, the sensible thing is to let them get on with it for a couple of years, not involve the City of London with all the problems: leave it to the Government.
    The Opposition have made every attempt to secure some democratic representative content in the governing body. We do not regard appointment by the Prime Minister and the Government as particularly democratic, and it is certainly not representative. We do not regard the City of London as democratic or representative. For that reason we tried different methods, successive bodies, a combination of the boroughs, the question of ILEA and so on. It seemed to us that at least the Greater London Arts Association has concern for the arts—and there is no guarantee that the Prime Minister or City of London nominees would have that—and that was one final, modest attempt to get the matter resolved.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend recall that the City Corporation and the City fathers, for centuries no doubt, have received great benefit from the existence of the Sadler's Wells theatre? The Prime Minister and some of her colleagues seem to have reneged on that understanding. Perhaps there is more sense in this than the Minister might think.
    Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is trying to make a comparison and seeking to find someone who is better than the present Government.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Anyone is better than the present Government.
    Mr. Buchan: I was about to say that. That is an easy comparison, and is one that I accept.
    104
    Who would have thought that after 300 years of theatrical history a nationally and internationally renowned body may now have to close its doors because of the stupid malevolence of the Government in abolishing the GLC? That particularly foolish act has affected Sadler's Wells and the Arts Council which will have difficulties as it has been completely under-funded. I hope that the Minister will take back to the Prime Minister the point that is being made in our concern about the Museum of London. We are concerned about the wider arts.
    Mr. Hanley: In his closing remarks, will the hon. Gentleman say why he has been so dissatisfied with the appointments of the City of London corporation, and with which of the current members of the board he is dissatisfied? I believe that the directors who have been appointed so far, have carried out their tasks admirably in the interests of all the citizens of this country and especially of Londoners. Will he explain why he wants to remove the power which has been so wisely exercised by the City of London Corporation?
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman must do me no wrong on that point. I have never, at any point, attacked any member so far appointed by the City of London. The Opposition have criticised the City of London and disputed the suggestion that it is the appropriate body to make such appointments. Above all, we have disputed the suggestion that its power in relation to the board should be increased. We have no doubts about that but I made no criticism of present members, despite the actions of the Government.
    The only advice I would give to whatever directors are appointed, is that they should not write any solicitors' letters and, above all, they should not go near the Solicitor-General while this Government are in power.
    We have made every attempt to get a proper solution to the representation on this body and no doubt we shall return to it later.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Opposition have been consistent throughout about the City of London. There has been no criticism of any governors, either those appointed by the City of London or by the Greater London council. I still hope that when the Minister announces the names of the new governors, he will bear in mind the service and contribution of a number of the GLC nominees, who have been drawn from across the parties, to the success of the Museum of London.
    This is a matter of principle. The Opposition have opposed the extension of powers for the City in terms of nominating rights because we do not believe that, in local government terms, the City of London is the correct and democratic institution to have such powers.
    I have many personal friends within the City of London. In my term of office as chairman of the Greater London council, which still has some weeks yet to run, I have had many courteous exchanges with past and present Lord Mayors of London, and very charming and pleasant people they are. But I stress that this is a matter of principle not a personal matter. The reason behind the Opposition amendments about the City is that we want to minimise the disruption to the composition of the governing body by the City of London. It is the full, firm and stated intention of the Labour party when it is returned to power in a couple of years time, to deal with the City of London. There will

    105
    not be abolition in the crude sense; rather I trust it will be through the incorporation of the City of London into the surrounding boroughs.
    County hall may well have been sold as a hotel or supermarket or for some other obscene purpose promoted by the London Residuary Body supported by the Government. We might have to transfer the government of London to the Guildhall and the Mansion house. I look forward to a new Lord Mayor of London who will represent all Londoners and not just the 13,000 residents within the square mile.
    9 pm
    When that day comes and I, as the last chairman of the GLC, greet the new Lord Mayor in the Mansion house, I shall be able to say, "We tried in 1986 to stop further disruption of the Museum of London governing bodies, but it looks as though we failed." That is one of the consequences of the incorporation of the City of London. We are merely trying to anticipate what will happen in two years' time. Clearly, the Minister does not want to take the opportunity to look into the future.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No one said no.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard the Minister say no.
    Mr. Buchan: I am glad that your hearing is better than ours, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  Clause 2

    FUNCTIONS OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS
    Mr. Luce: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 39, at end insert
    'publish information concerning such investigations and research'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos.7, 8,13 and 14.
    Mr. Luce: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you suggested that we should sensibly take these amendments as a group because each one flows from the other.
    The purpose of amendment No.6 is to make it clear that the Museum of London or any other body or person in conjunction with whom it may be working in connection with the provision of archaeological services in London may publish information deriving from archaeological investigations and research.
    I gave undertakings in Committee to consider an amendment along those lines. The amendment follows the spirit of the amendment tabled by Opposition Members. However, the wording of their amendment was not sufficiently clear and did not sit easily with the Bill's existing wording. There are three points. The first is that we have detached publications from the non-specific powers to provide and promote archaeological services. Secondly, we have linked the power to publish to the result of the specific investigation and research being carried out under the terms of the Bill. Thirdly, the wording follows the pattern of similar provisions in existing legislation.
    As I explained to the Committee, I did not believe that the amendment was strictly necessary, but there are precedents in the London Government Act 1963 and the
    106
    Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. I must be fair to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who said in Committee:
    "excavation is not completed until it is published".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 21 January 1986, c. 101.]
    I agree with that. I should not wish there to be any doubt about the powers to publish information under the Bill. For that reason, I commend the amendment to the House.
    Mr. Buchan: It would be ungracious of me not to thank the Minister. He promised to table an amendment after our open and broad discussion in Committee. I thank him for bringing it forward so expeditiously.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 7, in page 2, line 41, leave out `and'.
    No. 8, in page 42, after 'research', insert
    'and the publishing of such information'.—[Mr. Luce.]
    Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 6.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No.10, in page 3, line 3, after 'State', insert
    'and he shall not give such consent unless he has satisfied himself that the acquisition or disposal will facilitate the exercise of their functions by the Board of Governors and that the acquisition or disposal is in the best interests of Greater London generally'.
    No. 11, in page 3, line 5, leave out 'and the Corporation'.
    Mr. Spearing: The amendment excludes part of the compound, complex clause 2 which does a number of things. The amendment would delete clause 2(4) which provides:
    "(4) The Board shall not acquire or dispose of any land or any estate or interest in land without the consent of the Secretary of State and the Corporation and such consent may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State and the Corporation consider appropriate."
    We are all aware that the increased number of members of the governing board will be nominated entirely by the Prime Minister and the City corporation. The powers of those bodies, by virtue of their powers of nomination, will be increased indirectly. The indirect power of elected persons—members of the GLC—are not just being decreased, they are being extinguished. That in itself would give additional powers to the Government, and the corporation, but an additional power is being written into the Bill which we did not discuss a great deal in Committee. The sanction of the Secretary of State and of the City of London Corporation will be required, to acquire or dispose of land or property.
    What is more significant is that either of those or both can place limitations on the discretion of the governors in pursuit of that activity. The Minister may tell us that such and such an Act has been passed in relation to other museums or, indeed, national monuments where these powers are inserted. Be that as it may, the Minister has to make out a specific, proper case for increasing the powers of both these authorities. We know that it is not necessarily to be used in a way related entirely to acquisition and disposal.
    I imagine that people, when given power, like to use it. I can imagine that the Secretary of State, the Minister, or those who advise him at the third or fourth level, or some people in a committee of the City of London corporation, when asked: "May we buy this land, this warehouse, or that historic house in the City or

    107
    elsewhere?" will say "Yes, you may do so as long as …"The "as long as" may set out the conditions which may require that the board of governors should perhaps make a charge or dispose of what are regarded as surplus assets —both are matters which we have already discussed. It may require the Board to do something which it may not be inclined to do otherwise.
    These powers do not look great, but could be exercised in a way which would provide less scope for the governors. It behoves the Secretary of State or the Minister to tell us why. The Minister should tell us what he has in mind and the type of condition which may be imposed in these circumstances. Unless he does I do not think we can decide our views on the matter, although in principle, we think the clause should not go through. The case was not made in Committee.
    Amendment number 11 relates to the corporation's powers in this respect. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State says, "All right, half the money is coming from me and I can make those conditions." Is there any reason why the corporation should as well? The Minister will no doubt reply, "Ah, but the corporation is providing part of the money, so it should have these powers as well."
    That is arithmetically true, but as has been made abundantly clear in this debate, the City of London Corporation is acting for the whole of Greater London in that it is the only London body specifically involved in nominations. It is providing money in an unrepresentative way. The Minister, when he replies, will have to justify his having the powers. But he must make out a specific case for the corporation having them too. Even if there are precedents in other legislations, I would think that these additional powers are unnecessary because the additional members of the board of governors are appointed by the corporation and the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Hanley: I believe that the clause as it stands, unamended, is wholly desirable. As we discussed in Committee, the Museum of London is tantamount to being a charity. It is treated as a charity in all legal respects. It is common in charitable law that a restriction is imposed on the distribution, sale or any other disposal of assets especially of land. The doctrine of cy pres should apply. That is that the property should go to the next nearest object of similar worth. I can see that there is a difficulty and that it might be thought desirable for property to go to some other body, but it is only sensible that those who have paid for the organisation should have ultimate control over the disposition of any property that is sold. I doubt whether the Secretary of State or the corporation will be in conflict with the board that they have so carefully appointed.
    The clause is wholly sensible and ensures that assets are disposed of only with the agreement of the Secretary of State and the corporation. I see nothing wrong in it.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister consider accepting amendment No.10, which provides a small extension? I shall not repeat our arguments on this subject. We have expressed our doubt about the Conservative party and those it will appoint to look after the museum. The Bill is restrictive and amendment No. 10 would facilitate the exercise of the Board's functions by providing that acquisition
    108
    "will facilitate the exercise of their functions by the Board of Governors and that the acquisition or disposal is in the best interests of Greater London generally".
    We have been worried by the narrowness of view that has been expressed generally and which appears to have been taken towards the museum. We are anxious to ensure that Greater London and the region round about is taken care of. I therefore ask the Minister to consider accepting amendment No. 10, if only for the greater comfort of the leigis.
    Mr. Luce: I can give a strong assurance that the interests of Greater London will be taken into account.
    Amendment No.9 would delete section 3(4)of the Museum of London Act 1965, as proposed in clause 2.That subsection empowers the board of governors to acquire or dispose of land, subject to the consent of the two funding authorities—the Government and the City. The provision which the amendment would delete brings the Museum of London in line with the National Heritage Act 1983, which applies more specifically to the Science Museum and to the Victoria and Albert Museum. It is essential that I, on behalf of taxpayers, who will find half of the museum's costs, should be able to have a say in the expansion of the museum's estate. The plans to acquire or dispose of land are already subject to scrutiny by the funding authorities in considering the museum's annual budget. It is right to include that more formally in the Bill. That is also important from the point of view of accountability.
    Amendment No.11 would require the consent of the Secretary of State to the acquisition and disposal of land and property, but not that of the City of London corporation. I must reject that, too, for the reasons that I have already given. It is wholly appropriate for the City, as one of the two funding authorities, to have a say in changes in the museum's estate. As I said, it will already do that when considering the museum's annual budget. It is right to include this more formally in the Bill as well.
    The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) implied that, if we will not accept amendments Nos.9 and 11, the Opposition would like to impose conditions on whichever Minister is responsible before he is able to consent to the acquisition or disposal of land by the board of governors. That runs counter to the amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman, but I appreciate that the main purpose of the amendment was a probing one. I readily accept that the conditions mentioned in amendment No. 10 are among those on which I and my successors would wish to be satisfied. However, they would be among several factors to be taken into account in the overall responsibility.
    9.15 pm
    We get into more difficulty if we try to imagine every set of circumstances in which the board of governors would have to take account of the acquisition and disposal of land. It is more sensible to remain consistent with the National Heritage Act 1983, with which the Bill is in total line and which allows for accountability on the part of the Government and the City. With that in mind, I ask the House to reject the amendments.
    Mr. Buchan: I am unsure of the position. Do I need the leave of the House to discuss an amendment in the middle of a discussion on other amendments?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can deal with the amendments that I have called—No.9, with Nos. 10 and 11.
    Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will wish to put his own view on amendments Nos. 9 and 11. In the middle of this general discussion, I wish to comment on amendment No. 10, to which my name is attached.
    It is all very well referring to the National Heritage Act 1983,but clause 2 substitutes section 3 of the Museum of London Act, which gives general powers. When this matter was discussed in Committee, we argued that the remainder of clause 2, because it detailed a number of functions, but not all the possible functions, left open to question whether those functions not mentioned could be ignored. The Minister will remember the argument. We argued that we would prefer general powers to the listing of some powers.
    In relation to the listing of some powers, the Minister said that he accepts the qualification as being among several qualifications, but not all. However, he turns our argument back on us and says that he cannot accept the qualification because it could throw in doubt the other purposes with which subsection (4) might deal. He cannot accept proposals regarding subsections (1),(2) and (3),and prevent additional qualifications and purports from being written into subsection (4).The purpose of amendment No. 10 is that it should in the best interests of Greater London generally. To be consistent with the line the Minister has taken of listing several objectives rather than the general powers in clause 3 of the parent Act of 1965, he has compelled us to adopt his philosophy and structure of clause 2 and extend it into subsection (4).
    To be consistent with changing a simple eight line general powers section into a long and extended section by including functions, I ask the Minister, for our comfort, to add in subsection (4) that it must be done in the best interests of Greater London. Otherwise, he will be faced with the problem that he tried to argue about in Committee. His argument was that the proposal sets out the objectives and purposes. Everyone is entitled to believe that the fact that the amendment is missing suggests that it need not have been included. We are asking that it is included and we hope that the Minister will reconsider it.
    Mr. Spearing: I am not sure of the procedure, Mr. Speaker. Amendments Nos.9,10 and 11 are being taken together because they are on the same point. Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 seek to remove the additional powers that the Bill gave to the Secretary of State and the Corporation of the City of London respectively in imposing conditions on the governors of the Museum of London. Amendment No.10,to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South(Mr. Buchan)has just referred, is not consistent with the provisions of amendments Nos. 9 and 11. In a sense, my hon. Friend's amendment says that if the Minister cannot accept my measures to delete these power, we should at least insert a safeguard.
    I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. If I withdraw amendments Nos.9 and 11, will it be possible to put the Question on amendment No. 10? Although I do not like the increased powers given to the Secretary of State and the Corporation of the City of London, especially in view of the increased representation that they already have, and
    110
    although I am not entirely persuaded by the arguments on the Science museum, the Victoria and Albert museum and the National Heritage Act 1983,there is some logic in them. Therefore, I do not seek to press amendments Nos. 9 and 11. I hope my colleagues agree that there is some sense in what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said about safeguards and that we are able to express a view, even if it is negative, on amendment No.10.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is asking whether I would allow a separate Question to be put on amendment No.10, the answer is yes. Does the hon. Member wish to move amendment No.9?
    Mr. Spearing: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 9.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed: No.10 in page 3, line 3, after `State', insert
    'and he shall not give such consent unless he has satisfied himself that the acquisition or disposal will facilitate the exercise of their functions by the Board of Governors and that the acquisition or disposal is in the best interests of Greater London generally'. — [Mr. Buchan.]
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No.12, in page 3, leave out lines 14 to 19.
    As I said in Committee, clause 2 has many parts. The amendment will delete new section 8(2), which states:
    "The Board may allow any premises occupied or managed by them to be used by other persons (for payment or otherwise) for purposes not connected with the Board's functions under this Act if the Board are satisfied that to do so would not conflict with those functions."
    The aim of new section 8(2)is to widen the board's discretion in the use of the premises in the way outlined. Normally, one might say that that is a good thing and that it gives more scope and options to the board. However, because of the actions of the Government and, perhaps, of some of their nominees, I am unhappy with the breadth and scope of that measure. Clearly these activities., for which payment may or may not be made, are likely to be entirely outside the museum's purposes.
    Those purposes are fairly wide in terms of cultural and other activities. Under this measure the board of governors may, as it were, turn its premises to commercial advantage. The Barbican and the City of London would be ideal premises for all sorts of social or business functions to take place. The Minister will say, "The board must be satisfied that this does not conflict with its functions." There could be much discussion by the board, because, of course, that is a matter of judgment.
    If conditions are to be laid down on the sale of property, the Secretary of State may say, as he has said to many local authorities—if he can treat elected authorities in this way, he can treat the board of governors in the same way —"You may do that, but you had better make a bit of money for yourself. You have the power. Advertise and let the property for the price that the market will bear."
    Despite the qualification that there must not be a conflict with the functions of the museum, such conflict is a matter of judgment. The commercialisation of the premises would be a real danger. I hope that the Minister will at least give an indication of the thinking of the Secretary of State, if not of the City of London Corporation.
    Mr. Luce: The purpose of the amendment is to remove the part of the Act that gives the power to the board to

    111
    "allow any premises occupied or managed by them to be used by other persons (for payment or otherwise) for purposes not connected with the Board's functions under this Act if the Board are satisfied"—
    I stress that—
    "that to do so would not conflict with those functions."
    That is important.
    The provision stems from an equivalent provision in the National Heritage Act 1983, which has proved useful in practice. The idea is simple—it is to give the board of governors the option to allow the museum premises to be used for functions, events and so on which are outside the direct objectives of the museum as defined elsewhere in the Act.
    The provision allows the board to raise money for the museum by charging for the hiring of its premises for occasional events. I do not see why I should not urge the House to agree that that objective should be encouraged.
    In answer to the probing of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I must stress that that power is not confined to the Museum of London, but is already allowed for with other museums such as the Science and the Victoria and Albert museums. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the activities must not conflict with the functions of the board.
    It is wholly sensible that the board should have that small degree of latitude, if it so wishes, to allow the premises to be used, if they are not at that time being used for their normal purposes, to raise money for the museum through hirings. After all, such an option is at the discretion of the board of governors.
    Dr. John G. Blackburn: Surely that would be a useful and equitable means of raising income for the museum, and, provided that it is within the terms of the clause, it could be a great blessing.
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. Experience since the 1983 Act has shown that such a provision can be useful. We should give that latitude to the board of governors, provided that it is in keeping with the objectives of the museum.
    I ask the House to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Spearing: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that the Minister's words confirmed my worst suspicions. In effect, he said, "Let the board make the best use of its assets, even if it is for purposes not connected with the purposes of the museum."
    I accept that the Minister said that such purposes should not conflict with the museum's purposes, but if there must be a balance to compensate for the reduction in Exchequer contribution, there could be a possible conflict in the use of the premises. My public library, because of pressure from the Government, has become a disgrace because of the hours that it is not open. It is not used by anyone when it is closed. With any other Government in office I would not have pressed the amendment, but in view of the well-known predilections of both the City of London Corporation and the Prime Minister, if not of the Secretary of State, I feel that the Question should be put.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 4

    FUNDING OF GREATER LONDON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICE
    Amendments made: No. 13, in page 4, line 5, after `London', insert
    'and publishing information concerning such investigations and research'.
    No.14, in page 4, line 7, after 'research', insert 'or the publishing of such information'.—[Mr. Luce.]
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Luce: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    We have had about 15 or 16 hours of debate on Second Reading and in Committee and now the Bill is being debated once more on the Floor of the House. The House has shown the importance that it attaches to the Museum of London by the amount of time that it has been prepared to give to scrutinising the Bill. We may not have agreed on a number of issues but, whatever is said, we all wish to see the museum succeed.
    We are seeking to make adequate arrangements for the museum's funding and for appointments to the board of governors after the abolition of the GLC on 1 April. I believe that the Bill succeeds in doing that. The Government's strong commitment to the museum is demonstrated by the fact that we have, jointly with the City Corporation, increased the museum's budget for the coming financial year by over 10 per cent.
    We have had full debates about the museum's responsibilities towards archaeological services and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it plain that additional sums are being made available to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission so that it can undertake archaeological services in conjunction with the museum. Against that background, I express the view that the museum has a great future. That future has been reinforced by the Government's recently announced funding arrangements and by what I hope will be the passing of the Bill.
    9.32 pm
    Mr. Mark Fisher: As the Minister has said, we have had about 15 or 16 hours of debate in considering the Bill. It is not one of the larger measures that the Government are to bring before the House this Session, but it is an interesting Bill. It has given the House and the Committee a chance to discuss various aspects of arts policy, and it is sad that the House seldom has an opportunity to explore and debate them. We have been able to discuss the problem of acquisition and the relationship between the arts and education. We have also discussed the more fundamental issues of accountability and general policy and attitude towards the arts. For that reason—that of lack of opportunity —the the House has welcomed the chance to enter into these debates. It is sad, however, that the opportunity arises in considering an extremely ill-judged and ill-conceived Bill.
    Our consideration of the Bill has provided us with the chance to hear the views of a newly appointed Minister, and we have had the opportunity to assess him. We welcome him in his new job and welcome specifically the fact that we have a Minister with responsibility for the arts

    113
    who is answerable in this House and with whom we can debate and discuss arts policy. That is something that we lacked for two years prior to his appointment. We also welcome the Minister's flexibility in listening to our arguments in Committee and amending the Bill tonight. However, despite those quiet and modest gestures of approval, it has been clear during the passage of the Bill that the Minister, for all his kind words and solicitations, is as hamstrung and straitjacketed on arts policy as his predecessor was by the Government's ideology and determination to subject the arts to pressures and rigours to which they are not suited, and in pursuance of which it does not best serve the British people —neither the audiences nor those who live and work in the arts.
    Although the Bill is small it has been extremely important, both for the museum and the Government's general policy towards museums. It is undoubtedly a bad Bill, and wholly unnecessary. It flows from the Government's vindictiveness towards the Greater London council. Because the museum was but a small part of the GLC's functions and work, the Bill has received precious little thought from the Government. I am sure that when the Prime Minister took it into her head to attack the GLC, she little knew that one of its powers and functions was to oversee the heritage of our capital city—its archaeological, industrial, social and cultural archives and records which reside in this excellent museum. She did not know and certainly did not care about that. Therefore, when it dawned on her civil servants and Ministers that, as a consequence of her determinaton to abolish the GLC, the Government would have to deal with the museum's governorship, the Government had to cobble together this little Bill to amend the Museum of London Act 1965. As a result, this is an ill-considered Bill, and will do nothing to improve the governorship, management or future of the museum.
    All hon. Members know that it is a museum of London. Therefore, logically, it should be controlled by democratically elected representatives of the people of London. All hon. Members are democrats and know that that follows from the inevitability of having a museum of London. The only sensible way to administer it is through democratically elected representatives, which is how at least part of the governorship of the museum has always been in the past. But the Bill is removing that one democratically elected representative part of the governorship which has a direct interest in and accountability to the people of London. In doing so, the Government do no favours to the museum or the people of London.
    All hon. Members know that that is true, and that the management and administration of the museum to date has been extremely good. When the Minister replies I defy him to say how the Bill can possibly improve the quality of the museum, or of its accountability to the people of London. Because of the museum's good management, it may continue as well as before, but the Bill does not improve the quality of the museum. The Government have been meddling in the administration of the museum simply because of their vindictive attitude towards the GLC. That cannot be a good reason to alter the governorship, powers and functions of the museum. The Minister knows that that is the case. In Committee he could not give one way in which the Bill would improve the museum, and he knows that it will not do so. The Bill does not improve the museum one jot or tittle.
    114
    The greatest nonsense of all is that, because of the absurdity of having to introduce the Bill, the Government have found themselves turning their own policies on their heads. The Government are determined to cut expenditure in every area but because of this Bill they are increasing Government expenditure on the Museum of London.
    The Minister has come before the House and the Committee saying how good and virtuous the Government are and how well intentioned they are in planning to spend £2·5 million a year on the museum in the future. That is an increase in the museum's overall budget of 10 per cent. The Opposition welcome that and thank the Minister for it. We hope that that increase will continue in subsequent years. However, the Minister has not told the House that that £2·5 million is a much greater sum than the Government contribution to the museum last year. Therefore, we have the absurdity of a Government committed to cutting Government expenditure having to increase Government expenditure on the museum because of their facile and stupid attitude towards the Greater London council. There cannot be any greater absurdity for the Minister for the Arts to find himself in.
    For all the kind words, concern about standards and intelligent interest in the conditions of the museum arid its future which the Minister expressed in Committee, the truth is that the Government's basic philosophy towards the arts, not only their political philosophy towards local government and democratic representations in London, is not consistent with a good, sane and improved administration of the arts.
    The arts should not be solely for the market place. There is a national and public interest in the arts and in our culture which goes beyond that. That is something which the Government have missed and not understood in the Bill and because of that, the Bill brings no credit to the Government. I am sure that the Bill will be repealed by a future Labour Government when they return democratic government to London.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. Hanley: It would be wrong for the Bill to pass to the other place without a tribute being paid to those who work in this excellent museum. One of the great advantages of being selected for the Standing Committee was the opportunity, which many of us took, to visit the museum and see it with a fresh mind. It was a great privilege to be able to see behind the scenes. However many times many of us may have been to the museum, it had previously been impossible to see behind the scenes.
    The museum is an iceberg. It may be a cliché to say one eighth above water and seven eighths below, but that is true of the museum, in that the artefacts on display are but a tiny proportion of the total amount of paintings, prints and relics which are lovingly restored and lovingly catalogued. They left a deep impression upon me. The way in which the people work behind the scenes with such great dedication is something of which the people of London and the country should be proud.
    When I visited the museum there were only two matters pressed upon me by those who wished to discuss the impending Bill. Those matters were not political, but sensible alterations or clarifications to the Bill. The first was that we should have regard to the contribution of the London boroughs in appointing people to the board. That has been guaranteed by my right hon. Friend. It is not just

    115
    a museum of the City of London. It is a museum of London, of all its people and the area around London. That has been clearly set out by my right hon. Friend.
    Secondly, the people at the museum wanted to ensure that the archaeological side of the museum would be guaranteed. It has been, and is consistent with the other powers of the board of the museum. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said in that regard.
    There is a third matter which is one of my own. I had hoped that a report might be presented, at least once every three years, or more if circumstances determine, because of extra funding. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has said that that will be dealt with in another place. I am grateful for the extra funding which the Government are providing for the year to come.
    The Museum of London shares in the honour that my right hon. Friend received. No doubt the idea of making my right hon. Friend a Privy Councillor was swayed by his appointment as Minister for the Arts. It is a tribute to the way in which Conservatives view the arts that he has been so elevated. Therefore, on the Bill passing to the other place, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and the Government on their commitment to the historical arts of London.
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Tony Banks: That was a brown-nosed job of a speech, but it was made in that wonderful voice that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has, which no doubt will guarantee him future appearances on party political broadcasts for the Conservative party.
    When I saw the Leader of the House come in, I thought that we would have the tumultuous news that the abolition of the GLC was just an ugly rumour, but I now realise that the right hon. Gentleman is probably more interested in the speech on the Adjournment, which is perhaps nearer to his heart than are the arts. That is on his own admission. He has said that he is probably the worst philistine in the House. It is a brave claim, even for the Leader of the House, given the company he keeps.
    The Bill is one of the easier aspects of the abolition of the GLC.I correct the Minister. The GLC will be abolished at midnight on 31 March. It is the Government who take over on All Fools' day on 1 April, not the GLC. Although the Bill is one of the easier aspects of GLC abolition, in other areas of the arts in London the consequences are likely to be more fraught and dangerous. We have heard talk about Sadler's Wells. If the Minister for the Arts wants to show his total commitment to the arts, let him, even at this late stage, make an announcement when he speaks on Third Reading that the Government will step in with the necessary funds to save Sadler's Wells. That will be the way of guaranteeing that this otherwise largely unreported debate will get some coverage tomorrow morning. Let us see whether the right hon. Gentleman would like to reach out for that.
    There are problems not only with Sadler's Wells but with the Half Moon, the Theatre Royal in my constituency, the Riverside, the Tricycle, the Warehouse, and all the many small theatres, particularly in community and ethnic arts. They will suffer because of the abolition of the GLC. The Greater London Arts Association has estimated that between 25 and 100 bodies are likely to go because of GLC abolition. No one can quantify the
    116
    number. However, the Bill represents an easy part of abolition. The Minister will have many more pressing problems on his plate from 1 April. I do not think that he will have such an easy ride when he deals with those aspects of GLC abolition.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said how strange it was that a Government who advocated the abolition of the GLC, at least on one ground, that of cost, now find that they have to dig deep into the public purse to pay for services and interests previously maintained efficiently and effectively by the GLC on behalf of Londoners. I suspect that, as with the problems for the arts, problems about the public expenditure consequences of GLC abolition will come back time and again to haunt the Government before their demise at the general election.
    I shall always seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to rub in the message on GLC abolition long after 31 March when it has been abolished. However, this evening we are dealing with a small aspect of the abolition of the GLC.I join the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes and my hon. Friends in wishing the Museum of London well in future. The future is no better now than it was when the GLC was partly responsible for the museum's affairs. I pay great tribute to the role of the GLC and to the support that it gave to the museum.
    I give particular credit to the GLC nominees on the governing body of the museum. I remind the Minister once again that those nominees were not selected on the basis of the Prime Minister's dictum, "Is he one of us?" They were selected on a cross-party basis and included Tory as well as Labour nominees. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he appoints the governors after the Bill has received Royal Assent. I hope that he will also bear in mind the service rendered by the GLC nominees, both Conservative and Labour.
    We shall have to return to this matter in a few years' time. After the election of a Labour Government, the restoration of citywide democracy and the abolition of the City of London, we shall have to look again at the functions of the Museum of London, and in particular at its board. We shall remember this evening. The Opposition wish the Bill well in another place. It is a necessary Bill, because of abolition, and we do not wish to oppose it.
    9.50 pm
    Mr. Murphy: I rise in support of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. I, too, wish this measure to be enacted. During the Second Reading debate on the Museum of London Bill I referred to private sponsorship of the arts, which is relevant both to the heritage and to the Museum of London. It may be of interest to those hon. Members who were present on that occasion to know that, subsequent to the adoption of my report on this subject by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a favourable response has been received from the Committee of Ministers. It shares the view that
    "the potential resources for cultural financing can be increased by combining state and private efforts."
    In the opinion of the Committee of Ministers, such a combination has been made especially relevant as member states seek the most effective use of the resources that are available for culture and turn increasingly to forms of co-funding with other bodies. However, despite such

    117
    collective wisdom, which embraces Governments of differing political complexions, the Committee stage of the Museum of London Bill was—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I take it that this is a preamble to what the hon. Member intends to say about the Bill.
    Mr. Murphy: You are, as ever, absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. Despite that recognition of the importance of co-funding, the Committee stage of the Bill was accompanied by a great deal of Socialist dogma and anti-capitalist rhetoric. The partnership between the Government and the Corporation of the City of London is exactly the type of partnership that should he encouraged in both the public and the private sectors.
    During the passage of the Bill attempts have been made to denigrate the Government's commitment to the arts and to the heritage. The Socialists have again adopted the ploy of trying to turn myth into fact. That should be exposed for exactly what it is— misrepresentation.
    Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Murphy: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. There was enough to-ing and fro-ing in Committee for us to know exactly where all hon. Members stand in their commitment to the arts and the heritage. I see no reason for the proceedings of the House to be held up once again. I believe that the Bill will assist the Museum of London. It will also assist the people of London and my constituents who live outside London. I wish the measure well.
    9.54 pm
    Mr. Buchan: I rise to make the last Opposition speech before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, where I suspect many amendments will be made to it.
    This is not a happy occasion. Indeed, it is a very sad one. It is the first measure to have emerged after the introduction of the stupid, malevolent and ill-thought-out concept to abolish the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. It has been done out of malevolence and pique, and without considering most of the consequences that will flow from abolition. Above all, it was done with no consideration of how properly to replace any democratic say in the various institutions of London. The Museum of London is only one aspect but it is a serious sign that the Government intend to maintain this undemocratic approach throughout the many other problems that will arise.
    Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that we have had between 15 and 16 hours of discussion. One of the problems was the interminable intervention of Conservative Members, which limited the useful discussions of the Opposition. We accept that some hon. Members—even in Committee, difficult as it was to discern—may he interested and concerned in the arts. I go further. I believe that the new Minister, perhaps without any direct experience, is learning fast. I think that he learned during the course of the Committee. Attention has been drawn to the desire to bring in the London boroughs and to emphasise archaeological aspects. That largely stems from pressure that we brought to bear. While at the end of the day amendments were not required, there was a commitment that we welcomed.
    We have been accused of making nothing but anticapitalist statements. In fact we have brought a change of tone and attitude towards the Bill. We have even
    118
    recognised Government amendments. To talk about anticapitalist remarks reminds me of Karl Marx's comment that the bourgeoisie built statues to the great writers of the past but that if they had ever read their books they would have burned them. We congratulate the Minister on his first venture only because it is his first venture, not because of the nature of the Bill.
    A number of issues still face us in relation to the arts in Londong. The narrowness of view in relation to the Museum of London has borne fruit in recent weeks. At the time of abolition, both of the metropolitan authorities and the GLC, we warned that among the areas of our life that would be in deadly trouble were the arts. Pledge after pledge made by the previous Minister and repeated by the present Minister, maintained that the arts were in no danger and that funding would be brought forward to replace the funding that would be lost from the metropolitan authorities and the GLC.
    Of course, it was said that there would be cuts. Of the £20 million that was required, £4 million would come from the boroughs. That proved to be a complete misunderstanding — an under-estimate. In fact, even with the additional £10 million for the arts, there is still a £19 million shortfall. The Arts Council says it needs £10 million because it knows it will not get the £9 million from the Government.
    We are seeing the consequences. The Government say that they are under-funding deliberately because the successor bodies will come forward to support the arts, yet the first thing that happens is that no successor body—no borough, no council—is represented in the first piece of legislation. That is some evidence of what can be done by the successor councils when they are treated with such contempt.
    But the Government know and we know, and events have proved, that what we said was right. Local councils have had their rate support grants cut and have been rate-capped. Indeed, it is those who are most generous towards the arts who have been subjected to rate capping. They cannot replace the funding that came from the metropolitan authorities and the GLC. We hear the Minister saying that he is proud of the £2 million-plus that the Government and the City of London have added. Yet it is astonishing that the Government have been led into additional expenditure which they did not think about when they abolished the GLC. We must remember that the rest of the arts remain in trouble.
    The Museum of London has been saved but the Government have, for example, plunged Sadler's Wells, with its 300 years of theatrical history, not only of national importance and fame but international importance and fame, into closure. It is unthinkable, but it will happen. We have seen the Cottisloe theatre close, and now Sadler's Wells will go. We know that in the north-east, the Empire in Sunderland, the royal theatre in Newcastle, and the royal philharmonic hall in Liverpool are also in bad trouble. This is linked to what the Bill will bring about. The two things are integrally linked because they stem from the same narrow, petty, mean-minded attitude of the Government. We are seeing the apotheosis of Mammom and a growth of Philistinism.
    We hope that—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Ordered,

    119
    That, at this day's sitting, the Museum of London Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neubert.]
    Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Mr. Buchan: We hope that the other place will improve the Bill.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have been trying to catch his eye, but it is rather difficult when he speaks with his back to me. He spoke about the City of London. Many things have been said about its role and the additional money that it is making available to the Museum of London to match the Government's increased contribution. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the City of London, already the wealthiest borough in London, will make a considerable amount of money out of the abolition of the GLC. This is because a number of new schemes will be carried out on a per capita basis, and as the City has only a small population, it will benefit enormously in terms of a reduction in its contribution. Even the additional money that it is giving to the Museum of London is not an act of generosity but is paid out of profits that will accrue because of the abolition of the GLC.
    Mr. Buchan: My comment about the apotheosis of Mammon was right.
    The multitude of arts bodies that have been supported by the GLC, both small and professional, such as the ethnic and community arts and theatres such as the Half Moon and the royal theatre in Stratford are in London, but there are others beyond London.
    We cannot take too much pleasure in the £4 million-plus going to the Museum of London. We are pleased that the Minister has secured that money, but we are displeased with the undemocratic and unrepresentative nature of the museum's governing body that he has inherited and will now establish. Will he take back the message to his mistress that the biggest single act that she could take, both to win our co-operation on the Bill and, more importantly, to save the arts in Britain, which are such a ferment of fear and anxiety, is to restore the money lost to the arts through the Government's ill-conceived schemes?
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PROTECTION OF MILITARY REMAINS BILL
Ordered,
That the Proceedings of 31st January in Committee and on Third Reading of the Protection of Military Remains Bill be null and void.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Scotch Whisky Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
10.3 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity of this debate, particularly as events in the Scotch whisky industry are so topical. However, the debate is on the industry and not just the immediate developments in it.
The Scotch whisky industry has had a difficult few years. Volume sales have declined from a peak in 1979. The number of distilleries has reduced since then from about 130 to 100, and employment has fallen from over 25,000 to about 16,500. While smaller companies have performed fairly well, especially those selling single malt whiskies, the industry leader, Distillers, has generally not done well, and the facts show it.
The industry is obviously extremely important, to Scotland, but it is also important to the whole of the United Kingdom. It provides manufacturing jobs, many of them in areas where there is little or no alternative, and it still represents a major export industry, with sales approaching £1 billion a year. It is important to maintain and develop its employment and export potential.
The recent developments began in the middle of 1985, when Guinness took over Arthur Bell and Sons plc for £356 million and so acquired the top domestic brand of whisky. The Fosters lager consortium, Elders IXL, has put in a bid for Allied Lyons, which includes William Teachers, whose two distilleries are in my constituency. Teachers is the second largest United Kingdom brand. That bid has rightly been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, involving as it does the acquisition of a key product by an Australian group, which must be examined carefully in this strategic industry.
It is not surprising that bids and counterbids have been launched for a company such as Distillers, which seems to be under-achieving its potential under its present management. The first bid came from James Gulliver's Argyll Group, which offered £1·89 billion. When the bid arrived, there were calls for it to be referred to the MMC. On competition grounds that did not seem to be justified, but in relation to the strategic national interest the bid warranted at least deep consideration about whether it would secure jobs and promote exports.
Mr. Alexander Pollock: In that context, does the hon. Gentleman recall the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who said that in addition to competition there might be referrals
"where the destiny of a vital national capability is at issue?"
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning a factor that must be considered in all bids. I am anxious that the bids are treated equally and fairly and that similar considerations are applied in all cases. That is the critical factor.
Nevertheless, the Argyll bid was cleared. Then Guinness made a bid, which was agreed with Distillers —it invited Guinness in and offered to pay its expenses —for £2·19 billion. If that merger were to go ahead, it would create a group that accounted for 35 per cent. of the whisky market. There is a dispute as to how much whisky

121
production that group would represent, but it is between 35 and 50 per cent.—probably nearer to 35 per cent. The group would also own, as Distillers still does, 50 per cent. of United Glass, which accounts for half the sales of bottles to the whisky industry.
Mr. George Robertson: When the hon. Gentleman produces statistics about the capability of the Distillers-Guinness conglomerate, will he take into account the spare capacity that is available to Distillers and not rely on a suggestion of actual output? Distillers has a considerable amount of capacity which is at present unused but which could come back on stream.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I intend to deal with the point later.
As Guinness has acquired Arthur Bell, it would, with Distillers, become a bigger group than Distillers alone and would be bigger than a Distillers group owned by Argyll. That presents a dilemma, because it is difficult to believe that a bid to create such an enlarged group should not be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, although the Government may take a different view. However, if that merger is referred, it would leave Argyll clear and free in the market and would handicap Guinness. Not to refer it would undermine the credibility of the Office of Fair Trading. Could it say, "We will not refer this bid because we did not refer the Argyll bid; but had there not been an Argyll bid, we might have referred it"? We must have a clear statement, whether or not the bid is referred, of the reasons for so doing. The Minister and the Government must take that point on board.
That clearly leaves the Government with limited options. If the Guinness bid is not referred to the commission there must be a clear explanation for that, as it is difficult to see why it should not be referred. If there is a good reason, it should be made available.
If, on the other hand, the bid is referred to the commission, the Ministers responsible have two further choices. They can either review the decision of Argyll on the ground that they need to consider all the implications for the industry and it would be fair to consider both bids at the same time, or they can state, as this would be the effect of their decision, that they are effectively endorsing the Argyll bid, at least by implication, and explain that they are happy for that to happen. How the bids are referred and judged should not be left to luck. Both bids have every right to be treated fairly. All the factors, jobs, exports, management potential, the merits of the bid and the implications of competition should be considered equally for both bids.
The sheer scale of these bids and the wide issues that they raise require a clear statement by the Government of their position. I do not think that we can accept a "hands off" approach, unless it is a genuine "hands off" approach. There should be no under-the-counter meddling over the decision to refer or not to refer. That would have a perceived effect, and that fact must be taken into account.
It is unfortunate for those of us who are caught in the middle of these battles that they frequently degenerate into an argument between the management of the two different companies. There are claims and counter-claims, which does not add to the clarity of information on both sides. The merits of both companies are such that there is no doubt that if either of them were to take over Distillers there would be a re-invigorated whisky industry, using the
122
brands to lead a new attack on the export market. That would be desirable. It is important that the relative accounts of both companies are considered.
Argyll launched its bid with an attractive statement—attractive to me as a Scottish Member—which claims that the company will bring Scotch whisky back home. It would establish a new company in Scotland. Its management team would be based in Scotland and the industry would be run from there. Argyll claim that its management team has a marketing background which can revitalise the industry, and it feels that its actions are a logical development of its own business.
Guinness countered that by claiming that it had greater international marketing expertise which would be much healthier and better for the industry. It also claimed that it would establish headquarters in Scotland. We should be grateful that there now seems to be renewed enthusiasm for operating international businesses within Scotland. All Scottish hon. Members will be glad to see that it seems from that point of view that we cannot lose. We shall get an enlarged whisky management group in Scotland.
I should not at this stage take sides in the issue other than to ensure that a fair deal is secured. I accept that the Scotch whisky industry needs a boost and injection of new creative management. It needs aggressive and creative marketing. I am looking for, and I believe that the Minister should want, a commitment to centering employment and management in Scotland and to securing the quality of Scotch whisky as a product and to ensuring that it is backed with effective, creative marketing to beat off the challenge it has suffered from its competitors, namely white spirits, white wine, brandy and so forth.
Although it may be invidious to mention the two together, I think we can learn something from the way the producers of Armagnac and Cognac have established the imprimatur on their quality product in a way which Scotch whisky could benefit from if it is to establish itself as top of the heap.
One of the difficulties in relation to white spirit in competition with Scotch, which will lead me to make specific recommendations at the end of my speech, is that there is, of course, no ageing process, no skilful blending and no mystique. One can make gin today and sell it effectively next week. There is no difficulty involved in forward planning, no expense in stock holding, and no creative skills are required. Yet, in the long run, that is not in the best interests of Scotland or the United Kingdom. It would certainly not create jobs in rural Scotland and it does not have the export potential that whisky has, as gin can be made relatively easily almost anywhere. Pure, good quality Scotch whisky can only be made in the right circumstances, in the right place—in Scotland.
The Scotch whisky industry is vital to rural communities and towns in Scotland which have blending and bottling plants. Teachers has its only two distilleries in my constituency and employs 50 people in two relatively small communities. Distillers had a distillery in my constituency but closed it many years ago. I am pleased to say that Morrisons of Glasgow took it over and not only generated employment by producing malt whisky but produces tomatoes and house plants from the waste heat. The company has generated some imaginative tourism on the back of those products.
The importance of the industry to rural areas can be explained by the example of a minister whom I met. He told me that he went for a charge in a rural parish and was

123
asked, "Do you take a dram, minister?" Normally, a minister would assume that the correct answer was no. On this occasion he would have been wrong because the parish was entirely dependent for its employment on a malt whisky distillery. Fortunately, the minister gave not merely the right answer but the honest answer. He admitted that he took a dram and finished up with the charge.
After considering the points that I have made about the two bids the Government should make their position clear. That is critical. They should ensure that they take account of the interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom market. They should treat the bids fairly and evenhandedly and explain their position clearly.
There are three further things that the Government should do for the Scotch whisky industry. I should like to address those points to the Minister. The Government should recognise their responsibility to work with the industry to ensure a good quality product. As the Minister will recognise, a definition of Scotch whisky is required by law. The ageing process is required by law. There are one or two further areas where legislation could strengthen and develop the Scotch whisky industry.
The first point is controversial. The Government should legislate to ban the export of bulk malt whisky. I accept that some distilleries would have some difficulties as a result, but I believe that it would protect the quality of our market. We export bulk malt whisky to Japan where it is blended with the local inferior product so as to pass it off as a more acceptable product. The result is that it is harder for Scotch whisky to penetrate the Japanese market. We face the possibility of the Japanese launching a major export assault on third markets using as a base bulk malt Scotch whisky. That is nothing like as advantageous as us selling Scotch whisky to those markets. In the long term such legislation would be in the best interests of the quality of the product and the market.
The Government should insist that the legal definition of Scotch whisky should provide that it should be full strength, at least three years old, distilled, matured, blended and bottled in Scotland and contain a statement of the percentage of malt whisky included.
Mr. George Foulkes: No.
Mr. Bruce: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety and I appreciate that it is an important constituency point. Such a quality product would enable the whisky industry generally to be extended to everyone's benefit.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Bruce: I must press on, because the Minister needs time to reply.
I know that the Minister will have to consult her colleagues on these points, but these are important issues. The Government should re-introduce stock relief to the Scotch whisky industry. The abolition of stock relief was effectively a tax on the quality of Scotch whisky. Scotch must be matured for three years. The cost of that three-year maturing process is estimated to be £53 million in lost stock relief. That £53 million would be much better deployed within the industry expanding the market. The re-introduction of stock relief would be to the Government's advantage.
124
I do not believe that the position of the Scotch whisky industry was appreciated when stock relief was abolished. It put Scotch whisky at a disadvantage compared to competitive products when it was facing a major assault from those products.
I urge the Minister to explain to her colleagues that Scotland feels that it should have a thriving and developing Scotch whisky industry, and they should recognise that bids of the scale that we are now witnessing fall, effectively to be the Government's responsibility. They should ensure that all the strategic considerations are taken into account, that the bids are treated fairly and equally and that Scotland obtains the best possible Scotch whisky industry, with local management, control and ownership and growing export sales. That is what we want, I hope that the Minister will be able to give answers which show that the Government are prepared to take on board their responsibilities and ensure that that is what we get.
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): One of the delights of my job in the Ministry has been the opportunity to visit some of those fine Scottish distilleries, so I welcome this opportunity for a debate on the Scotch whisky industry. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has paid tribute to the industry as well as challenged it, and I wholeheartedly endorse what he has said. The Government fully recognise the importance of this industry as an important source of employment—some 16,500 jobs, many of them in disadvantaged areas—and as one of the United Kingdom's top five net export earners, the value of exports last year having topped the £1 billion mark. At home, the industry is very important, making a similar level of contribution to the revenue. There can, therefore, be no question but that the Government fully recognise the important role of this industry in the country's economy.
I recognise, however, that the hon. Member, in seeking this debate, is concerned at current trends in the industry and especially the effect of several recent major bids. As the House well understands, responsibility for monopolies and mergers policy does not rest with my Department. The Ministry, however, has responsibilities for the Scotch whisky industry and that is why I am pleased to reply to this short debate. As regards competition policy, as my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear in a statement in this House on 5 July 1984, references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be made primarily on competition grounds. "Primarily" does not of course exclude other considerations. For example, the major consideration behind the recent decision to refer the bid for Allied-Lyons plc by Elders IXL Ltd., was the method of financing, which was thought to raise issues deserving of further consideration. On the other hand, the decision not to refer the Guinness bid for Bell's and Argyll's bid for Distillers was guided primarily by considerations of competition.
I know that there has been comment on these decisions. Reference decisions, whichever way they go, often arouse controversy. I do not want to stray too far into the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I should point out that there were significant differences between the financing of the Elders and the Argyll bids which led my right hon. friend to his different decisions on the need for a reference.

125
The hon. Member has also raised the question of a possible referral of the recent Guinness bid for Distillers. This decision of course rests with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will take that decision on the basis of advice submitted by the Director General of Fair Trading. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate that decision or to comment on the matter at this stage.
Mr. lain Mills: Surely Guinness should have the same chance to bid to the shareholders as Argyll?
Mrs. Fenner: I have made the point that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will be aware of the question of balance that has been put by my hon. Friend.
As the hon. Member for Gordon will be aware, my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for corporate and consumer affairs, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), has announced that a review of the Government's competition policy will begin this year. The precise scope of the review has not yet been finalised but will be announced in due course. In the meantime I am sure that the interesting points made in this debate by the hon. Member will be considered in the review.
The hon. Member has mentioned several problems which are worrying the industry. As he is aware, the distilling sector working group of the National Economic and Development Office, which includes representatives of the industry, Government and the trade unions, has carried out a wideranging review which was published as recently as October 1984. This followed an earlier review in 1978. Matters have been examined carefully in a short time. The report identified all the major issues of current concern to the industry, several of which the hon. Member has mentioned, and made recommendations for action by Government and the industry during the next five years. We are still very much involved in implementing these recommendations and, of course, we are ready to play our part with the industry in tackling any new issues that may arise.
The possibility of the Government restricting bulk exports, particularly of malt whisky, has been suggested because of the benefits that would bring to the UK in employment and in other respects. I should point out that this issue was examined in the 1978 report, which concluded that the industry was insufficiently united voluntarily to regulate its bulk exports, while Government were restrained from such action by their international commitments under the GATT and by Community obligations. The 1984 study reached similar conclusions. Nonetheless, its analysis suggests that such exports have tended to stabilise around the 1978 levels, and figures just released in respect of last year's exports show a substantial fall in this trade. I am sure that that will reassure the hon. Member.
As for the abolition of stock relief in the 1984 corporation tax changes, the Government are well aware that because of its large stocks of maturing whisky, the Scotch whisky industry has been particularly affected by these measures, although in the longer term, as
126
corporation tax rate falls, the industry should pay slightly less tax even without stock relief than it did before the 1984 changes.
In his decisions on taxation at the last Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the difficulties faced by the industry. I cannot of course anticipate the decisions that he will take in this year's Budget, but I am aware that the Scotch Whisky Association has made detailed representations.
The Government are working closely with the industry in several areas in which there is agreement that progress can be made. For example, the Government are currently considering proposals for whisky definitions to be prescribed in new regulations under the Food Act 1984. Any proposals will be subject to the usual consultation with all the interests concerned. We are also giving strong support to Community proposals laying down clear definitions of the spirit drinks most commonly traded within the Community. The industry is keen for the enactment of measures which should help the competitive position of Scotch whisky in export markets. We shall aim to press ahead with these proposals during our Presidency of the Community in the second half of this year.
We maintain regular and close contacts with the industry on the trade barriers it faces throughout the world and we pay special consideration to its efforts in the far east. The Government also have the interests of the industry very much in mind in their approach to the EC Commission's proposals on the harmonisation of the structure of duties on alcoholic drinks. Our joint aim is to help establish fairer terms of competition for the industry throughout the Community.
I know that the Scotch whisky industry has been through a difficult period during the past six years. World recession, coupled with changes in drinking fashions, has contributed to a drop in sales in many key markets. I would not, however, like to conclude on such a pessimistic note, which would not, I think, reflect current attitudes in the industry. In the past year or so, the industry has made substantial efforts to bring maturing stocks more into line with sales expectations. There is also some evidence now that the decline in world sales may be taking a turn for the better. In the domestic market, there was a 6 per cent. rise in consumption in the first nine months of 1985 as compared with the same period in 1984, with considerably greater growth in the as yet small malt whisky market. These are encouraging indications which we hope foreshadow a sustained improvement in the industry's performance to the benefit of the whole economy.
Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend bring home to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the strength of feeling in the debate and the number of hon. Members who attended it? We want a revitalised Scotch whisky industry. The only way in which there can be a dramatic improvement in the near future is through budgetary measures. I hope that my hon. Friend will bring that point home to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend puts his point very clearly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Land Resources Development Centre
  Land Resources Development Centre
  Centre for World Development Education
  Centre for World Development Education
  Crown Agents Pensions Division
  Crown Agents Pensions Division
HOME DEPARTMENT
  West Yorkshire Police
  West Yorkshire Police
  Police (Recruiting)
  Police (Recruiting)
  Racial Incidents (Metropolitan Police District)
  Racial Incidents (Metropolitan Police District)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Deaths (Statistics)
  Deaths (Statistics)
  Female Prisoners
  Female Prisoners
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Crossbows
  Crossbows
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Mr. Salah Abdessalem Ben Rabha
  Mr. Salah Abdessalem Ben Rabha
  Foreign Diplomats
  Foreign Diplomats
  Riot Damage Claims (Birmingham)
  Riot Damage Claims (Birmingham)
  Passports
  Passports
  Firearms (Heathrow)
  Firearms (Heathrow)
  GLC Lorry Ban (Policing)
  GLC Lorry Ban (Policing)
  Burglar Alarms
  Burglar Alarms
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  International Organisations (Co-ordination)
  International Organisations (Co-ordination)
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Biotechnology
  Biotechnology
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Recording Tapes
  Recording Tapes
  Voluntary Export Restraint Agreements
  Voluntary Export Restraint Agreements
  Cotton Velvet
  Cotton Velvet
  CR6 Taxi
  CR6 Taxi
  European Airbus
  European Airbus
  Gas Appliances
  Gas Appliances
ENERGY
  Mersey Barrage
  Mersey Barrage
  Insulation Work
  Insulation Work
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Oil Production Levels
  Oil Production Levels
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Clinical Academic Staff
  Clinical Academic Staff
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Examinations (York)
  Examinations (York)
  Foreign Languages
  Foreign Languages
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Grants
  Grants
  Teachers (Training)
  Teachers (Training)
  Teachers (Liverpool)
  Teachers (Liverpool)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  Students (Parental Contributions)
  Students (Parental Contributions)
  Teachers (Professional Body)
  Teachers (Professional Body)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Brixton Recreation Centre
  Brixton Recreation Centre
  Derelict Land (Bradford)
  Derelict Land (Bradford)
  Parish Town Councils
  Parish Town Councils
  Plaschem Boards
  Plaschem Boards
  Anglers (Toxic Lead Shot)
  Anglers (Toxic Lead Shot)
  £1 Project
  £1 Project
  Welbeck Land Reclamation Scheme
  Welbeck Land Reclamation Scheme
  "Paying for Local Government"
  "Paying for Local Government"
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Avon County Council (Grant)
  Avon County Council (Grant)
  GLC (Grants)
  GLC (Grants)
  Green Belt (Birmingham-Coventry)
  Green Belt (Birmingham-Coventry)
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Birmingham Airport
  Birmingham Airport
  BNFL (Uranium Discharge)
  BNFL (Uranium Discharge)
  Parish Reviews
  Parish Reviews
  Liverpool City Council
  Liverpool City Council
  Housing (Langbaurgh)
  Housing (Langbaurgh)
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Tobacco Industry
  Tobacco Industry
  Plaschem Boards
  Plaschem Boards
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Labour Statistics (Leeds)
  Labour Statistics (Leeds)
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rural Environment
  Rural Environment
  Beekeepers (Intervention Sugar)
  Beekeepers (Intervention Sugar)
  Libya (Wheat Sales)
  Libya (Wheat Sales)
  East of Scotland College of Agriculture (ADAS)
  East of Scotland College of Agriculture (ADAS)
  Agricultural Intervention Board
  Agricultural Intervention Board
TRANSPORT
  Rail Closures
  Rail Closures
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Cycle Lanes
  Cycle Lanes
  County Bus Timetables
  County Bus Timetables
  Road Safety Schemes
  Road Safety Schemes
  South Wales (Road Access)
  South Wales (Road Access)
  Concessionary Fares (London)
  Concessionary Fares (London)
  M25
  M25
  Al27 (Crash Barriers)
  Al27 (Crash Barriers)
  M1 (Speed Limit)
  M1 (Speed Limit)
  Docklands Light Railway
  Docklands Light Railway
  Manchester-Preston-Blackpool Railway Electrification
  Manchester-Preston-Blackpool Railway Electrification
  Drink-Drive Campaign
  Drink-Drive Campaign
  Rural Bus Routes
  Rural Bus Routes
  A1/M1 Link (Kettering-Brampton)
  A1/M1 Link (Kettering-Brampton)
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  British Rail Rolling Stock
  British Rail Rolling Stock
  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  Bus Lanes (Inner London)
  Bus Lanes (Inner London)
  Motorways (Driving Standards)
  Motorways (Driving Standards)
  Motor Insurance Certificates (Display)
  Motor Insurance Certificates (Display)
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  A46 (Lincoln-Newark)
  A46 (Lincoln-Newark)
  Motorway Charges
  Motorway Charges
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  British Airports Authority (Security)
  British Airports Authority (Security)
  Public Transport Fares
  Public Transport Fares
  London Country Bus Services Ltd.
  London Country Bus Services Ltd.
  Coal (Traffic Movements)
  Coal (Traffic Movements)
  South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
  South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
  Drivers' Hours (EC Regulations)
  Drivers' Hours (EC Regulations)
  Highway Construction
  Highway Construction
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Motor Cars (Spare Wheels)
  Motor Cars (Spare Wheels)
  Child Safety Seats
  Child Safety Seats
  A1 (Lighting)
  A1 (Lighting)
  A1 (Safety Barrier)
  A1 (Safety Barrier)
  A642, Leeds
  A642, Leeds
  MV Bridgeness
  MV Bridgeness
  Newbury Bypass
  Newbury Bypass
  Aldermaston—Burghfield (Radiation)
  Aldermaston—Burghfield (Radiation)
  Agricultural Vehicles (Flashing Lights)
  Agricultural Vehicles (Flashing Lights)
  Taxicard Scheme (London)
  Taxicard Scheme (London)
  Motorway Lighting
  Motorway Lighting
SCOTLAND
  Paramilitary Activities
  Paramilitary Activities
  Female Prisoners
  Female Prisoners
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Callender Park College of Education
  Callender Park College of Education
  Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council
  Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Central Educational Institutions
  Central Educational Institutions
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Middleton Hall Conference Centre
  Middleton Hall Conference Centre
  Scottish Examination Board
  Scottish Examination Board
  Volunteer Centre, Glasgow
  Volunteer Centre, Glasgow
  AIDS
  AIDS
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Jury Vetting
  Jury Vetting
  Duty Solicitor Scheme
  Duty Solicitor Scheme
  European Assembly (Court Action)
  European Assembly (Court Action)
  Northern Ireland Court of Appeal
  Northern Ireland Court of Appeal
  Legal Aid Review Team
  Legal Aid Review Team
  Law Officers (Correspondence)
  Law Officers (Correspondence)
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
DEFENCE
  Porton Down (Animal Research)
  Porton Down (Animal Research)
  Ministry Housing
  Ministry Housing
  Skynet IV Satellites
  Skynet IV Satellites
  Space (Payload Specialists)
  Space (Payload Specialists)
  Small Arms (Contracts)
  Small Arms (Contracts)
  HMS Nelson (Wardroom)
  HMS Nelson (Wardroom)
  Naval Houses
  Naval Houses
  Royal Navy (Manpower)
  Royal Navy (Manpower)
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Nimrod
  Nimrod
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Immigration
  Immigration
  East Timor
  East Timor
  Israeli Prime Minister (Meeting)
  Israeli Prime Minister (Meeting)
  European Court of Human Rights
  European Court of Human Rights
  EC Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
  EC Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
  Organisations (Funding)
  Organisations (Funding)
  European Act
  European Act
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Commodity Prices
  Commodity Prices
  Betting Duty
  Betting Duty
  Meetings
  Meetings
  Tobacco Tax
  Tobacco Tax
  Contracted-out Services
  Contracted-out Services
  Free Zone Steering Committee
  Free Zone Steering Committee
  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Crown Estate Commissioners
  European Court Budget
  European Court Budget
  North Sea Oil (Revenue)
  North Sea Oil (Revenue)
  Lodging Allowances
  Lodging Allowances
  Charities (VAT)
  Charities (VAT)
WALES
  Rural Environment
  Rural Environment
PRIME MINISTER
  Medical Research Funding
  Medical Research Funding
  Israeli Prime Minister (Meeting)
  Israeli Prime Minister (Meeting)
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  European Act
  European Act
  Energy Conservation Scheme
  Energy Conservation Scheme
NORTHERN IRELAND
  High Technology Firms
  High Technology Firms
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  School Building
  School Building
  Capital Project
  Capital Project
  Non-scheduled Offences
  Non-scheduled Offences
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Security Statistics
  Security Statistics
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Female Prisoners
  Female Prisoners
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Intergovenmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Intergovenmental Conference
SOCIAL SERVICES
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  Furnished Accommodation
  Furnished Accommodation
  Nursing Care
  Nursing Care
  Patient Appointments
  Patient Appointments
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Heating Additions
  Heating Additions
  Exceptional Weather Payments
  Exceptional Weather Payments
  Haemophiliac Counselling Centres
  Haemophiliac Counselling Centres
  Red Alerts
  Red Alerts
  Royal Liverpool Teaching Hospital
  Royal Liverpool Teaching Hospital
  Mr. Abdessalem Ben Rabha
  Mr. Abdessalem Ben Rabha
  Special Claims Control Officers
  Special Claims Control Officers
  North-Western Regional Health Authority
  North-Western Regional Health Authority
  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Leukaemia and Lymphatic Cancer
  Leukaemia and Lymphatic Cancer
  Meningitis
  Meningitis
  Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985
  Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985
  NHS (Matrons)
  NHS (Matrons)
  Supplementary Benefits Handbook
  Supplementary Benefits Handbook
  Human Tissue
  Human Tissue
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance

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

Royal Navy: Vessel Design Policy
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the design of anti-submarine craft for the Royal Navy.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, vessels for the Royal Navy are designed by industry to meet the Ministry of Defence requirements.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I had hoped that the Minister would be a little more communicative. Have there not been considerable disputes between the school that believes in the long and thin and the school that believes in the short and fat in design? Is there not a committee about to report? Has it reported? Is there not, indeed, quite a lot being done at the moment as to whether the old-fashioned designs should be retained or whether the modernists should be given a say? Can the Minister tell us something about it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, intends to present a report on this subject before long; but the Government are not in any way connected with that report and certainly have not seen it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if the ships for the Royal Navy are designed by industry, could the noble Lord tell the House what the Royal Naval architects are doing in Bath?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords. I had a feeling that I would be asked that question. The answer is that they, of course, set the specification in the first instance, in accordance, as I say, with the requirements of the Royal Navy, and they subsequently scrutinise the designs that are brought forward by industry.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is it not the case that submarines are now principally sunk by Sea King helicopters and surely all that is needed is a platform from which and on to which these helicopters may take off and land; and, also, a device for detecting the submarines in the first place? Might not the answer be a simple container ship pulling a towed array?
Lord Trefgarne: Sadly, my Lords, my noble friend over-simplifies somewhat.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not desirable that the introduction of helicopters on all occasions should be studiously avoided?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was hoping that my original Answer would do that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rely in part on newspaper reports, but is the Minister not disturbed that the report which is in the course of preparation, and which I understand is to be submitted to the Prime Minister in February, says that the report upon which the short, fat, ship was rejected is deeply flawed and in many critical categories totally inaccurate? In view of the fact that we are talking in terms of £200 million a ship and perhaps 12 ships in all, will the Minister not say something helpful about at least reviewing the policy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government examined the so-called S90 proposal a year or so ago and found that the proposal that was then being mooted had a number of serious shortcomings. Incidentally, the noble Lord is mistaken as to the cost. The cost of the Type 23, for example, which is the sort of vessel for which it was proposed that the S90 should substitute, is of the order of £110 million.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although he dismissed the supplementary question of his noble friend somewhat cursorily, in fact it contains an important subsidiary question? Is it not true that the use of merchant ships in wartime is an extremely important element of Royal Naval operations? Would it not be possible to include anti-submarine devices on merchant ships converted for the purpose?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that my noble friend referred to the towed array and the possibility of towing that with a merchant ship. Unfortunately, I think that that would not be a practical proposition because of the background noise caused by the merchant ship. Indeed, that was one of the problems with the S90, too. As to the question of helicopters, to which my noble friend rightly attaches importance, there was another shortcoming of the S90. There was not room on the deck to accommodate one.

London Docklands Museum
2.40 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made towards the provision of a new museum in the London Docklands in association with the Museum of London, to present London's role as a port, industrial and commercial centre, upon which the Minister for the Arts sought the views of the Museum and Galleries Commission in 1980.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with financial assistance from the London Docklands Development Corporation, the Museum of London has been developing proposals for a Museum in Docklands in London's West India Docks. I understand that a Museum in Docklands Trust which will be responsible for fund raising and future developments is now being set up independently.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that informative and fairly encouraging reply. Is he able to tell the House what progress has been made in funding the new museum and whether the necessary approvals are being expedited, since developers tend to get impatient once they start work on a project? Will he seek to encourage the developers in this particular area to give their fullest support to the scheme so that this year, which appropriately is Industry Year, may see the founding of London's new Museum in Docklands?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand that the new trust body will be seeking funds from a variety of sources and will be in discussion with the London Docklands Development Corporation and the local authorities concerned, and that the estimated cost of the development is some £7.5 million. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not think that it would be appropriate to go into the details of planning here. As regards the Government giving support, that is a matter for the trust but we welcome the proposal as an imaginative contribution to the redevelopment of the docklands.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the principle of a museum is welcomed very much by the Docklands Development Corporation? The big question mark—and it is the oldest one in the world—is exactly what site it will be, what is suitable for the museum, and also, as the Minister has said, the whole question of funds. As to that, I understand that the Docklands Development Corporation will certainly make a contribution. The maintenance of the museum and so on is quite another matter, but the principle is accepted and that must be important.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the site is on the north quay of the old West India Dock—
Lord Mellish: I know, my Lords.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord asked me. The Docklands Development Corporation has indeed been very much involved in this. My information is that it has made funds available so that preparatory work can begin on collecting material, for instance, very near to the site where it is proposed that the museum shall be.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this museum is expected to attract about 400,000 visitors a year? Will the Government do all they can to help and encourage it, as it will also do much to redress the imbalance of the cultural provision between Docklands and the rest of London?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand that the intention is for the new museum to be self-financing through an admission charge, trading activities and other things. Of course, we are watching this closely and sympathetically, because the Government have their part in the Museum of London.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his last remark about the admission charge is the only unwelcome news we have had on this subject so far? Will he say that it is his hope that the funding will be on a basis on which the museum will not be forced to have to charge the public for entry?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is the expressed intention, as I understand it through the Museum of London, for the new museum.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider repealing the Dock Labour Act, and thus prevent London's port becoming only a museum? Although this may not be quite the same question and therefore not answerable at this moment, will they consider it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that is getting a bit wide of the original Question.

Sadler's Wells Theatre: Financial Assistance
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: 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 any plans to assist the Sadler's Wells Theatre to overcome its financial problems.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a matter for the theatre itself and for the Arts Council, which has been asked to replace the GLC funding of Sadler's Wells. The Arts Council is considering ways in which Sadler's Wells can be helped, but it would be contrary to its declared policy for it to fund a building as distinct from a performing company. Negotiations are continuing.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister but I am disappointed in that reply. Is the Minister aware that in 1984 the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and as late as September 1985 the right honourable Minister in another place, reassured Sadler's Wells by saying that the GLC allocation to it had been taken into account when giving the extra money to the Arts Council? Are we now to understand that those ministerial reassurances are meaningless, because that is what the noble Lord is saying?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my right honourable friend and his predecessor both considered the implications of abolition of the funding of Sadler's Wells and indeed of the other receiving theatres. The £25 million which has been allocated to the Arts

891
Council specifically for post-abolition funding has taken account of this.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Sadler's Wells is a theatre of historic and national importance and that the opera and ballet which it has been responsible for originating has made an outstanding contribution to our national life? While I am normally in sympathy with government policy to leave the Arts Council to make its own judgment about the distribution of its very large funds provided by the Government, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the Arts Council can sometimes be quite capricious about its grants, and that in this case it is really vital that adequate funds should be provided to keep this theatre going? Will he therefore reconsider his Answer and consider giving the Arts Council some firm advice about a substantial grant to Sadler's Wells?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my right honourable friend has a great admiration for Sadler's Wells. It does indeed play a vital part in the cultural life of London and the nation and naturally my right honourable friend is concerned about the future of the theatre. However, it is essentially a matter for the Arts Council to work out the possibilities and it is in consultation with Sadler's Wells and other interested parties. My right honourable friend is keeping in close touch with developments and has every confidence in the Arts Council's desire and ability to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: But, my Lords, has the Minister not been told that the Arts Council has written to the governors of Sadler's Wells saying that it has no intention in future of funding what it calls a receiving house—an extraordinary phrase to use in respect of such a theatre? It appears, therefore, not only to have failed to shoulder the responsibility which the Government placed upon it, but to have changed its policy so as to remove not only the substitution of the GLC grant but its own grant as well. The Sadler's Wells Theatre is therefore in the frightful position that it will have to close down on 17th May unless something is done. Will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to look urgently into this question to see whether funding can, in the circumstances, be taken upon the budget of his own department, and if the Arts Council is unwilling to act as a conduit in the matter to find some other means of making sure that this historic and valuable theatre does not have to close down?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, of course in asking that question the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is referring, in essence, not only to Sadler's Wells but also to the other receiving theatres which are to be found on Merseyside and in the North-east. It is for the Arts Council to determine the allocation of its grant and it is its policy to fund bodies and not buildings. But useful and constructive discussions are going on between the council, successor authorities and other bodies with a view to securing the future of all the buildings I have mentioned outside Greater London. I believe that it is going to be possible to find a solution within Greater London.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, although it is for the Arts Council to do what it can with its grant, as the noble Lord said, is it not for the Government to see that it has an adequate grant? Is the noble Lord aware that there is a shortfall of some £10 million between what the Government are giving now and what the GLC gave before?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there really is no shortfall. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, the Government are indeed making £25 million available to the Arts Council for post-abolition funding next year. It is reasonable that the rest of the GLC and metropolitan counties' spending should be taken up by successor authorities, which after all are going to be relieved of substantial precepts in regard to arts giving.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his remarks imply that the Government are prepared to contemplate the closure of Sadler's Wells? Does he not agree that the closure of a theatre which has given us the Royal Ballet and so many other activities would be a national disgrace and that this could not happen in any other European country that believes in support for the arts?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if Sadler's Wells was to close, no one would regret it more than the Government.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister explain something which I do not understand; or have I got it wrong? Is it not correct that Sadler's Wells makes a return to the Government which is greater than the grant it is given? If that is the case, does it not seem absolutely stupid to refuse to give it that opportunity?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not furnished with the answer to the noble Baroness's question. In other words, I am not aware that what the noble Baroness says is the case. What I am aware of is that we are talking about grant-aid which must fall to the Arts Council. The Government have made a very major allocation to the Arts Council for post-abolition funding. The Arts Council, as I have told the House, is now in negotiations on this matter and I think we ought to see how those negotiations proceed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that to say that there is no reduction is a quite uninformative statement? We have been told and promised that the changeover from the GLC will not produce a reduction, yet here it is producing a reduction of a major national asset. Is the noble Lord aware that, quite apart from having been the foundation of the ballet which is one of the glories of our artistic work here, Sadler's Wells was going hard in the time of Garrick and long before that? It is a national asset. Will the noble Lord agree that it is no good just saying everything is all right when it perfectly clearly is disastrous?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe there is not a shortfall, and I have explained the reason for that. I also do not believe, on behalf of the Government, that

893
it is not possible to find within Greater London for the Sadler's Wells Theatre a solution to a problem which is being faced outside London—in the North-east and on Merseyside—with results being achieved.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, may I just draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Sadler's Wells Theatre cannot be described as exclusively a receiving theatre since it acts as an entrepreneur for foreign dance and drama companies? Is the noble Lord aware that several of them are arriving this year, including the Chinese Ballet, which is due to arrive at the time that Her Majesty the Queen is going to visit China in the autumn; and that it would be a national disgrace if there were no theatre for it to come to?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, it is far too early to talk about the cancellation of the Chinese Ballet visit. As I have said, the Arts Council is looking for a solution which will enable Sadler's Wells to remain open.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not feel that the Minister dealt clearly with my remark about ministerial reassurances. There is no doubt that the Sadler's Wells Theatre Company was clearly told that its needs were taken into account in the grant which had been made. What has happened between that statement and the present day, because suddenly, in November, it was told that it was not getting the money? Are we to understand that these ministerial reassurances do not mean anything?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, may I add to what I said to the noble Baroness at the beginning of this exchange when I replied that the £25 million allocated to the Arts Council specifically for post-abolition funding took account of the assurances? The Arts Council of course has a long-standing policy of not funding receiving theatres, and it announced recently that it planned to adhere to that after abolition. But the Arts Council also made it clear that it was prepared to come to arrangements with successor authorities in the areas affected whereby in determining its support for other arts bodies in such areas the council would take account of the authorities' support for the receiving theatres. That is a matter in which the Arts Council is responsible; but so are other people as well, including the local authorities concerned. I think that with these negotiations it is better now to wait and see how we go.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the abolition of the GLC has removed the one local authority which is capable of supporting what is not just a local theatre but a national theatre?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord perhaps will not have noticed that the local London borough council, Islington, has for next year a grant which is £11 million more than it received in the year before. I should have thought that if Islington Borough Council is prepared to have a look at its priorities and use its money sensibly it could play its part in assisting Sadler's Wells Theatre.

Age Discrimination in Employment
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce legislation which would make age discrimination illegal, as is already the case with race and sex discrimination.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I am deeply concerned that skill and experience should not be wasted. But to seek to interfere in employers' decisions about whether, in their particular circumstances, to recruit an older or younger person, would run counter to our policy of reducing the administrative and legislative burdens on business in order to encourage the provision of jobs for people of all ages.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that rather unsatisfactory Answer. Is he aware that being old is getting younger all the time, and that now men of 40 are made redundant and are then faced with advertisements which say, "no one need apply if they are over 40"? The Americans have a law of this kind. May I ask Her Majesty's Government to look again at the possibility of introducing some age discrimination legislation, particularly in relation to employment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I wish to assure your Lordships' House that I am becoming increasingly aware of age. Nevertheless the Government have decided that, in the interests of seeing as many jobs grow as possible, it would not be in that interest to introduce legislation that would discriminate against age.
Lord Somers: My Lords, is it not a little unfortunate to state any definite figure which implies that one has reached old age? Some of course do not wear as well as others. For instance, some, like myself, become slightly senile at a particularly early age; but others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, go on with their full powers to a much later age. Therefore it seems to me unfortunate to give any definite figure.
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, I think we all feel that this is so much a matter of individual performance and individual ability that it should be left to individual employers and employees to decide.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that qualifications coupled with brightness is the appropriate thing rather than no qualifications and dimness?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question that is to be made in another place on British Leyland. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Hooper, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on teachers' pay and responsibilities.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 10 [Conditions]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 9, leave out ("that no") and insert—
(" (a) that no cat or dog shall be used under the licence unless it has been bred at and obtained from a designated breeding establishment; and
(b) that no other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I may be brief. In the discussions in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, raised the question of the source of dogs and cats used in experiments. He said that there was concern that stolen pet dogs and cats found their way into laboratory experiments. The proposed amendment to Clause 10 which he then suggested was too restrictive; it provided for measures to prevent the possibility of stolen pets being used, but it allowed the Secretary of State no possibility of providing an exemption from the controls where the particular circumstances warranted it.
At Report, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, returned to the matter, but this time with a proposed amendment that would have allowed the Secretary of State discretion to relax the requirement in individual cases. I said then that the Government had the utmost sympathy for his objective—as we always have—and that we would look closely at the drafting with a view to bringing forward an amendment.
The amendment I am now proposing is in fact identical to the amendment proposed on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, except in one respect. It adds the words "and obtained from". So, unless an exception is allowed, the cat or dog must not only have been "bred at" a designated breeding establishment but also "obtained from" the designated breeding establishment. This is a further tightening up, which I believe gives effect to the noble Lord's intention.
I also want to repeat what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. If an exception is allowed—and it can only be allowed in a small minority of cases and for convincing reasons—the applicant will have to demonstrate with as much certainty as is possible in any human situation that the animal is not a stolen pet. It will not be good enough for the applicant to say that he believes that in good faith. It is intolerable of
896
course that stolen pets should be used in laboratories, or that the public should be led to believe that they will be used. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, I tabled an amendment about this subject at both Committee and Report stage. I am very grateful to the Government for bringing forward this amendment. As the Minister has indicated, it is an improvement on my amendment but is very close to it. I know that it will be warmly welcomed by many people, and in particular by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which, as the noble Lord knows, was most concerned about this matter. I thank the Government very much indeed.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to add a word because I had my name down to the earlier amendment as well. I wish to thank the Minister very much indeed for having accepted the point and for bringing it forward, in the form of Amendment No. 1, in such an excellent way. I welcome it and I cannot wait to tell all the old ladies who take their dogs to the park where I take mine, who will also be delighted to hear about it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [The Animal Procedures Committee]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("eleven") and insert ("twelve")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it may be convenient to the House if I deal jointly with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Amendment No. 3: Page 12, line 22, after ("members") insert ("other than the chairman")
Amendment No. 4: Page 12, line 26, leave out ("the") and insert ("of those")
These three amendments are related, and together their effect is as follows. The first amendment alters Clause 19(2) so that the Animal Procedures Committee would comprise a chairman and at least 12, rather than 11 members. And the second and third amendments alter Clause 19(3) so that the chairman is no longer counted among the members for the purpose of determining the composition of the committee under Clause 19(3)(a) and Clause 19(3)(b). Clause 19(3)(a) would then require that of the members other than the chairman at least two-thirds must have the medical, veterinary or biological qualifications mentioned in Clause 19(4). And Clause 19(3)(b) would require that of the members other than the chairman, at least one must be a barrister, solicitor or advocate.
Noble Lords will recall that during our discussions at Report my noble friend Lord Selkirk suggested that Clause 19 should be amended to that effect, so as to emphasise the fact that the chairmen of the Animal Procedures Committee may with benefit be drawn from a wide range of backgrounds. I said at Report stage that I would consider the noble Earl's helpful suggestion. I have done so. I think that it is a good suggestion; it is one we should adopt, and these amendments are the result. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment. I made a suggestion concerning Clause 19, perhaps rather improperly, without putting down an amendment. I believe that the proposed arrangement is a great improvement. I hope that the Home Office will find that it is more useful, because the qualities of a chairman are so different and so unique. They do not apply to everybody in any category. It means that the chairman does not need to be in any one of the three separate categories that are laid down in Clause 19. I hope and believe that that will be a useful change.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Guidance, codes of practice and statistics]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 5, and end insert—
("( ) In all criminal or civil proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, it shall be taken into account in determining that question.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved on Report by my noble friend Lord Beaumont, and was withdrawn. It is a subject that comes before your Lordships for, I am sorry to say, a third time: at Committee stage, on Report, and now on Third Reading. It provides specifically that where codes of practice are relevant to an issue before the court—whether it be a criminal or civil court—then they shall be admissible evidence. That is an eminently reasonable position to take. I cannot believe that any judge, upon learning that codes of practice exist that are relevant to the issue before him, would not be anxious to consult those codes of practice.
The codes of practice can of course be of assistance to, or to the disadvantage of, either party to a dispute. On the one hand, it could be said to the defendant, "You knew about the codes of practice. You chose to disregard them. You must now take the consequences". On the other hand, the defendant or the accused person might say, "I scrupulously observed the codes of practice. What more can you expect me to have done?"
After the Committee stage, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in which he set out the reasons why he felt this amendment was not appropriate. I am bound to say that he was, I believe, being a little rash, because we do not know yet what the codes of practice will contain. They will not all be Home Office codes of practice; they may be other people's codes of practice that are adopted by the Home Office. Having stated that for what it is worth—and I am sorry to quote the Minister's words
898
for a third time, but this is an important point—the noble Lord wrote:
"It is in any case unnecessary since there is nothing in the Bill which bars the admission of codes of practice as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings, and if they are relevant to an issue arising during proceedings they could be taken in evidence".
That appears to be a statement of general principle. My complaint is this. Let us either accept that there is a general principle that codes of practice are admissible in evidence or let us have a specific clause in all the Bills to which it could apply.
It is no use having a specific clause in, for instance, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to such effect and then leaving out such a clause in this Bill, when the general principle can apply in either case. All one does then is to confuse people, if one inserts only in selective cases a specific clause although there exists an underlying general principle. I do not mind terribly much which way it goes, but if we are to have specific clauses for heaven's sake let us have one in this Bill because it applies here. On the other hand, if we are to accept a general principle, well and good, but let us stop putting specific clauses to this effect into selected Bills. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister said on Report that codes of practice might be relevant for an offence under the Protection of Animals Act. They might be relevant, but, after studying the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, during the debate on codes of practice, one wonders whether they have any legal relevance. He expressly said that a type of code under Clause 21(2) of this Bill is without legal significance. The noble Lord the Minister seemed to think that it would be sufficient punishment in such a case to revoke a licence or certificate, but one could think of situations where that is not sufficient. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has told your Lordships that the principle of this amendment has been discussed at Committee stage and on Report but that the noble Lord the Minister was not sympathetic. The trouble is that the principle contained in this amendment is, in fact, contained in most of the Acts of Parliament which authorise the issue of a code of practice. If that is so—and if I am wrong no doubt the Minister will correct me—why should not this Bill incorporate the common type of provision enabling the prosecution to rely on the codes of practice to the extent indicated in the amendment? Why should the courts have to rely on an assumption that the principle will apply?
If the Government are still opposed to the amendment—and I have not seen the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, received from the Minister—the Minister should spell out to the House in greater detail why it is inappropriate to incorporate the amendment. The principle has been a live issue in Committee, on Report and today. If the Minister is unable to see his way clear to accept this principle, I am fairly sure that it will be a live issue in another place.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I put my name to an amendment to this effect on Report and I support this

899
amendment today. The only explanation I can think of for the fact that these precise words crop up in some Acts of Parliament, including some passed last year, but not in others is that there is a disagreement between parliamentary draftsmen. If that is the case, it will be difficult to sort out the matter.
It would appear to me that from the point of view of the people who will be operating this legislation, as the noble Lord said, the codes of practice could be taken into account by the courts whether or not these words are in the Bill. If that is the case, and the noble Lord said that in his letter, surely it is sensible from the point of view of the people operating the legislation that that should be made clear in the Bill.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, it seems to me that an amendment of this kind is absolutely essential. It has been pointed out, and quite truly, that the code of practice has no legal significance; in other words, ignoring it does not in itself constitute an offence. On the other hand, the question arises: what does constitute an offence? Various courts may have different opinions on this subject. Surely a code of practice is a unifying guide to what is and what is not an offence.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment. It has not only been discussed at three stages of the Bill but the principle has been discussed in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In that debate the Government were asked that there should be uniformity throughout statute law on codes of practice, so that the reader and the user of Acts of Parliament would know exactly where they stood in relation to any particular code of practice.
At the moment the statutory position in regard to codes of practice is, as I think that debate showed, highly unsatisfactory. It cannot be right that the form of words which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, proposes to insert in this Bill should not be inserted whereas similar provisions are inserted in other Bills. It may well be that, despite what the noble Lord the Minister says, a court of law would say that the codes are not admissible as evidence because this form of words is not incorporated in the Act. We have the Minister's word for it, but without this form of words I do not think that we can be sure that in practice that is what will happen if a court of law has to consider whether a code of practice is, or is not, admissible.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, once again we confront this question of the use of codes of practice in evidence. At Report stage we had a very useful discussion on this matter arising from an amendment proposed, as he said, by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. During that discussion the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred to the detailed debate on the subject of codes of practice initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. That debate had taken place on the preceding day, 15th January, and I said that I would examine this matter again in the light of that debate.
900
That debate provided a clear illustration of the variety of codes of practice and the variety of their relationships to the legislation under which they are issued. That is the nub of this matter. At Committee stage and at Report stage reference was made to codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the Food and Environment Protection Act. All of these Acts make provision for codes of practice, but that does not mean that the Bill which we are today considering should do so in identical terms.
There is a clear difference between the codes of practice issued under the Acts to which I have referred and the codes of practice which will be issued or approved under this Bill. In the former case, the codes of practice are directly linked with, or relevant to, offences contained in the main provisions of the Act. That is not the position in the case of codes of practice issued or approved under this Bill. The codes of practice which we shall issue or approve under this Bill will be a guide to good practice in the care and use of laboratory animals. They complement, but do not amplify, the other provisions of the Bill. The codes are most unlikely to be relevant, and therefore admissible in evidence, in relation to any offence created by the Bill.
I said in our earlier debates that if codes of practice are relevant to an issue arising during civil or criminal proceedings they could be taken in evidence, and that has just been repeated. We think that the most likely situation in which this may arise is in proceedings for causing unnecessary suffering to animals, under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, or the comparable Act of 1912 for Scotland. No specific provision is required for this.
May I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that it is our intention that prosecutions should be brought against offenders under the 1911 Act in appropriate cases. We shall not rely alone on the power to revoke licences in the more serious cases.
In the light of the concern which has been expressed and reiterated today, and in the light of our further examination of what took place on 15th January, and notwithstanding the letter which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, we will consider sympathetically the idea of an amendment to the Bill in another place, along the lines suggested.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham also raised at an earlier stage, and certainly in correspondence, the question of publication of codes of practice. That concern was certainly raised at Report. Since it is an important and related point perhaps I may be permitted to say now that the omission of any reference to publication is in no sense a sign that we see the code of practice as in some way a secret document. I can assure your Lordships that nothing could be further from the truth. It is our intention to adopt the codes of practice which are now being prepared by the Royal Society and these will be printed and distributed for sale by the originators. A requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a code would obviously clash with this. However, I can assure your Lordships that were we to issue any other code of this sort we would make arrangements for it to be available for purchase.

901
I need hardly add that it would negate the purpose of the code if it were not available to the scientific community or to anybody else who wished to consider it. I can assure the House that we fully understand the concern that lies behind the amendment which we have been considering, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will be satisfied that we take his proposal seriously and will try to meet it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether I have understood him correctly? The code of practice will in fact be public information. I understand that he will not lay the code before Parliament but I take it that he will make it available to the Stationery Office. So that document is available, and while it cannot be used for a prosecution it could be used for relevant evidence in the course of a prosecution. Do I understand that correctly? If so, that seems to me to cover the major issue that we are discussing today.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, that is what I hope we shall be able to achieve; but what we have to look at clearly is precisely how we draft an amendment to meet the concern which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I think the concern of my noble friend will be met. The code will be laid before Parliament; Clause 21(4) refers to that. I hope that my noble friend is satisfied.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, rather like the Chancellor in his Budget speech, the noble Lord kept me in some suspense until toward the end of his speech. However, he then said some very reassuring words which enable me to withdraw this amendment, notwithstanding that every other noble Lord who has spoken has come down on my side in this issue. Of course the key word is "relevant", and the judge will look at the codes and will take notice of them only to the extent that they are relevant. If the noble Lord the Minister is right in saying that in most cases they will not be relevant then the judge will not need to trouble himself with them. However, I am much obliged for what the noble Lord the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 15, line 31, after ("being") insert ("or may be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to the clause dealing with powers of entry and the position where a magistrate is satisfied on oath that an offence has been or is being committed and may therefore issue a warrant. This amendment seeks to nip in the bud offences which the magistrate is satisfied may be about to be committed. There is a precedent for this form of words in the famous Trades Descriptions Act, and the powers of entry under that Act, and no doubt there are numerous other precedents. I think we need to give the police power to persuade a magistrate that an offence is about to be committed and so have a chance to nip it in the bud. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this amendment raises at Third Reading an issue which has not been considered before during our discussion on this Bill. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to ensure that the provisions of the Bill concerning the issue of a search warrant should adequately cover all the circumstances in which the issue of a warrant might be appropriate. However, this is a technical matter and one which requires some quite detailed consideration. It has not been raised before, and I should therefore like to have the opportunity to examine it and come to a considered opinion. I shall then write to the noble Lord. I hope that this suggested course will be acceptable to him and that in the light of this he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Airedale: Yes, my Lords. Again, I am very much obliged, and I am very willing to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("with or without an inspector appointed under this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal jointly with the two related amendments, Nos. 7 and 8.
Amendment No. 8: Page 15, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) A warrant under this section may authorise a constable to be accompanied by an inspector appointed under this Act and shall require him to be accompanied by such an inspector if the place in question is a designated establishment.").
These two amendments alter Clause 25, the clause which provides for the issue of search warrants authorising a constable to enter a place where an offence under the Bill is thought to be taking place or to have been committed. These amendments would alter the clause in the following way. Where the premises to be entered are an establishment designated under the Bill, then the police constable executing the warrant must be accompanied by an inspector, and where a non-designated establishment is to be entered the search warrant may authorise the constable to be accompanied by an inspector.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, drew attention to the potentially very serious hazards that a policeman might face if he forcibly entered a designated establishment on his own. A variety of infections might be released into the community as a result, or infection could be taken into the establishment, with possibly devastating effects on the animals and the work in hand. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, raised this matter again at Report and I said that we fully recognised the importance of this potential problem and that we would bring forward at Third Reading an amendment which would have the effect of requiring the constable to be accompanied by an inspector during entry under warrant to designated establishments.
These two related amendments fulfil that commitment. As I said at Report, we envisage that the search warrant procedure will only rarely be used. But clearly when it is used we must ensure that the risks of misplaced infection or other difficulties are minimised.

903
The presence of an inspector, who will be able to provide specialised scientific advice, is the best way of ensuring that. I beg to move.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, may I repeat the thanks that I expressed to the noble Lord the Minister at Report stage and say that the amendments as they stand now meet my points entirely.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister cares to do a little tidying up at some stage, I would merely suggest that in the last but one line of Amendment No. 8 the phrase,
"to be accompanied by such an inspector"
could be improved by simply saying, "to be so accompanied".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 8:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this is a good Bill. I have not the slightest doubt about that, and I wish to congratulate all those noble Lords who have contributed to bringing this Bill forward after many years of consideration and consultation. This Bill comes as close as could be to being a consensus. It represents the result of wide consultation and the bringing together of interests and forces in society which, in their day, proved almost irreconcilable but which of late have considered that co-operation is probably the better way of getting progress in this difficult subject.
There has been a good deal of compromise in it, as one would expect, but there have been no party politics. It is the fulfilment of a promise made by each of the three main political parties in the general election of 1979 that if any of them were elected to government they would take such action. It has fallen to the present Government to see it done.
3.30 p.m.
We have to thank the former Home Secretary, Mr. Brittan, and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. David Mellor, for their persistence in getting this Bill in the Queen's Speech for this Session and in bringing it forward so early. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his courtesy and patience in carrying the Bill through for the Government. It has been done in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill. The only person to lose his temper was me, and I apologise. It was one of those genuine misunderstandings between officials, and it emerged in the course of our debates. I got roused; the noble Lord was perplexed—and I quite understand, because he knew nothing about it. He had not understood that a conference had taken place that morning with other
904
Ministers and we had reached an understanding. I apologise for causing him that embarrassment. It all ended in a spirit of reconciliation, and I am glad to say that the subject of that dispute will not rear its head in the debate this afternoon.
The more I have listened to our debates the more certain I have been that this is a right approach to a difficult and complex matter. The aim has been to give the Home Secretary the power to control, and to impose upon him the responsibility of the controlling, all that is done to animals in our laboratories. In the past, Home Secretaries have not always welcomed the idea of having such responsibility placed upon them. But I am glad that it has been done, because only by the Home Secretary accepting that responsibility is this approach possible.
For the first time the Secretary of State will be responsible for making a judgment on the scientific merit of the work to be done. He will be obliged to weigh the likely adverse effect on the animals against the benefit likely to be gained from what it is proposed to do. It is that responsibility for the whole field of bio-medical science that Home Secretaries have naturally been reluctant to accept. But under this Bill it is imposed upon the Home Secretary.
Critics complain about the absence from the Bill of a schedule of prohibitions—a list of commandments, putting a stop to practices which are thought to be intolerable and should be abolished in our laboratories. A few examples are toxicity testing; the Draize test, which uses rabbits' eyes to test irritating substances; the testing of alleged trivialities such as cosmetics, household products and tobacco substitutes; and the much graver matter of the use of animals to test weapons. But in the course of our debates have we not seen the problems of dealing with the fine points of detail and the need for exceptions to the general rule in far too many cases? The use of statute law to control scientific and medical procedures is fraught with difficulties. That is why we have so much enabling legislation—codes of practice, statutory instruments and the rest—which is supplementary and subsidiary to the main statute law.
The charge is made that everything that is now done in laboratories can under the Bill still be done. I meet that charge by saying that although the Bill prohibits little, it controls everything. How that control is to be exercised is in the Bill; the criteria to be observed in permitting what is to be done are in the Bill, too. What is not prohibited by law under the Bill may nevertheless be curbed, curtailed or even stopped if the Home Secretary decides to use his powers under the Bill.
The Home Secretary is made the monarch of that province of the sovereign state of science. It will be for present and future Home Secretaries to make progress in the alleviation and prevention of pain and in reducing the use of living animals. It will be for Parliament to say what the public will not stand for, even for the benefit of man. There are professional men and women in this field who will be responsible for operating the legislation and who will be able to contribute to its success. There are professional men who, I think, will make all the difference with the goodwill that is now being put into the Bill.

905
But another question arises. How shall we know whether progress is being made and what difference the Bill is making to the use of animals—the number of them, their nature and the uses to which they are put? If your Lordships look carefully at the Bill you will see that the means of getting to know that are there, or, if they are not, they can be put there. I hope that that aspect will receive close consideration in another place.
The various animal welfare societies which were founded to campaign for a change in the law on the use of animals will find a new outlet for their activities. We want the voluntary bodies to come together to provide a responsible and vigilant oversight of and interest in what is being done. Nevertheless, I think that there are probably one or two ways in which we can give the assurances that some hesitant people are looking for in the Bill. I have one or two suggestions to make which I hope can be considered during the Bill's further stages.
The Bill is perhaps too neutral in its title and tone. Although the Long Title explains what it is about, the Short Title does not. This is a Bill for the protection of laboratory animals. It cannot be anything else. If that protection were not necessary, we should need no Bill at all. In many other countries, where there is no protection, there is no legislation whatsoever.
I remind the House also that when previous Bills designed for similar purposes have been introduced in this House and in another place, the protection of animals has been mentioned every time in the Short Title. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, introduced a laboratory animals protection Bill that went through all its stages in your Lordships' House on two occasions. Mr. Fry, a Member of another place, introduced the Protection of Animals (Scientific Purposes) Bill which was given a Second Reading and debated in the House of Commons in the 1979–80 Session of Parliament. I think that attention should be given in the further stages of this Bill to changing its Short Title to "Laboratory Animals Protection Bill".
We have also debated one or two other matters which have not been satisfactorily concluded and which should receive further attention. The procedures committee appears not to have full initiative to begin investigations and inquiries into particular matters. Clause 20(1) suggests that only with the consent of the Home Secretary could it go forward on matters that it wishes to go into. I believe that there should be powers of investigation which the committee can exercise on its own responsibility, provided only, perhaps, that it does not incur undue expenditure in so doing.
Clause 24 contains, I believe, a serious misunderstanding about the conditions of confidentiality imposed upon members of the procedures committee. Some people seem to be under the impression that, if any member of the committee leaks anything that he sees or discovers in the course of his duties as a member of the committee, he may be prosecuted and sentenced to up to two years' imprisonment. We are becoming very familiar with the technique of leaks and things that happen to people who make them, together with all the other
906
difficulties that one may get into through unauthorised disclosure. This looks rather as if members of the procedures committee are going to have a slice of the criminal law all of their own and sentences of imprisonment for breaches of it all of their own. I his, I am sure, is not what was intended. While confidentiality should be preserved, members of the procedures committee should have a little more freedom from the threat of prosecution than the Bill suggests.
We need a further termination condition in Clause 10(2)(b). We need also some relaxation of the condition that prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Scottish Act of 1912 can be undertaken against persons under this Bill only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
These are some matters that would repay attention in order to reinforce the purpose of the Bill and to remove some of the doubts in the minds of those who wish to give it their goodwill but have reservations about some parts of it. If that happens, we shall have completed an important stage in the long and painful history of the use of animals for the benefit of man. I do not suppose that it is any good suggesting that the human species is not worth the pain and the plunder that it demands for its own selfish ends. Man has sanctified his life under religious encouragement to justify putting his own interest first. But how this doctrine will make human life worth living in the future is not yet clear. I conclude by saying that this Bill is but a small step towards acknowledging claims of other species upon the divine spirit that man has long regarded as being a blessing reserved for himself alone.

British Leyland
3.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, this might be a convenient time for me to repeat in form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question on British Leyland being given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"With the approval of the British Leyland board, discussions are in progress between British Leyland and General Motors with the aim of creating an international competitive United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry and improving the long-term prospects for the constituent BL companies. These talks cover Leyland Trucks. Land-Rover, Freight Rover and certain related overseas operations. Discussions are at an advanced state but a number of important issues remain to be settled. Separate discussions are taking place with the Laird Group, who own Metro Cammell Weyman, about the future of Leyland Bus.
"As to the other British Leyland businesses, it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to return them to private ownership as soon as practicable. Talks with other car manufacturers on a variety of potential business ventures are in

907
progress. Some of these are wide ranging but are at an exploratory stage, and it is too early to tell whether these will lead to any potential equity stake, acquisition or merger."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated, in the form of a Statement, an answer to a Private Notice Question in another place. The fact that it was issued in reply to a Private Notice Question means, of course, that we on this side have not had the advantage of seeing the answer in advance. It would seem that the forecasts so adequately outlined in the Financial Times of 31st January have been realised in the event. It appears that conversations are in progress between the board—with the Government's knowledge—and an American company, General Motors, and that it is quite possible, although we do not know yet whether this will eventuate, that an offer will be made to acquire from British Leyland certain parts of its existing business, described by the noble Lord.
We on this side of the House view with some misgiving this latest turn of events whereby it is, at any rate, highly possible—some may even say probable—that a very substantial part of the British truck and bus industry may be acquired by a multinational company with headquarters in the United States. Perhaps, after the recent and continuing Sikorsky deal in connection with Westland, we should not be altogether surprised. Her Majesty's Government are, of course, entirely neutral in these matters so long as the American company is seen to win in the end.
We on this side view any prospect of the sale of this particular component part of BL with the greatest dismay. We do not understand quite why the Government, apparently—I say "apparently," because the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—view it with such a general sympathy. It was only in October last year that the then Trade and Industry Secretary—they change quite frequently in that department, so it appears—was expressing his dissatisfaction with General Motors' performance in this country relating to the production of domestically produced vehicles, and was also expressing some dismay at the fact that, contrary to its original expectation, the most that Vauxhall, which is GM controlled, could do was to ensure that up to 46 per cent. of the components of its Vauxhall cars were being made in this country.
We hope sincerely that when the Government come to consider this matter they will not adopt the so-called hands off neutrality (which, of course, is nothing of the kind) apparently adopted in the case of Westland, and that they will consider the national interest very carefully before approving any kind of decision on the lines that at any rate appear probable from the noble Lord's Statement. They will, of course, refer, as the Financial Times does, to the massive over-capacity of the British motor industry. But the same applies to other industries. How can there be anything but general over-capacity when there are 14 million unemployed in Europe in the course of a deflation led by the United Kingdom that has deflated demand throughout Europe?
908
We hope that these matters will be taken into account. What we fear, and we are bound to express our fears, is that this is the beginning of getting rid of some of British Leyland's loss-making assets at the moment prior to privatisation itself and that it is an endeavour to clear the decks.
On the basis of what little information the noble Lord has been able to give us today these are matters upon which I venture to speculate. It may be that my speculations are wrong. It may be that the Government will study the national interest. We on this side of the House sincerely trust that after the sordid events of the past month or so the Government will do so.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to thank the Minister for making a Statement in reply to the Private Notice Question in another place. But I am bound to say that the Statement is so brief that it gives us no information at all as to the reasons for the action that the Government are attempting to take. Could the Minister not enlighten us as to what has led to the decision to make, or to negotiate, this sale to General Motors? We can scarcely discuss this matter as it stands because we have no data on which to discuss it. Can the Minister also tell us how far these negotiations have gone; whether any alternatives were considered—a management buy out for example; or whether the staff have been consulted about the proposal to sell this part of British Leyland to General Motors?
The Minister in his Statement refers to further negotiations with other manufacturers. Are we to be told who these other manufacturers are? Are they other British manufacturers? Are they other American manufacturers, or are the Government—and perhaps this might be a wise move to take—thinking about a possible liaison (if they are to sell to other people) with companies inside the European Community? There remains a case for the development of an industry of this scale in relation to our partners inside Europe. But on the basis of what we have been told we are not in a position to know what is going on or to make any useful comment except as pure speculation.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their receipt of the Statement which I have just repeated.
Perhaps I may answer the few questions which have been put to me. First, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I am surprised that he should view with dismay the efforts being made by the Government with British Leyland to secure a viable United Kingdom truck industry against a European background of over-capacity and falling sales. That is what we are trying to do in this case.
I answer the noble Baroness in the same way. Of course, the negotiations are in progress rather than at an end, and it will be necessary, with any proposals brought by the board of British Leyland together with General Motors to the Government, for the Government certainly to take into account the national interest, not least the continuance of a manufacturing presence in this country.

909
I should, however, correct the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, when he referred to the undertakings which the board of General Motors gave to my right honourable friend Mr. Brittan when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in so far as local content is concerned. At the time the conversation took place certainly the local content of Vauxhall cars was about 46 per cent. The company gave an undertaking that this would rise in 1986 to 60 per cent. There has already been an increase of 2 percentage points.
The noble Baroness referred to the alternatives. British Leyland had been discussing with a number of companies various collaborative arrangements, the best known of course being that with Honda. They continue to discuss with other car manufacturers the possibility of other collaborative arrangements.
So far as discussions with our European partners are concerned there is a continuing dialogue between United Kingdom based manufacturers and European manufacturers to see whether there is a basis for collaboration.
The noble Baroness asked specifically whether the staff of British Leyland have been consulted. So far as I am aware, no, since the discussions are very confidential. I cannot say at this stage where they might lead; and it would be imprudent I think for the commercial decisions of each of those two boards to discuss their proposition before they have come to any kind of mutual conclusion.

Teachers' Pay and Responsibilities
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on teachers' pay and responsibilities which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will be aware that, with assistance from ACAS, a provisional agreement has been reached between management and teachers on a settlement for 1985, an end to disruption, and assisted negotiations across pay and other conditions of service for 1986. The Government greatly welcome the prospect of a firm agreement of this kind along with the restoration of normal working in the schools. The disruption has not only damaged children's education. It has put heavy burdens on parents, head teachers and on many classroom teachers. We all want to see it end. I hope therefore that the provisional agreement will soon be formally adopted by management and teachers.
"The NUT is not at present party to this agreement. I nevertheless hope that all the teachers' unions will join in the negotiations that lie ahead for 1986. The Government accept the case for an increase in teachers' pay to recruit, retain and motivate the teachers needed for the high quality school education our children need and deserve, along with improvements in the pay structure and a clarification of teachers' responsibilities. The
910
Government have set aside additional resources for this purpose. I therefore hope that the forthcoming negotiations will soon make sufficient progress towards the Government's objectives to justify my releasing those resources."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. However, it is a non-Statement. It tells us absolutely nothing which we did not know before from the newspapers. I think that it understates the harm to education that has been caused by the dispute and of the loss of morale in the profession.
The cause primarily has been the Government's failure to provide adequate resources for the service. We had hoped that, a provisional agreement having been reached, the Secretary of State might have made a generous gesture and at least offered some money for the 1985–86 settlement if the agreement is endorsed. The local authorities are going to be in greater financial difficulties. May I therefore ask whether this is still a possibility? The Statement mentions no figures at all. May I ask whether there is to be any adjustment to the figures in the Government's expenditure plans for 1986–87, as the present figures do not allow for a percentage increase in teachers' pay of the size agreed to on 24th January last?
I should like to point out that it was the Labour local authorities which initiated the meeting with ACAS which led to this agreement, and that the Secretary of State himself has done nothing at any stage of the dispute, by either word or deed, to help reach a solution. He appears to have been sitting back and calmly surveying the dismantling and destruction of the State education system. We had hoped for some generous gesture at this point, and I hope that it is not too late for such a gesture. Perhaps the noble Baroness will convey our feelings to her right honourable friend.
4 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, which I would describe as emollient and perhaps not entirely discouraging. However, I should like to point out that the NUT is mentioned in the second part of the Statement and I am not very sanguine that it will agree to the provisional agreement through ACAS. For certain reasons I do not think the NUT is likely to come into line. The amount offered in the proposed settlement for 1985 is not acceptable to the NUT. No money at all has been offered by the Government for that proposed settlement, and no mention has been made of the aspiration to approach the Houghton levels of pay, which all teachers ultimately hope to receive, nor of the aim or comparability with other professions at which teachers throughout the dispute of the last year have been aiming.
In the second paragraph of the Statement mention is made of "clarification of teachers' responsibilities". I believe that that is a much better phrase than "conditions of service". One of the points at issue between teachers and the Government has been the

911
use of the phrase "conditions of service". A great deal of what a teacher does is voluntary. Of course, it is not voluntary that a teacher should teach, should prepare for exams, meet parents and suchlike, but in the way of out-of-school activities a great deal is done by teachers which is entirely voluntary. Teachers are very resentful of the suggestion that these activities should be made mandatory.
I should like to commend the phrase "clarification of teachers' responsibilities", and I hope that in the forthcoming negotiations the Government will not hit too hard the idea of conditions of service. I believe that that would help in obtaining a final settlement. Apart from that, we have no further comments to make and we thank the noble Baroness the Minister.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I am sorry that the Statement was not up to their expectations, but I must emphasise that my right honourable friend is pleased that we have an agreement which holds out at least some promise of a settlement of the 1985 pay dispute, which will mean a return to normal working in the schools and constructive negotiations across pay, pay structure and duties and conditions of service. This is and must be the main thrust of the Government's role.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me some questions. One related to the availability of additional resources from the Government. In reaching the settlement some 10 days ago, the employers knew the financial background and the Government's position on local authority expenditure when they decided to make their offer, as indeed they did when they made their informal offer of an end-loaded 7.5 per cent. last October. They knew that the position was still unchanged when they increased their offer to 8.5 per cent. at ACAS, and it is for them to decide whether an increase of that order can be accommodated within their budget.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, in particular raised the question whether there were sufficient resources to maintain and improve educational standards, on the supposition that additional resources should be made available. The Government acknowledge, even if local education authorities take all steps open to them to secure savings and to improve efficiency and effectiveness, that it may be difficult to achieve in full the Government's policy for raising educational standards within existing real levels of expenditure per pupil. The noble Baroness also made a request to me to convey the feelings of your Lordships' House to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I can certainly give the noble Baroness an assurance that I shall do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, expressed the fear that the National Union of Teachers would not agree to the settlement. We also very much regret that so far the National Union of Teachers has not been a party to the agreement. However, I understand that the union's executive has at least deferred going ahead with the one-day strike agreed at its conference last month. The union is also willing to abandon strikes if the agreement is converted into a settlement. That is something. We hope that the NUT will go
912
further and drop all disruption and join in the wide-ranging negotiations planned for 1986.
In addition, in reply to the noble Lord's question about reaching Houghton levels or comparability with other professions, the Government's stated aim is that the local education authorities, the employers in this case, should, within their budget, make a statement which is on a good housekeeping basis. I am glad that the noble Lord welcomes the phraseology used; indeed I agree that a "clarification of responsibilities" is a good phrase. We hope that this disruptive dispute is well on the way to being finalised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend could clear up two points which, even after the Statement, still remain uncertain in my mind. First, in the complex arrangements of this matter, is it possible to put the agreement reached with all the other teachers' unions into effect in the absence of agreement by the National Union of Teachers? Secondly, have the other unions, apart from the National Union of Teachers, agreed with the employers' proposals for what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, so rightly calls a "clarification of teachers' responsibilities"?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding of the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is that the National Union of Teachers has suggested that it will go forward with the arrangements if a positive settlement is reached. However, perhaps I may inform my noble friend if I find that I have misunderstood that point.
On the question whether the other unions have agreed to a clarification of responsibilities in the finalisation of the settlement, I believe the answer is that the offer has been made by the employers in an open-ended way. The pressure is there for a clarification of teachers' responsibilities in that the Government have in hand certain monies which will be released on condition that the Government's objectives in this matter are fulfilled.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is it not a fact that the National Union of Teachers and indeed, so far as I know, the NAS have, as the Government would wish, on every occasion gone to their members and balloted them before they moved any further in any of the discussions? Surely this is exactly what the Government wanted. Therefore, they can hardly—as would seem to be implied by the question of the noble Lord opposite—condemn the unions if they wait for the decision of their members before they move to the next stage of any negotiations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a point that is perfectly well understood by the Government. On the decisions taken by all the unions last year, during the negotiations both in September and October, when offers were put forward, the other unions have changed their minds, and it is much to be hoped that the National Association of Schoolmasters will also succeed, as a result of its balloting processes, in changing its mind.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that all the time it has been a case of the local authorities having to give, give, and give without support from the DES? Surely this is wrong. Surely at this point, where the unions and the local authorities have gone so far, the department itself should back up the local authorities in releasing monies for this matter?
Baroness Hooper: The department is fully prepared to back up the local authorities for any spending within their budgets. The local authorities are well aware of the stringencies. They have a number of pressures; they have a number of commitments. They are the best people to know how to meet all those commitments, and that is why the Government have stood on the sidelines to some extent, but with the assurance that, as soon as the Government's requirements, or the Government's objectives, are agreed to, the additional sums in hand may be released over a four-year period.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness quite answered both my points about finances. I think she answered about the monies for the 1985–86 settlement, when I said I hoped there might be a generous gesture—and I gather from what she said that there will not; but I also asked about the Government expenditure plans for 1986–87. Surely if there had been agreement about salaries much earlier on in the year, that percentage increase would have been allowed for in the plans for the following year. I am asking, can that now happen?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if I omitted to answer a particular point. The Government have put forward no pay factor for 1986–87. What is offered for that period will be for the employers to decide. The employers, as I have said, know full well the terms on which the Government are willing to release extra resources for teachers' pay for 1986–87 and later years, and they also know full well the background to the Government's decision to start this additional investment from the coming financial year. I hope that that helps to amplify my answer.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Question, That the Bill do now pass.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I shall be brief. Some six or seven years ago I launched my Laboratory Animals Protection Bill into the pipeline, thereby initiating the process which has culminated in the Third Reading of the Government Bill this afternoon. Only one feature has marred the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. During the Committee stage we were robbed of the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who was at the time on the sick list.
914
We were glad to welcome him back at the Report stage. I myself was prepared to treat him with all the tenderness due to a convalescent. It was quite unnecessary by way of precaution. Without notice, and quite unexpectedly, he want off like a Chinese cracker. Detonation after detonation followed one another from the Bench where he sits, scattering the Government Front Bench like chaff before a desert wind and leaving him master of the battlefield.
I am so glad that in the privacy of conversation they have managed to resolve these matters. In a few minutes I shall be asked whether I am content that this Bill should now pass, and to that I shall assent. I have only two words to add to it; Nunc dimittis.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I shall not take much time. I should like, both on behalf of those who wish to defend animals and those who realise the importance of research, to thank the Government for having introduced this Bill. It strikes a happy medium between the two. Though it may possibly disappoint the extremists on either side, I think it is good that they should be disappointed. I am most grateful.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I want to say a brief word. I agree with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that this is a good Bill. It is a better Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House than it was when it arrived, and for that I have no doubt that we have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. He has responded to many amendments—and many, I am conscious, from me or with my name to them—with considerable courtesy. I am grateful for the helpful attitude adopted both by the noble Lord and by his colleague the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, and the officials at the Home Office who have been responsible for the Bill. I thank all those involved very much indeed.
Having said that, I think it is fair to say that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will improve things only slightly so far as laboratory animals are concerned. That is a modest claim for a Bill which is the first one Parliament has considered and put on to the statute book for over a hundred years. But, as my noble friend Lord Houghton reminded us a number of times, the Bill certainly contains the potential to improve matters considerably. I agree with him about that, but I think, with him—and I was glad to hear the points he made—that the Bill could, and should, do a little more now on the face of it.
Before mentioning the points which I feel we still have not resolved satisfactorily may I say something on my own behalf and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Northfield, who unfortunately was not able to stay for the time taken by the Statements? He and I have not always agreed about all the amendments on the Bill, but we agree about one thing. I do not want to detract at all from the commitment shown by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and David Mellor at the Home Office, but it is clear that no government would have been prepared to introduce legislation on this subject without the help and co-operation of my noble friend Lord Houghton, and his willingness to take part in the difficult job of reaching compromises.
I am all too conscious that that leads to more criticism than praise whatever the compromise turns

915
out to be. That contribution has been vital. It would have been vital to any government. His contribution to the future welfare of laboratory animals cannot be underestimated. Whatever are the rights or wrongs, the pluses and minuses of this Bill, it is clearly a considerable improvement over the law we have now.
There are still some improvements that can be made to the Bill and I hope that another place will look at this. One thing that was not mentioned by my noble friend is that I still firmly believe that greater controls—and therefore more bureaucracy—costs, and inconvenience should be imposed on those who wish to do experiments which involve the highest degree of suffering. We made several attempts at Committee and Report stages to persuade the Government of that and did not succeed. I am still convinced that the thousand-odd experiments which will have to be covered in the transfer period and the 500-odd a year subsequently justify a greater degree of inspection and consideration by outside experts, whether from the Animal Procedures Committee or elsewhere, than the Bill currently requires.
I strongly agree with the comments made by my noble friend about the Animal Procedures Committee. The clause about secrecy is unnecessarily draconian and will deter people from coming forward to serve on the committee. It is clearly right that the committee has power to initiate its own investigations. I am sure that that bit of the Bill must be changed.
I still believe that while we have improved the remit of the Animal Procedures Committee we have not got it right yet, and the committee should have a more forward-looking and positive remit to reduce, where possible, the number of animals used in experimental procedures. That would be an important change if another place were able to consider it.
Finally, there is a category of improvement concerned with the checking and monitoring of what happens in laboratories. I do not think we have put a sufficiently stringent requirement upon those who run laboratories, or other places where animals are experimented on, to monitor what happens to animals that are likely to die or suffer. The stories of people going through laboratories when they open up in the morning and clearing out dead animals that have died during the night are legion. More stringent requirements are needed there. Outside the scope of the Bill, I am sure that the Home Office needs to be convinced that there need to be greater resources in terms of manpower especially for the inspectorate to make this Bill work satisfactorily.
Having said all that, I believe we have made some significant improvements to the Bill. I renew my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his co-operation in that. I wish the Bill not a speedy but a considered passage through another place on to the statute book.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, this is a welcome and very necessary Bill. Any Bill which updates an Act going back as far as 1876 is extremely welcome. It is an achievement of your Lordships' House that this Bill has passed through all its stages without any major dissension. We all look forward to the day, if it ever comes, when experiments on animals become
916
completely unnecessary. But if we are to conquer the malignant diseases of cancer, cystic fibrosis and so on, these experiments will be necessary. I believe that during its passage through this House the Bill has dotted a number of "i's" and crossed a number of "t's". When it goes to another place some more dots and crosses may be necessary.
I hope that the Government will take on board that the inspectors who will be needed here must be very highly trained. They will have many heavy responsibilities thrust on their shoulders. The amendment regarding registered breeding establishments is welcome because there have been a number of reports (I suggest that many are false) of animals being gathered from the streets and placed into these laboratories for experiments.
I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the very efficient and courteous way in which he has piloted this difficult Bill through your Lordships' House, and other noble Lords from all parts of the House who have contributed to an agreeable and constructive debate. Hopefully, in another place the Bill will have the same practical and sensible passage that it has enjoyed in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to add a brief word after those whom I call the "heavyweights" have spoken. First, I should thank Lord Glenarthur who has shepherded this Bill with so much goodwill, tolerance and sense of concern. These qualities we now expect from the noble Lord, and I hope we shall not be disappointed on any other Bill. We are grateful to him for the way he has put this Bill through.
Although there have been criticisms of the Bill from some of the custodians of animal welfare, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, one of the great pioneers in this field, has been pleased with the Bill. The speech he made today made this quite clear. In the course of our discussions and debates we have come across the conflict between the interests of animal welfare and the requirements of science and medicine which are features of our times. But all the time there has been complete agreement on the need for a balance between the freedom of scientists to carry out scientific investigations and our concern for the animals that will be adversely affected in this process. Many of us have repeatedly stressed that the safeguards for animals in this Bill should be there and be seen as a protection for them against unnecessary suffering, but also should accurately represent and reflect the measure of concern that people in this country genuinely feel for animals. It is a concern that we have every reason to be proud of.
While this need for balance has been agreed on by all the speakers, there have been arguments about the best way to put it all into effect. The dissension lay in three different areas which still give rise to some anxiety and which I am sure will be the subject of a great deal of attention when the Bill reaches another place. It is generally agreed that the successful working of the Bill will depend on the code of practice, but the concern is that the code of practice is still in draft form and will remain so until the Bill reaches the statute book.

917
Secondly, it is also generally agreed that the Bill concerns animal suffering. This is what my noble friend Lord Melchett has stressed throughout the Bill. It has been pointed out from all sides of the House that all possible safeguards should be brought in to deal with the prevention and elimination of pain in animals. Many suggestions have been made, stressed and brought forward again as to how this should be done. For example, there should be adequate training for licensees and there should be constant surveillance of animals undergoing operations. This is especially important at night and at the weekends. These points were brought out repeatedly to try to deal with this terrible and repugnant aspect of the Bill before us, that these animals should undergo pain.
The third area has already been stressed by my noble friends, Lord Houghton and Lord Melchett; it is the role of the Animal Procedures Committee. We are a little disappointed that the Animal Procedures Committee has not been given an even more substantial role so that it would have powers of supervision and the freedom on its own initiative to comment or to make proposals on any issue which it considers to be relevant.
In conclusion, we were delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when on Second Reading he informed the House of the substantial reduction in the number of experiments on animals between the years 1976 and 1984. The figure has decreased from 5.5 million to 3.5 million. Although the Government did not accept the arguments pressed by my noble friend Lord Melchett that the Bill should legislate specifically for a reduction in the number of experiments on animals, we hope and believe that one of the main effects of the Bill will be a reduction in the number of such experiments. Our eventual goal should be the total elimination of animals in scientific experimentation. We are glad that the noble Lord the Minister has so often been sympathetic and co-operative and has accepted numerous amendments. Indeed, we are glad that he should today have accepted an amendment that many noble Lords found of great importance from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
As previous speakers have said, we know that the Bill would not have come about without a great deal of hard work by the department and with the help of those noble Lords who have toiled in this field for so many years. Before I end I pay special tribute to my noble friend Lord Houghton. We all admire the way he recovered from the bit of scientific procedure that he underwent in the middle of this Bill. I should also like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who brought all the expertise most fluently expressed as he always does to our debates, and to my noble friend Lord Melchett, without whom the Bill would not have changed so much. We can only hope that history will show that the Bill will have been a significant step forward.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I shall be very brief but I cannot resist the temptation to say "Thank you" on my own behalf and echo the thanks that have been given to all those who have taken part in this debate and also to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his
918
very great help on a number of points. All that I should like to do in addition to that is to refer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on Report—that the Bill as it stands represents a compromise of interests which are in conflict and which have a very great deal to be said for them on both sides—and to express the hope that they both expressed, that in another place the Bill will be treated in the same spirit of compromise as it has been dealt with in your Lordships' House.
It is always extremely difficult when it comes to amendments to know what are important matters of principle and what are details which will enable the Bill to function more smoothly. I very much hope that amendment from this stage on will be in the latter terms rather than the former.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, perhaps a single sentence should be uttered from these Benches. I am sure that we owed it to the laboratory animals to do something more for them than was done by the Act of 1876. It has taken us a very long time to get down to this task, and but for the energy and thrust of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I do not believe that even yet we should be undertaking it. But at last, thank goodness, we seem to be achieving something. I wish the Bill well.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, our discussions today have completed our detailed consideration of the entirety of this Bill although, as has been forecast by those of your Lordships who have just spoken, in due course we may examine any amendments made to it in another place; and we have been given some indication of what sort of amendments there might be. The Bill introduces the first legislative changes for 109 years to the system of controlling experimental work carried out on living animals. This is an historic and notable development. We have had to look back at the vast changes in the biological sciences which have taken place since our parliamentary predecessors debated the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876; and we have had to look forward to the developments in science which are yet to come and which the new system of control must be able to encompass.
This Bill is notable in another respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, it has been made possible because of an unprecedented degree of co-operation across a wide range of interests. Your Lordships will be aware of the important contribution which has come from the moderate and responsible animal welfare bodies and in particular the British Veterinary Association, the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said—and certainly I share his view, which was added to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and others—an integral part of this was that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has given us his great knowledge and wisdom on this subject and all the benefit that comes from that.
In addition, science and industry have supported the aims of this Bill. During the long work of preparation—and it has been long—and during its passage through your Lordships' House they have

919
given most generously of their expertise. And we have had the benefit of reasoning from many of your Lordships who have brought to bear enormous interest in the welfare of animals and experience of their use in scientific procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has a fine reputation as a defender of animals of all sorts, and, although I could not agree with everything that he said on every amendment, he gave us food for thought on several issues, for which I am grateful. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has brought a wealth of direct personal experience of procedures on animals to bear on our considerations and this Bill achieves what for him is an aim that he has been keen to achieve for so long. For what he and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, with his particular experience, have contributed I am most grateful.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk, the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Somers, my noble friend Lord Auckland, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, have all brought feeling and concern to bear. I am grateful to all of them, as I am too to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said and as your Lordships will be aware, it is he who has been the vital catalyst for change and who has harnessed so effectively the energies of all those who have sought to make a positive contribution to this undertaking.
I have referred to the range of interests and opinions involved. Looking back at our consideration of this Bill, it is clear that these different stands have been comprehensively and most ably represented. We have explored very thoroughly a wide range of important issues of detail and operation as well as looking critically at the essential spirit upon which the Bill is founded. It is of course the misfortune of the Government spokesman that he cannot (to borrow a phrase) please all of the people all of the time. But even though it has not been possible to incorporate all your Lordships' suggestions, I must say that we have derived great benefit from all the penetrating scrutiny which has been given by your Lordships to the wide range of important issues raised by this Bill. Your Lordships have also made a number of very helpful points which will need to be reflected and will be reflected in the next draft of the Home Office guidance note which we shall produce within the next two or three weeks.
I am sure that the benefit of our debates owes much to the manner in which this difficult subject has been approached. Anyone reading our debates will be deeply impressed by the common thread of humanity which has run through all the contributions that we have heard. From all quarters there has been a clear sense of responsibility towards the rest of the animal kingdom and a desire for the Bill to strike an appropriate balance between the need to avoid animal suffering and the importance of safeguarding our own communities. The Bill has been greatly improved as a result, and so too has our appreciation of the often subtle and intractable issues which it addresses.
This Bill does not sweep away the great legacy of our long experience in controlling animal
920
experimentation. Instead it builds upon it, providing new mechanisms by which Parliament, the Secretary of State, his advisers and the inspectorate will be able to extend and improve the system of control. This will be to the benefit of both human society and animals. Again I thank your Lordships for many valuable contributions and for your kind references to the part that I have played. As to the part I play on other Bills, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, hinted, perhaps that is something I can undertake, in the terms used quite often on this Bill, to agree to consider without being further tempted. I join with your Lordships in wishing this Bill a swift passage to the statute book.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Patents, Designs and Marks Bill [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before the House will, I feel, be non-controversial. Indeed, I would expect it to be generally welcomed since its purpose is to enable the Patent Office to improve the services it provides to the public. It will facilitate the computerisation of the registers kept by the Patent Office and will make certain amendments to existing legislation in order to prepare the way for the introduction of registration of marks for services. It is essentially an amending Bill, and this explains why although running to only four clauses it has 11 pages of schedules. These set out the amendments to existing legislation. For example, five pages are taken up by Schedule 1, which contains new sections to replace the provisions dealing with the registers in the Trade Marks Act 1938, Registered Designs Act 1949 and the Patents Act 1977.
The subject of computerisation comes first in the Bill. Following a scrutiny of the operations of the Patent Office undertaken by a team under Sir Derek Rayner (now the noble Lord, Lord Rayner) in 1980, the report recommended that greater use be made of computers for keeping office records. As far as most of those records are concerned, it is of course entirely a matter for the Patent Office how they are kept; they are the normal records kept by any large organisation and no specific legal authority is needed for the office to purchase computers and to use these for its record-keeping. The registers are, however, in a different category. The comptroller is obliged by the respective Acts to keep at the Patent Office separate registers for patents, for designs and for trade marks, and the Acts also give the public the right to inspect the registers and to obtain copies of entries in the registers, and provide that such copies when certified by the comptroller shall be admitted in legal proceedings.
If the Patent Office is to reap the full benefits of computerisation it must be freed of any obligation to keep paper registers. The office will almost certainly wish to keep some existing paper registers, but in the case of a computerised register the information held on an electronic storage medium, such as disc or tape, would constitute the statutory register. The intention is that anyone wishing to inspect the register would be able to call up the relevant part on the screen of a computer terminal at the Patent Office. Anyone

921
wanting a copy would be able to get a printout from the computer, and the Patent Office would certify such a printout so that it would be used in legal proceedings.
A change in the law is necessary because it is not clear that these intentions are at present covered by the provisions relating to inspection, the supply of copies and the admissibility in evidence of copies in the Trade Marks Act 1938 and the Registered Designs Act 1949, which of course date from pre-computer times. Those who drafted the Patents Act 1977 were able to foresee the problem, and that Act refers, for example, to
"a document reproducing in legible form an entry made in the register otherwise than in legible form".
However, even that Act requires amendment since, like the Designs and Trade Marks Acts, it requires the register to be kept at the Patent Office. The Patent Office wishes to be free of this requirement, since it may be more convenient for the actual computer and the disc or tapes constituting the register to be kept at a remote site connected to terminals and printers in the Patent Office. All this is brought about in the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon by Clause 1 and Schedule 1.
These amendments would provide that, when the registers are kept in non-documentary form, the right to inspect the registers is a right to inspect the material on the registers. Similarly, the right to a copy or an entry is the right to a copy in a form in which it can be taken away and which is visible and legible, and such a copy, duly certified shall be admissible in evidence. The requirement for the registers to be kept at the Patent Office and the requirement that the registers be kept under the control of the comptroller is replaced by an obligation on the comptroller to maintain the registers. This latter provision would cause the comptroller to remain legally responsible for assembling the data to be recorded, but the staff performing the task would not necessarily be under his control but may instead be bound to him by a contractual relationship.
I come now to the other main subject of the Bill, service marks. At present it is only possible to register a trade mark which is to be used in relation to goods. For some time now, business and the trade mark interests have pressed for a change in the law to allow the registration of marks used in relation to services, such as banking, dry cleaning or car servicing. Your Lordships may recall that a Bill for this purpose was introduced in this House by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, but the Bill was lost when the 1983 general election intervened. Registrations for service marks will be brought about by the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984, which was introduced in the other place after the election. That Act is not yet in force, but the Government at the time indicated that they aimed to implement the Act on 1st October 1985.
As I said, the 1984 Act started life as a Private Member's Bill and its effect was restricted to amending the Trade Marks Act 1938 to afford registration for service marks. It did not make consequential amendments to other legislation. This Bill therefore rectifies this by making the amendments to existing legislation which are set out in Schedule 2. These
922
provisions are to come into force on the same day as the 1984 Act; that is, on 1st October this year.
Although the Long Title of the 1984 Act states that it is an Act to amend the law to afford registration for service marks, the expression itself is not used in the body of the Act. Since this is the expression which will in practice be used to refer to such marks, it is felt important that it should be the expression used in the law instituting their registration. Accordingly, subsection (1) of Clause 2 amends the 1984 Act to introduce the term "service mark" and defines it in language culled from the 1984 Act without substantive change.
Subsection (2) of Clause 2 deals with the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which specifies that the Northern Ireland Assembly does not have unrestricted power to legislate on, among other things, trade marks. It is intended to ensure that service marks are treated in the same way.
Subsection (3) of Clause 2 is intended to have a similar effect with respect to a wide variety of legislation specified in Schedule 2. Much of this is legislation which is not concerned with trade marks but with, for example, such matters as taxes, or the jurisdiction of the courts, but which contains provisions which refer to trade marks. The present measure would cause service marks to be treated under these provisions in the same way as trade marks. In addition, Schedule 2 amends the Trade Marks Act 1938 and the 1984 Act, in particular in relation to priority rights for trade marks and service marks.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly explain what is meant in this context by "priority rights". When, following an application to the Patent Office, a trade mark is put on the register, the registration is normally deemed to take effect from the date of the application. In some cases this date may assume considerable importance, since the registration may be invalid if the mark had been used in the United Kingdom by another party before that date. The applicant may, however, be able to obtain an earlier registration date, and this is referred to as claiming priority rights. This can be done if the applicant had made an application within the preceding six months for registration of the same trade mark in one of the countries specified in an Order in Council. In that case it is the date of the earlier foreign application which is deemed to be the date of registration of that trade mark in the United Kingdom. This has been the legal position for trade marks—that is, marks for goods—for many years, and fulfils an obligation under the Paris Convention to which the United Kingdom is a party, as are most countries in the world.
The obligation under the Paris Convention to accord priority rights does not extend to service marks. Some countries which already provide for registration of service marks do however operate a similar priority system on a reciprocal basis—that is, they allow priority to be claimed from an application made in a country which in turn accords their applicants priority rights. We have decided to adopt a similar system, and accordingly the Bill amends the 1938 and 1984 Acts to allow a country to be designated by order, either in fulfilment of a bilateral agreement or if the Government are satisfied that the country makes

923
provision for priority rights for service marks on a comparable basis.
Clause 3 and Schedule 3 effect consequential repeals, and Clause 4 contains the extent and commencement provisions. I have just two points to make about these. First, the Isle of Man has agreed that the Bill should be extended to them. Agreement has not yet been reached on the precise form of the extension. Discussions are continuing between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office and when a form of extension is agreed an amendment to the Bill will be moved. Secondly, the commencement provision is drafted so that the Patent Office can receive applications for service mark registration before the day on which the Act comes into force, these being treated eventually as though filed on that day.
This is essentially a technical Bill. I am afraid that it is not a very exciting Bill. Nevertheless it is a valuable measure, since it enables the Patent Office both to improve the efficiency of its present activities by using modern technology to keep the registers and to commence the registrations of service marks by allowing the implementation of the 1984 Act, which was passed by Parliament for that purpose. I am reminded by my noble friend that earlier I referred to the commencement of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984 by saying it was to be implemented on 1st October 1985. I do apologise: I should of course have said 1986. With that rather brief explanation, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having given a brief explanation as to the purposes that lie behind the Bill, and as regards those purposes we on this side of the House have no dissent. I am bound to say straight away that, as to its detailed application to the several interests to whom it directly applies, I would far sooner rely upon the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, whose expertise in this field is within the knowledge of the House. Before arriving at a final conclusion I reserve the right to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and then perhaps have another think in the light of what he may say.
We in this House like to take steps to ensure that whatever legislation comes before us goes out in a form which is at any rate intelligible, is consistent, is easy of interpretation by the courts and of course is understood clearly by those whom the Bill is designed to affect—ignorance of the law is reputed to be no excuse. I am bound to say therefore that the Bill as it now stands disappoints me a little. In my own professional life I have been accustomed to threading my way through the tortuous fields of income tax Acts and Finance Acts ever since the year 1918, and through some of the complexities of company law, to mention only a few. I am bound to say that in endeavouring to pick my way through this Bill and the Acts which it is designed to amend, I found the process most tortuous in order to arrive at the final results of the Bill in a practical form.
924
I say this for a number of reasons. Most of the people likely to be affected by Bills of this kind are small business people. There is of course an application to the larger firms in the United Kingdom, and in particular to their employees, but I think it will be generally agreed that the effects of this Bill will be relevant very largely to the small business, to the small businessman, to the start-up man and so on. I have therefore to ask the noble Lord whether there has been any consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who is concerned with simplifying matters for small businesses. When the noble Lord was discussing the White Paper produced originally by the Department of Trade and Industry, he affected to be much in favour of simplification. Some of us have since wondered when this regard for simplicity was going to take a practical form. I mention only the whole question of VAT regulations, which appear to have become more complex since the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, enunciated his simplification campaign. I therefore ask the noble Lord the direct question as to what degree of co-ordination and co-operation there has been on this highly complex Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, and that particular part of the Department of Employment that is reputed to be led by him. That is the first question.
The second question arises on the way in which we should proceed to make it more intelligible. In the light of the tortuous path that the Bill forces us to tread, can the noble Lord give an indication—he must have been aware of the nature of the Bill he was bringing along, short though it may be—whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to bring forward any kind of consolidation Bill simplifying all the issues involved? The third question related to the passage of the Bill through its remaining stages in this House. I ask the noble Lord—I am well aware that he cannot give me the answer because he will have to have consultations—whether it would be better, or indeed whether it would be possible, to have the Committee stage referred to a Select Committee of the House rather than have it taken on the Floor of the House. In a Select Committee it is possible to have technical experts in to knead together the more technical aspects of matters and reduce them to terms that are easily understandable.
Having said that, I turn to the Bill itself. I have very little to say upon its content, other than to express mild mystification as to some of the terms that have been used. Clause 1 of the Bill refers to Schedule 1,
"which relates to computerisation".
Your Lordships are well aware of the degree of judicial ignorance that is very often and quite properly adopted by those who have the honour to sit on the Bench in various courts. Where judicial ignorance of a term is expressed, that does not mean that the member of the Bench concerned has not formed a conclusion as to what the term really means, but that it is required to be more closely defined. For example, in evidence before a court the words "pop star" may be used, to which the judicial response might be, "What is a pop star?".
In the same way, I observe that the word "computerisation" is nowhere defined in the Bill itself. I do not know whether there is a judicial definition of

925
computerisation. I agree that in general terms the meaning is easily understandable: that is, in purely general and conventional terms, However, I note that when it comes to Schedule 1, where computerisation is by inference referred to, the words used are different. For example, in paragraph 1, which relates to an amendment to the Trade Marks Act 1938, sub paragraph 3 states:
"The register need not be kept in documentary form".
I take it that what is really meant by that is that the register can be kept on a computer. That expression is repeated at various parts of Schedule 1, where instead of referring to the register being kept on computer, the schedule states that the register need not be kept in documentary form. The term is repeated several times throughout the whole of Schedule 1.
Thus we have a reference in Clause 1 of the Bill to computerisation but then, in the schedule to the Bill to which Clause 2 specfically refers, there appears the negative expression that is intended to convey that the register may be kept on a computer. The words used are:
"The register need not be kept in documentary form".
Why does the schedule not say that the register can be kept on a computer? The use of two different terms to describe the same provision weakens both. If computerisation is strong enough then why not use that term? But if the words "other than in documentary form" are strong enough, then why not use those words in Clause 1 itself?
It may be more than a question of semantics. In these days of progress, the imagination may boggle. The words "other than in documentary form" may in years to come cover other operations than those embraced by the term computerisation. Who is to know?
Again to deal with some of the detail, I observe that in that part of Schedule 1 relating to the Patents Act 1977, paragraph 3 reproduces a new section to replace Section 32 of the Act. However, I note that in Schedule 3, where it comes to dealing with repeals consequential upon Schedule 1, Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 is repealed. I have looked through Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 and I am a little hazy. The noble Lord can probably answer my query quite simply. I ask him whether the repeal of Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 is covered by paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 on page 7 of the Bill in addition to Section 32, which it specifically replaces. I have not had the time to trace out whether or not that is so. If the noble Lord says that it is so, then I shall unhesitatingly accept his affirmation without any further check on my part.
The Bill goes on to deal with the computerisation of extremely important records. I should like to have the Government's assurance that they are fully certain in their own minds that computerisation can be accomplished with physical safety for the records. Modern science has progressed significantly since the early days of computers. Many noble Lords will have had some ordinary practical experience in commerce, banking and in other fields where initial computerisation has been described as the time of the troubles. because they have not been introduced without a considerable number of teething troubles. There is
926
always a necessity, as those who have been responsible for the computerisation of banking records will confirm, for there to be back-up disks for everything that is put on the register, and for proper physical means to be established for the complete security of those records—security against everything including the dropping of a nuclear bomb, when the relevance of the patent register will speedily disappear.
I should like to be assured also that the Government are now completely satisfied about the internal security of the computer records and about the schemes of organisation that they have for checks and security checks to inhibit unauthorised entry into the computer system. I need only refer once again to the fact that there have been problems in commerce and in banking where there has been unauthorised access to computer records—and indeed involving the alteration and falsification of consumer records by those who have been able to obtain access and by those who have sufficient scientific and computer skills to be able to corrupt such records. I am certain that I shall be reassured, but it will be good to have it on the record that the Government have investigated that aspect of the matter and that they are fully satisfied that all security safeguards in regard to those most important records will be put firmly in place.
Finally, I remind the noble Lord that in his opening speech he did not clearly state—of if he did, I apologise for having misunderstood him—that there would be some endeavour to computerise the existing records that already exist in documentary form; in other words, whether it will be the case that all the records will be progressively transferred to computer, or whether it is intended to retain a dual system for the time being.
If it is the case that the existing documentary records are to be put on computer, then I must point out that it will be a very long and costly process. Computers are never any better than the information that is put onto them. If it is the intention to computerise the existing records, then I must say to the noble Lord that the cost estimates that he may have in mind, and the costs to the public that he may have in mind, are likely to be significantly in excess of any figure that he presently anticipates. For the moment also there would be a difficulty. I feel sure that the noble Lord and those who have experience in this field will agree, that to run the two systems at once will present a certain degree of complexity.
I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long at this stage of the Bill but I felt it my duty to draw your Lordships' attention to some of my misgivings. That being said, I affirm that we on this side of the House support the purposes that lie behind the Bill and, subject to all the precautions that can be taken, wish it a successful passage to another place.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I join the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for taking the House so carefully through this Bill and referring to the Bill as essentially a technical one. However, tonight the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is more modest than I have heard him for a long time. I thank him very much for his kind words about myself, but the keen

927
way in which he has analysed the Bill—he has raised many points—has saved me a great deal of trouble in my speech this evening.
May I at once express my deep surprise at the complexity of these arrangements. I agree, of course, with the general objectives of the Bill, which are to computerise—if I may use that word—the register. It also deals with service marks, following the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, some months ago, which he successfully steered through this House having inspired the other place to do something very similar. The House is indebted to him for the energy that he showed in pursuing this important matter of getting a statutory record of service marks.
Service marks, for instance, are very important to small businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, the patent system—or the intellectual property system as it is now called, rather pompously, to include trade marks, copyright, designs and know-how—affects small businesses greatly. The jurisprudence of intellectual property has long been too obscure and expensive. We hear a lot about the help given to small businesses. I have in my hand the Small Business Digest of the National Westminster Bank. It is subtitled A permanent guide for small businesses and their advisers. May I presume to congratulate the National Westminster Bank on a very important and useful document for small businesses?
However, in this document there is a section which has been written by the secretary of the Institute of Patentees and Inventors, of which I have the honour of being president. This document which is supposed to be so good for small businesses shows how difficult it is for small businesses to obtain patent protection. On page 10, the document states that,
"the cost of establishing a United Kingdom patent with professional assistance generally ranges between £1,500-£2,000 and if world-wide patents are sought"—
of course, many firms have to file patent applications if they wish to compete abroad and assist our exports—
"the figure can quickly escalate to £50,000 or more. In addition you should appreciate that any legal action to prevent infringement can be both daunting and costly although there are insurance schemes available to provide some protection."
In the earlier part of that section dealing with the patenting process the author states:
"It should also be mentioned that a Government Green Paper published recently gave warning of changes to this System in the near future."
Many of us were hoping that the new patents Bill that was to be produced by the Government would contain some useful help for small businesses in dealing with intellectual property.
Your Lordships may have heard me mention on many occasions what a jungle exists in the system for intellectual property on an international basis. There is the classic phrase of a famous judge who referred to the intellectual property Acts, the trademark Acts and the patent Acts as being full of fuliginous obscurity. Several High Court judges have often told me that they know a particular case is going to be a patent case, where the lawyers and the counsel will stay for a long time, from the dozens of books brought in to the court
928
to explain matters. Again, therefore I express surprise that the simple objectives of computerisation and the introduction of essential matters relating to service marks should be so complex.
In my hand I have the current copy of The Director, issued by the Institute of Directors, of which I am also a member. For the first time in my experience there is a full page advertisement for the Patent Office. It is, of course, Industry Year and therefore I suppose the Patent Office would like to have the public's attention drawn to its activities. The advertisement illustrates a very large safety pin and is headed:
"When new ideas are born they need protection."
It goes on to say how important the Patent Office and, therefore, the patent system are, inter alia, for helping small companies seeking to develop new products and processes to stand on their own feet. We had hoped, of course, that a Bill of this kind, introduced in this Session, would contain some help to reduce costs and to make less obscure the intellectual property laws of this country.
I have one question for the Minister. I note that in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum it states:
"The provisions relating to the registers will enable a reduction to be made of about 25 posts in the public service."
Therefore, will the saving in costs arising from that reduction of 25 posts, which must be about £500,000, be directed towards reducing the fees charged and helping small businesses attain their patents? One of the interesting developments at present is that, in view of the difficulties arising from intellectual property matters, they are being forsaken by so many industrialists who are finding ways to avoid, in certain industries, the necessity of seeking patent protection.
The other matter that I wish to raise is a request to the Minister to consider the possibility of simplifying the scope of these schedules. For example, in Schedule 1 most of page 4 is already in the Trademarks Act 1938. Why, therefore, was it necessary to repeat almost a full page from the old Act in order to say, in effect, that the register need not be kept in documentary form? Surely that page could be simplified before Report stage.
Similar criticism arises in regard to the sections dealing with the Registered Designs Act on pages 5 and 6 and the Patents Act on pages 7 and 8, which contain large repetitions of what is in the Acts at the present time. Surely as a matter of drafting it would be very helpful, particularly to the small business people, if the minimum number of amendments were put in this Bill for the purposes of the two main objectives that we have in mind.
Again, when one turns to Schedule 2, dealing with service marks, I can only repeat the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about the extraordinary way that Part I of that schedule has been drafted. I should have thought that it was possible to avoid what the noble Lord referred to as the tortuous route that has to be explored in order to understand the effect of service marks on the law of this country as it relates to trade marks.
I listened with great care to the explanation by the noble Lord the Minister of Part III of the schedule, which refers to the registration of trade marks following overseas applications. Here, again, I think

929
the Bill has covered an important lacuna in the old Trade Marks Act 1938, and, subject to some small amendments which are Committee stage amendments. I do not propose to make any observations on it.
In conclusion, therefore, I, too, should like to ask whether the Government have any intention of introducing in the near future a Bill relating to intellectual property, which will be of some help to small businesses.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not having been in my place when my noble friend the Minister addressed the House. I only wish to make a few very short observations.
First, this Bill, in part, is the inevitable consequential result of your Lordships' own initiative in passing a Bill to introduce the registration of service marks, which, albeit in another form, attracted the attention of another place. But whatever form the Bill took, a good deal of statutory carpentry was required to fit the implementation of it into the framework of our statute law.
On the question of drafting, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I wonder whether it is really justified to criticise the drafting of the first schedule on the grounds of repetition. There are two views on this. I know not which is right, but one view is that of the noble Lord, and the other view is that it is of greater convenience if the repetition can be contained in one document. Either course has its advantages. For my part, I would support the form in which the Government have produced this draft.
As regards Schedule 2 again on careful analysis the suggestion of tortuous drafting may not be entirely justified. I refer to Clause 2, Clause 3(2), of course Schedule 2, and Part II of Schedule 3, for these are required, with those requisite amendments, in the very complex structure of existing law in so many and various fields, to accommodate the concept of the registration of service marks. This is a very difficult task wherein the industry of the draftsmen and the work of the backroom boys both in the ministry and in the Patent Office are most highly to be complimented.
Of course there is a case, an overwhelming case, for a general consolidation of intellectual property systems, to which both noble Lords have referred, but short of this general consolidation the Government have produced what seems to me to be a wholly satisfactory result. I confess that I have been involved in discussions—not with the ministry, but certainly with the Patent Office and professional associations—and I know how difficult it was to bring the concept of the Bill into a form in which it could be implemented. I do not see how it could have been other than complex. One only has to look at the series of enactments which appear in the second schedule to see how many different types of statute were involved in the implementation of what, on the face of it, appeared to be a relatively simple concept. As I have said, I do not see how the result could have been other than complex in the situation in which we are placed, for the situation is complex.
930
All in all, this is a result which is workable, certainly at the hands of those who have to implement it professionally. I have great sympathy for small businesses and the small businessman, but in this sphere the advice is of a highly professional specialist order and it is of necessity complex. I would suggest to your Lordships that to those who have to tender the advice the result that the Government have produced in this Bill is wholly reasonable and intelligible.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Since my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has not addressed any questions to me, perhaps I may first respond to him and thank him very much for his support and for the explanations that he has given to the course of action the Government have taken. As this was largely at his instigation in 1983, as I said earlier, I did not suppose that my noble friend would greatly object to what has now come out.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, always applies a diligent duty to any Bill that comes before your Lordships' House, and though he has raised a number of questions I feel quite sure that your Lordships would like me to respond to all of them so that we do not have perhaps too protracted a Committee stage.
The noble Lord asked about co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment. Although there is always close liaison among departments of state, on this occasion there was no consultation specifically on the Bill with the office of my noble friend Lord Young. Simplification of patent law would require a major Bill, and this is essentially a tidying-up measure. If it is complex, it is because of the legislation that it amends. It certainly does not purport to be a substantive revision of patent law, which I fear will have to wait for a little while. The noble Lord asked whether it was the Government's intention to consolidate the various Acts. We do not have plans for consolidation at this time, but the possibility is always kept in mind.
The noble Lord also asked about the Bill's passage through the House and whether there would be a Committee upstairs or on the Floor of the House. As he said, that is not for me but for the usual channels. I shall draw the attention of my noble friend the Chief Whip to his comments.
The noble Lord mentioned the term "computerisation" which appears on the face of the Bill. The reference is purely descriptive and explanatory and has no legislative effect. A single word is used for brevity and simplicity. The alternative is to refer to the registers not being in a documentary form. That has the legislative effect that we are looking for and must be as accurate as possible. The use of the word "computer" is avoided in those references so that the form in which the register is kept is not constrained by a particular technology. Indeed, in speaking of computers and computer technology the noble Lord himself said that the mind boggles at what may emerge.The important thing is not so much that the registers may be kept on a computer but that they need no longer be kept on paper.

931
The noble Lord questioned whether Section 35 of the Patents Act 1977 is covered by new Section 32 as set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The answer is, yes. If he looks at new subsections (9), (10) and (11) he will find that answer.
The noble Lord asked for an assurance about physical safety. There is always the risk of such a register being damaged by fire or something else. In the case of an electronic register there is another danger: electronic degradation. The Patent Office will guard against that by keeping a back-up copy of the register at a remote and different site. Should the main copy be degraded, the back-up would become the register and a further back-up copy would be made.
With regard to unauthorised access, ways to prevent that are being studied. But unauthorised inspection does not pose quite the same problem as the examples to which the noble Lord referred since the material is public. Anybody can go through the front door and pay a fee to see it, so there should not be much difficulty there. Lastly, the noble Lord asked whether there would be a tandem system while the existing records are being transferred. "Yes and no" is the answer. The Patent Office will keep on the shelf, so to speak, certain of the written registers and records, but others will be transferred, so to that extent there will be a tandem system. It is for the Patent Office to determine which is the best way to move forward. The Bill gives it even further opportunity to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised a number of points. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I defer to his knowledge and experience. I was glad to have his general support. He asked about costs and quoted from an article in, I think, the National Westminster Bank journal in which a figure of something like £1,500 was given. He will know that the official fee for obtaining a patent from the Patent Office is less than £200. A large element of the costs—and perhaps the difference between my figure and his—is made up of professional fees and other expenses over which neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Patent Office has jurisdiction. But the fees are set to cover costs, and any reduction in costs will therefore be reflected in the level of fees. And that I think answers the point about the 20 posts. I put it that way rather than confirming that there will be a reduction in fees, but as costs go up any reduction in cost tends to minimise any increase in fees.
The noble Lord raised a question about the drafting of the clauses dealing with service marks. I can do no more than draw his attention to the comments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Reference was made to the restatement of the provisions of the older enactments set out in Schedule 1. If those sections had not been restated, a mass of separate amendments would have had to be made. I suspect that the bulk of those would have been much greater than the restatement, and the complexity would then have been a good deal worse.
The noble Lord mentioned the difficulties for small businesses and individuals in using the patent system. Noble Lords will recall that there is a White Paper in preparation on intellectual property, including the implementation of the recently announced decision to separate the Patent Office. That will be published later
932
this year, and I hope that that will contain some of the answers. However, I see no immediate prospect of a major Bill to simplify patent law.
The noble Lord asked about the series of press advertisements. We believe that these are largely in response to some suggestions contained in the Green Paper, Intellectual Property and Innovation. It is probably for the Patent Office, knowing that this Bill was to come before Parliament, to adopt generally a higher profile with regard to the services and the facilities that it offers to inventors and to others seeking patents and registration marks. Those are, I believe, all the answers to the questions that have been raised this afternoon.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a White Paper that was to come out shortly and that will, if I understand what he said correctly, divide up the Patent Office in some way. I am not clear what that meant. I became more confused when the noble Lord said that the advertisement placed in The Director was for the purpose of raising the profile of the Patent Office. Does that mean modifications, in some way or other, to the patent system that would reduce the cost to inventors of getting a patent through not having to seek professional assistance? It is professional assistance that is costly because of the complexity of the laws.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my reference to the White Paper was that there is to be a White Paper on intellectual property which will also include suggestions with regard to the recently announced decision to free the Patent Office from the constraints of the traditional Civil Service framework. While not pre-empting what is in the White Paper, it will explain the creation, or re-creation, of the Patent Office as a body more responsive to the needs of its customers.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will know that, as a statutory non-departmental body, the Patent Office will be able to be much more flexible and innovative in its approach and will be able to introduce new services when there is a clear market demand for them. That was the reference to the Patent Office in the White Paper. As to fees, the noble Lord has made his point, and I believe that I have made mine. The noble Lord stated that there might be one or two matters that he would wish to raise during the Committee stage. If my officials and I can help any noble Lord in the meantime, your Lordships know that this would be my wish. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Marriage Bill [H.L.]
5.43 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Meston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Marriage between certain persons related by affinity not to be void]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("in England and Wales").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment. I should like to speak also to the identical amendment, Amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 9: Page 1, line 14, leave out ("in England and Wales").
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Has the noble Lord considered also speaking to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 as they seem to raise the same point?
Lord Meston: In fact, they do not raise an identical point but a similar point. Subject to the better view of your Lordships' Committee, I would prefer to deal with them separately. If that is satisfactory, I shall simply speak at this stage to Amendments Nos. 1 and 9. These are slight and technical amendments to remove unnecessary potential restriction on the recognition of marriages to be covered by this Bill.
In removing the reference to England and Wales in Clause 1, one is not presuming to legislate for foreign countries. The intention of the amendment is to include cases which, by established principles of English private international law, would be governed by English law, even if the parties concerned were married abroad. For example, if an English domiciled couple were married in France, it would be a wrong and odd result if French law applied English law and found that the marriage was not valid simply because of the place of marriage. The amendment also introduces a measure of consistency with earlier marriage enabling legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In rising to support the amendment, I do so not only because it raises an important point of private international law but also because the background of the leading case throws considerable light on the social problems with which your Lordships, I believe, will be largely concerned. This Bill is concerned with capacity to marry. Under our private international law, capacity to marry is referred to the personal law of the person who is concerned, that is to say, in English law, normally the law of the domicile, as the noble Lord said; although in some systems, it is the law of the nationality. It differs therefore from where the question of the formality of the marriage is concerned, which is referred to the law of the place where the contract of marriage is concluded.
It would therefore be quite wrong to confine the question of capacity to marriages in England and Wales. As the noble Lord explained, one takes one's personal capacity to marry abroad. If one can marry according to one's personal capacity abroad, then that is a valid marriage in English law. If one is incapable of entering into that marriage by reason of a personal incapacity, then the marriage is invalid in English law.
I mentioned a leading case. In fact, the principle that I have endeavoured to lay before your Lordships is established by a decision of the House of Lords. It was another case that throws an interesting light on the Book of Leviticus, with which most of the report of the
934
Seear Committee was concerned as the originating point of its deliberations. As your Lordships know, under Chapter 18 of the Book of Leviticus, a man is precluded from marrying or, indeed, having sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law.
I speak, subject, in all of this, to the correction of the great Biblical scholars and canon lawyers whom I see on the Bench of Bishops this evening. Under Chapter 20 of Leviticus, that bar is regarded so seriously that sexual intercourse between a man and his sister-in-law is a capital offence. Oddly enough, under Chapter 18 an uncle can marry his niece. It seems to me—and again I speak subject to correction—that the reason for that must be that the uncle and niece were normally living in different households at that time.
The odd thing was that an aunt could not marry her nephew and that was—again subject to correction—I think because that reversed the order of authority in the family which was regarded as the social norm at the time that Leviticus finally took shape.
As the Committee knows, during the Middle Ages all those degrees of affinity became vastly proliferated. Indeed, one had not only affinity by marriage but spiritual affinity by godparentage, so that as the degrees were multiplied one had a situation where a distant relative of a godchild might well be precluded from marrying a distant relative of the godparent. The marriage would be set aside as void.
At the Reformation most of that was swept aside and the Protestant Churches returned to the word of the Book of Leviticus. The Roman Catholic Church subsequently went a long way in the same direction at the Council of Trent. But there was a curious difference which gave rise to the case to which I was going to refer. The Lutheran Church applied the ban on an uncle/niece marriage literally and did not extend it to an aunt/nephew marriage. But the Calvinist Churches applied the Levitical ban by analogy to aunt/nephew marriages. The Anglican Church in that respect followed the Calvinist mode.
The case which I had in mind establishing the principle which lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord arose in this way. A British Jew wished to marry his niece, as he could by his own religious law which was, of course, the Levitical law. He could not do so in this country, so he went to Germany—a Lutheran country—where he could go through such a ceremony, and did. Subsequently questions of settlement arose and it was held that the marriage was void, because the propositus being a domiciled Englishman carried his incapacity abroad.
I venture to go into that case further because the difference in Leviticus between uncle/niece marriages and brother-in-law/sister-in-law marriages is accountable by the separation of households; and second, to show that although we apply the Levitical law by analogy to our aunt/nephew marriages, we have never countenanced brother-in-law/sister-in-law marriages. For those reasons, which in the end come back to a question of law—we are concerned here with capacity which ought to be referred to the law of the domicile and not to the law of the place of contract—I venture to support this amendment.
Lord Meston: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his expertise in this matter, and

935
for his lucid explanation not only of private international law but of the very remarkable man-made development of the law of affinity of which he gave us a very good example.
All I know, as a practising lawyer, is that in private international law as it has developed in recent years the court needs as much room for manoeuvre as possible. It is on that basis that I commend this amendment to you.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after ("daughter") insert ("daughter-in-law").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment I propose to deal with amendments raising the same points. They are Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, and those of my noble friend Baroness Seears, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, and Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 7, after ("grand-daughter") insert ("a grand-daughter-in-law").
Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 9, after ("father") insert ("father-in-law").
Amendment No. 6: Page 1, line 9, after ("grandfather") insert ("grandfather-in-law").
Amendment No. 10: Page 1, line 16, after first ("the") insert ("mother or").
Amendment No. 11: Page 1,1ine 17, after ("his") insert ("son or").
Amendment No. 32: Page 5, line 34, leave out from ("words") to ("to") in line 36 and insert ("from 'Wife's mother' ").
Amendment No. 33: Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("words") to ("to") in line 39 and insert ("from 'Husband's father' ").
This raises the point of marriages between father-in-law and daughter-in-law. My proposition is that we have already affirmed the principle which runs through the majority report of the archbishops that a man and woman, previously married, whose marriages are terminated by death or divorce, should be free to marry each other as long as they are over the age of 21, notwithstanding the disloyalty, the adultery, the abduction which may have taken place previously while they were married.
When this matter came before us on Second Reading I venture to think that I was about the only one who opposed marriage between step-father and step-daughter because I felt that that was an intrusion into the structure of the family. I gave the illustration of my own case, a widow and widower, both in their forties, and stepchildren both in their teens and under 21. Was it to be allowed that I should take the daughter and seduce her, take her away, and divorce my wife in order to marry her? That seemed outrageous to me. I therefore protested in your Lordships' House against this introduction of marriage between step-father and step-daughter. But I was in a minority. Every one of the bishops were against me. I have therefore to accept the first clause of this Bill, which allows a step-father and step-daughter to marry once the previous marriages have been terminated by death or divorce.
I suggest that the only logical consequence of that is that a father-in-law should be able to marry his daughter-in-law once their previous marriages have been terminated by death or divorce because the principle has already been established.
Let me take your Lordships briefly through the history. Your Lordships will know from history, all the arguments in 1907 as to a man marrying his deceased wife's sister. The Churches were opposed to this. It was felt that for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister might mean that he might be tempted to poison, kill or hurt his wife so that he could marry her sister. But such marriages were allowed in 1907. In 1925 it was extended to the deceased brother's wife but that always dealt with death.
6 P.m.
However, in 1960 both Houses allowed the marriage of a man with his brother's wife. Just think of the disloyalty there would be in the family! To take my case, could I be so disloyal to my brother as to make love to his wife, or seduce her and take her away to live with me? It is a monstrous idea—a gross breach of loyalty within the family. Yet if there is a divorce on that account, if my brother should divorce his wife, by law we could marry. That was the principle established in 1960 by both Houses of Parliament. Dr. Williams, the then Bishop of Winchester, was in favour of such a marriage; Geoffrey Fisher, the Archbishop of Canterbury was against it. However, that principle was passed. We have to accept the introduction of the principle into our law that a man can marry his brother's wife once the brother is dead or divorced, notwithstanding all the infidelity and breach of loyalty that went on earlier.
Under Clause 1 of the Bill we extend that principle to the step-father and step-daughter. I have already indicated the gross disloyalty which will arise within one family if the father, who is already married to the mother of the family, seduces her daughter and goes off with her, the result ending in a divorce. Is that to be allowed? Under Clause 1 your Lordships will allow it. Once the people involved are dead or divorced, we are saying that marriage can take place between the step-father and step-daughter.
Now we come to the father-in-law and the daughter-in-law. That does not seem to be nearly as bad as the case of the step-father. The father-in-law may have a grown-up son who may marry and set up his own household elsewhere. There would be two separate families. It may be that the girl is already with the family and the father-in-law then makes love to and goes off with his son's wife. Of course, there would be a divorce. The disloyalty to the son is not nearly so great as the disloyalty in the cases which I have mentioned because there are two separate households and there has been divorce or death on both sides. Therefore, they are free to marry.
Why is that principle not just as applicable as all the other cases which I have mentioned? The majority report of the archbishops took that view. What a good committee it was! Among its members where my noble friend Lady Seear, Sir George Baker, who was president of the Family Division, and John Rubinstein, a very skilful lawyer who knows all about these matters. The majority took the view that as long as those involved are over 21 years of age and once the previous marriage has been terminated, they should be free to marry. It is only the minority report, without any particularly good reasons, which would not extend this principle to parents-in-law. If we extended it to

937
parents-in-law and children-in-law, the law would be wholly consistent throughout and we would avoid all those petitions and special Bills before this House.
Therefore, as we have got this far, as we have got to step-fathers and step-daughters, logically we should extend the law to fathers-in-law and daughters-in-law. That is the object of these amendments which I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I hesitate to intervene at this stage, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, clearly indicated at Second Reading that he opposed this Bill root and branch. Of course, we all respect his strength of feeling in this regard. Clearly these amendments are wrecking amendments. However, naturally the noble and learned Lord wants a serious discussion as to whether the law should remain as it is, as to whether the law should change at least as far as this Bill would allow and the minority of the committee reporting under No Just Cause would allow, or whether the changes should go further, as the majority of the committee wishes; that is to say, that the law should be extended to in-laws.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, suggests in his very lucid way that logically, if we extend to step-parents, we should extend to in-laws. I beg to doubt that that is a logical progression. The minority of the committee did not perceive that as a logical progression.The point I make at this stage is simply that, if the law were to be extended to in-laws, these amendments as drafted—and I say this with great respect—are not the way to do it. The amendments as drafted use the expressions "daughter-in-law" and "father-in-law", which are not expressions used in other legislation; indeed, they do not make sense in this context. They create an ambiguity.
For example, the first amendment would, if accepted, lead Clause 1 to read:
"the daughter-in-law of a former spouse".
The daughter-in-law of a former spouse could be your own daughter-in-law or the wife of your stepson, who is someone you could marry anyway. Accordingly, a nonsense would be created. Furthermore, there is another substantial technical difficulty in these amendments because they have been drafted in such a way that they are attached to Clause 1(1), which is a clause specifically designed to cover and protect stepchildren in circumstances in which the stepchild has been in the same household and the step-parent has been in loco parentis. It is highly improbable, that for example, a daughter-in-law could be treated as a child of the family, and I would suggest that it is wrong to seek to superimpose the extension of the law relating to in-laws, which the noble and learned Lord suggests, on a clause of this nature. Indeed the reference to "child of the family" would be otiose in this context.
Having pointed to those serious technical defects, as I would respectfully suggest they are, I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord that perhaps the debate on this topic should be deferred until we reach Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 in the name of my noble friend Lady Seear; they cover the same ground
938
without—and I say this with enormous respect—the technical defects which I perceive in these amendments.
Lord Denning: I quite agree. I am ready to wait for the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Baroness Phillips: I do not want to detain the Committee, but there is to me a sense of unreality about this. I should like to assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that had I been present he would have had a supporter on this. Speaking as a grandmother, I am trying to imagine wanting to marry my grandson-in-law. The mind boggles. I have never had any of these kind of feelings, but perhaps I am old fashioned in these matters. If we are to spend a lot of time discussing this, there is a curious air of unreality. Are there cases that we can feel are going to be presented that would need the attention of the law?
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, must have had something in mind when he put this Bill together. Before we proceed it would be useful if those who have amendments or speeches on the clauses could give some examples which would take us away from the realms of fantasy. This may be enjoyable legalese but it has no bearing to the real world. As I recall it, the original Bill we discussed was based on a case relating to a stepmother who wished to marry her—a stepfather who wished to marry—Anyway, I am moving now into a totally unreal situation. I am sure that it is valuable to discuss this around the dinner table, but I am not sure that it deserves the attention of this Committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In answer to the noble Baroness, the reference to grandparents and granddaughters is of couse quite unreal, but both the majority and the minority reports included them because they appear in both the table known as Archbishop Parker's table to the Book of Common Prayer and in the schedule to the Marriage Act. Therefore, they must be picked up when one is dealing with the realistic question which arises under this subsection—not the next—which is dealing with stepparents as a matter of reality; with stepfather and stepdaughter, and stepmother and stepson. The next subsection is the one which deals with in-laws.
I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord. Lord Meston, says, that it would be much tidier if we postponed the discussion on this amendment to the important amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which pose to us the question of the minority or majority report. I therefore hope that my noble and learned friend will see his way to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Denning: I certainly will. I want to get on with the merits of the argument.
Baroness Seear: May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that perhaps because the noble Baroness is not a member of the Anglican Church (I think I am right in saying that) she has not whiled away the time during tedious sermons reading Parker's list. Otherwise she would understand why this is necessary.
Baroness Phillips: In the Catholic Church we have an even more complicated list of consanguinity, and that for our sins would cry to Heaven for vengeance. I also used to enliven myself with reading that and one or two other things, not having understood them nor hopefully having committed any of them.
Viscount Davidson: To help the Committee, may I say at this stage that the Government were in no way involved in the conception of this Bill? Their attitude is one of benevolent neutrality. All we are doing is to try to help in certain small ways in its drafting. We are taking no sides whatever.
Lord Denning: I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my amendment. I await with interest what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is going to do on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 9, after ("grandfather") insert (" (whether his father or grandfather is living or not)").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 12: Page 1, line 17, after ("grandson") insert ("whether his grandson is living or not) ").
These amendments are entirely technical. They add nothing of substance to the Bill. In both instances it is to produce a verbal consistency with the Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No.7:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Baroness said: May I first apologise for coming into the debate at rather a late stage, but I do so because my noble friend Lord Mischcon is unfortunately unable to be here today. I shall try inadequately to fill his place and put forward the views that he would have put forward at this stage. In moving Amendment No. 7 perhaps I may, for the convenience of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 31.
Amendment No. 14: Page 1, line 21, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 20: Clause 5, page 3, line 14, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 22: In the schedule, page 3, line 31, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 24: Page 3, line 46, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 25: Page 4, line 11, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 27: Page 4, line 28, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 28: Page 4, line 34, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 29: Page 5, line 5, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 31: Page 5, line 29, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty-one")
As is self-evident, the purpose of this amendment is to raise the age bar from 18 to 21, and therefore to allow marriage between step-parents and stepchildren only if both parties have attained the age of 21, and a child of the family relationship had never existed between them. As was argued at Second Reading the purpose of the Bill is to strike some sort of balance between the right of people to marry as a fundamental freedom and the need for regulation of the legality of marriage in the interests of preserving the stability of the family.
Our amendments suggest that if the age bar is only 18 then the stability of the family is not adequately safeguarded. Let us take the example of a stepchild who is not actually living with a stepfather but is living nearby. That child is not a child of the family but could be subject to tensions and sexual advances prior to the age of 18 with the knowledge that the two people could be legally married when the child reaches the age of 18. That is a situation which could only be acutely destructive to the cohesion of the family during that period.
Perhaps at this point one should add a word about the great difference in the adultness of a young person of 18 and a young person of 21, and also the great difference in the attitude of a young person of 18 and a young person of 21 towards an adult in a position of authority. I feel that I know about this because I have a child of 18 and a child of 21. There is no doubt that the child of 18 is more dominated, and feels more affected, by an adult in authority, whoever that may be—a parent, a step-parent, or a teacher—than a child of 21, who would feel much more of an equal. The child would see himself or herself more on a level with an adult or person in authority who might be a stepfather. Her view of that step-parent would not be one which was dominated but would be more like the way two adults behave. This is an important argument for wishing to raise the age bar from 18 to 21 years.
In the majority report it was said that if a child had been a child of the family a marriage should not take place until that child had attained the age of 21. The report reads:
"The opportunity for the young person to decide on marriage without being unduly influenced by the previous context of the relationship would be prejudiced unless sufficient interval had elapsed for personal identity and liberty of judgment to be established".
These amendments, which I am moving in the name of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and myself, suggest that the same consideration should apply even if the child is not technically a child of the family, if that child is in close proximity, living nearby but not within the household. I beg to move this amendment for the consideration of the Committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I did not intend to intervene to speak at this stage, but the noble Baroness, as I understood her, said that this would apply notwithstanding that the child in question is not a child of the family. I wonder whether she was right about that in view of the succeeding words at the end of this subsection and subsection(3). As I read the amendment, all it did was to raise the age of 18 to 21. I see the noble Baroness is nodding in approbation. I believe that is right, is it not?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Yes. I probably explained myself rather badly, but the amendment allows marriage between step-parents and stepchildren only if both parties have attained the age of 21 and if a child-of-the-family relationship has never existed between them.
Lord Denning: In this case I support the amendment. I always regretted Mr. Justice Latey's committee decision when it reduced the age of majority from 21 to 18. For centuries the age has been 21 and it was a sensible rule. At 18 people are more susceptible. They are not nearly so aware of the ways of the world. I much regretted the reduction from the general age of 21 to 18. In the case of marriage in such circumstances as we are now considering (where a step-daughter is to marry her stepfather) the age of 21 is the proper age to consider. It is the age that the majority report itself considered. I support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Obviously this is an arguable case. It has been admirably argued. I ask the noble Baroness not the press her amendment for two reasons. The first is that the age of 21 has, as my noble and learned friend has said, for all practical purposes in pursuance of the report of the Latey committee, a powerful committee, been reduced to 18. The argument used at the time in your Lordships' Chamber, notably by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, was that the age of maturity was steadily going down and that 18 was sensible now, where 21 might have been sensible before. The age of 18 here fits better into the general framework of our law of minority.
My second reason is even more powerful; that is, that the minority report on which this Bill is based has received the approbation of the House of Bishops and their support in your Lordships' Chamber. If this alteration were made the whole matter would have to go back for reconsideration. Both the majority and the minority recognised that there were cases of hardship which called for legislation and for a different treatment from the personal Bill procedure with which your Lordships have been concerned previously. It is because the noble Baroness may have an arguable case, because she may not wish to prejudice the chance of this Bill going through, that I ask her, with respect, not to press this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support the noble Baroness. Lady Ewart-Biggs, in her amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will accept it. I believe that when the age of adulthood was reduced from 21 to 18 it was a mistake. For generations the age of 21 has been the age when those who mature more slowly have reached the time when they can be said to make sound decisions. I do not think that the world has changed to such an extent that all those of 18 make the right decisions. I have children of 20 and 19 and some of their friends mature at different rates. I am sure that 18 is the wrong age. I support the noble Baroness in this amendment.
Lord Meston: I resist the amendment on a limited basis. If I may explain why that is so, I do not want the
942
noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, to think that I have a closed mind on this point. She has linked her Amendment No. 7, which deals with the minimum age at which the couple can marry, with her Amendment No. 14, which deals with a different point; namely, the age to be covered in the definition of a "child of the family". I respectfully suggest to her that that is a defect in the amendments, particularly if they are moved together and linked in the way she has linked them.
Although I wish to say something about the age limits in this Bill and the age limits she proposes, if she felt able to withdraw her amendments I should be prepared to reconsider the position and inform her at a later stage. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said, the present state of the law is that 21 has little or no significance in English law, certainly in English marriage law. That may still be the age someone has to be if he is unwise enough to want to stand for Parliament. But subject to that it is of no importance at all. The proposition suggested by these amendments—I invite the noble Baroness to think about this—is that a girl, a woman indeed, aged 18 may wish to marry somebody. But because her fiance, perhaps even before she was born, was married to her mother, she must wait until she reaches the age of 21.
I venture to suggest that it is really wrong to deny an adult the freedom to marry at the age of majority. All age limits are arbitrary. There is no magic in, or consistency between, age limits. I would accept that. As the noble Lord pointed out, you can have a mature 18 year-old and an immature 21 year-old. But, by and large, 21 is to put the clock back when, for all other purposes, 18 is the age; and indeed, for all other forms of marriage 18 is the age.
The noble Baroness touched on the peculiar position of step-relations in this Bill. However, there are safeguards built into this Bill. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating them at length, but the safeguards already existing in this Bill are that both parties must be 18 rather than 16, as is the present age at which people may marry in this country; that the younger party must never have been a child of the family of the other for any period; that there are formal preliminaries, that is to say, they are both required to make statements which are ultimately enforceable under the law of perjury; that there is a procedure enabling third parties to intervene and object and, ultimately, a procedure for the courts to investigate the facts, and that the clergy have a discretion not to marry such people, as through the conscience clause in Clause 2; and, indeed, marriage by banns (which is sometimes thought of as the easiest way to slip through the net) is specifically excluded. Ultimately, of course, a marriage in defiance of this Bill would be void. Those are the safeguards which already exist in the Bill as drafted.
6.30 p.m.
But different people have different views. Some people still wish to put the clock back. The problems of marriages between young people are not unique to this Bill. But in the situation most likely to arise under this Bill, then, of course, one of the parties at least is likely to be mature; there will not be two immature people. I would suggest that perhaps further protection is unnecessary.

943
There are just two other points that I should really wish to raise. To raise the age generally from 18 to 21 is really to increase the time distance between the age of consent for sexual intercourse, which is 16, and the age of lawful marriage. And, as was observed, I think, in the Latey Report of 1967, saving a man from the risks of responsibilities of marriage until he is 21 increases the risk of unmarried motherhood. And even if the parties do not marry because they cannot but cohabit, then of course cohabitation, as we all know, in the present state of our law has a second-rate status.
The prime defect, I would suggest, as I have already indicated in these amendments, read together,—and I emphasise "read together"—is that the amendment of the noble Baroness seeks to redefine "child of the family" in Clause 1(3). That is to introduce a redefinition which is inconsistent with any previous definition in any other statute. Then one has this situation which might arise. A child who has remained outside the family, outside the household, throughout his or her minority, may come into that household after he or she reached 18. It is inconceivable, in the law as it now is, that that person can become a child of the family because he or she is not a child in law. Yet, under Amendment No. 14, although over 18, that person would be deemed to be a child, and, strangely, would be barred from marriage for all time by coming into the household after he or she were 18—barred from marriage notwithstanding that the relationship which led them to want to marry was formed after the younger party had reached the age of majority. That, I suggest, would be a counter-productive and unnecessary result.
I venture to suggest that this Bill, as drafted, already gives extra protection by saying that you cannot marry at 16, which is the usual minimum age; that you have got to wait until you are 18. One final factor, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, is that to damage the Bill in this way by pressing this amendment would be to deprive everybody of the modest advance which the Bill seeks to propose.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, not least for his sympathetic approach towards the principle of my amendment, towards what I am trying to protect. But I agree with the point that he made that there is a conflict between my Amendments Nos. 7 and 14 and I do not think that I made quite clear the redefinition of "child of the family" as contained in Amendment No. 14. However, he accepted the point that I made: that I think there is a very great risk of an immature girl of 18, living, after all, in the same village, as could be the case, perhaps feeling very inadequate in her ability to decide about her step-father; whereas a girl of 21 might be in a better position and might be in a more mature position to be able to do that.
I should like to stress that point. I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Meston, say that there is protection in the Bill. I am glad for his confirmation of that. I am grateful to him for saying that he would discuss it with me. With that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert ("twenty-one at the time of the marriage").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to take in conjunction with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 13, 19, 21, 23, 26 and 30.
Amendment No. 13: Page 1, leave out lines 19 to 22.
Amendment No. 19: Page 3. line 14, leave out from ("if') to end of line 17 and insert ("twenty-one at the time of the marriage").
Amendment No. 21: Page 3, line 31, leave out from ("of') to end of line 37 and insert ("twenty-one").
Amendment No. 23: Page 3, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 4.
Amendment No. 26: Page 4. line 20, leave out from ("27B") to end of line 17 on page 5 and insert ("Where a marriage mentioned in subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act is intended to be solemnized on the authority of a superintendent registrar's certificate, the superintendent registrar shall not enter notice of the marriage in the marriage notice book unless he is satisfied by the production of evidence that both the persons to be married have attained the age of twenty-one.").
Amendment No. 30: Page 5, leave out lines 26 to 31.
These are all the amendments which deal with the position of the step-parent and the step-child; and not those which deal with the position of in-laws. These will come later in Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
As I think your Lordships will be aware, these amendments represent the position of the majority report of the Archbishop's Committee as opposed to the minority report which is the recommendation which has been incorporated in the Bill, which received a Second Reading and which received the support of the Bench of Bishops, as your Lordships will see this evening.
The majority report is the report which adopts the approach which is embodied in this recommendation. In view of the attitude taken at the time of the Second Reading and of the position of the Bench of Bishops, I would feel great anxiety if I were opposing their decision solely from my own extremely limited experience of these matters. But I must make the point to your Lordships that I am speaking for the members of the majority report and I would remind your Lordships of who those members were. They included a much respected cleric who was also Professor of Moral and Social Theology at King's College, London University; they included the late Sir George Baker, a High Court judge who had been presiding judge of the Family Division; they included the director of the Institute of Marital Studies; they included a woman solicitor with great experience in matrimonial cases who also, and most exceptionally, is a trained and practising analyst; and they included a well-known anthropologist. So the points that I am putting forward are not simply the points of an inexperienced spinster. They are the points supported by people with very wide knowledge and experience of these questions.
I would also point out that what we are talking about is the law of the land. It is not in any sense the law of the church. As your Lordships are aware, we are today a pluralist society and the legislation which goes through this House applies to people of many different religions in our country and of no religion at all. Of course, all the different churches and all the different religious persuasions, quite rightly and properly, have

945
their own doctrine and discipline in regard to marriage and remarriage. That is as it should be.
I was much impressed by, for example, the evidence which came from the Jewish community and which said, somewhat crisply, "You can legislate as you like. We have our own rules and our members will obey our own rules." That surely, in a pluralist society, is the right way to approach what is legislation for the state, for a society in which people hold very differing views about the nature of the family, about family responsibilities and about family relationships.
Thirdly, I would remind your Lordships that if what is passed is only what is recommended by the minority report, and only what is embodied in this Bill which is before us, we shall be left with the position that all those people who are not covered by the minority report—and that is the great majority of cases—will have to continue to pursue the process of the Private Bill.
Your Lordships have experienced the Private Bill, and a very unsatisfactory experience it is. We have been in the position in which we in this Chamber have been trying to judge whether it is appropriate that two persons should marry, with no one here to speak for or against the case of the parties who are wishing to marry; on at least one occasion in the extremely embarrassing and, I felt, humiliating position that those persons who were deeply concerned were sitting in the Gallery and listening to the inept way—and I do not think anybody in your Lordships' House would deny that it was an inept way—of dealing with something which was of the greatest personal importance to those individuals. We do not have a process that is satisfactory for dealing with those cases and yet we shall be left with nothing better, if all we do is to pass the recommendations that are embodied in this Bill as it stands, against the recommendations of the majority report.
I know that in some quarters it was hoped that we would recommend for those cases that there should be a judicial decision, that it should be left to the courts with lines of guidance, and that the judges should make the decision. That, I think, was favoured in certain quarters. I can only tell your Lordships that the late Sir George Baker spoke very strongly on the basis of all his experience, supported with representations which came to us from the courts in Australia, and said that this was not the right way to proceed. Sir George Baker commented, when we were discussing this possible change, how difficult it was to make any kind of proper decision in these cases on a matter of judgment by the judge.
As he said, it is not enough to know, when the rice pudding has been thrown, who threw it.You also have to know how the rice pudding was cooked. That illustrates very well the difficulty, if you are leaving it to the judges to make up their minds whether or not it is appropriate that marriage should go forward in these cases. Certainly, I beg to submit that he had far greater experience than anybody in your Lordships' House, and that was his view.
6.45 p.m.
The difference in the position of the majority report, so far as stepchildren are concerned, is this. The
946
minority report and this Bill would never allow marriage between persons who have been, or are, in a step-parent/stepchild relationship unless that stepchild had never at any time been a child of the family. The majority report would say that such marriage was possible, provided that the younger of the two parties was over 21. If the minority report goes through as the Bill stands at the present time, that would mean that a girl who was at boarding school at the age of 16 when her mother remarried, and who had gone to her mother's new home in the summer holidays and stayed in that house, would rank as a child of the family.
If some 20 years later her mother had died and she and the step-father, whom she had come to know as two adult persons, wished to marry they would not be permitted so to do, because she had spent two summer holidays in that family 20 years before. This seems to me to be a somewhat absurd position at which to arrive. This is the difference between us. The Bill as it stands does not permit any marriage ever between step-relations if one was a child of the family. The majority report and this amendment propose that such marriage should be permitted, if there has been a child of the family position, after the younger member is 21.
If I understand it aright, the opposition to the majority report stems from a profound belief in the importance of the family; that the family is an essential unit of our society, essential for the upbringing of children, and that it is vital that its position should be strengthened and maintained. The belief is also held that if there is a possibility of marriage between step-father and step-daughter, or step-mother and stepson, where there has been a child of the family relationship, the possibility develops of erotic relationships within the family which would be devastating to the family and extremely harmful to the task of the family in nurturing people within the family group. There is also the view that the family is felt to be under threat, that it is necessary to draw a line and call a halt to the permissiveness which has allowed the widespread development of divorce and has contributed to what is seen as the breaker of the family.
Let me say in response to those criticisms that the majority shared absolutely with the minority the belief in the importance of the family as a unit in society, although I must say that I think there is a considerable amount of romanticising at times about the nature of the family. I would remind your Lordships that some of the most hideous crimes in modern society are committed within the family and, at a different level, reading the notes of the planner of leisure time activities on the basis of the family, he remarked that it had been observed that if a family were left together on their own for a period of more than two hours they started bickering. That may not be everybody's experience, but I think we do well not to wear too rose-coloured spectacles when viewing the family.
Be that as it may, we absolutely agree that the family is important, must be maintained and where possible strengthened. But when it comes to the argument that you cannot accept at any stage the marriage of people who have been step-relations, with a child of the family relationship because of the danger of the development of erotic relationships—the danger that

947
the young girl will be seduced by the glamorous stepfather—there are, of course, always dangers of erotic relationships developing within the family circle. We know perfectly well that incest is more common than is generally admitted. We know that this is extremely undesirable; but I also believe that most responsible adults share the view that it is highly undesirable. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the vast majority of step-parents would not share the view that everything has to be done to see that erotic relationships do not develop.
In any case, it is only in cases in which the family relationship is in an extremely poor position. Once again, so often when families break down because of a third party it is because the relationship between husband and wife is already very weak indeed. I should have thought that we could depend on the responsibility of the vast majority of people to see that relationships of this kind do not develop. I should have thought that the greater danger between step-parents and stepchildren, certainly based on all the mythology, is not that too affectionate relationships will develop but that relationships of an extremely hostile and disagreeable kind are likely to develop? that hate rather than the wrong kind of love is more likely to be the risk in relationships of this kind.
I should like to make a further point in this connection because it is often pointed out that where adopted children are concerned there is no question of allowing subsequent marriage. The argument is put forward that because it is not allowed for adopted children the position of stepchildren is similar. I think this is a false argument. The whole point about adoption is that the adopted child is received into the family, and although it is of course never true in the literal sense, the whole atmosphere is to be such that that adopted child is to feel absolutely at one as a member of that family and of no other. As I understand it, people working with children who are stepchildren are now arguing very strongly that it is important that a child, where it is of divorced parents, should keep in touch with his natural parents; that the stepdaughter or stepson should be encouraged to continue a relationship with the natural parents. It is not true that stepchildren are ever in the same sense one of the family, or indeed arguably should be encouraged to be, as is the case with the adopted child. It is a fiction to say that the relationship between the stepchild and the step-parent is really the same as that between him and the natural parent. This is the sad consequence of divorce. Once this has happened the bonds are broken, and there is no true relationship with the new parent when the mother remarries. We are fooling ourselves if we think that it is otherwise.
The last argument is that the time has come to draw a line. What an extraordinary place to draw it! One marriage in three is breaking down. Maybe we sold the pass at that time; I do not know. Maybe Rome was right when it was said that if you want to protect the family you do not move in the direction of legalising divorce at all. But we have done it. One marriage in three is breaking down—and in supporting the minority report we say that we are taking a line to save the family? What a curious place to draw it! There is a great deal to be done to save the family. There is a great deal to be done in the way of better help for
948
parents, in the way of better housing, of better child care help and a whole variety of counselling and assistance to help to support the family.
That is the place to start. That is where to draw your line: not on this Bill, which affects a very small number of people and in which, because of the fear that in a very small number of cases there might develop an erotic relationship, you are refusing to allow the marriage of anybody who has been a child of the family, even 20 or 30 years later, even when the natural parent has died and perhaps the marriage of the stepdaughter has broken down—nothing whatsoever to do with the original relationship with the stepfather. We are turning all this down because we think this is the place to draw the line. I cannot believe that this is sensible. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may say just a word in support of the amendment. The illustration given by the noble Baroness was quite clear. Let us suppose you have this stepfather who is aged 40, shall we say, and the stepdaughter, who is 15. There is no possible sexual ribaldry, or anything, for years, and the girl is at school and so forth, for 15 of her first 20 years. Then, afterwards, there may be a death or divorce or whatever. Why should not the two be free to marry then, whereas the original clause said that while she was under 18 and a child of the family they could never marry? I would support the amendment.
7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: In speaking to Amendment No. 8 I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for introducing this Bill. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for having chaired the group which produced that excellent report No Just Cause. I listened with rapt attention to her eloquent speech tonight. I only wish that I could agree with the noble Baroness in her amendment, but I regret that I cannot.
Let me first say that I believe there should be some legislation in this matter. I remember, when I was a Bishop in South London, a very tragic pastoral case in which a man and his stepmother met as strangers, fell in love, and did not know that they were related by affinity until they decided to get married, which they found they could not. Since they did not believe in living together unmarried, they were in some distress. They did not know about the possibility of bringing a personal Bill before your Lordships' House, but if they had known they would not have had the means to do so and would not have wished to publicise their personal history.
I listened with great interest to the exposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, of the Book of Leviticus, but I am not deterred in my feelings that there should be legislation because Leviticus, when it was written, envisaged an extended family. It is inconceivable that any stepchild should not have been at some period a child of the family. Therefore, it does not really affect the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has put it forward.
So, though I welcome legislation I oppose the amendment of the noble Baroness. It has the effect of removing all impediments in cases where a step-parent wishes to marry a stepchild except that the marriage cannot take place until they are both over 21 years of

949
age. This amendment has the effect that the permanent impediment to marriage would be lost in cases where the younger partner has been a child of the family. I would remind your Lordships that if, as the noble Baroness so eloquently told us, one marriage in three is now breaking down, there are far more stepparents and far more stepchildren than there ever have been in this country before. Therefore, this is a more important and pressing problem than it has been in the past.
In opposing this amendment I speak only for myself, but I carry with me almost the whole Bench of Bishops. When we considered this matter carefully and voted formally in our House of Bishops we decided, by a vote of 39 to 2, that a step-parent could marry a stepchild only if the younger person had never been a child of the family.
As this Bill, if it ever becomes law, will have effect in Wales it is perhaps important that Members of your Lordships' Committee should know that the Bishops in the Churches of Wales agree in this matter with the Bishops of the Church of England, and so does the Free Church Federal Council. The Baptist Union in particular has pledged full support to the Bill as it now stands, without the amendments of the noble Baroness.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, made clear on Second Reading the position of the Roman Catholic Church. I am sure that we all regret the noble Duke's illness and hope that he will soon be able to return to this Chamber. He was broadly supportive of this Bill as it stood, unamended.
Had this been a Government Bill then of course I would not have dared to mention that pretty unanimous Church support, because I know from experience of the Shops Bill that the Government take no notice of the views of the unanimous Church, especially when pleas are made on behalf of the family. However, this is not a Government Bill but a Private Member's Bill. In the circumstances, I hope that the united views of the Churches may carry some weight. Indeed, if this amendment were to be carried then I fear that the Bench of Bishops would be forced to find itself in opposition to this Bill.
What are the arguments in favour of the amendment? In the majority report, great emphasis was put on the liberty to marry: the natural right that an individual should be free to marry the person of his or her choice. That is not the case of course where there is consanguinity. In that case, not only is there a natural taboo against marriage but there is also a threat to the physical and mental wellbeing of any offspring. However, such does not apply to degrees of affinity, at least so far as any offspring are concerned. Should not affines be free to marry? That argument has some weight, but it is insufficient to bear the burden that has been put upon it because all liberty must be used with restraint or it degenerates into license.
My personal freedom can only be exercised when it does not conflict with the benefit of the community. My freedom to marry whom I wish must be circumscribed by the good of the family as an institution. I must emphasise again that we are talking about
950
marriage. There is nothing in the law that forbids freedom for a father to have sexual relations with his stepdaughter or for a mother to have sexual relations with her stepson. If they so wish, they may live together. But to enable them to marry confers a problem of social status; it shows that society as a whole is prepared to approve of that relationship. I maintain that society should not and indeed does not approve of that relationship, because it endangers certain roles within the family.
Those roles, if they are to be exercised properly, need to be free from sexual overtones. If it be argued that the fact that two people cannot marry does not always prevent those sexual overtones from being present, then the answer that should be given is that whereas it does not absolutely prevent them it does act as a powerful deterrent. Thus it is very desirable to restrict the ability to marry in the case of a father and his stepdaughter or a mother and her stepson where one has been a child of the family. So the objection that everybody has the liberty to marry does not do away with the need for an impediment to such marriages in cases where the younger person has been a child of the family.
It is claimed—and we have heard it claimed again tonight—that the law of affinity has already been breached. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has told the Committee, after 1907 it became possible to marry one's deceased wife's sister, and in 1960 the ability was extended to one's divorced wife's sister. I remind the Committee that at that time divorce was comparatively uncommon. It affected a comparatively small number of the population of this country.
In 1961 only 2·1 per cent. per 1,000 of the population were currently engaged in divorce proceedings. Today, a generation and 25 years later, the figure has increased sixfold so that there are 12 people per 1,000 engaged in divorce proceedings. I must admit that were the 1960 law being discussed today, 25 years later, then I personally would oppose it in the different circumstances in which we now find ourselves. I believe that many Members of your Lordships' Committee would do the same because that law endangers the family in a way that it did not 25 years ago. However, I am a realist and I accept that that particular law will never be repealed. Nevertheless, I hope that your Lordships will not wish to endanger further the family by removing all impediments to the step-parents of stepchildren, except that of attaining 21 years of age.
After all, marriage really is under siege today. As I understand it, the institution of marriage in this land has not been greatly helped by recent or present legislation. It is now possible to institute divorce proceedings only one year after a marriage has taken place, and under the Shops Bill, if it is passed in its present form, wives who work in retail shops will be forced to work on Sundays when they should be spending the day with their husbands.
Be that as it may—and I do not wish to introduce another Bill at this juncture—the statistics of divorce tell their own story. And divorce proceedings only show the tip of the iceberg. There is considerable fluidity of marital and sexual relationships in our society today. In such a situation I venture to suggest

951
that the family as an institution brings stability and permanence where those used to be fulfilled by marriage. I am not looking at the family through rose-tinted spectacles. In fact, I believe that bickering within the family helps one to learn how to resolve conflict as one grows up. Also, the fact that evil crimes take place within the family does not in my view diminish its importance.
For those reasons, it is very important that every care is taken to protect the family, which is after all the fundamental unit of society and on whose stability the very stability of our society in this country rests. That includes protecting the roles within the family. But I fear the amendment we are considering would serve to endanger the family and not to strengthen it.
I am sure that I do not need to press upon the Committee the importance of the different roles that are exercised within the family, which act as a safeguard for its stability and which have the potential to enhance it. Specific relationships may flourish within the family precisely because they are free of sexual expectations. That applies particularly to parents and their children and grandchildren. It applies also to parents and their adopted children. I agree with the noble Baroness that the situation is not exactly the same, but it is not wholly dissimilar. A stepchild who is assimilated into a family does not, as I see it, have the same relationship as is the case with an adopted child, but it is very similar. Indeed, under our law it is incestuous for an adoptive parent to have sexual relations with an adopted child.
If within the family a step-parent and a stepchild can never marry, the parent-child relationship is clearly established and they are less likely to view one another as sexual partners. They are free to develop their relationship as step-parent and stepchildren without sexual overtones. Even though it is possible that sexual expectations may be aroused, the fact that the couple can never marry acts as an important deterrent. If there are cases that are plainly unfair, then there still remains the possibility of bringing a personal Bill to this House. Even though that option has its disadvantages, it still remains a possibility.
In the recent past some of us have been deeply shocked to find that child sexual abuse is far more common in our society than used to be thought; a figure of one in 10 has been responsibly put forward. Only last week someone who works for a victim support scheme told me that when she was visiting a person who had been robbed, the experience of describing that distressing experience enabled the victim to remember and talk about sexual abuse in childhood, which had had a very devastating effect upon her. That kind of story can be repeated again and again. It shows that the fact that marriage is forbidden in certain relationships does not affect the occurrence of sexual abuse within that relationship. But if marriage were to be permitted, then sexual abuse would be likely to become much more common just because sexual expectations would be more likely to be aroused.
If the amendment of the noble Baroness were to be agreed it would have an affect far beyond the persons immediately involved. As the minority report put it so aptly:
952
"To license marriage between a step-parent and a step-child of the family would be to condone sexual rivalry between father and son, or mother and daughter, which, within the close confines of the family would be destructive of the father-and-son, and mother-and-daughter relationships. In other words, the law would be seen to condone an assault on family relationships which are recognised as essentially valuable ones."
It is true that the law cannot prevent such sexual rivalry but it can deter it and reinforce a taboo which acts for the general well-being of society.
There is a further confusion which would come about if the amendment were to be passed. Let us imagine that this amendment were to be carried and eventually became part of the law of the land. Let us suppose a man marries his stepdaughter and goes to live with her in the same area as his natural children live. His natural children would then see their former stepsister in the role of mother in relation to their father. Their father would assume the role of stepbrother in relation to themselves. We can imagine the emotional confusion that would be caused for the man's natural children. We can imagine the disapproval and repugnance of neighbours, and the acrimony. For all I know these things may happen already but if society sanctions such a liaison with the dignity of marriage where there had been a child of the family it would seem to bestow its approval in a way which would not redound to the well-being of society.
It could be said that such confusion ought to be avoided when children are young but that it is a different matter when step-parent and stepchild are older. Should they not then be free to marry? What does "older" mean in this context? Thirty years is said to be too old. The amendment of the noble Baroness permits marriage when the younger partner has reached the age of 21. Incidentally, this restricts the liberty of the stepchild who is not a child of the family more than the original Bill does, as we have seen already with the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs has not pressed. The Bill before us would enable such a marriage to take place when the younger partner attains the age of 18 years.
Let us take the amendment of the noble Baroness as it stands. Only three years' waiting would be needed. The step-parent and the stepchild could live together until 21 years of age and then get married. Sexual expectations would be aroused. The role of step-parent would not be free of sexual overtones. The family, which should be supported by those who exercise different roles within it, would be in danger. That is why I hope your Lordships will agree that the amendment of the noble Baroness should be resisted.
In speaking as I have, I have adhered to the thinking of the minority report. I remind your Lordships that it is a minority report that has some distinguished signatures attached to it; including those of a Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, an expert lay member, a member of the General Synod and, if I may mention it, a Bishop's wife. However, I hope that the Committee will be impressed not by the signatories but by the force and clarity of the report's arguments, from which I have freely drawn in speaking tonight.
At the beginning I spoke of the all but united view of the Churches against this amendment, but I have been very careful not to argue on grounds of religion. I agree with the noble Baroness that a particular

953
Church should not impose its views upon society as a whole. I have tried to argue the case not on the ground of religion or from the words of the scriptures—certainly not Leviticus—nor from Christian tradition. I have attempted to look at the question from the point of view of natural law, the nature of marriage, the needs of the family and the safeguards it requires.
I believe in a natural right to marry, but that natural right must be exercised in a way which is for the welfare of society and for the family, and with limits. Therefore, I hope that in considering this amendment your Lordships will see the great drawbacks which it has if you are deeply concerned, as we all are, for the welfare of the family.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am glad on this occasion to follow the right reverend Prelate in total agreement, save for his reference to the Shops Bill, on which I shall not follow him.
I feel considerable ingratitude in opposing categorically, as I do, this amendment, because the noble Baroness has put us under such a great debt by the admirable clarity of the report No Just Cause and compounded that debt with the speech she has made today. I also naturally feel some reluctance because Sir George Baker was my successor in office as President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and later the Family Division. Indeed, I know none of the signatories of the minority report, whereas I have worked closely on many of these matters with members of the majority.
Nevertheless, I confess I found the arguments of the minority quite compelling. But there was one other matter which I also noted. In the anthropological appendix there is an important extract from an essay by Professor Malinowski submitted to an earlier Church committee. He was, of course, the greatest anthropologist of his day. What he said is not at all affected by what Professor La Fontaine commented about it. What Professor Malinowski said, as his first principle, was:
"The main sociological reason for marriage taboos and prohibited degrees is the elimination of sex from relations of the family type."
If you are to allow marriage then sexual preliminaries are almost inevitable, as the right reverend Prelate said. It took someone as frivolous as the Rev. Sidney Smith to ask, "How does a curate propose marriage? Does he say 'I will see you in the vestry after the service?' "Of course, if you are going to contemplate marriage you contemplate sexual relations and, contrary to what Professor Malinowski said, you bring them right into the centre of the family.
I desire to make only three more points. First, the noble Baroness today and on Second Reading powerfully put her case on the fundamental liberty to marry; an innate freedom. I say only this. One can obtain freedom and one can advance freedom by taking part in an organisation or an institution. The individual who is left naked before the state is unlikely to be left free for very long; whereas if he is a member of a family, a trade union, a club, or whatever it is, his freedom, his power of choice—his power to influence the decisions that affect himself—are enormously advanced.
954
The second point is that we already accept, and the noble Baroness accepts, that there must be some limitation on the freedom to marry. For many centuries a marriage could be contracted without any formalities at all. Now we demand publicity, which happened only in 1753 in this country and as late as 1939 in Scotland. But that was accepted as a limitation on the freedom to marry. Then there is the age of marriage. Since 1929 it has been 16, but for centuries it was the canonical age of puberty, sometimes formalised into 14 for the boy and 12 for the girl. As late as the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce in the 1950s, Dr. Marie Stopes advocated the lowering of the permissible age. There is nothing sacrosanct about 16. It is a limitation on freedom which we accept as buttressing the institution of marriage and safeguarding the family.
Finally, there is the adopted child. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate had to say. It is a pure fiction and a valuable one to say that an adopted child is a real child. I myself cannot see any logical distinction between an adopted child, who may not be married within the family, and a stepchild.
My last argument is to repeat something which I said on Second Reading. I do not believe that any divorce case—certainly very few divorce cases, if any—can be free from pain. Most are profoundly grievous to both parties and even more so to the children. Divorces have proliferated greatly, particularly since the Divorce Reform Act 1969. I tend to test adherence to the principle of the family by asking myself where the various people who talk about it stood on that Act. If I may say so with respect, I do not think that the Bench of Bishops can be entirely exculpated in view of the book Putting Asunder, which followed so closely after the authoritative statement of the Church's position by Archbishop Fisher to the Royal Commission.
Though I believe that hardly a single divorce is unattended by grievous pain, I have no doubt at all which divorces are the most grievous, painful and agonising. They are the cases where a father-in-law or a stepfather has made sexual advances to the daughter-in-law or the stepchild and the marriage has broken up in consequence. They are by far the hardest cases. If I had not been convinced by the arguments of the minority, that fact would certainly have clinched the matter in my mind.
Lord Meston: Despite the formidable advocacy of my noble friend Lady Seear, I cannot accept her amendment in this context. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for his exposition and development of the minority report position and I should like to adopt every word that he said.
This amendment seeks to allow an unrestricted right to marry between step-parent and stepchild provided that both are 21. In itself, 21 is an arbitrary age limit and I have already indicated that it is something which I am prepared to consider on its own merit; but I suggest to your Lordships that the removal of any precondition other than age is wrong, in particular of course the removal of the precondition in the Bill that the younger party should not at any time before

955
attaining the age of 18 have been a child of the family in relation to the other party.
My noble friend talked about drawing a line and suggested that this was a curious and indeed a wrong place to draw the line. On the contrary, I suggest that this is the correct place to draw the line. As she suggested, the relationship between the step-parent and the stepchild in the family might have been fairly brief, but it might have lasted for virtually all the childhood of the stepchild. The step-parent may have been in loco parentis for almost all the 18 years or so before the child reached its majority. The step-parent has an important place in the family in his or her own right. Indeed, it becomes an even more important place when there has been a divorce. The step-parent comes along and provides support and security which very often is badly needed in a family which has been devastated by separation and divorce.
My noble friend seeks to suggest that there is some qualitative distinction between adoptive parenthood and step-parenthood. I suggest that on the contrary there is very often no qualitative distinction between an adoptive parent and a step-parent where the stepparent has played a very full part in the childhood and upbringing of the children of the family. If a stepparent does not adopt it is very often a matter of accident or legal difficulty which is encountered because of the strange requirements of Section 10 of the Children Act 1975.
When it comes to drawing the line, I suggest that the minority got it right in paragraph 246 of No Just Cause, when it said:
"Protecting a young adult from a precipitate marriage is no substitute for protecting a child from a damaging sexual entanglement. We think that it is a proper task of the law to protect children in emotionally threatening situations and we cannot see why it should hesitate to give protection in this case".
Indeed, the majority itself recognised the need to preclude marriages where either of the parties was under 18 or where either was still under 21 and the younger party had been a child of the family. The risks are obvious: distortion of family relationships and important family functions.
In this country we have a system of law which is child-centred and, one might say, increasingly child-centred. How often have your Lordships seen in Bills and statutes that the welfare of the child is paramount? That is the way our system works. In cases of divorce we distinguish between childless couples and marriages where children are involved. Where there is a child, the court has to be satisfied that the arrangements for the welfare of the child are suitable, and one of the questions which is often asked when that is being considered by the court is, "Who else is living in the household?".
Similarly in the case of adoption, today the whole law and practice of adoption is designed to minimise distortion of families and family relationships. As I ventured to suggest at Second Reading, if a function of the family is the upbringing, and the careful upbringing, of children there should not be any hope, expectation or possibility of sexual or marital relationships either during or following the minority of the children. To have that would simply add strains to family life with which it sometimes cannot cope.
956
7.30 p.m.
The answer of the majority is that we should have a delay and put it off from 18 to 21, but I suggest that there is no magical transformation in people between the ages of 18 and 21. Family life does not dissolve when the youngest child reaches 18, and the three-year period which is suggested in the amendment and by the majority does not dissolve the dangers which were perceived by the minority as inherent in the situation. In short, the three-year gap is not enough to protect the position. It is on those bases that I find myself unable to accept the propositions advanced by my noble friend. Perhaps more importantly in the context of the survival of the Bill and the modest reform that it proposes, the Bench of Bishops find themselves unable to accept what is proposed, however eloquently, by my noble friend.
Of course my noble friend is right. There will still be hard cases. There may well still be cases coming before this House under the personal Bill procedure. However, it is also fair to say that this Bill, if it becomes law in its present form, will limit the number of cases coming before this House under that procedure. I agree with my noble friend that an adjudication by a court of law is an unsatisfactory solution for all the reasons which she has advanced and which have been advanced on several previous occasions in your Lordships' House.
The suggestion that I put to my noble friend is that her amendment goes too far. It is not for me, and I am not qualified, to pontificate about the family in the abstract, but I do not accept the proposition that the minority, or indeed myself, have an over-rosy view of what the family consists of. It is precisely because things can go wrong in the family that it needs the protection which the Bill proposes. We all know that a family can create strong loyalties and and can provide cohesion and support for its members, but in some respects those strengths are its weaknesses. We get these horrible cases of violence within the family. Because of the loyalties that are created and engendered, great tensions are also created, jealousy and damage arising when loyalties clash. To allow the sort of marriage that is proposed by my noble friend without any precondition is to open the door to yet further strains.
Baroness Seear: There have been few speakers in support of the amendment, and I do not intend to speak any longer about it because I think that I have raised all the points already. I should, however, like to test the opinion of the Committee.
7.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 34.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

David, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Denning, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Donoughue, L.

957

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Nicol, B.

Jeger, B.

Northfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bessborough, E.

Mottistone, L.

Birmingham, Bp. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Newall, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Oxford, Bp.

Chichester, Bp.

Renwick, L.

Denham, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Hereford, Bp.

St. Albans, Bp.

Hooper, B.

Selborne, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Kennet, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Lawrence, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Truro, Bp.

Long, V.

Winstanley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wise, L.

Meston, L. [Teller.]

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 9:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 9):
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("in England and Wales").
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 10:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Baroness said: I do not intend to rehearse any of the arguments that I used on the previous amendment. Most of them are the same. I wish, however, to make the point that this amendment deals with the relationship of in-laws, not of step relations. Here, most of the arguments that have been advanced against the previous amendment do not apply—in particular the central argument about the position of child of the family and the danger to the family and to the child being brought up in the family if the possibility of marriage is there.
As to in-laws, it is not possible that someone in an in-law relationship can at any time have been child of the family. So the persuasive points that, I am sure, moved most of your Lordships to oppose the previous amendment—the argument that someone living as a child should be protected from any possibility of erotic relationships within the family—does not hold in regard to this amendment.
My second point, as stated previously, in the Committee tonight, is that the law now permits marriage between a brother and his divorced brother's wife. Marriage between in-laws has, for 20 years, been permitted by the law of the land. What logic can there be in permitting marriage between a man and his divorced brother's wife and forbidding it between a man and his divorced son's wife? On the basis of logic
958
and because there is no argument based on child of the family, I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Denning: I have already spoken about this. I suggested earlier and I suggest here that there is no difference in principle. Once you let the step relationship go into marriage, you have the in-law relationship, too. Indeed, the position is far more serious in a step-relationship because then you have father and mother with their joint stepchildren in one family, and you are allowing, after divorce, marriage between members of that self-same family—the stepfather with the step-daughter. That is a far greater breach of the loyalty or the integrity of the family than the next step, the in-law relationship. There, you have two families, separate ones. You have the father-in-law with his wife, and you have the son who marries the daughter-in-law and sets up his own family. Then, whatever the cause, both parties divorce.
Then you have the son with the sister-in-law. Surely, in those circumstances, they should be allowed to remarry or to marry. Or there is the case of the brother and sister-in-law which was allowed in 1960. In other words, there is no difference in principle between the cases. This case should go with the others. I support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: I should like to suggest that there is a difference, and quite an important difference, between the relationship of parent and child and the other relationship that has been mentioned. Many of the arguments advanced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham in connection with the previous amendment—arguments concerned with the need to protect the family and to have rules to protect sexual relations within a family—apply equally in this case. At this late hour, I do not propose to weary the Committee by repeating them all over again. The right of the individual to marry whom he or she chooses cannot be absolute. It is already limited by consanguinity, which has among its other purposes the promotion of the right relationships within the family and protecting them and helping to provide the right setting in which people grow up. Similar considerations apply to affinity.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said, we have to face the situation of a great increase in the number of divorces producing a very large number of people who are involved in these sort of relationships. It is all the more necessary, therefore, that we should have some clearly understood rules about who may marry whom in order to protect relationships within the extended family. The report itself—it is a part that, so far as I can follow it, is agreed by the majority—says:
"What about a father who is becoming sexually interested in his son's wife? Or a young married man who begins to feel he might prefer not his own, perhaps immature, wife but her more mature mother?"
What indeed? The report goes on to say that such cases do arise and that the law cannot prevent this. That may be so in some cases, but that seems to assume that the law has no educative or deterrent influence, and that it has nothing to do with the building up of the

959
climate of opinion. That also ignores the fact that every injury to the present law concerning the family, every weakening of it, tends to devalue the institution further, and to reduce its standing and importance. The present law is a guard against the exploitation of a younger person by an older. Indeed, it may be that in some cases that is also needed the other way round.
In the debate which immediately preceded this present Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, quoted from an advertisement put in a periodical by the Patent Office in which there was the phrase, "When new ideas are born they need protection". I should like to suggest to your Lordships that when a young couple marry that marriage needs protection, and it needs protection above all from the families of the two partners. That protection will be gravely weakened if this amendment were passed and the possibility of marriage between parents and the children were allowed.
The minority report again seems to me to put this very clearly and strongly. This amendment
"…would deprive the child-in-law of his or her safety of place as child in the new family into which he or she marries. When, for instance, a son brings his wife to his father's home, there is an underlying assumption that the daughter-in-law will assume a role in relation to her father-in-law which is exempt from sexual expectations. To admit the possibility of a future marriage between parent-in-law and child-in-law would be to undermine assumptions which make for the safety and comfort of the adult family."
May I again remind the Committee that the opposition which I voiced to this amendment is supported by the bishops as a whole, by the Free Church Federal Council, and by the Church in Wales which has similar obligations in regard to marriage as those of the Church of England. The Archbishop of York made it clear on Second Reading that if an amendment of this kind were carried he and other bishops would have to oppose the Bill.
At present we are happy to support this limited relaxation of the present law, but I hope that the arguments which I have tried to present as briefly as possible to the Committee at this late hour may suggest that there is a distinct difference between the issue of parents-in-law and children-in-law and the whole question of sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law.
Baroness Seear: May I ask the right reverend Prelate whether his opposition would be maintained if the Bill were limited to the deceased son's wife, and if there were no question of the divorced son's wife? In the event of the son having died, and the father-in-law himself being a widower, would the right reverend Prelate continue to believe that marriage should not take place?
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: I am not sure that I can answer that question without having time to think about it. My immediate reaction is that there is some difference between the two.
Baroness Seear: If I were to withdraw the amendment at this stage and to return at Report stage with this alternative, would that meet the approval of a large number of Members of the Committee?
Lord Meston: I suspect that that question was directed as much at me as at the Bench of Bishops
960
opposite. I certainly find myself unable to accept the amendment in its present form. Like the right reverend Prelate, I should need time to think about the ramifications of enabling a marriage in the circumstances suggested by my noble friend. But the question is not a simple one. These are very complex questions. One is dealing with complicated family structures. One has to remember that parents-in-law are not just parents-in-law; they become grandparents. The whole family structure can be completely destablised and distorted by a marriage of the kind which is suggested in this amendment.
I do not know whether that is sufficient answer at this stage to my noble friend. However, although I would keep an open mind at this stage, I would certainly invite her to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Seear: My olive branch having been rejected. I do not propose to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to divide the Committee.
7.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 24.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Denning, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bessborough, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Meston, L. [Teller.]

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chichester, Bp. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Hampton, L.

Selborne, E.

Hereford, Bp.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinton, E.

Lawrence, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Truro, Bp.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.4 p.m.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 12:
[Printed earlier: col. 939.]
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 12):
Page 1, line 17, after ("grandson") insert ("(whether his grandson is living or not)").
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I have to point out that if Amendment No. 13 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 5 and insert ("Where, apart from this Act, any matter affecting the validity of a marriage would fall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 16: Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("and nothing in this Act shall preclude the determination of that matter in accordance with that law").
Amendment No. 16 is simply part and parcel of the same alteration to Clause 1(5) of the Bill. The word "and" at the beginning of the words to be inserted in Amendment No. 16 has somehow crept in by mistake, and I invite noble Lords to read the amendments together as if the word "and" were not there. Essentially this is a drafting amendment, the effect of which is to produce a change of emphasis.
As at present drafted, Clause 1(5) disapplies Clause 1 everywhere in every case in which the court might otherwise, on established principles of private international law, apply Clause 1. This amendment would allow the court a freer rein and preserves the rules of private international law. It does not, however, seek to dictate to the court the principles of international law to be applied in any given case. Again, there is also an argument in support of this amendment that it is more consistent with preceding legislation, and in particular consistent with Section 14 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 16:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: With the Committee's approval, presumably we can take out the word "and" at the beginning of the sentence in this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On question, Whether Clause 1, as amended shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The reason that my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I gave notice of our intention to oppose the Question whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill is not out of disagreement over specific objections contained in the clause but because we doubt the validity of making changes in the law in such a piecemeal fashion.
On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Mishcon argued that the procedural aspects of legalising marriage within the degrees of affinity are at present very imperfect, and this is what his speech was mainly about. Indeed, I think that many other speakers have
962
agreed with that. Everyone has agreed that the present system of personal Bill procedure is objectionable, clumsy and expensive. My noble friend made a powerful speech on Second Reading arguing that, instead of bringing about changes in this piecemeal fashion, such as would be the case under Clause 1 of this Bill, we should concentrate on a more civilised procedure for dealing with all the cases of affinity. This of course could be done through the establishment of the family court.
Of one thing there can be no doubt. Support for the concept of a family court has been very strong indeed for a long time. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor announced on the Second Reading of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill that there should be a re-examination of the idea of a unified family court, and many noble and learned Lords have given support to that concept. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, supported it in the year 1946. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has also been a great advocate for the concept of the family court, starting his advocacy in 1954. There has been no lack of support for the concept and idea of a family court.
Here again, it is my submission that if family courts were set up—and I know that this has not had the agreement of Sir George Baker in the writing of the report, and has not got the support of some of the other advocates of a family court—one of the functions could be to investigate impediments on marriages. It has been argued against, but in my view it is something that would be a most appropriate function for it to serve.
The aim of all of us is to protect and help members of families at this time when formalised and conventional family structure is breaking down, and to make adjustments to prevent suffering and unhappiness for men, women and children who have been swept into this crisis which has occurred through the high rate of divorce in this country. Surely an important step must be towards the establishment of a unified family court.
My opposition to Clause 1 is not founded on deep, fundamental disagreement with the proposals contained in it, and not in a confrontational way, but I cannot give it my full support when what I really want is another method of dealing with the issue, which is to press on towards the real goal we should all have, and that is the establishment of the family court.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As the noble Baroness was kind enough to say, I have been a long time proponent of the institution of the family court. I proposed quite an elaborate structure in 1954 to the Morton Royal Commission. The concept has lately been gathering support significantly and encouragingly, particularly with the Law Society Family Law Committee, and now the Law Society itself.
I desire to say only two things. There is a great danger in treating the words "family court" as an open sesame which will solve all family problems. Secondly, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon,

963
used the words "family court" almost as an open sesame and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, in effect, "There are here some ascertained people who have a grievance. They have so far had to go to considerable difficulty and expense through the Personal Bill procedure. You do not solve those grievances, you do not remedy their disadvantages, by saying, 'We will throw the whole thing to a family court which does not yet exist, with no criteria at all save merely here is the Book of Leviticus; here is the Book of Common Prayer with a table of consanguinity and affinity; here is the admirable Seear Report with its majority and minority reports; here are some people who would like to marry in a way that the law does not permit at the moment. Now go ahead and decide'."
What the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said on that occasion was quite unanswerable. There is a difference of opinion in your Lordships' Committee as to how far we should go, but that we should go somewhere unites us all. It would be an abnegation of responsibility to say that we may some day get a family court which may, in some magical way, without any criteria at all, solve this problem by the wave of a wand. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships to support Clause 1.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: We have heard a debate about what I regard as a red herring in the context of this Bill, the involvement of the court. It does not matter what label you put on it. It may be a family court, it may be some other court, but at the end of the day you are asking the court to be involved in deciding whether people should, or should not, get married. As to the defects of that idea, I can do no better than refer your Lordships to the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in one of the earlier debates on 25th March 1981 at col. 1242 onwards.
To invest a court with a discretion to decide whether or not a couple should marry is a quite unworkable idea. What sort of criteria should that court apply, particularly a court which may well be attuned to apportion fault? What sort of evidence should that court receive? What sort of procedure should that court adopt?
You have a couple coming to the court and they both want the same thing! They are coming to a court which is used to dealing with things on an adversarial basis, and so you probably have to involve the expense of the Attorney General or the Queen's Proctor to act as devil's advocate. The example of New Zealand and Australia shows that the courts do not relish the task of making this sort of decision.
However sensitive our judges are, and in particular our Family Division judges who are most sensitive, they are not going to be used to this sort of task. The law will build up a set of precedents with hard cases making bad law. As it says simply in this report, if you have a freedom you should not have to argue for it before a court of law. It will involve expense, delay, embarrassment, anxiety and uncertainly for the couple involved: all the defects which presently exist in the personal Bill procedure which has been so roundly disapproved of on all sides.
964
The family court in itself is not a panacea. It does not matter what label you put on the court; if you decide to create a family court and ask ten different people what they have in mind for a family court, you will get ten different ideas. We understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department is going to put forward models for a family court in the spring, but certainly this Bill ought not to have to wait until the family court is created.
For all I know it may never be created. There are difficulties in the present system of family law as at present administered, but they are undoubtedly exaggerated. As the Booth Committee recently emphasised and illustrated, many of those difficulties can be removed by fine tuning. I therefore would distance myself from any suggestion that the sort of decisions which are required, or may be required in this Bill, should depend on the existence of a family court.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Marriage according to rites of Church of England or the Church in Wales]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("affinity") and insert ("the relationship of the persons to be married").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment, to produce consistency and clarity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amendment of s. 3 of Perjury Act 1911]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Seear: I do not propose to oppose the Question, That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amendment of Schedule 1 to Supreme Court Act 1981]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Seear: I do not propose to oppose the Question, That Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("1970") and insert ("1983").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is simply to remove an error in the Bill as drafted in the citation of the Marriage Acts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
In the Schedule:
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 33 not moved.]
On Question, Whether the schedule shall be agreed to?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have one question to ask about the schedule. I cannot find the reference, but I shall tell the noble Lord what my problem is. Why is there a provision that publication of banns should not apply to marriages under this Bill? It seems that it applies to all the other ways of publicising marriage or authorising marriage—licence and superintendant registrars' certificates—but why not the publication of banns?
Lord Meston: I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having given me some notice that he would raise this point. I hope I can now furnish him with an answer. I am told that procedural alterations would be required and they would be very complex. It would apparently be very difficult to deal with the challenges that might be created by a marriage proposed under this Bill. Secondly, I am told that the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer would have to be altered to cope. There are defects in discovery of impediments through the banns procedure. I refer the noble and learned Lord to Professor Cretney's excellent book on family law, where he deals with the problem in a succinct paragraph in which he observes that, whereas in the case of civil preliminaries the registrar may refuse to issue a licence unless he is satisfied by the production of written evidence that the necessary consents had been obtained, there is no analogous right in the ecclesiastical procedure. Hence, I gather, the need for fairly drastic amendment. He goes on to suggest as follows in the case of somebody under 18 who wants to marry without consent:
"The best advice to be given to a person under 18 who wishes to contract a marriage without his parents' consent is therefore to be married after publication of banns in church, preferably in a large town, where the incumbent does not take an officious view of his pastoral responsibilities, and where it is unlikely that members of the congregation will know the parties. Not only will the marriage be valid (in the absence of objection) but no criminal offence will have been committed. He may thus enjoy his married life in defiance of the policy of the law and without fear of penal sanctions.".
Having said all that, marriage in a church is not precluded under the Bill because a church wedding is still possible in appropriate circumstances with a common licence.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord has given quite a number of answers to my query, any of which would have been conclusive, so there is nothing for me to do except say "thank you".
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

SDI Research
8.26 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what relation they consider SDI research stands in to
966
SDI procurement and deployment, and to the viability of the ABM treaty.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the first week of December the Government were playing both Houses of Parliament and the press along. It had been reported for many months that there was shortly to be an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom about SDI research. The rumours that this was approaching became more frequent and firmer and on Thursday, 5th December, the Prime Minister said at Question Time that she hoped the agreement would be signed "before Christmas". It was signed before noon the next day and throughout that week various attempts by interested Members of both Houses to get some news out of the Government, not only of what might be in the agreement (which might have been difficult) but when it was likely to be signed, had been systematically stalled.
On the first possible day I asked leave to raise a Private Notice Question about this matter in the House. This was refused. It proved impossible to have a day for debate as far as the eye could see. I apologise now for bringing this Unstarred Question on so late. During the course of being refused a PNQ I discovered what I had not known before—namely that no PNQ has been allowed in this House at all since the autumn of 1983. However, this is a general point which perhaps it might be right to take up through the proper channels.
Later questions on the secret memorandum of understanding between this country and the United States on SDI research have drawn quite insufficient answers in both Houses. Therefore there is good justification for a short debate this evening.
On 13th December I asked the Government in this House whether they agreed with the United States Assistant Secretary of Defence, Richard Perle, that:
"if we are successful (in SDI research) we will be putting a dome over the Soviet Union, that's the correct image"—
and whether it was to that end that British firms and institutions would now be working? In a supplementary answer the noble Lord the Minister of State said:
"My Lords, I am afraid that the warped objectives to which the noble Lord referred"—
that is me—
"are the product of the noble Lord's imagination".—[Official Report, 13/12/85; col. 461.]
That is the kind of answer that not only gets us no further, it even lacks the contingent advantage of being true. The idea that SDI should be able to shoot down Soviet missiles over Soviet territory is part of the present United States purpose, and the reason is obvious. It is that that would be the best place for the uranium and plutonium in the destroyed Soviet warheads to land. I can hardly believe that the Minister of State did not know that at that time. The history of the SDI proposal is well enough known. I will not trouble the House with any elements of it for the sixth time in the last three years. The moral of that history is that there is no doubt whatsoever that both the United States and the Soviet Union have been working on ballistic missile defence for many

967
years—for decades. It is not a case of only the Soviet Union doing so or only the United States doing so. They have both been doing so.
But it was the United States which, nearly three years ago now, suddenly decided to make it very big business indeed. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, is not with us this evening. I should like, if I may, to quote something which I hope he himself would have quoted had he been here. That is something that he wrote in a recent article:
"Had anyone other than the American president ever invited scientists to try to render 'nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete', the suggestion would probably have attracted no more attention than had they been asked to square the circle or solve the problem of perpetual motion".
That is written with an acerbity which is permitted only to people who have quite outstanding wisdom and experience but, since it is permitted to such people and since that is exactly what Lord Zuckerman has, the rest of us had better think pretty hard about what he says.
Will it work, SDI, this hair-trigger automation with the astronomical loss of life at stake? Scientists are divided. We have another expert to hand, one which perhaps is easier to understand, especially to the present Government, than conflicting scientists. It is a market expert and that market is the insurance market. Space insurance of any sort whatever is unobtainable now. It was unobtainable even before the recent shuttle disaster. Think how unattainable it will be in an SDI world! Think how the anti-ballistic missile defences themselves envisaged by SDI if they had been there would have reacted to the shuttle disaster! What would they have done on hair-trigger automation? Think also, of course, of the fact that the shuttle itself was carrying SDI experimentation into space. it was a partly-military mission.
Today, I think we should be more concerned with what happens in the unlikely event that SDI does turn out to work. The noble Lord the Minister of State thinks that it will. On 21st January, in answer to a parliamentary Question, he said that history leads us to suppose that it will. If he believes that most well-funded programmes of physical research have in the past succeeded or even if he believes that their success rate has been unrelated to informed estimates of the probability of their success before they started, then he and no doubt many others need briefing in the history of science as well as in the present actualities of science.
It is not likely to succeed but it may; and we must ask whether we should be in it given the possibility that it may succeed. Where do we stand? We are being dragged along behind the United States chariot. This is not surprising given the holds, the manifold holds, in related matters, defence matters, that the United States has over us, starting with the fact that our own submarine force is now dependent on fuel reprocessing in the United States, when just a turn of the tap will suffice.
The Prime Minister has supported research right from the beginning. I expect it to have been correctly guessed that she did so on a reflex action simply to support President Reagan against the "wets" and
968
because nobody could tell her that the research was actually illegal. But it has all gone on. We now have this secret memorandum of understanding, the first and so far the only one concluded by the United States with any of its allies. We now have Secretary Weinberger speaking of recent support in Britain for SDI, not for SDI research. Of course that is what he speaks of. Did we expect him not to?
We have conferred a certain alliance status on this American programme, we and we alone. We now have Mr. Lamont in the House of Commons calling the SDI participation office in our own Ministry of Defence the counterpart of the SDI office in the Pentagon, as if we were in this together on equal terms. And all the time the Government have not spent a single pound on unclassified research or studies into what the British, let alone the European, interest in having this thing could possibly be.
The Government have spent nothing on research as to whether it would increase or decrease strategic stability. They are doing a classified study of something called "European architecture". In so far as we can attach any meaning to that expression, we must attach the meaning which would make it clearly against the ABM treaty. The ABM treaty forbids the passing of blueprints, knowledge or equipment about ballistic missile defence to any ally. We are being dragged along by a juggernaut which is accelerating. In the latest Pentagon annual defence guidance document the SDI has been promoted—it was not there last year—to top priority, a position it shares only with the modernisation of the US nuclear armoury itself. Of course that is what it shares it with! What else would it share it with?
This promotion within the Pentagon is to shield the SDI from the new congressional drive for a balanced budget. You can even now in the press watch the Washington "hawks" as they jostle to get the President to take steps which in practice will bind his successor to carry on, whoever he is.
My Unstarred Question is in particular about the relationship of SDI if it comes about to the ABM treaty. Mr. Timothy Renton, Minister of State in the Foreign Office, said in the House of Commons on 8th December:
"Neither the partial test ban treaty nor the space treaty prohibits the development of directed energy weapons in space".
One of the cornerstones of the SDI programme is the X-ray laser. This has to be powered by a nuclear explosion or explosions. Is it conceivable to think that such a thing could become operational without being tested in its operational environment, namely, space? The partial test ban does prohibit this. The nuclear-powered X-ray laser will also be capable of striking downwards to create fire storms in cities—capable of! A firm called R and D Associates of California (which used to be more famous under the name of Rand) has carried out a study coming to this conclusion which the Government pooh-pooed. But I think it is quite a long time since Rand turned out wrong on this sort of technological forecast.
If that is right then the nuclear-powered X-ray laser is a weapon of mass destruction and it is consequently also against the space treaty. Ministers, I submit,

969
should be alert in this field and not legalistic. The facility at Fylingdales is being turned by the United States, which runs it, into a phased array radar. That is what the famous radio station at Krasnoyarsk in the Soviet Union is. We object to Krasnoyarsk because it is a phased array station not on the periphery of a signatory of the ABM treaty—the Soviet Union. Why should we believe that the up-dated Fylingdales will be in accordance with the ABM treaty? It will be a phased array radar not on the periphery of a signatory of the ABM treaty. Britain is not a signatory; the United States is. The Yorkshire Moors are not on the periphery of the United States. May we hope that the Government will meet this criticism in a forthright manner.
The ABM treaty prohibits the transfer to non-signatories of technical descriptions and blueprints. Has it occurred to the Government that this gives United Kingdom industry working on SDI research a commercial interest in the destruction of the treaty as soon as it begins to bite where it was intended to bite? SDI also stands in the way of a comprehensive test ban, which I think we all desire, or ought to desire, because if the Soviet Union were to get their own SDI, as they no doubt would in time, we would need to re-think our own Trident warheads. The Government claim that the Trident can cope with anything the Russians can produce in the line of BMD, but they were saying that before this immense pressure had begun to be brought to bear on the Russians precisely to get their own SDI.
Lastly, and most important of all—I will not go into this again, because I have explained it so often—the SDI contributes, not to strategic stability but to strategic instability. If there is any doubt left in the Government's mind, may I recommend to them the recent studies conducted by Messrs. Kent and Mayer—two separate studies. They are fairly conclusive. The secret memorandum of understanding replaces the 1975 secret memorandum of understanding on defence trade in general, which was not due to expire until 1995. I think the House would be interested to know why it has been appropriate to withdraw a general understanding and replace it by one mainly centred on SDI. The memorandum of understanding waives the national laws in both countries about buying American and buying British, and about the balance of payments programme requirements in the United States. It provides for a flow of information between governments. It is not clear whether it seals off the flow of information between the United States Government and United States industrial exploitation in general. I think we should worry about this, in view of the fact that it is intended to be a secret memorandum of understanding and the bits I have just quoted have already been published in the United States press.
There is a general suspicion in industry in both countries that the United States may be going to cream off our ideas now, and that we shall find there is no return when it comes to bulk purchases which are economically interesting. In this context, I should like to ask the Government to give us news of what has happened to the special office in the Ministry of
970
Defence which was to ensure a two-way street in the Trident programme procurement.
It is also interesting that the first contract between the United States Government and any British firm for SDI research did not go through this memorandum of understanding it all; it by-passed the Ministry of Defence. It was a contract for optical computers signed by Messrs. Ferranti—a British firm. Optical computers will be used for the nuclear-powered laser X-ray above all other things. In other words, if they are procured or deployed they will break the ABM treaty. According to general US industrial studies at the moment, Europe can expect to get about 1 per cent. of SDI expenditure. If that is right, I wonder what percentage of the 1 per cent. will be coming Britain's way. I also wonder what effect the new congressional resistance to any of the work going to Europe at all, which is beginning to be felt, will have. In Congress they have now heard of British participation, and not all of them like it by any means.
To sum up, SDI should not be looked at in isolation, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in a wise speech as Secretary-General of NATO on 28th December. The Soviet Union has now, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington foresaw in that speech, launched an unprecedentedly realistic disarmament proposal which has moved away from the original Soviet all-out requirement of a ban on SDI research, but is still, of course, conditional on no procurement or deployment. In the view of many the Government must, in the interests of this country, dissociate themselves from the determination of the President of the United States that SDI shall not be on a disarmament negotiating table. They must bring him back to his own commitment, entered into jointly with the Soviet Union, to prevent an arms race in space, because if this country does not do it, why should we expect any other country in the world to do it?
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on raising in your Lordships' House the important Question standing in his name. The Question is concerned with relations. I myself am not competent to speak about strategic relations, nor am I competent to talk technologically about relations of components to anti-ballistic missiles and the like. However, I intend to address myself to moral relations in this matter.
The treaty on the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, signed by President Nixon and Mr. Brezhnev on 26th May, 1972, was an important agreement between two super-powers to limit useless expenditure and to decrease international tension. The picture that President Reagan has painted of the morality of ABM nuclear defence beyond what is allowed in that treaty is very beguiling. It seems at first sight so sensible to research, develop and deploy weapons which would make nuclear missiles of no avail in war, because they would be shot down or exploded before they could do their devastating damage. It seems so sensible to prefer that kind of defence to the dangers of nuclear

971
deterrence which results, as we know, in an arms race in nuclear missiles.
But, in fact, even if a successful deployment of anti-ballistic missiles were to be possible, this would appear to the other side to be an offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon, because it would enable the side which possessed it to initiate a pre-emptive strike with impunity. Furthermore, it could not defend a country from attack by cruise missiles or submarine-launched missiles. And so, for all the high-sounding rhetoric, and perhaps I should add for all the goodwill which may underlie it, the claims of SDI to a higher morality than nuclear deterrence are quite unfounded. Indeed, because SDI introduces a new element of instability it could be said on moral grounds to be retrogressive.
Article 5(1) of the ABM treaty states unequivocally:
"Each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, space-based or mobile land-based."
That seems to me to be clear enough. It is therefore a matter of deep concern when the head of the National Security Council of our chief ally, the USA, said that no aspect of the development of space-based BMD components is prohibited under the 1972 treaty, and that the treaty only referred to the technology which was available then.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in a very revealing extended review in the New York Review of Books, this statement not only showed an intended breach of the present treaty, but also a new version of the treaty. Before development of space-based ABM systems or components can take place, it is necessary to give six months' notice of withdrawal from the treaty under Article 8. To do that would destabilise even further the situation brought about by the massive increase in expenditure in the American SDI.
I realise how much we depend upon our chief ally in matters of defence and the close relationship that exists between us. Nonetheless, I believe that we have to point out that the intention to develop SDI is contrary to the treaty and against the best interests of international peace. Indeed, it is hard to understand how matters have progressed to the present situation, unless we assume that major vested interests are at stake. According to the New Scientist, Boeing has SDI contracts of 217 million dollars, McDonnell Douglas of 122 million dollars, and Lockheed of 0·5 billion dollars. It would seem that the careers of too many people, and the profits of too many defence corporations, are involved to halt what Mr. Gorbachev has called "an illusion". I find it a tragic and terrible situation when a description by a potential enemy whose word one does not always trust seems more sensible than those of one's chief ally.
It is sometimes said that research is quite different from development, and that it is not research but development that is forbidden under the ABM treaty. It is further said that the Russians are deeply engaged in development and that they have already breached the ABM treaty. These matters are not so clear as they appear to certain people. In the first place, research means inquiry into the fundamental principles and practice of a project. Development means
972
experimentation with the practice to see whether it works in conditions other than that of the experimental laboratory, while deployment means the procurement of weapons and their installation for operational purposes. These are not just my own personal definitions. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary describes research as "careful search or enquiry"; development as "fuller working out" or "stage of advancement"; and to "deploy" as "to bring into effective operation". To fudge the meaning of these words is to breach a solemn treaty, and seems to me on objective grounds to constitute a serious moral objection.
But what of the claims that this is just what the Russians are doing? I would refer Members of your Lordships' House to Question Time on 21st January when the noble Lord the Minister agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, that it was a respectable view that the Russians spent as much on anti-aircraft as they do on anti-ballistic missile research. Further, the noble Lord did not answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that much of their re-search on lasers, phased array systems and so on are just as likely to be connected with other spheres of defence as with SDI systems. From his silence I take it he agreed.
As for the charges that the Russians have already broken the ABM treaty, specific charges are spelled out in American publications, and the October number of the NATO Review suggests that Soviet success in research would call in question NATO's policy of flexible response. We do not know, I presume, how far the Russians have advanced their research, but at least they have offered to stop their work at Krasnoyarask if the Americans stop their development in the United Kingdom and the Thule in Greenland. It seems to me hardly likely that the Russians would invest large resources of men and money into systems which their leader has publicly called "an illusion".
I cannot see that these considerations in any way alter the moral judgment against major work on SDI: for what is the point of research if it does not lead to development and deployment in breach of the treaty? It may turn out—I hate to say this—that the tragic demise of the shuttle "Challenger" is a blessing in disguise if it prevents or delays the development of SDI.
I have tried to speak about the morality of the development and deployment of SDI. I now turn to consider in this connection the morality of research into SDI components and systems. I take it that we are here concerned, as one possibility, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has mentioned, with a nuclear pumped laser beam, which derives its sources or "pump" of energy from a 100 kiloton nuclear device; and because a satellite containing such a laser, if permanently in position, would be vulnerable to space mines or deceived by decoy launches, it would be kept in a submarine and "popped up" or launched into space on the command of surveillance satellites which registered Russian nuclear missiles rising from their launch pads.
There are grave moral problems about SDI deployment of these laser beams which reflect also

973
upon the morality of their research; because research is pointless unless it is oriented towards development and deployment. What are these moral problems? In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has indicated these X-ray laser beams need for their energy pump the detonation of a nuclear bomb. That in itself is a grave consideration. Secondly, the system could not be tested without the detonation of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. That is morally unacceptable. Thirdly, the command to "pop-up" a laser station, and to detonate a nuclear device, would be given automatically by a surveillance satellite. There would be no time for human involvement, except for a minimum; and if there were, there would be insufficient time for human decision making. I conclude therefore that X-ray laser beam nuclear pumped defence is morally unacceptable. I take it that there would be uncertainty whether the laser beams would actually be able to cause a nuclear missile to explode as they would be untested. That adds to the immorality of the system. I take it that this has already been recognised by our chief ally the United States of America since President Reagan, after the Geneva Summit, said that what the United States was researching on was a "non-nuclear defence system". However, we have as yet had no clear statement that research on the pop-up nuclear pumped X-ray laser beam has been dropped; and the sooner we hear it the better.
A second possibility lies in the chemical laser or excimer, which would eliminate missiles not by explosion, but by heat; or possibly there is the so-called electro-magnetic rail-gun, using intense magnetic fields to create the force to shoot small projectiles at very high velocity. Whether these and other wierd new weapons can be made effective only research and development could show. I certainly do not know. Clearly they could not be tested against Russian missiles except during war. Thus they would be untested.
Even more important is the question of how they would be deployed, even if they were to be researched and developed satisfactorily. They would have to be fired by the command of a super-computer which had precisely the right software—and that in itself is doubtful, because the software would need a precise and exact knowledge of Russian missiles, which I presume we do not have. Secondly, the supercomputer would have to link up surveillance, with the possibility that a quarter of a million objects could be aloft at one time. The computers would have to operate, I am informed by those who know, at between 10 million and a billion floating point operations per second. It is reckoned that the software would need to contain between 10 million and 100 million lines of error-free code.
The Pentagon's present Worldwide Military Command and Control System has 10 million lines of code. It has been plagued with errors, and it has been reckoned that 62 per cent. of all messages failed to get through. Errors are very common. IBM's 370 computer software contained 5,000 errors when it first came out. Whether it is possible to build super-computers which would oversee all that is involved in
974
surveillance, in distinguishing genuine nuclear missiles from decoys, in targeting lasers or rail-guns at more than 1,000 missiles, including MIRVED missiles at different layers of their flight, whether it is possible to allow for human intervention and also be sufficiently flexible to enable the system to continue if many of the terminals go out of action—whether such supercomputers can ever be made I am not in a position to know. Billions of dollars are being spent on their research. What is clear is that, if they can be constructed, we shall have a kind of anti-ballistic missile defence that is full of risk, untested in war-like conditions against the USSR, wide open to the possibility of error with automatic operation and the minimal of human control.
As we pass from research to development, from development to procurement, from procurement to deployment, at each step we are involved in greater breaches of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, unless of course we have given six months' notice of withdrawal—I should say not "we", but our ally. What is more, the risk vastly increases; the risk of technology untried and untested in the circumstances of war. Way back in 1977 the Council for Science and Society published the result of its work on The Acceptability of Risks. It concluded that, as there are no objective ways of deciding the acceptability of a risk in the public interest, it was better to concentrate on the fairness of a decision about a risk rather than the acceptability of the risk itself.
This is where we find ourselves in very deep trouble. In this country we have decided to participate in research for SDI, although our "Strategic Defence Initiative Office" at the Ministry of Defence is likely only to pick up the fragments which fall from the rich man's table. As a country, we are not likely to benefit in terms of security, first, because an SDI umbrella would not extend over this country; secondly, because under Article 9 each party to the agreement bound itself not to transfer to other states nor to deploy outside its national territory ABM systems or their components limited by the treaty.
We have not been consulted about the risks involved in SDI research and development; in charges of breach of the treaty; in the instability that would ensue if SDI were to be successful; in starting an SDI race as well as an arms race; if SDI were actually tried out under conditions of warfare; in laser beams being used not just against nuclear missiles but to incinerate enemy cities; and about the risks involved for the whole world, including the developing world, if billions of dollars badly needed for basic human needs are squandered on what seems a mistaken and dangerous exercise.
If the public knew the facts, I do not believe that they would be prepared to entrust their destiny to a computer network known not to be free from errors in its software. There is a moral question here: how far is it right to continue to support an ally—a generous ally on whose defence we rely—in an undertaking that, by moral reasoning, to say nothing of strategic analysis and technological appraisal, seems fundamentally wrong-headed? When the noble Lord the Minister answers, I hope very much that he will address himself

975
to the moral aspects of the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as well as to its strategic and technical aspects.
9.1 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this subject again. As I said in the noble Lord's previous SDI debate in May of last year, I am not only in favour of the United States going ahead with SDI research—and I emphasise the word "research"—but consider it essential. I shall not repeat what I said then about military space systems and about the views of Dr. Geoffrey Pardoe, so well deployed in his book The Future of Space Technology. As I have said before, this is a case where perhaps I know either too much or too little. However, I believe it is timely to remind ourselves of one or two features surrounding this question.
SDI is indeed an initiative: an initiative to engage in a wide range of research to explore whether it is technically, economically and logistically practicable to deploy an array of complex orbital battle stations with a capability to destroy other spacecraft or, even more difficult, a salvo of enemy ballistic missiles. But with reference to the noble Lord's specific Question, I would say this. Until we know the nature of the problems and the possible solutions, it is impossible to presume that we shall procure and deploy operational systems. As the ABM agreements do not preclude research, the question of contravention can in my view only arise should the research lead to possible deployment of new defence systems—and we are many steps away from that position.
As my noble friend Lady Young said in last May's debate, the whole point of the SDI research programme is to establish whether advances are possible that would make reliance on defence systems a feasible option. There is great confusion in some minds on this issue of the SDI. First, much of the technology—data handling, opto-electronics, etc—has nothing to do with space. It happens to be needed to work in a spacecraft environment if we do get around to needing it.
Secondly, the range of stimulating SDI research is very wide and much is relevant in the non-space defence field—as I shall mention later—and, indeed, elsewhere in the civil domain. He who appreciates where the technology applications are valid is indeed in a very strong cost-benefit situation.
As I have said before, we must pursue the research phase of SDI, and this will require research and demonstration in the space environment. We shall need launchers of both expendable and recoverable types in order to get there. At this poiint—and unlike the right reverend Prelate in his very eloquent speech—may I take this opportunity of expressing the deepest sympathy for all in the United States who, professionally and personally, have suffered so traumatically from the recent shuttle disaster.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, it says very much for the care and safety-consciousness of NASA and its contractors that in 25 years, those are the first deaths to occur in space in a United States space mission. As this week's Economist points out, compared with the number of deaths in the first 25 years of pioneering aviation, that is a safer record than anyone had a right to expect. I support totally the views expressed by President Reagan that we must all continue to move forward in the field of space endeavour, in spite of that disaster. Indeed, I am glad to read in this evening's Standard that the shuttle may fly again by the summer.
Man must go on exploring, not only this planet but also the universe itself. We must be grateful to those pioneers who will enable us to know whether SDI will provide us with more security in future years. Nor must we forget, as I mentioned earlier, the several spin-offs and how the shuttle has, in the words of Christopher Thomas in The Times of 30th January, made life on earth better, whether in helping farmers or those employed in medical research, in genetics, in the growing of proteins, or in the study of viruses.
As Christopher Thomas says, the commercial potential of the shuttle seems limitless, especially in so far as developing tougher materials is concerned and the production of microscopic latex spheres which measure everything from blood cells to ingredients in cosmetics. As we know, the satellite communications business is booming; worth 3 billion dollars last year whereas 10 years ago it hardly existed. Moreover, as George Shultz, the American Secretary of State, said to the Pilgrims on 10th December:
"the revolution in technology is already under way; and prudence clearly requires that we examine all new possibilities. Certainly the Soviets are doing so. Technology does not stop; history does not stop; the balance of power keeps changing its form".
All of us who care about avoiding war and preserving peace must adapt our thinking to new conditions, especially when the new conditions offer a hopeful opportunity and a positive vision of a safer future.
SDI is going to happen anyway, whether we approve or disapprove, and I believe that as a country it is far better for us to participate than to be left out in the cold. At the same time, I should be interested in the views of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on EUREKA, which is the European Community's own independent space defence initiative, and how far we are now participating in it. I believe we are participating in EUREKA as well as in the American space defence initiative.
I will not repeat what I said on this subject in May last but I shall be interested to hear whether my noble friend has anything to add to what my noble friend Lady Young said on that occasion. But, in so far as the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is concerned, as I said earlier it is impossible to presume that we shall procure and deploy operational systems and ABM agreements do not preclude research.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I do not find myself able to follow the noble Earl very far down the road which he treads in this matter.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I was not expecting it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Earl was not expecting me to do so and I am glad of that because if I were to do so it would only be at the risk of fracturing a friendship which I have grown to value; therefore, I shall not pursue it very far.
However, I agree with the noble Earl on one aspect; that is, all of us whatever our views cannot but be shaken and sorrowful about the disaster which overtook "Challenger" and its crew. We cannot refrain from having the most profound sympathy, particularly for the relatives of all of them. I shall say a word about that in a moment.
First I should like to join in the appreciation which has been uttered to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this matter once again. It is a matter of profound importance and we have not made an awful lot of progress on it. Therefore, it is right while we have a deep disagreement and feeling that the Government have not grasped the reality of the matter that we should continue to question it; and that, of course, is what we are here to do.
I was particularly glad to hear from the right reverend Prelate, because his presence introduced into the subject a moral note which I believe has been sadly lacking from these debates. We have been proceeding on the assumption that this is a weapon like any other weapon. It is not. It is a profoundly different change in the possibilities before mankind, and the impossibilities before mankind. If we do not recognise that fact we may fall into the trap which the noble Earl indicated when he expressed the view that because we know how to do something we must go ahead and do it. We have reached the point when we must know that there are some things which we must not do, and we are now at that point.
The star wars idea has wide appeal in the United States but in most of the rest of the world it has gone down like a lead balloon. The distribution of opinion in this House probably reflects roughly the distribution of opinion in the country. I think the people of this country are not in favour of it. What I have seen of the opinion polls on the subject seems to support that view. The strategic defence initiative was named star wars by the President himself, who has that optimistic naiveté which is such an attractive—
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way, may I ask him on what possible authority he states that President Reagan called his programme star wars? It is a designation which he loathes and in fact it was invented by a headline writer on one of the American national newspapers.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord may be right, but my information was that it was tossed off first by President Reagan and picked up by the headline writer. I do not think it matters very much. It is not very important, but if the noble Lord thinks it is important I shall certainly attribute it to the
978
headline writer rather than to President Reagan. Whether or not he actually coined or adopted the name, the whole star wars attitude and the acceptance of the proposition that it is possible to erect a cover over the United States to preserve its people is typical, I think, of what I call an attractive and peculiarly American characteristic. It is a characteristic which has often led them to total disaster in the past and will lead them to ultimate disaster if they proceed with it at this point. As the noble Earl has said, the most recent catastrophe was the tragic loss of the spacecraft and its crew. I think it is a loss which those of us who feel that "Challenger" was flung into space by the Pentagon because of its SDI links find a horrible and senseless waste of valuable lives.
A year ago our Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, greeted the SDI announcement with proper scepticism. He seemed somewhat less confident about the matter than the Minister who will reply to the debate. However, nothing has happened since a year ago which seems to be a cause for increased confidence. I should have thought, on the contrary, that if one had any confidence a year ago one would have rather less confidence now. Therefore, I am surprised to hear that the noble Lord believes that star wars can work. Indeed, if it were to work I am not at all sure that it would not be worse than if it did not work.
Sir Geoffrey Howe asked a number of questions, and none of those questions seems to me to have been answered. He asked if it would work and what would be its impact on the Soviet Union. Some of the answers are becoming clear. We are beginning to know what is the impact on the Soviet Union—and some noble Lords may say, "Well, they are putting forward all kinds of peace proposals and therefore it has been a good impact". But, of course, simultaneously with those proposals which they are putting forward, as a cautious nation they, too, are beginning to step up the kind of development which is now being pressed on with in the United States.
I fear that this will not prove to be a peace umbrella but is likely to lead to the destruction of our civilisation by precipitating a nuclear war. As Sir Geoffrey Howe said:
"Even if the ballistic missile indeed showed signs of becoming, in President Reagan's words, impotent and obsolete, how would protection be extended against the non-ballistic nuclear threat, the threat posed by aircraft or cruise missiles, battlefield weapons or, in the last resort, by covert action …?"
Again he said:
"If it initially proved feasible to construct only limited defences, these would be bound to be more vulnerable than a comprehensive system to counter-measures. Would these holes in the dyke produce and even encourage a nuclear flood …?"
So the Foreign Secretary a year ago was saying in effect what I have said, in rather blunter words perhaps, tonight: that this development, instead of leading toward peace and protection, may render nuclear war more likely. That is not my opinion, but the Foreign Secretary speaking.
Leaving the Foreign Secretary on one side for a moment, it is generally accepted that multiplying offensive systems would be far cheaper than producing effective defences. Therefore we must surely expect to see a large expansion of offensive systems on both

979
sides. This expansion will be undertaken in the hope of maintaining retaliatory capability—that is, strategic stability through mutually assured destruction—while the development is taking place. Yet further expansion of new weapons and the associated command, communications, control and intelligence systems will lead many people to wonder if stability is in fact being lost rather than gained in the process. That is one of the dangers, and it is the immediate danger.
Hence the force of another of Sir Geoffrey's questions, the true strength of which did not seem to be fully recognised at the time either by the members of his Government or by those of us who were surprised to find that he was taking a sceptical view of the new idea. He said:
"Finally on the technology side, could we be certain that the new systems would permit adequate political control over both nuclear weapons and defensive systems, or might we find ourselves in a situation where the peace of the world rested solely upon computers and automatic decision-making?"
What have we been saying here today; what has the right reverend Prelate been saying, and what has the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, been saying? It is precisely that. Because it was said a year ago by none other than the Foreign Secretary, that does not invalidate what we are saying tonight; it strengthens it, and what we are saying strengthens what he was saying a year ago.
What has happened to him in that year? Let us hope that we shall hear from him. In this dreadful situation there is a natural disagreement between those responsible for defence and those responsible for foreign policy. It happens in the United States. We know that the hawks are located in the Defense Department and the doves, in so far as there are any, in the State Department. The same applies in our society: the Ministry of Defence is hawkish and the doves, so far as we have them, are in the Foreign Office. That perhaps should not surprise us.
Here is the problem that faces us. I turn from the Foreign Secretary to something said by Dr. Julie Dahlitz, who is a considerable expert in the international significance of weapons and the consequence of national treaties. She points out that most of the significant treaties relating to outer space are being observed, and that SALT II is being observed by the United States, even though it did not ratify it. There has been no complaint on either side about breach. She says that the outer space treaty, the ABM treaty, the partial test-ban treaty, the SALT I treaty, the SALT II treaty, the convention on the registration of outer space objects, the international telecommunications convention, the hot line modernization agreement and the nuclear accidents agreement have for several years all been observed on both sides and there has been no complaint on either side about non-observation.
Dr. Dahlitz takes the view that the arrival of SDI would break through that situation because the Americans have declared openly that they intend, if necessary, to breach the ABM treaty. It may be doubted whether we have chapter and verse for that contention, but we have. Secretary Weinberger was asked in Congress by Congressman Dicks:
"At what point do you envision working on SDI coming into conflict with the terms of the ABM treaty?"
980
This was his answer:
"we … have the right to withdraw from that treaty unilaterally after 6 months' notice so as to enable us to proceed along the lines the scientists would be requesting".
So Secretary Weinberger already foresees denouncing the ABM treaty if developments make it scientifically necessary to proceed with Star Wars and to do so.
It is not too happy a situation. The conclusion that Dr. Dahlitz draws is that,
"SDI is inconsistent with the objectives of the ABM treaty and its implementation would be in breach of specific provisions of that treaty".
That is absolutely the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is raising in this Question. The object of that treaty was and is to maintain conditions of stable deterrence until disarmament can be achieved. If we go ahead on a basis that calls into question the existing agreements, we are undermining the branch on which we sit; and we may—and I fear would—live to regret it.
We should also, I believe, consider that the Soviet Union has recently put forward a series of quite staggering proposals. I wish to quote in conclusion a short paragraph from the long speech that Mr. Gorbachev made on 15th January. I believe that most of us would agree with it. He said this:
"Instead of spending the next 10 to 15 years in developing new space weapons, which are extremely dangerous for mankind, weapons allegedly designed to make nuclear arms unnecessary, would it not be more sensible to start eliminating those weapons and finally doing away with them altogether? The Soviet Union, I repeat, proposes precisely that".
9.26 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, once again, thanks to my noble friend Lord Kennet, we have the opportunity of considering the disastrous star wars project, launched some three years ago by a no doubt idealistic President of the United States, largely on the advice of the so-called father of the hydrogen bomb, the violently anti-Soviet Doctor Edward Teller. The project is also enthusiastically supported, on purely political grounds so far as we can see, by those mostly West Coast Republicans who are keen, above all, on heavy United States nuclear rearmament and who rightly see in it the possibility of scuppering the arms limitation talks at Geneva and the consequent abandonment of the proven doctrine of mutual assured destruction in favour of the so-called doctrine of mutual assured security, which, as I have said repeatedly in this House, affords no security for anyone except possibly the Americans and very doubtfully even for them.
On the actual practicability of the project, apart from its political implications, my honourable friend Mr. Paddy Ashdown, lately of the Foreign Service and the Royal Marines, has recently undertaken some research. I should like to refer to a number of his findings. Each of the SDI's three-layer operations to destroy missiles, first, as they boost out of the atmosphere, then, in mid-course flight and, finally, as they fall towards their target, will have to work perfectly first time and with flawless co-ordination—in itself something that is very difficult if not impossible to imagine.
Then, according to the initial calculations of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the

981
most reputable, I believe, of all the great American scientific institutions, chemical lasers to perform the first, or booster, defence would require the pre-positioning in space of 1,300 tonnes of fuel in a series of battle stations which would, it says, take 10 space shuttles making three trips a year, 3,000 or 4,000 years to assemble. Alternatively, using ground based lasers and mirrors in space to do the job would require up to 60 per cent. of total United States domestic power output. In any case, protection in the mid-course phase would, so the MIT says, necessitate what it calls cryogenically cooled instruments—whatever those may be, although they could, I suppose, be called super cooled instruments—many times more sensitive than any that we have at present. Studies indicate that for every 10,000 objects to be coped with in this layer, the United States would need 70,000 devices for effective interception.
Finally, we shall have to assume, apparently—the point has already been made, I believe, by one or two noble Lords—that computers capable of effective command and control of the massive and complex interlocking system can be built despite the fact that we shall require them to be, some say, several million times more effective than today's versions and faultless at first-time operation without any kind of practical testing.
I shall be interested to know whether the Government think that there may be something in these conclusions. If, as I suspect, the noble Lord who is to wind up cannot comment on them, perhaps I could have his comments later in writing.
Never mind. Let us still assume, for the purpose of the argument, that sufficient progress may have been made in the next five or 10 years—as I think was mentioned—as a result of the research costing perhaps some hundreds of billions of dollars, to make it possible that an ABM space system covering the United States, although not necessarily Europe, could successfully be "deployed"—as they say—as the result of an operation which, I imagine, would in itself take a few more years to carry out.
What then? All would be well. We need not have any apprehensions, so President Reagan tells Mrs. Thatcher at their famous meeting in Camp David. Before "deployment" the Americans, in accordance with the ABM treaty of 1972, would negotiate with the Russians presumably with the object of getting the Politburo to agree to the establishment of what would be represented as a purely defensive "shield". It has even been suggested—rather later I think—that if the Russians would agree to this they might be assisted in constructing—at their own expense of course—a rather similar shield in order to give similar protection to the Soviet Union.
Surely this is driving fantasy too far. Are we to suppose, having got to the point at which they might be able to prevent Soviet missiles from hitting the United States, that the Americans would then only deploy this marvellous system with the consent of the Russians? It certainly looks as if—short of an actual denunciation of the ABM Treaty of 1972 at six months' notice on the grounds under the treaty that for
982
some reason it may prejudice the supreme national interests of the United States—this would be the only legal way of proceeding. But it has now been made abundantly clear by the Administration that they could in no circumstances be subjected to what they call a Russian veto in these negotiations—that is to say, a refusal by the Russians to agree. They could, therefore, as we must assume, go ahead, treaty or no treaty, whatever the Russians might say. Naturally they have every reason to suppose that they would.
Indeed, how could Congress, after having voted such vast sums on a project within sight of success, agree to its being indefinitely held up by Russian insistence? Whatever we may think of Soviet intentions we must at least admit that the Russians have every reason to fear the accomplishment of the SDI project and to seek to prevent its development by all means in their power. Obviously, if it ever did materialise the Americans would have the capability of bombing them while they would no doubt not have the capability of bombing the Americans.
There are indeed, as I have said, strong reasons for supposing that it can never materialise at all. But the Russians can hardly fail—given the firm assurances to the contrary of Doctor Teller and many other top scientists working with him—to act on the assumption that it might work. What then can they do? It seems that there are three possible courses of action, all or any of which might be adopted. They can, and they no doubt will, refuse to conclude any deal on arms limitation until the SDI project is either withdrawn or substantially modified. I say "either wihdrawn or substantially modified": they could not and, in the absence of some such agreement, they no doubt would not, reduce the numbers of their very powerful strategic missiles but, on the contrary, would greatly increase them so as to counter any perceived threat by SDI. Or they could endeavour to make progress on a star wars project of their own.
The first two of these possibilities would seem to be almost inevitable in the circumstances contemplated. The last is very probably out of the question. Given the vast sums involved and the consequent strain on the Soviet economy, together with the faint hope of any real success, there is very little reason to suppose that that course would be followed. Alleged evidence that the Russians are even now contemplating it must, I suggest, be taken with a large grain of salt. Most of such evidence is based on Soviet efforts to reinforce a land-based ABM system, which of course is permitted by the treaty of 1972. The phased array radar station at Krasnoyarsk and perhaps elsewhere is probably a violation of the treaty, but perhaps not. In any case there is no particular reason for us to be very afraid of it.
The Americans, after all, now possess a perfectly reliable second strike capacity and there is every reason to suppose that, with their existing huge programme of nuclear rearmament, they will be able, even given agreement on arms limitation, to maintain this second strike capacity for many years to come. Suggestions that the Soviet Union might contemplate a first strike against America are chiefly put about by those who have an interest in doing so. Only if they thought that star wars would really become a reality

983
might the Russians contemplate such absurd action as a first strike against America.
To sum up an argument necessarily briefly developed—one cannot do any more here—perhaps I may say that there is strong reason to suppose both that the SDI project is ultimately doomed and that it must be a gravely destabilising factor. As I see it, the real danger is that persistence in its pursuit may endanger the continuance of the North Atlantic Alliance, on the maintenance of which most people in this country believe that our safety and our independence primarily depend.
I do not say now, but in some years' time, if progress in Geneva is seen to be held up by insistence on the star wars programme, there may be governments in Western Europe which no longer want to be "protected" by the United States nuclear umbrella, and may prefer—no doubt fatally, I agree—to come to some arrangement with the Soviet Union. I would ask the Government to tell us whether they feel there may be something in these gloomy apprehensions, but perhaps it has never occurred to them that there might be.
I have spoken for too long already, but my final remark is that, apart from the so-called "tough guys" in America—the Californians and no doubt the born-again Christians—there are I believe a very large number of Americans, more particularly on the East Coast, who are alarmed—indeed highly alarmed—by the apparent attempt, favoured by the distribution of a great deal of money to a great many people, either to get back to the position of power which the United States enjoyed when it had the monopoly of the atom bomb or, failing that, to establish a kind of "fortress America", the inhabitants of which could lead peaceful lives untroubled by the wicked world outside. The prospects raised by star wars are every bit as serious as that.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I should like to beg the indulgence of the House at the beginning of my remarks on two counts. The first is that I fear my speech may be slightly longer than would seem apropriate for someone speaking from the Back-Benches late at night on an Unstarred Question. The second is that what I have to say may be somewhat tedious and technical in content.
My justification for both these factors is that up to now it seems to me that the public debate on the strategic defence initiative has been long on rhetoric and dogma but a little short on fact and reasoned analysis. If I may say so with respect, I believe that the debate in your Lordships' House tonight has sometimes suffered from this defect. Not much of it dealt with the relationship between the strategic defence initiative and the ABM treaty, which I understood to be one of the major reasons for this Question being tabled in the first place. One or two speakers have referred to it, but for the most part we have had the familiar arguments about technical feasibility, about the effectiveness of the SDI as against mutual assured destruction and second strike capability; we had many references to Soviet arms control proposals, but only
984
on one or two occasions were we brought to address the problem of the relationship between the strategic defence initiative and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. We had suggestions that the x-ray laser lies at the heart of the strategic defence initiative programme. It does nothing of the kind. It is one of the possible elements in the programme. It certainly does not lie at the heart of it, and it certainly does not for one moment decide whether it shall be successful or unsuccessful.
We had a suggestion that we should take note of the idea that the SDI places a dome over the Soviet Union. It was suggested that the aim of the SDI was to do precisely this. Of course it is not. In any concept of strategic defence as at present envisaged only some 25 per cent. of Soviet missiles would be expected to be destroyed in the boost phase. The rest would be destroyed in the mid-course phase and the re-entry phase, which are not over the Soviet Union but in space over the United States of America.
We had a suggestion that it was obvious that to improve offensive capabilities was going to be cheaper and easier than improving defensive capabilities. That is not necessarily so. It is an interesting statement of opinion and one which can be countered with exactly the opposite statement of opinion, and that has been done on many occasions.
Before I go on to the substance of my remarks, I should like to refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate. When he began I must confess that I looked forward to some moral guidance on what is an extremely painful and difficult issue. I looked for it in vain. I fear that what we got from the right reverend Prelate was a rehearsal of all the familiar arguments which have been deployed against the strategic defence initiative in the technical and political field for at least the last two years. There was not one new argument there even on that basis, but for me at any rate there was certainly not a great deal of spiritual or moral guidance.
May I, again with great respect to the right reverend Prelate, tell him that it was with great sorrow that I heard him, of all people, refer to the tragedy of the "Challenger" space mission as "a blessing in disguise". The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, went on to refer to it as a "senseless waste". I would suggest that we might send from your Lordships' House messages a little more considerate and compassionate than those to the Government of the United States of America and its people.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I suspect that the noble Lord has not read, or considered, either the whole of what I said on that point or the whole of what the right reverend Prelate said.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, that may well be so as I have as yet read nothing of what either the noble Lord or the right reverend Prelate has said. I shall do so with great interest tomorrow morning. If I find I am wrong I shall at once apologise. I somehow suspect that I shall find myself right.

985
I have two qualifications, I think, for putting before your Lordships what I think may be some of the factual background to this somewhat passionate and rhetorical debate. The first is that I have recently completed a book on the strategic defence initiative. I lay no claim for any special merit in that book. I simply say that in preparing it I have had to engage in conversations with hundreds of officials on the subject and studied, I dare say, thousands of official papers.
My second qualification for addressing the subject of the ABM treaty which, as I say, I thought was to be at the heart of our debate tonight, is that in the period leading up to the signature of the treaty in May 1972 I was, for six years, Minister of State in the Government responsible for arms control and disarmament and head of the British delegation in Geneva.
I am not suggesting for one moment that I had any direct part in the negotiations. They were, of course, bilateral negotiations. I was, however, in constant touch with the arms contol communities on both sides during this crucial period, and I was able to get some idea of what their negotiating aims and positions were. As I shall try to point out, that is an important factor in analysing this complicated issue.
We should first and principally consider some of the facts. I apologise that some of these are tedious repetition, but I believe that they need to appear in the Official Report of this House where they can be seen and studied.
The ABM treaty consists of 16 articles and a number of what are called agreed statements. For the purpose of examining the relationship between the strategic defence initiative and the ABM treaty, four articles and one of the agreed statements are especially relevant: Articles II, III, V, and VII and Agreed Statement D. The right reverend Prelate quoted only one part of one article, clause 1 of Article V, but there are other clauses which are equally and perhaps in some respects more relevant. Let me first quote Clause I(A) of Article II which is vital in that it defines for the purpose of the treaty an ABM system. I propose, with the indulgence of the House, to read it:
"For the purpose of this Treaty an ABM system is a system to counter strategic ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory, currently consisting of: (a) ABM interceptor missiles"—
which are then defined—
"(b) ABM launchers"—
which are then defined—
"(c) ABM radars"—
which are then defined. It is important that those who wish to engage in this argument should study that article and definitions very carefully, since it can be argued that any system not covered by the definition is not covered by the treaty. That is my first point.
Under Article III each party to the treaty "undertakes not to deploy ABM systems or their components" except for a limited number of ground-based systems on each side.
Article V, which in my view is the key operative article of the treaty, makes the following provision; and it was Clause 1 of that article which was quoted by the right reverend Prelate:
986
"Each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based or mobile land-based".
In other words, the deployment of space-based defence systems is forbidden by Clause I of Article V. But the important point to note in the force of this argument is that research is not prohibited, largely because the negotiators in the conference at the time recognised that it would be quite impossible to enforce any such provision.
I will mention Article VII—although I shall not return to it—because it is an important article in the treaty. It reads:
"Subject to the provisions of this Treaty, modernisation and replacement of ABM systems or their components may be carried out".
That is a very important permissive provision.
Finally I want to quote, again in full, because it is most important in the context of public debate, Section D of the agreed statement, that is to say the section that is referred to as Agreed Statement D:
"In order to insure fulfilment of the obligation not to deploy ABM systems and their components except as provided in Article III of the Treaty, the parties agree"—
this is crucial to the argument—
"that in the event of ABM systems based on other physical principles and including components capable of substituting for ABM intercepter missiles, ABM launchers or ABM radars"—
in the event that ABM systems based on these physical principles
"are created in the future, specific limitations on such systems and their components would be subject to discussion in accordance with Articles XIII and XIV of the Treaty".
And Articles XIII and XIV deal with the possibility of amending the treaty by a special consultative commission.
A number of very important implications flow from these provisions. One is (and I think it is worth repeating) that research is recognised as being different from and distinguishable from development and deployment. It may be argued, as it has been here tonight and many times before, that research has some inbuilt momentum which will inevitably lead to development and deployment. That is a subjective, political, personal judgment and is not a fact. The fact is that research into space-based systems, which is what is going on in the USA at the moment, is permitted by the treaty. Development and deployment are not.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am listening with the greatest interest to the noble Lord's lengthy exposition of the fact that the ABM treaty permits research. Can he, as a matter of fact, tell the House of any Member of this House who has said the contrary, or indeed of any reputable opponent of SDI outside the House who has said the contrary?
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I could quote several cases of people saying that research is forbidden under the terms of the treaty because it will inevitably lead to development and deployment; and there are those who have suggested—and I do not say that the noble Lord has done so, but he asked the question—that the experimental research going on at the moment in the

987
United States itself is in breach of the treaty. I shall endeavour to show before I sit down that that it not so.
As I said, development and deployment are not permitted by the treaty. But development and deployment of what? Some eminent legal authorities—and of course we can all quote our own legal authorities—suggest that agreed Statement D allows ABM systems based on other physical principles, etc., to be deployed subject to discussion between signatories of the treaty. In other words, I am going on to suggest that not only is research permitted by the treaty but there is a very strong argument under agreed Statement D that development and deployment might be subject to discussion between the signatories to the treaty.
Of course the strategic defence initiative specifically envisages the kind of exotic technologies which are not covered in Article II of the treaty but are covered by agreed Statement D.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, it surely means that one side cannot go ahead without the permission of the other.
Lord Chalfont: Precisely, my Lords. Of course it does. The United States President has made clear (as I shall make clear again in a moment if the House will be patient for a short while longer) that he will not proceed to development and deployment without such discussion.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, it has now been said that in no circumstances will the American Administration subject themselves to a Russian veto in such discussions.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient, I will quote some facts to him which will make it clear, I think, that the United States takes a very restrictive view of the treaty and has said so. If the noble Lord will contain himself in patience for a moment, I will come to that point.
There are other experts who claim—and I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would be on their side—that the combined effect of Articles II and III is to prohibit the development of any space-based system designed to intercept strategic missiles in flight and that it is perverse to suggest that an agreed statement appended to a treaty can invalidate the intent of one of the principal articles of that treaty. Those are the two interpretations of the treaty, generally known as broad and narrow interpretations of the treaty.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I would say that I maintain that the treaty would prevent the development of exotic (as he calls them) new systems based on other principles in the absence of an agreement between the two signatories under the procedure laid down in agreed Statement D.
Lord Chalfont: Yes, precisely, my Lords. We are at one on this. I do not contest this with the noble Lord for one moment. What I am saying—and he will know, I hope—is that Articles 13 and 14 of the treaty provide for the treaty to be amended under a special Standing Consultative Commission and that, if the
988
two signatories of the treaty get together, they can interpret agreed statement D under the terms of Articles 13 and 14. Of course, it would be against the provisions of the treaty, clearly, if the United States were to proceed with development and deployment without such consultation. I do not contest that for one moment, but in a moment I will explain why I do not think that that is in the least likely.
I had wanted to say a little about what it was that the negotiators of the treaty were attempting to negotiate. I have not now time to do that, as an already long speech has been further lengthened by a series of interruptions. But I should like to pass on vey quickly to deal with the point about the "narrow" and "broad" conceptions of the treaty. It is that all these arguments have been to a very great extent resolved in the United States of America. It is true that in October last year, just before the Reagan-Gorbachev meeting, Mr. Robert MacFarlane, President Reagan's national security adviser, announced that the Administration favoured the "broad" interpretation of the treaty, according to which the testing and deployment of star wars systems would be permitted. This is the development to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has been referring. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said, Secretary Weinberger stated as a fact, not as a statement of intention, that the United States has the right to withdraw from the treaty, to abrogate it.
But what has received considerably less publicity, and certainly has received none in your Lordships' House tonight, is that within a matter of days after those two statements President Reagan had signed a new National Security Decision Directive making it specifically clear that, while the Administration accepted that there might be more flexible interpretations of the treaty, it, the Administration, would conduct the strategic defence research programme according to the narrower, more restrictive, interpretation. In other words, as he assured the right honourable Lady the Prime Minister at their meeting last year, this is a research programme only; and both the United States Department of Defense and the Strategic Defense Initiative Office are required by law to ensure that all their programmes comply not only with the ABM treaty but with all existing arms control agreements. The strategic defence research programme at present envisages 15 major experiments. Every single one complies fully with the requirements of the ABM treaty of 1972—and they do not, perhaps I may say in parenthesis, include experiments with X-ray lasers.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that we should return to this subject as often as possible. My own plea would be for a period of discreet silence on the subject of the strategic defence initiative. It is progressing very well, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has said. No amount of argument on this side of the Atlantic, even if it were to be ever so profound and informed, is likely to stand in its way. What we can do is to take a full and constructive part in it. In that way, we might be able to exert some influence if the Americans show any signs whatsoever of behaving dangerously or irresponsibly. So far there is no evidence to suggest that they are likely to do so.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, not for the first time I have appreciated and respected all the contributions in this debate. We are something of a repertory company. We not only know our own lines but other participants' lines as well. I very much appreciated the remarks of the right reverend Prelate. I immediately join in the oft expressed sorrow and regret at the horrendous tragedy which befell the "Challenger", her crew and the American people last week. It was a price no one should be expected to pay, and I mourn the loss of all the human lives and everything else that was concerned.
As we frequently are, tonight we are once more indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for using the procedures of this House to focus our attention on this most important area of national concern—nay, international concern. Earlier tonight the noble Lord reminded us that he has done so on six occasions. There are those of us who could quite cheerfully debate and discuss other highly contentious matters not far removed from defence procurement, and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is among them. But he has shown persistently over a long period that in the realm of defence matters an understanding if not a resolution of unanswered questions relating to SDI properly should appear on our agenda. It is not only an occasion to ask questions but for the Minister to come to the House to face this and related questions.
If not on trial at least equally under scrutiny in this debate is the whole raison d'être of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a matter that quite properly took up a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, had to tell us.
Perhaps one of the major achievements of the 1970s arms control negotiations, the ABM treaty was signed in 1972 and has been a source of controversy not least since the escalation of the SDI programme by the American Government. Born out of a genuine search for arms control, what we are about tonight is trying to reconcile some awkward questions which flow from an examination of ABM and SDI. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has gone some way to answering some of them in his speech tonight. The treaty did not come easy. It took three years of difficult negotiations during the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (the SALT talks) 14 years ago, and even then there were doubts. In retrospect it was ambitious. It bans a territorial ABM defence and permits the development, testing and deployment of fixed ground-based ABM radars. The development, testing or deployment of sea-based, air-based, or mobile land-based systems or of components for such systems is prohibited. As a number of noble Lords have said, research, however, is not restrained in any way.
Over that 14-year period great strides have been made in many areas relevant to ballistic missile defence, including advances in sensors, microelectronics and data processing. A factor emerging in later years has undoubtedly been a sense that strategic defences can be provided—developed—which are not only effective but are less costly. The SDI sets out to research the feasibility of new defence technologies.
990
That, of itself, cannot be bad, but we run into trouble when we face up to the reality of trust—or not—of suspicion, of an ability to work for the common purpose of global peace and security.
What we are about tonight is testing the uncertainties and distrusts which are now in the open arising from the diversions (the interpretations or reinterpretations) from the words of the ABM treaty. Equally we have to be clear as to the background and the understandings. Research, as I have shown, is not part of the ban, for the very good reason that both the United States and Soviet Union at the time and since have recognised that it would be impossible to devise effective or verifiable limits or bans on research. The Soviet Union is clearly on record as acknowledging this, perhaps for the very good reason that for years it has spent legitimately great effort and resources to research into new technologies, including high energy laser and particle beam weapons. The ABM treaty allowed each side freely to engage in research. Both are doing just that.
What, then, is the problem? It is posed in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, tonight—not least in the light of the statements made by Mr. Weinberger when he recently proposed a new interpretation of the ABM treaty that will permit testing and development as well as research.
There are two ways of looking at the SDI: first, to consider the threat that it poses to international stability and the potential for an escalation of the arms race; secondly, to consider the commercial value of the SDI to participating nations. The actions of the British Government, of course, are not only important but are of especial importance to this House, and are central to this debate. In that context, the memorandum signed by Her Majesty's Government with the United States last year must play a part in our deliberations.
Complete openness in matters of national security is not always possible or desirable, but we have been especially badly served in respect of that memorandum, which is, in all respects, a secret agreement of doubtful value to Britain. The suspicion will not go away that it is flawed, one-sided and not in the best national interest. That fear includes the suspicion that there will be a one-way traffic from Europe, and especially from Britain, across the Atlantic of our best brains, and the near certainty that we will gain nothing of significance out of it.
The Government have claimed that that agreement is much better than previous agreements with the United States on defence procurement, intelligence and other nuclear matters. There is a certain naïveté in believing that British research bodies will be given non-discriminatory access to the right to tender for research contracts. In a major speech to a subcommittee of the House of Representatives on 10th December last year entitled Barriers to European Participation in the SDI, John Pike, the associate director for space policy, said:
"During the course of recent negotiations the U S refused a British request for a commitment of 1·5 billion dollars for British companies, saying only that the level of participation would be

991
substantial. This American reluctance is quite understandable since the actual amount of money that British companies are likely to receive will probably be only a fraction of the requested amount".
That address was most illuminating. It listed six barriers to European—not only British—participation in the SDI research programme. Of a total of 30 billion dollars, only 1 billion is available, with conpetition—and that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—leaving 29 billion not available for Euro-competition.
I believe that it is still not too late for major reflection upon the entire concept of the strategic defence initiative. It was Senator Edward Kennedy who last September said:
"The SDI may yet turn out to be an expensive way to make arms control reachable. To put it another way, is a trillion dollar weapons programme the best way to arrive at arms cuts?"
There has now been the long-awaited, successful meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev. We can wonder whether the SDI research programme has not increased Russia's incentive to break out of the ABM treaty and deploy her own defence system before the Americans have theirs. I have seen the problem posed in this way. We should discourage the Soviet break-out by restraining SDI research, but a better way would be to revise and reaffirm the ABM treaty. If America allows that treaty to be eroded any further and then dicovers that the SDI is not "do-able"—that it does not work—then it could end up with the worst of all worlds: facing a Russian defence shield and strengthened Soviet attack with no arms treaty and no effective American defences.
We have to take on board not only what we ourselves think but what we are told by those in influential positions. It is less than three months ago that Robert MacFarlane, the Administration's national security adviser, announced a new interpretation of the ABM treaty. He said that not only was research into new weapons permitted by the treaty but so were testing and development. It was, however, George Shultz, the Secretary of State—a point made obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—who was quoted in the same report as persuading President Reagan to agree that for the time being America should stick to the traditional, narrower interpretation of the treaty.
The Administration has got itself into a contradictory position. On the one hand it is denouncing the Russians for violating the treaty and, on the other, it is suggesting that the treaty is in some respects meaningless. Yet Gerard Smith, who was the chief United States negotiator of the treaty in 1972, has denounced these reinterpretations. Last October he said that it had not been the intention that technology for space-based ABM systems could be developed or tested under the ABM treaty. He said:
"The new version of the treaty has drastic implications for the survival of the treaty and indeed of the whole arms control process".
I venture to say that even the Minister, and certainly many who have spoken earlier and who are here tonight, are genuinely agitated at the dangers that could exist arising from the opportunities for misunderstanding that exist. They have either been there all the time, from the beginning, or they are emerging and causing distress today.
992
My noble friend Lord Boston, speaking from the Labour Front Bench on 27th March last year, had this to say:
"But, my Lords, the question which has to be asked on research is: where does research end and development begin, let alone where does production, procurement or development begin? We need to be very clear indeed about this. There is no use in glossing over it or allowing ourselves to be swept beyond the point of research into something of substance. We need to be very clear about where research ends and something beyond it begins."—[Official Report, 27/3/85; col. 1132.]
That is the nub of the debate tonight. My noble friend returned to that theme in the debate on the Queen's Speech on 7th November.
The Prime Minister properly raised these misgivings, which are crucial and can have such catastrophic effects on what we all surely want—progress on arms control and, eventually, the total elimination of arms expenditure. I hope the House recognises that these are very serious questions which have been raised, primarily by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and by others. It ought to include the Prime Minister. When she visited Washington a little more than 12 months ago she stressed that British support for the SDI was limited to research into its feasibility and that any SDI-related deployment would, in view of ABM treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation. Again, that point was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I ask the Minister: what negotiations have taken place and what has been the outcome?
My noble friend Lord Jenkins referred to what at the time we all thought was a very sensible speech by the Foreign Secretary last year. In that speech he said that the first point to make was that this was a research programme, conducted in full conformity within the limits of the ABM treaty. But what should happen if and when decisions were required on moving from the research to the development stage? Therefore the noble Lord the Minister should welcome this debate, as I do, and the opportunity to review a little bit of recent history.
What I want to hear from the Minister is that we have cause for disquiet or that he can dispel our disquiet; that he shares the views we have expressed tonight; that the questions are legitimate and have to be answered. If Her Majesty's Government, over-mindful of what they fondly believe is a special relationship with the United States, are hesitant to raise these matters in critical terms with the United States Administration, he should be fortified by the tenor of our debate tonight. He should keep firmly fixed as central to our ambition the desperate need to reach agreement on arms control.
If the initiatives of the United States with the SDI are seen to jeopardise that goal, he will be serving the best interests of the peoples of the world, who yearn for world peace, and the special relationship by telling America to tread with the greatest possible care, to take Britain with it and above all to take the Soviet Union with it; for unless that happens we are condemned to many more sterile years of senseless arms expenditure while millions in the world starve.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is right to return to this important question.

993
We have debated the strategic defence initiative and its implications a number of times in this House, and I dare say we shall do so on many occasions in the future.
It is now almost three years since President Reagan's famous speech of March 1983 which launched the strategic defence initiative, and the research programme is now well established. SDI research is inquiring into a wide range of technologies and a number of different concepts. The US Administration has made it clear that its purpose is to identify ways to exploit recent advances in ballistic missile technologies that have potential for strengthening deterrence and thereby increasing US and Allied security. The programme is designed to answer a number of fundamental scientific and engineering questions that must be addressed before the potential of these technologies can be fully assessed. It is designed to provide to future leaders the technical knowledge necessary to support a decision in the 1990s on whether to develop and deploy advanced defensive systems.
There are a number of reasons why it is entirely right that the US should be conducting such a research programme. Not the least of them is the enormous extent of Soviet activities in these areas. As your Lordships may recall from the starred Question on this subject by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing on the 21st January, the Soviet Union has mature research programmes under way in most of the fields relevant to a defence capability against ballistic missiles. They have had an extensive R & D programme into high energy lasers for over 20 years, employing more than 10,000 scientists and engineers. They have tested lasers which could have anti-satellite applications. There is a vigorous R & D programme into particle-beam weapons which could lead to a prototype space-based system in the 'nineties. They have research programmes into radio-frequency weapons, and kinetic energy weapons, including electro-magnetic rail-guns. They possess a launch detection system for US ICBMs and are improving their capabilities in this area; and they have eight space launch systems, with two more, including a heavy lift vehicle, in development.
It is also relevant that the Soviet Union has the only deployed ABM system in the world around Moscow, and it is currently being upgraded. When these are completed the Soviet system will consist of 100 static launchers sited around Moscow, which is the maximum permitted under the 1972 ABM treaty. These will provide a limited two-layer ABM defence capable of discriminating against all but the most elaborate penetration aids and capable of intercepting ballistic missiles both within the atmosphere and outside the atmosphere, the latter with nuclear tipped Galosh missiles. All this is supported by a chain of early warning, surveillance, target acquisition, tracking and missile control radars.
Your Lordships will be aware that I placed a fuller statement of the extent of Soviet activities in the Library of the House last December, but I think it is clear even from this brief account that the extent of Soviet activities in this area is massive by any standards. It would be folly indeed for the West to ignore them.
994
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked about the relationship of SDI research to SDI procurement and deployment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord has given an extremely full and helpful account of the state of Soviet research into these matters. He is as well aware as other Members of your Lordships' House that in the Pentagon's publications it has committed itself to the view that in the great majority of the relevant fields for SDI development the United States was ahead in 1983. Is he willing to make a judgment about the relative state of Soviet and American research in 1983 before the great new American programme started?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot give the sort of judgment that the noble Lord asks for, but clearly, if the Soviet programme was proceeding on the scale that I have indicated, it was right for the West to respond.
Lord Kennet: The noble Lord is patient, my Lords; but he has missed my point. Why was it right for the West to do any more if, as the Pentagon maintains, it was already ahead in 1983 or 1984?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the fact that one is ahead at a particular moment does not mean that one will stay ahead if the other side is conducting a research programme of the scale to which I have referred.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I feel that this exchange should not go on the record without at least a comment. What the Pentagon said in 1984 was that the United States was ahead in some technologies of space defence and that the Soviet Union was ahead in others. I think that we should be quite clear and quite accurate about these things.
Lord Kennet: I said "most", my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked about the relationship of SDI research to SDI procurement and deployment. The SDI is a research programme. Decisions on possible moves at later stages of development and procurement will not arise for many years.
The United States view on this was made clear in a policy statement issued by the State Department in June last year. This stated that:
"The US is pursuing the broadly based SDI research programme in an objective manner. We have no preconceived notions about the outcome of the research programme. We do not anticipate that we will be in a position to approach any decision to proceed with development or deployment based on the results of this research for a number of years".
There has been a wide-ranging debate on both sides of the Atlantic about the technical feasibility of ballistic missile defences and their huge cost. A major technical challenge of this sort is not a new departure for the United States. Noble Lords will recall that in the 1960s the Americans responded with outstanding success to President Kennedy's challenge to land a man on the moon. The potential is therefore great,

995
although it is readily acknowledged in the United States that the technical difficulties are formidable. We have been forcefully reminded of the problems and risks associated with these great projects by the tragic loss of the "Challenger" only the other day. The right reverend Prelate said that that was a blessing in disguise. I suggest that he says that to the relatives of those who died.
I turn now to the possible—
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord and others who have spoken will read carefully what I said. I described this as tragic and terrible. I said that it could be a blessing in disguise if certain results flowed from it. I did not say that it was a good thing in itself. I described it as terrible and tragic. But the fact remains that certain results could flow from it which in my judgment (which may be wrong) could be a blessing in disguise.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I dare say that the "blessing in disguise", as the right reverend Prelate refers to it, will be heavily disguised for the relatives of those concerned.
I turn now to possible deployment. This too raises numerous questions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out a number of those questions in a speech last year which has been referred to on several occasions this evening, while emphasising that the answers to many of them would not be known for many years. One of the main aims of the SDI is to try to help find out some of the answers. But whether it will proceed from the research phase to development and deployment is simply an open question.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also referred to the relationship of the programme to the ABM treaty. President Reagan has made it clear on a number of occasions that the SDI research programme will be carried out in a manner fully consistent with United States obligations under the ABM treaty. Furthermore, he recently confirmed that it would continue to be conducted within a restrictive interpretation of the treaty's obligations. The United States has also made it clear that if SDI research yields positive results, they would, after consulting the allies, consult and negotiate with the Soviet Union, in accordance with the terms of the ABM treaty, on how deterrence could be enhanced through a greater reliance by both sides on defensive systems.
The Government's position on these issues, as your Lordships well know, is based on the four points agreed between the Prime Minister and President Reagan in December 1984, and since reaffirmed by both sides. They are so central to the issues that we have debated today that I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I repeat them again. First, the United States and Western aim is not to achieve superiority but to maintain balance, taking account of Soviet developments. Secondly, SDI-related deployments would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation. Thirdly, the overall aim is to enhance deterrence. Fourthly, East-West negotiations should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of offensive systems on both sides.
996
The SDI has certainly been an important question in East-West negotiations. It played a major role in bringing the Soviets back to the negotiating table at Geneva last year. Both sides agreed that the aim of these negotiations should be to work out effective agreements aimed at preventing an arms race in space and terminating it on earth, at limiting and reducing nuclear arms, and at strengthening strategic stability. The United States has made clear its concern to address the relationship of offensive and defensive systems in these talks. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union's approach has been to propose a ban on the creation of so-called "space strike" weapons which ignores comparable Soviet activities and the problems of verifying a ban on research. They are also refusing point blank to agree reductions in strategic weapons unless the United States agree in advance to abandon the SDI.
Nonetheless, I am glad to say that there have been some positive signs in these negotiations. Both sides tabled detailed proposals for substantial reductions in the level of nuclear weapons last autumn, though the Soviet proposals were one-sided in many respects. In addition, President Reagan and Mr Gorbachev agreed at their summit meeting on the principle of 50 per cent. reductions in the nuclear arms of the US and USSR appropriately applied, and on the idea of an interim INF agreement. Last month, as the new round of the Geneva negotiations began, the Soviet Union announced a further set of proposals. Many of these proposals are a repetition of existing Soviet ideas, but they are wide ranging and also contain new elements. We are studying them fully and carefully. I am sure your Lordships will join me in hoping that they will lead to rapid progress in the Geneva negotiations.
I should now like to turn to some of the points raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his opening speech, asked particularly about the position of the Fylingdales radar and its consistency with the ABM treaty. There has, of course, been an early warning radar at Fylingdales since long before the ABM treaty was signed in 1972. The Government are confident that the existence of this radar and its proposed modernisation are in full conformity with United States obligations under the ABM treaty.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it to be phased array radar?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is, I am afraid, a technical question to which I do not know the answer. Perhaps I can find out and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord possibly say that it is not going to be against the ABM treaty without even knowing whether it is going to be a phased array radar?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have given the noble Lord the view of the Government in this matter. I shall ascertain and let him have the additional information which he requires.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also asked about the transfer of ABM technology to the United Kingdom and how this was provided for, if it was, under the ABM treaty. Under the ABM treaty the parties are

997
prohibited from transferring to other states or deploying outside their own national territory ABM systems limited by the treaty. This prohibition has been agreed to include the obligation not to provide to other states technical descriptions or blueprints worked out for the construction of ABM systems and their components limited by the treaty. United Kingdom participation in the SDI will of course be conducted within these constraints.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made a number of points about the SDI Memorandum of Understanding. This provides in a satisfactory way for the protection of the existing data in the United Kingdom as well as for research data generated in this country with the help of US dollars. This MOU did not replace the 1975 MOU on defence equipment cooperation, but is a quite separate document. Incidentally, the 1975 MOU was replaced towards the end of 1985, but by an updated version of the same document.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred also to the SDI participation office. This office has been established in the Ministry of Defence to promote and assist the process of United Kingdom participation in US-funded research work. This includes guidance to industry. I expect to see the successful conclusion of contracts with industry and arrangements with Government research establishments on an increasingly substantial scale in coming months.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister say anything about the comment I made on the difficulty of British firms receiving contracts from America in the light of American law, and in the light of the comments made by John Pike to the Congressional committee?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord recalls the occasion on which I repeated the Statement in your Lordships' House about this matter? That problem was gone into at some length on that occasion. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to refresh his memory of what was said then.
May I turn now to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. I have referred to some of them already. The right reverend Prelate asked, in addition, about the definition in the ABM treaty of where permitted research ends and prohibited development begins. The United States have stated that the SDI research programme will be compatible with a restrictive interpretation of the ABM treaty. The United States Administration has set out its views on the meaning of the terms "research", "development" and "testing" on a number of occasions; for example, in Appendix B of the Pentagon Report to Congress in April last year, a copy of which is in the Library of your Lordships' House. I dare say that document was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, during the course of his remarks also.
The right reverend Prelate made much of the morality of the SDI programme. But the United States has made it clear that the purpose of this research is to investigate the contributions which new technologies might make to security, stability and peace, as we go into the next century. These aims are encapsulated in the four points agreed between the President and my
998
right honourable friend the Prime Minister What objective could be more moral than that?
My noble friend Lord Bessborough asked me about the EUREKA programme. EUREKA is not of course a strategic defence research programme. Its objective is to stimulate European civil industrial capabilities in advance technologies. I understand that 26 such projects have so far been announced, six involving British firms, and a further 25 projects are at a less advanced stage. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured by that.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, referred in some detail to the speech of my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. My right honourable friend was of course raising important questions that are very much for the longer term and are not capable of, nor indeed were intended for, easy or early answers.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to the technical problems which confront the research programme. They are indeed formidable. We do not of course know of the solutions, but I believe it would be a brave noble Lord who says that these problems are insoluble for all time.
It was perhaps a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was interrupted so often. I was very largely in agreement with what the noble Lord said. He recited in some detail his interpretation of the provisions of the ABM treaty and he displayed a profound understanding of these matters. The House will be grateful to him.
This has been an interesting and valuable debate. A wide range of views has been expressed about the SDI, its feasibility, its cost, and the implications of moving towards a system based on greater reliance on defences. I think the wide range of views illustrates well the fact that we cannot know the answers to many of these questions for many years to come, though we will doubtless continue to debate them in this House. What is clear is the need for US research to continue, particularly in the light of related Soviet activities, and the need for progress in reaching agreement at the Geneva negotiation. The agreed objective of these negotiations reflects a vision of a world with fewer nuclear weapons and greater strategic stability, a vision we would all share. I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to support US efforts to achieve this.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.

  DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS: RIGHTS OF ACTION
  DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS: RIGHTS OF ACTION
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: SHIPBUILDING PROPOSALS
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: SHIPBUILDING PROPOSALS
  OFTEL: STAFFING LEVEL
  OFTEL: STAFFING LEVEL
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: COMPETITION RULES
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: COMPETITION RULES
  CIDER MAKERS: REGISTRATION AND VAT
  CIDER MAKERS: REGISTRATION AND VAT
  OCEANOGRAPHY AND FISHERIES: INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
  OCEANOGRAPHY AND FISHERIES: INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
  OKEHAMPTON BY-PASS
  OKEHAMPTON BY-PASS
  ESTUARIAL CROSSINGS: TOLL STATISTICS
  ESTUARIAL CROSSINGS: TOLL STATISTICS